New review critical of DUNE: PART TWO based on the depiction of Chani

[pukunui]

I did not like Empire Strikes Back when it originally came out! I hated the ending. It's only after a second viewing that I could love it.

Interesting. I think ESB has always been my favorite of the original Star Wars movies. The Two Towers has always been my favorite part of LotR as well. I seem to have a thing for the middle parts of trilogies.

I would go as far as to say that the LotR movies essentially followed the major story beats of the books, while The Hobbit movies threw a Jazz drummer in at random points. I still haven't seen more than a few minutes of the last one because I just... can't.

I appreciate that Jackson made an effort to flesh out The Hobbit with the additional material that Tolkien included in LotR (both in Gandalf's discussions with Frodo and from the appendices) and elsewhere. It's nice to see that stuff incorporated into the original story. I also like the inclusion of Radagast as a batty old druid, and I like Tauriel. I also appreciate Azog and his hunt for Thorin.

Honestly, the only thing I actively dislike from Hobbit trilogy is those ludicrous tunneling worm things that the orc army uses in the final battle. Those are just Jackie Chan levels of WTF for me. And, to tie this back to the original premise of this thread, they remind me a little too much of sandworms! (EDIT: It would appear Jackson et al didn't make them up. They originated in the old 1980s Middle Earth Role Playing game!)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would go as far as to say that the LotR movies essentially followed the major story beats of the books, while The Hobbit movies threw a Jazz drummer in at random points. I still haven't seen more than a few minutes of the last one because I just... can't.

But that’s missing my point. Even if you know nothing at all about the books PJ’s LotR is excellent but the Hobbit trilogy is an incoherent mess. Even down to the lead actor being badly miscast.

 

[Clint_L]

So....I disagree with the review, but probably for different reasons than what you may think.

1. I liked the Hobbit Trilogy of movies. Why? See Below.

2. If you are a True Lord of the Rings novel fan...

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is strong in this one!

I am a true Lord of the Rings fan. I love the books, and I love the films. They are not the same thing, and they shouldn't be. What works in a novel often doesn't work in a film, and vice versa (c.f. Bombadil, Tom).

Edit: also, I think the films would have been better if Sam and Frodo had died tragically in each other's arms on the slope of Mt. Doom. It would have been much more poetically tragic, and spared us all those tedious false endings. But a lot of Tolkien fans would have freaked out, so I can see why they didn't go there.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is strong in this one!

I assumed @GreyLord was being ironic.

 

[Ryujin]

But that’s missing my point. Even if you know nothing at all about the books PJ’s LotR is excellent but the Hobbit trilogy is an incoherent mess. Even down to the lead actor being badly miscast.

Oh, they were also just bad, on many levels. GoPro cameras? For a HD+ movie? Gah!

 

[Willie the Duck]

I assumed @GreyLord was being ironic.

Everything proceeding from the statement seems to indicate that they weren't, up to the point of telling us what Tolkien would have thought of the movies.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am a true Lord of the Rings fan. I love the books, and I love the films. They are not the same thing, and they shouldn't be. What works in a novel often doesn't work in a film, and vice versa (c.f. Bombadil, Tom).

Okay, I have to put down my marker here.

I loathe Tom Bombadil. Now, before you're all like, "That's just Snarf, a-hatin' on the Bards as usual," it's not just that.

First, I agree with you that it is impossible to like any screen depiction of TB (is it a coincidence or destiny that he can be summarized the same way as tuberculosis ... I'll let you decide). The best decision Peter Jackson ever made was to remove TB from the films. When TB does show up (cough cough Rings of Power) it is always a painful watch. It's like Tolkien has a DM NPC, but with extra suckage.

But as someone who loves the books, I also never got the fan-love for TB on the written page either. I feel like some Tolkien fans are "TB is like Boba Fett in Empire Strikes Back, all cool and mysterious!" and I just see him as Boba Fett in Return of the Jedi, if you catch my drift.

So yeah. I hate TB.

I DO NOT LIKE TOM IN A HOUSE.
I DO NOT LIKE TOM WITH A MOUSE.
I DO NOT LIKE TOM HERE OR THERE.
I DO NOT LIKE TOM ANYWHERE.
I DO NOT LIKE TOM BOMBADIL.
I DO NOT LIKE TOM, AND NEVER WILL.

 

[Piperken]

So much talk of The Hobbit movies, and little to no mentioning of Legolas's feats-beyond-feats (tm)... was the experience of witnessing them so horrible that communities communally agreed to never utter a word of them again?

 

[Hatmatter]

So....I disagree with the review, but probably for different reasons than what you may think.

1. I liked the Hobbit Trilogy of movies. Why? See Below.

No, I think that it was that "as their own thing" the LotR movies where great, and The Hobbit movies were not.

For me, it was the other way around! Part 1 is painfully slow and tedious, whereas Part 2 was epic and action-packed.

That being said, I agree with @Stalker0 on this.

Also, I mostly like both the LotR and Hobbit trilogies. Haven’t watched Rings of Power.

Okay, I have to put down my marker here.

I loathe Tom Bombadil. Now, before you're all like, "That's just Snarf, a-hatin' on the Bards as usual," it's not just that.

We can differ on our opinions. Tolkien would have hated LotR though, they did Sam and others dirty...dirty...dirty.

Interesting everyone. Thanks.

I can relate to people not enjoying a particular adaption because of particular choices by the filmmaker. I know it has almost been canonized as the great superhero film, but I merely "mostly liked" Dark Knight. My sister, though, after seeing it, hated it because Ledger's depiction of Joker diverged from the comics. I didn't argue with her; I got it. For me, the film still works despite some of the silly plot elements around which the narrative revolves toward the end of the film. For her, she could not get over how Ledger and Nolan changed the Joker.

So, I get it if the depiction of Samwise in Jackson's films turns off someone like GreyLord to the relative success of the film adaptation.

What my review was addressing though (feel free to read it from the link in the OP if you would like; you may be surprised to realize it is not about Jackson's Hobbit trilogy) is how Villeneuve's "bad idea" (described in the review) reduces the depiction of sexuality and politics to the most unrealistic of children's fairy tales, a decision that ends up doing violence to Herbert's story. What is more, it is a superficialization of sexuality and politics that disrupts the greater conversation going on between cinema and culture by dumping into that conversation an abominably silly idea with regard to sex and love and political stability.

Upon this (what I find offensive) decision I base my critique of the film, irrespective of it being "action-paced" or "epic" in scope.

 

[Ryujin]

Interesting everyone. Thanks.

My sister, though, after seeing it, hated it because Ledger's depiction of Joker diverged from the comics.

My question would have been, "Which one?"