> Jodorowsky

I recently got a copy of this and could only come to the conclusion that they were doing a lot of drugs in the 1970s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Mountain_(1973_film)

If you think Jodorowsky's Dune was weird, you should see his Holy Mountain[1]

Also, millions of people did a lot of drugs in that time, but there is only one Jodorowsky. Drugs alone can not explain his vision.

[1] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qmR0vi0ifzE

Yes. That's the movie the comment you responded to was talking about.

Did you even read the comment before responding?

I see this kind of the comment--legible, complete sentences, no grammatical errors, but otherwise totally missing some basic element in what they're replying to--from time to time, generally only on HN, and I wonder if they're edge cases from some kind of bot school.

Did you have to be rude about it?

Parent obviously read the comment (which doesn't mention any particular movie in its text), but didn't follow the link, assuming it was about Dune (which was the context that started the subthread).

Jodorowsky has said he’s only taken psychedelics once. There’s also overt criticism of drug use and dependence throughout his body of work, including in Holy Mountain itself, so that seems like a self-limiting conclusion to come to.

> only taken psychedelics once

And said that it was the experience of limitation and impotence - "what if I now had to react in front of an emergency".

Holy Mountain is hilarious. I always think about the scene where the President's advisor says they need to kill millions of people to save the economy lol

Truth is stranger than fiction.

I think that was pretty widely accepted? Not sure if total drug use was higher than it is now but especially hallucinogenic drugs were much more popular than they are today.

I don't think the colourful styles of the 60s/70s were a coincidence either, no :)

By the way: the very author of "Golden Brown" stated that creativity is an effect of lucidity - intoxication limits it.

"Golden Brown" is a riddle: how many individuals may have thought (as the original poster supposes) that it takes «lot of drugs» to compose it?

(Of course, "riddles", "artistic work" and "non-literal descriptions" remain distinct. Though for all of them, in general, if you have to suppose a reduction to "fantasies" you probably have not understood them.)

He deplored with disgust that he sometimes had to work with "junkies" - so, they were frequent.

I think it's not uncommon for recreational psychedelic users to have a disdain and aversion to actual junkies, if using the 1970s sense of the word, would literally mean heroin addicts. Big dividing line between the two sorts of drug users.

I cannot remember if he used 'junkie' or 'drogado' or other terms when referring to those actors that had been a dangerous nuisance in the filming process. Surely he was fuming and rightly, commonsensically contemptuous remembering the episodes (one almost killed him and left scars).

Whatever the drug, it is the exact opposite of what that work stands for. The "sleeping intoxicated bum" is the very beginning.

Don’t forget moebius

Moebius and Giger were the Wozniaks, Jodorowsky was a mere Steve Jobs.

Does this mean that theaters should prepare for the Moebius Sweep?

It must be crazy for Jodorowsky to see how his concept art defined so much of space sci fi , at least this was the angle presented in the documentary. But imagine the treasure trove George Lucas must have come across

Jodorowskys Dune is the Xerox Parc of movies.

Most underrated comment

Dune is unmakable. Always will be. It is the definitive book that is too big for the screen. The story and themes are too vast. Adaptations can be good, be entertaining, but every one is a shallow attempt at the impossible.

You should read BotNS That's an unmakable book.

Also one of the best experiences of my life for sure. But I did it by following an podcast chapter by chapter analysis (Alzabo Soup)

I think the TV mini-series is very good.

Yeah, it is thanks to these two movies that modern scifi and its visual development side of things exists basically

They popularized these styles but they existed in other mediums.

What’s fascinating is looking at all the different styles Dune the dune book covers had over time to see how various mediums influenced things. https://www.biblio.com/dune-by-herbert-frank/work/3104

That's a good angle

But that's the thing, jodos dune came as an aggregate of "non-movie" mediums, because jodorowsky was not a cinematographer by trade he was an avant garde theater person, giger, Dali, moebius, Foss, neither of them "were part" of the "movies" medium, they all and the rest of the crew were painters or writers or musicians, comic book artists, not cinematographers per se, in that sense what jodorowsky set to do was not even a movie as we might think of one today, but an agglomeration of different types and styles of art with all their own individual Influences mixed in

I think today, it would be nearly impossible for "works" to exist and not have been inspired themselves in some degree by the downstream effects and inspiration that jodorowskys movie had, just think that starwars itself is inspired by it

But anyhow, it is a quite interesting food for thought

If anyone knows of some niche modern scifi books or works which might not be influenced by this failed dune movie let me know, I love this stuff

Star Wars.

No, seriously. Jodorowksy's concept was widely circulated in Hollywood but nobody would take the risk.

Enter George Lucas, just riffing on the original idea.

Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake seems to derive very little from classic science fiction. Perhaps this is because she’s a woman, and thus less drawn to teenage male fantasies like those found in Dune.