News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:David Lynch’s Dune – A sci-fi film by a director without ... by TheOtherHobbes on Thursday April 20, 2017 @11:52AM (#14157780)
The criticism reads like superficial snark, and misses the wood for the trees.

It's not a terrible film. Not by a long way.

It's a difficult film. It's risky. It's not entirely successful.

But terrible? Wisecracking CGI Superheroes Episode Number Actually I've Lost Count Now is a terrible film. (One of a long, long series.)

Men With Guns and So Very Much Shooting is a terrible film.

Too Many Explosions Looking for a Plot That Isn't All About Running and Shouting is a terrible film.

Dune was one of many drug-assisted weird things that fell out of the 1970s and never quite left. It's not a terrible film - it's a museum piece.

Re:David Lynch’s Dune – A sci-fi film by a director without ... by thenomad on Thursday April 20, 2017 @02:03PM (#14159179)
drug-assisted weird things

Minor point - whilst Lynch's work certainly frequently looks like it was drug-assisted, Lynch is actually not at all a fan of drugs as a creativity aid:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/498489-we-all-want-expanded-...

He just has a remarkable vision and ability with the weird.

Re:David Lynch’s Dune – A sci-fi film by a director without ... by gozur88 on Thursday April 20, 2017 @12:46PM (#14158342)
>But terrible? Wisecracking CGI Superheroes Episode Number Actually I've Lost Count Now is a terrible film.

That's a really low bar. A better comparison would be the three-part Dune miniseries that came out in 2000, one in which Lynch's version doesn't fare very well.

Re:David Lynch’s Dune – A sci-fi film by a director without ... by crdb on Thursday April 20, 2017 @12:53PM (#14158407)
I respectfully disagree and think the 2000 version has aged very badly (artistically speaking, it also holds lower value for me).

For example, watch the harvester-eaten-by-worm scene [1] [2]. Which of the two has stood the test of time? I could watch the 1984 version over and over again. Everything about the 2000 version - even the timing of each shot - is uninspired and dated, almost like a Westwood Command and Conquer in-game video. Watch how much more engaging the storytelling is in 1984 in this essentially dialogue-free chapter.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P50b-19_j8c&t=18s

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxDjnSnbNhw&t=1m30s

Re:David Lynch’s Dune – A sci-fi film by a director without ... by the_af on Thursday April 20, 2017 @01:31PM (#14158858)
The 2000 miniseries already looked awful and campy when it came out. I should know -- as a Dune fan I bought it instantly, and was deeply disappointed.

Lynch's version, for all its flaws, is still watchable.

Re:David Lynch’s Dune – A sci-fi film by a director without ... by jandrese on Thursday April 20, 2017 @02:32PM (#14159441)
The live play staging in the 2000 version looked really out of place on TV when I watched it. Having everyone retire to a dramatic pose with dramatic lighting at the end of a scene? It just looks amateurish on TV IMHO.
Re:David Lynch’s Dune – A sci-fi film by a director without ... by isleyaardvark on Thursday April 20, 2017 @04:33PM (#14160575)
I never noticed it before and TVTropes' Dune page confirms, David Lynch was the voice on the harvester radio in that scene.
Re:David Lynch’s Dune – A sci-fi film by a director without ... by sleepybrett on Thursday April 20, 2017 @06:14PM (#14161395)
He's also the actor. There is a shot of him talking on the radio in the harvester as they decide to evacuate it.
Re:David Lynch’s Dune – A sci-fi film by a director without ... by sleepybrett on Thursday April 20, 2017 @06:13PM (#14161389)
That miniseries is terrible. The acting is wooden as all get out, all of the scenes look like they are shot on a hastily dressed community theater stage and it's boring as hell.

The Lynch movie has, like most Lynch works, a strange atmosphere that in this case helps highlight the changes that Paul is going through as his consciousness expands.

That said the children of dune miniseries fares much better, but maybe because there isn't anything to compare it to.

Re:David Lynch’s Dune – A sci-fi film by a director without ... by nimchimpsky on Friday April 21, 2017 @01:10AM (#14163224)
Dune the book was written in 65, the movie 84.

The book heavily references the middle east, and oil dependecy.

The movie has zero, or at the least, very little visual symbolism. Especially if compared to Lynch's other work.

Drug assisted is the last thing I'd say about either the book, or movie.

Re:David Lynch’s Dune – A sci-fi film by a director without ... by Thimothy on Friday April 21, 2017 @05:44AM (#14164187)
Drug assisted is the last thing I'd say about either the book, or movie.

I dunno about the movie, but I have heard sometimes that Herbert was quite fond of helping the creative process by those means.

http://dailygrail.com/Shamanism/2014/7/Magic-Mushrooms-were-...