https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/04/behold-dune-an-exclusive-look-at-timothee-chalamet-zendaya-oscar-isaac?fbclid=IwAR3vgiGyPlCyDSpD7_dypVXHSmWMJ9tMwfTNz-2P8OlmBxcGdy_3BOXkMWo
"The director has also expanded the role of Paul's mother, Lady Jessica. She's a member of the Bene Gesserit, a sect of women who can read minds, control people with their voice (again, a precursor to the Jedi mind trick), and manipulate the balance of power in the universe. In the script, which Villeneuve wrote with Eric Roth and Jon Spaihts, she is even more fearsome than before. The studio's plot synopsis describes her as a "warrior priestess." As Villeneuve jokes, "It's better than 'space nun.' ""
Because it will expand and enrich Jessica's character to make her into a space ninja who flips out and stabs people. *rolleyes*
I remember how they "expanded" Princess Irulan for the Sci-Fi miniseries, and it was all awful. All in the name of giving women bigger roles, but resulting in shallow changes that don't add anything to the story.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1126825I remember how they "expanded" Princess Irulan for the Sci-Fi miniseries, and it was all awful. All in the name of giving women bigger roles, but resulting in shallow changes that don't add anything to the story.
Thats 2000s daddyo! How about DEEP changes that substantially take away from the story?
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1126832Thats 2000s daddyo! How about DEEP changes that substantially take away from the story?
We'll see.
Gotta love them "expanding" the role of whamen in a franchise that already had empowered women all over the place. But what can you give the already empowered woman? Turn them into a complete Sue, I guess.
Good thing I never got my hopes up for this thing. I'm hyper-aware of the decades we're living in and I already got one Dune film when I was a kid and one miniseries as a young adult, plus also read the novel a bunch of times years ago. So I'm good.
On the one hand, Villeneuve made a competent follow-up to Blade Runner (no small task) that had plenty of awesome female characters but that didn't overly drink the koolaid.
On the other hand, Villeneuve got attacked to high fucking heaven for how much he hated teh wimminz for making that film.
On the third hand, the product is probably more of a reflection of the director's beliefs and intentions than CYA media interview bullshit.
On the fourth hand, Dune adaptations always seem to suck.
On the fifth hand, the last 5-10 movies I've watched and enjoyed were all made before 2010.
On the sixth hand, I ran out of hands a while ago at this point.
https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/04/14/sharon-duncan-brewster-confirmed-as-race-and-gender-swapped-liet-kynes-in-dune-film-heavily-implies-film-will-be-woke/
"If you thought it might get better from there, think again. In the obvious puff piece from Vanity Fair, they describe Paul Atreides as Greta Thunberg.
Anthony Breznican writes, "Think Greta Thunberg, only she's a Jedi with a diploma from Hogwarts.""
I'm fucking done. Hard pass.
Does it come as any surprise they'd screw it up? And people are praising it for its "vision".
Sounds absolutely terrible.
Will give a miss.
Now I can't unsee the ecologist Liet Keynes with braids. Thanks a lot.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1126997Anthony Breznican writes, "Think Greta Thunberg, only she's a Jedi with a diploma from Hogwarts."
I was thinking that people might be overreacting, but this...oh boy...this is just so, so bad.
Part of me wants to call this another outrage marketing stunt. But the more you read the more it sounds like genuine stupid rather than manufactured stupid.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1126997https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/04/14/sharon-duncan-brewster-confirmed-as-race-and-gender-swapped-liet-kynes-in-dune-film-heavily-implies-film-will-be-woke/
"If you thought it might get better from there, think again. In the obvious puff piece from Vanity Fair, they describe Paul Atreides as Greta Thunberg.
Anthony Breznican writes, "Think Greta Thunberg, only she's a Jedi with a diploma from Hogwarts.""
I'm fucking done. Hard pass.
I'm not saying that you're not making the right call, but this is supposedly a quote from Breznican, who is the writer of the Vanity Fair article -- not someone involved in creating the film. So I think it says more about Vanity Fair than about the film. Here's the Vanity Fair piece being commented on, for reference:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/04/behold-dune-an-exclusive-look-at-timothee-chalamet-zendaya-oscar-isaac
I don't see the quote there, though, but there are claims that it was edited out.
I had little faith when Lynch brought it to the screen. I have little faith in it now. Especially now.
Dune should be a TV-series. Not a movie. Wrong format and medium.
Quote from: tenbones;1127055I had little faith when Lynch brought it to the screen. I have little faith in it now. Especially now.
Dune should be a TV-series. Not a movie. Wrong format and medium.
What did you think about the Sy-Fy series?
She was already very badass in the first book, being able to best tough fremen males. Describing her as a "space nun" doesn't really fit. What book were they reading?
I'm generally in favor of any move that involves more people getting stabbed.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1127069She was already very badass in the first book, being able to best tough fremen males. Describing her as a "space nun" doesn't really fit. What book were they reading?
I doubt that they ever read the book.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1127069She was already very badass in the first book, being able to best tough fremen males. Describing her as a "space nun" doesn't really fit. What book were they reading?
Probably the same one where someone thought it was a great idea to make Van Helsing a nun? Or to make Star Ship Troopers fascist? Or any of the other screw-ups where someone either barely reads a book. Or reads it. But wants to turn it into their "vision".
Then there are the ones who just read someone elses review of a book and just want the name so they can slap their whatever the fuck script on an IP.
Add in executive meddling and marketing meddling and its no wonder some of these movies share the title, some character names, maybee a place name and little else.
Quote from: jhkim;1127047I'm not saying that you're not making the right call, but this is supposedly a quote from Breznican, who is the writer of the Vanity Fair article -- not someone involved in creating the film. So I think it says more about Vanity Fair than about the film. Here's the Vanity Fair piece being commented on, for reference:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/04/behold-dune-an-exclusive-look-at-timothee-chalamet-zendaya-oscar-isaac
I don't see the quote there, though, but there are claims that it was edited out.
Unfortunately these articles' hot takes don't help things, but this is not the first time I've heard ridiculous things surrounding this film's making, such as the idea of making the planetologist Liet an empowered woman of colour, because...reasons.
Quote from: Omega;1127116Or to make Star Ship Troopers fascist?
Starship Troopers is perhaps 'inspired' by the book, but it is an amazing movie when considered without regard to the book (as most viewers do). But more importantly, they did know the book, and comparing/contrasting it offers a lot of interesting material for discussion and analysis.
Quote from: John Tones, translated from SpanishWhen Starship Troopers was released, there were those who did not get the joke. Verhoeven was accused of being unrealistic, militaristic, and nothing short of genocidal: the obvious 'Starship Troopers' satire circulating in just the opposite direction - that is, with a furious and unrelenting antimilitarist message - was interpreted literally. We are so used to seeing brainless, one-piece heroes that many didn't realize this was a joke this time.
It's a bad adaptation, but it's a good movie.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1127172Starship Troopers is perhaps 'inspired' by the book, but it is an amazing movie when considered without regard to the book (as most viewers do). But more importantly, they did know the book, and comparing/contrasting it offers a lot of interesting material for discussion and analysis.
It's a bad adaptation, but it's a good movie.
When watching it, I felt like Paul Verhoeeven was standing on my chest with a bullhorn yelling "FACISM IS BAD" 6 inches from my face for an hour and a half. The dude is not a subtle filmmaker.
That a lot of people didn't get that leads me to believe that people are so fucking moronic that we should just give up and have a Monarchy. Not that it would be any better of a system, but it would fit humanity better than any kind of democracy.
The reign of hereditary rulers (with the occasional overthrow) is Man's favorite political system. In our 5000 years of civilization, its what people have preferred for over 4500 of those years. We like the pyramid for our organizational structure.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1127178The reign of hereditary rulers (with the occasional overthrow) is Man's favorite political system. In our 5000 years of civilization, its what people have preferred for over 4500 of those years. We like the pyramid for our organizational structure.
I mean even within democracies we trend towards them. There is a reason we put trust in heredity (for good or bad).
Another new movie, another wasted opportunity. I feel like im an old man looking at rock and roll and feeling only disqust to this new and utterly moronic thing. Why do they do it? Its not like they will get money back from it. Is it a new form of scam? If it fails they get funds from back or more? Woke stuff just made me irritated but now i see it showed slowly but surely into everything. Sometimes its obnoxious like Doctor Who and sometimes it tries to be subtle but fails cause its never subtle. Its like the movie makers are trying to slowly desintesize me to interpretations of ideas ingrained in the works themselves. Maybe im just getting lazy these days, i feel like im blaming the monolyth of movies(Hollywood and others) of following the modern identity politics and such too much.
I felt like venting. Whatever happens i will still see movie Dune as Paul Atreides stabbing Sting with a dagger. Patrick Stewart was so cool in that movie. It was a mess but it was glorious.
Quote from: Warder;1130077Another new movie, another wasted opportunity. I feel like im an old man looking at rock and roll and feeling only disqust to this new and utterly moronic thing. Why do they do it? Its not like they will get money back from it. Is it a new form of scam? If it fails they get funds from back or more? Woke stuff just made me irritated but now i see it showed slowly but surely into everything. Sometimes its obnoxious like Doctor Who and sometimes it tries to be subtle but fails cause its never subtle. Its like the movie makers are trying to slowly desintesize me to interpretations of ideas ingrained in the works themselves. Maybe im just getting lazy these days, i feel like im blaming the monolyth of movies(Hollywood and others) of following the modern identity politics and such too much.
I felt like venting. Whatever happens i will still see movie Dune as Paul Atreides stabbing Sting with a dagger. Patrick Stewart was so cool in that movie. It was a mess but it was glorious.
I gave up with the 2nd Hobbit movie. There's a specific point where they're talking about fish politics, and I mentally checked out over caring about hollywood adaptations.
I still have my books, and the adaptations will make a ton of money because that's what they do.
I'll still rubberneck and mock them because it's fun.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1127188I mean even within democracies we trend towards them. There is a reason we put trust in heredity (for good or bad).
It's not about heredity, it's about stability. The main virtue of hereditary monarchies over serial dictators is that occasionally power transfers without a bloody civil war.
Quote from: Pat;1130322It's not about heredity, it's about stability. The main virtue of hereditary monarchies over serial dictators is that occasionally power transfers without a bloody civil war.
Yup. Not arguing the point. I have heard the argument that democracies are stable enough to belay immensly large underlining issues. Not sure how accurate that is.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1130337Yup. Not arguing the point. I have heard the argument that democracies are stable enough to belay immensly large underlining issues. Not sure how accurate that is.
I'm not sure that's a virtue. Revolutions may be terrible, but they're how real change is implemented; fixing the system from within is largely a myth, and governments grow by accretion, and need to be trimmed back. Too much stability can only be a virtue if we think we've achieved the perfect form of government, which I can't see anyone believing.
Quote from: Pat;1130352I'm not sure that's a virtue. Revolutions may be terrible, but they're how real change is implemented; fixing the system from within is largely a myth, and governments grow by accretion, and need to be trimmed back. Too much stability can only be a virtue if we think we've achieved the perfect form of government, which I can't see anyone believing.
Again not disagreeing with that either. I wrote that on my phone. I meant a real argument I couldn't disagree with from monarchists is that democracy diffuses responsibility to the point that real issues never get resolved and blame is never hurled at the correct people up until the thing implodes more violently than even a monarchic coup. Despite the enlightenment ending the reign of dumb kings, the largest scale slaughters happened afterwards.
In a democracy, even a republic, the media and cultural aristocracy really make the rules, but rarely ever get the blame. Id say films like titanic or snowpiercer have dictated more public policy then the actual decision of any democrat in the last 30 years.
Not sure how that makes monarchs better. Its really a choice of the least bad system.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1130357Not sure how that makes monarchs better. Its really a choice of the least bad system.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" -- Winston Churchill, paraphrased, and paraphrasing someone else (https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government)
Incidentally, I wasn't disagreeing in my last post, just making a new point. Though I'm more a fan of the Reign of Terror than monarchies.
Quote from: Pat;1130372"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" -- Winston Churchill, paraphrased, and paraphrasing someone else (https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government)
Incidentally, I wasn't disagreeing in my last post, just making a new point. Though I'm more a fan of the Reign of Terror than monarchies.
Personally I don't think we ever really changed people. Im of the belief that the core of man has been about the same since we tied flint to sticks. Every generation thinks it knows the reason for all the worlds ills (its because the dumb dumb past fucked up and we are so much smarterere then those fools).
I think we have democracy because its more convenient for the times, not because of somekind of deep species change that really changed fundemental human nature.
If you make the hoop bigger, does that really show that you as a person got better at basketball if you score more often?
Democracy is better because regular elections make it easier/more likely to remove a manifest fuckup from power.
Elections are also better because you can remove someone from power without having to kill all of their supporters first.
In other systems, the high threshold for removing a fuckup tends to create an overreaction, which in turn triggers overreactions from the other side. See the French Revolution. It gets messy.
Communism, on the other hand, seems to select for rule by sociopaths.
Quote from: Lurkndog;1130461Democracy is better because regular elections make it easier/more likely to remove a manifest fuckup from power.
Elections are also better because you can remove someone from power without having to kill all of their supporters first.
That is true, but that is what I mean when I hear that people argue that in a democracy the person you vote for is a figurehead. The people who really decide are the media aristocracy. You can remove the fuckup from office, but the people that really put him there get off scot free to try again.
Again I do prefer it over violent overturns, but the argument that the bucket is just being kicked down the line feels very legitimate.
I regret dragging the thread off topic. I will commit ritual suicide to atone.