Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 9490039" data-attributes="member: 7808">Okay, I'll bite.As I claimed, it's not a film review.&nbsp; It's nerd rage.&nbsp; And I respect that.&nbsp; It's a quality rant.&nbsp; Chani's response at the end is a complaint I mentioned when I first posted about the film.&nbsp; The rant gives a solid historical basis.&nbsp; And ENWorld is built on nerd rage.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; It never mentioned acting, casting, sound, or any other changes from the books.&nbsp; Things like directorial style, editing, and narrative structure barely get a passing mention.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I'll throw out another one: The article name drops more barely relevant dead European authors than Dune 2 characters.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The article is barely focused on Dune.&nbsp; Dune is being used as a backdrop to discuss changes in romantic presentations from the 1900s to modern 21st century audiences.&nbsp; Own it.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 9490039, member: 7808"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification