i respectfully disagree with .. everything.
it's true that the book explains (in the matter of a single sentence) that the BG had sent representatives on fringe planets to disseminate myths that would come to be useful later on - yet paul is regardless of this a superhuman - remember the description of the fight when they first meet the Fremen. Pretty much every power attributed to him in the film also exists in the book. Oh and he is a MUCH better fighter in the book.
The film skims over this aspect, but does not contradict it. Don't confuse the events of the second book with the first film.
Incorrect. In the book, Paul has one unique attribute due to the BG breeding program that allows him to look in the place they cannot look in order to see the future better. Apart from that, he's been trained by veterans and he had the standard BG training that allows him to use the weirding way (and their shifting capabilities).
In the film, he may as well be a god, I don't think there's any explanation given for his abilities. He starts bursting ribcages with the sound of his voice and he made it rain.
The Baron desires the ring for the same reasons as in the book - the film just omits the background. he is only stated to be a cunning politician
Except he has no subtlety in the film, there's nothing to mark him as a leader of men either, and omitting the reasons for wanting the ring is just bizarre, why even bother to mention it. Do they not have decent jewellers on Giedi Prime? Why has the Baron sworn to destroy House Atreides? Should the antagonist have a motive that the audience can relate to? Nah.
, but nothing else happens to prove it that doesn't exist in the film.
This is the weirdest justification I've heard as part of an argument that a particular film is good. No, for you to argue that a film is good you need to talk about what's actually in the film that makes it good, not what it omits that you can fill in the blanks with bits from the book.
There are no mentions of heart valves, but the book DOES mention ineffable cruelty as a means to breed superior fighters, as it does other times, for instance with Salusa Secundus and the Sardaukar.
And? I was talking about the utter pointlessness of the film. The book talks about these things for a reason, the film has heart valves for no reason.
The film portrayal of the baron harkonnen is just amazing. I cannot fathom why you do not like it but to me that will always be one of the greatest villains of all time, because he is just so pure, unescapable evil. And i absolutely love the acting out of McMillian.
I was fine with his acting. One of his underlings almost getting into a fap-fest over his face boils was just pointless and weird. His character in the film is an example of when some movies have to go massively over-the-top about how EEEEEVIL the villain has to be. Unfortunately I think they had to go over-the-top with this character because his character is utterly two-dimensional, and if it didn't include all the distracting shit about cats and heart valves and boils, then the audience might start to ask basic questions about his role in the story.
Remember that this was 1984 and faithful to-the-letter films were NOT expected.
It's not really expected by most people these days either. But removing huge swathes of quality story and replacing them with pointless and crude shit IMO is a stupid waste of time.
I'm sorry you guys don't like it. Dune is by far one of the greatest science-fiction films ever made, easily outranks Return of the Jedi,
Why on earth are you talking about Return of the Jedi? 1) It's a very mediocre conclusion to the trilogy and 2) it's terrible sci-fi. It's like saying you think that Avengers: Endgame is the greatest comic book movie ever made because it easily outranks Batman Forever!
The TV series is just garbage. The .. i dont even know where to start. The sets are LUDICROUSLY bad, the costumes are worst than a ST TOS fanfilm, there is zero acting ...
The first Dune series is pretty low budget and it shows, I won't question that. However, it portrays a far more interesting story. Some of the acting isn't good, but to say there is "zero acting" is just plain wrong. For example, Saskia Reeves playing Jessica in the scenes about her children being "freaks" was perfectly competent acting. Alec Newman as Paul is a bit shaky at times, but I think his arguments with his mother and his almost childish moodiness at the start is competently done. Ian McNeice does a perfect job with his portrayal of the Baron Harkonnen.
Facebook
Twitter