Okay, I'll bite.
As I claimed, it's not a film review. It's nerd rage. And I respect that. It's a quality rant. Chani's response at the end is a complaint I mentioned when I first posted about the film. The rant gives a solid historical basis. And ENWorld is built on nerd rage. I appreciate the blog post for what it is, which is why I didn't feel the need to comment on it earlier.
But it's trivial to note that this 2500+ word essay spends less than a paragraph discussing the score, cinematography, special effects (combined). It never mentioned acting, casting, sound, or any other changes from the books. Things like directorial style, editing, and narrative structure barely get a passing mention. In short, everything that one typically expects in a movie review is completely absent.
OTOH, as I mentioned before, the article name drops more Tolkien characters than Dune 2 characters. I'll throw out another one: The article name drops more barely relevant dead European authors than Dune 2 characters. And that's not even counting Herbert - he's American.
So, to go back to the original context that I posted about, of course this thread isn't going to be focused on Dune. The article is barely focused on Dune. Dune is being used as a backdrop to discuss changes in romantic presentations from the 1900s to modern 21st century audiences. Own it. But if you want me to pretend this is about Dune, drop the Shakespeare references and talk about the changes to the role of the Emperor, or the lack of Guild representation.
Hi Deset,
Perhaps you are upset? Maybe not?...it's hard to discern emotion from text. Anyway, "I'll bite," "own it," "if you want to pretend," seems a tad aggressive. Maybe your having a bad day? No worries, it happens to me too. Don't worry, though, I'm not coming for you. I just wrote an article on a film.
Anyway, about your points, I never intended to write a comprehensive review of the film for this reason: if a project is fundamentally flawed from its onset because of a bad idea, it is adequate to solely address
that flaw.
Similarly, an argument based on a flawed premise does not need to be evaluated for its use of supporting reasons and responses to counter arguments if the premise is incorrect from the get go. Details become irrelevant at that point.
Similarly, my assessment of the film is that Villeneuve had this one bad idea, so everything that proceeds from that bad idea is not something I need to address. It sounds like you are yearning to hear more. That's fine. I was not interested in writing more than I did about the film.
The removal of the Spacing Guild from the story is another simplification of the story that exhibits Villeneuve's belief that he can improve Herbert's story. That disappointed me. An article could have been written that used an event like this as a basis to critique the film, but I chose not to do that. The decision to conclude the film with the shot of Chani leaving because Atreides is marrying the Princess was what leveled
me. That filmmaking decision by Villeneuve indicates where Villeneuve's attention lies and reveals his willingness to change the story; in this case dumbing down the depiction of sexuality, power, politics, and character. Villeneuve did not have a concluding shot showing his changes to the Spacing Guild or the Emperor. Therefore, I did not emphasize those.
In joining you with my disappointment at changes to the Guild (or, more to the point, their absence) and change to the Emperor, I was also confounded by the changes to Alia and the willful altering of the timeline and chronology that produced little benefit for Villeneuve. I read him address this change in timeline and I have yet to understand what the filmmaking payoff was for him. Timelines are very malleable in film narratives and usually can be sidestepped easily in order to convey the emotional affect the filmmaker wants.
But that was not what I wanted to write about. You appear to be unhappy that I did not write a comprehensive review that does not address these items. In fact, I think I could have accepted these changes and enjoyed the film if he had not so superficialized Chani's character. I do not know it why it was
that issue I responded to so strongly. I suspect it is because he doubled-down on it by concluding the film with the shot of her departure. That felt stunning in some way; and insulting to Herbert. The first time I saw the film, I sat in the theater not able to get up for a few moments...trying to digest what I had just seen.
The editing, cinematography, acting, production design, costuming, and scoring were all excellent.
The whole Jackson example was simply to say Jackson's efforts on
The Hobbit also suffered rom this same bad idea phenomenon. Perhaps I went on too long. But, perhaps not. Perhaps the article is about both filmmakers and their ill-fated decisions? Judging by the response here, people want to discuss
The Hobbit more than
Dune anyway.
As to the nerd rage claim. Sure. Guilty. Whatever. That's labeling. We can label things all we want...what net gain do we acquire from those labels?
Soloist claims I misread the entire ending, which I truly hope is correct. I am looking forward to what he or she has to say to convince me I am confused.
. Are you referring to your understanding of Part Two or are you anticipating what we might receive with Part Three?
