Video at link

https://www.newson6.com/story/65e601676f1ccc0652521f10/man-rides-homemade-sandworm-for-dune:-part-two-at-tulsa-theater-

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1709647204.jpg

the first one kinda sucked, im not even seeing this one. mainly because it felt like it was just really well produced fan fiction of dune. also BWAAHHHHHH while doing a slow pan of a beautiful shot is so 2010s. like, we've all seen that movie a dozen times now.

honestly, dune, just doesn't holdup any more. its just the space version of white savoir complex (ie pocahontas, the blind side etc). i know the world building was unique and amazing for its time, but the story itself just isnt very good.

All you guys complaining about movies being too loud..............went to a different church with a friend a month ago and there were ear plugs in a bowl at the door. Was as loud as a rock concert inside with speakers and light show.

Are you referring to the original trilogy?

Worth seeing if you’ve never seen the earlier Dune movie?

I've only seen part 1 but IMO the '84 Dune was truer to the original trilogy than subsequent interpretations. However, unless someone does a Jackson Lord of the Rings type sequence they cannot capture the richness of the books.

If you've seen the 84 Dune, as I have, you won't have any interest in the later versions.:D
They may be good...but I have a 40 year old bad taste from it.

Trailer from the 84 Dune...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hzUlXEyvJeA?si=Vhx5tUkpSi-CHvcT" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In terms of extended slow pans for dramatic effect there is Michael Mann, there is Christopher Nolan, and then there is Denis Villeneuve.

sure?

ive never read them, just seen the movies. if there was some brillant story in there, the movies certainly have not found it.

This movie left me confused...
On the one hand it's well done and I had a good time and that means more folks will discover the books etc.. Kudos, thank you, etc..

On the other, there's so many liberties taken with the book it bothered me.. Stilgar was made to look like a religious moron, for comic relief.. Chani was supportive of Paul in the book not pissed at him. Way more time passed in the book before Paul was able to retake power, his sister was born, his mother took longer to win the fremen over etc.. the speeding up up of all that makes the fremen look like a bunch of houti fundamentalists lobbing drones at supertankers. Uncomfortably so. The bene Gesserit was sorta glossed over, these women have so many powers that were not demonstrated and could have a movie just about them. Paul did not kill the baron, His sister (who had time to be born) did. The whole thing seemed rushed and the fundamentalist angle pushed really hard but also looking dumb at the same time (see stilgar memes now).

All in all , super cool movie, loved it, but IMO he shoulda put more of #2 into #1 (honestly not that much happened in #1 and it was dragged on), or done it in 3 parts just for the first book..

I read a lot about the inconsistencies between the book and the movies, your above and more. I haven't read Dune so I could only rely on the movies as the story and enjoyed them both immensely. I'm not sure if directorial changes would have mattered though certainly noted and discussed. I was going to add things like this in my OP but thought it would only detract.

Agreed, I got drug against my will to see that movie. It was worse than the book. The book's prose is simple to the point of being uninteresting, and most mysteries are explained as soon as introduced, negating any tension.

^^^ The four of us were excited to get tickets to the premiere showing of the movie.
All of us were sci-fi geeks along with fans of the Police and Sting.

Movie was long and it seemed like twice that length. We were silent on the trip home.

I read it in the early 80s as a kid. I felt the book was like that anyway.

It always seemed like an ode to religion-of-peaceful-fundamentalism - to the point that I’m surprised he wasn’t fatwad like Rushdie.

The first one is real pretty in 4K. I watched it for the cinematography.

^^^The first one was in 1984....is that the one you mean?

No - silly. Part one. Not the sting abomination. That monstrosity should have been deep sixed on arrival.

Yep..I agree with that.:)

Reading some of the earlier comments about the 'first Dune movie'...it's confusing about which they are talking about. Wish they would have named the first one 'Dune 1' and went from there.

I agree. It’s a fairly intellectual book, lot of time spent fleshing out Paul’s transformation. The movie swapped in a bunch of fighting I guess, with swords n stuff, which was boring. The other combat was insane though.

I see the movie as it’s own thing. Some stuff was beautifully done even if it doesn’t match the book. I thought they did a great job with the bene gesserit - the seduction of feyd?

I liked that Paul isn’t the good guy. The production quality is epic.

What’s holding it back for me is that it’s just sort of a meh story. Frank Herbert is about exploring world views and movie succeeded at that.

Saw it at a local imax. The previews were waaay too loud. Movie was too loud for me twice. Def see in giant imax theater, sit in the back the movie is a real spectacle. Sort of a waste of time to see it on a little tv. I doubt I’ll watch it again. Unlike that other gurney hallock movie: ‘hail ceasar!’ Which I’ve seen 5-6 times.

I apologize in advance:)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1709994890.jpg

One more with feeling:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1709994890.jpg