Re: Lynch's True Intentions?
Posted: 12 Nov 2009 19:37
Been watching it. Among others things, the Baron has a clean face in the artwork depicting him. Curious about all that.
DUNE DISCUSSION FORUM FOR ORTHODOX HERBERTARIANS
http://www.jacurutu.com/
I think Lynch's insane hair came up with the idea of the diseased baron.Redstar wrote:Been watching it. Among others things, the Baron has a clean face in the artwork depicting him. Curious about all that.
I thought the Weirding Modules were pretty cool. I understand why they did it that way (martial arts on sand dunes looking dorky), and you know he/they actually read the book for them to catch that one quote to imagine as something like this. While I would prefer to see something closer to a true knife, sword, and fist fight, this expansion of the source-material goes with the "visual experience" I was talking about in the New Dune thread, and how it doesn't contradict the fundamentals of the book and so is a difference one shouldn't mind. It's just a different take on it.The_Preacher wrote:As for Lynch's Dune, while it was my introduction to Dune, I can't handle the "weirding modules". I know that Bene Gesserit super-human mind-body control as a concept is hard to portray on-screen but replacing it with a sound gun just doesn't do it for me. Neither does the Lynch-esque heart plugs, flying fatman Baron who secrets blood, etc. "Put the pick in here, Pete, and turn it round real neat."
Quite a lot of LoTR fans hate Jackson's trilogy, and for more than just giving the Balrog wings. I've seen some reviews that suggest he has a "child's understanding of Lord of the Rings" and his movies introduce the masses to a watered-down, lowest common denominator version of the true masterpiece. (Sound familiar, eh?) But... I'd argue his changes make for a different viewing experience over a reading one, and aren't so fundamentally contradictory that his experience should be discarded.The_Preacher wrote:Here's hoping that this prospective new Dune movie is a faithful adaptation!! Modern movie-making technology gives us Dune fans hope. If only we could blackmail Peter Jackson into directing.
We can agree to disagree on this one. It was a tremendously complex concept and was a huge plot device in that Prana Bindu training provided to the Atreides troops caused the emperor to fear for his position of power and also enabled the Fremen, a fierce fighting force to begin with, to become even more superior to the Sardaukar than they already were. Boiling that down to a technological innovation completely insults the essence of the idea and one of the primary themes of the (original) series itself - the power of the human mind.Redstar wrote:I thought the Weirding Modules were pretty cool.
To be honest, LOTR really wasn't all that deep and complex to begin with. It's more a classic good versus evil whereas Dune was a philosophical look at the nature of humanity. What I liked about Jackson's treatment, and, to a lesser extent, Lynch's treatment of Dune, is that it did an excellent job of bringing you into the world created by the author. In stark contrast to the Sci-Fi Channel mini-series treatment: honour for breakfast, duty for lunch. Garbage. Herbert's Paul Atreides rendered as a petulant jerk.Redstar wrote:Quite a lot of LoTR fans hate Jackson's trilogy, and for more than just giving the Balrog wings. I've seen some reviews that suggest he has a "child's understanding of Lord of the Rings" and his movies introduce the masses to a watered-down, lowest common denominator version of the true masterpiece. (Sound familiar, eh?) But... I'd argue his changes make for a different viewing experience over a reading one, and aren't so fundamentally contradictory that his experience should be discarded.
I'm not saying the Prana Bindu training wasn't cool as well (in fact, I much prefer it) but the Weirding Modules, on their own, are a rather creative idea. They could have easily said "The Atreides are massing rayguns" and directly contradicted the books, but instead they took a quote and made it into something a little more interesting. Maybe not the best imagining, but it wasn't bad.The_Preacher wrote:We can agree to disagree on this one. It was a tremendously complex concept and was a huge plot device in that Prana Bindu training provided to the Atreides troops caused the emperor to fear for his position of power and also enabled the Fremen, a fierce fighting force to begin with, to become even more superior to the Sardaukar than they already were. Boiling that down to a technological innovation completely insults the essence of the idea and one of the primary themes of the (original) series itself - the power of the human mind.Redstar wrote:I thought the Weirding Modules were pretty cool.
The_Preacher wrote:To be honest, LOTR really wasn't all that deep and complex to begin with. It's more a classic good versus evil whereas Dune was a philosophical look at the nature of humanity. What I liked about Jackson's treatment, and, to a lesser extent, Lynch's treatment of Dune, is that it did an excellent job of bringing you into the world created by the author. In stark contrast to the Sci-Fi Channel mini-series treatment: honour for breakfast, duty for lunch. Garbage. Herbert's Paul Atreides rendered as a petulant jerk.
I'm with you on that ...Redstar wrote:The_Preacher wrote:To be honest, LOTR really wasn't all that deep and complex to begin with. It's more a classic good versus evil whereas Dune was a philosophical look at the nature of humanity. What I liked about Jackson's treatment, and, to a lesser extent, Lynch's treatment of Dune, is that it did an excellent job of bringing you into the world created by the author. In stark contrast to the Sci-Fi Channel mini-series treatment: honour for breakfast, duty for lunch. Garbage. Herbert's Paul Atreides rendered as a petulant jerk.
Now it has been a wee while since I watched the sci-fi channels DVDs of Dune but I do recall him coming across as a wee wet blanket sometimes, especially in disc one.A Thing of Eternity wrote:I'm with you on that ...Redstar wrote:The_Preacher wrote:To be honest, LOTR really wasn't all that deep and complex to begin with. It's more a classic good versus evil whereas Dune was a philosophical look at the nature of humanity. What I liked about Jackson's treatment, and, to a lesser extent, Lynch's treatment of Dune, is that it did an excellent job of bringing you into the world created by the author. In stark contrast to the Sci-Fi Channel mini-series treatment: honour for breakfast, duty for lunch. Garbage. Herbert's Paul Atreides rendered as a petulant jerk.
Ach! Is that what all the "confused" smilies are about?inhuien wrote:Now it has been a wee while since I watched the sci-fi channels DVDs of Dune but I do recall him coming across as a wee wet blanket sometimes, especially in disc one.A Thing of Eternity wrote:I'm with you on that ...Redstar wrote:The_Preacher wrote:To be honest, LOTR really wasn't all that deep and complex to begin with. It's more a classic good versus evil whereas Dune was a philosophical look at the nature of humanity. What I liked about Jackson's treatment, and, to a lesser extent, Lynch's treatment of Dune, is that it did an excellent job of bringing you into the world created by the author. In stark contrast to the Sci-Fi Channel mini-series treatment: honour for breakfast, duty for lunch. Garbage. Herbert's Paul Atreides rendered as a petulant jerk.
Hard to tell either because of my screen or the font itself. A closer look seems to indicate that the bolded text is as follows: "LOTR really wasn't all that deep and complex to begin with. It's more a classic good versus evil "Redstar wrote:The smilies are over the text I bolded.
I think your assessment would be pretty difficult to argue with. While LOTR might have been far ahead of its time in regards to complexity in that genre, Dune fits up there with some of the great works of art of any genre, not just sci-fi.The_Preacher wrote:Hard to tell either because of my screen or the font itself. A closer look seems to indicate that the bolded text is as follows: "LOTR really wasn't all that deep and complex to begin with. It's more a classic good versus evil "Redstar wrote:The smilies are over the text I bolded.
So, as a decades-long Dune fan, I compare LOTR to it in terms of their respective complexities and philosophical themes. I surmise from your confusion that you compare them favourably by those criteria, whereas I find Dune to be far superior and LOTR to be much simpler.
Assuming we disagree here, I'd be interested to hear (read?) your side of this argument, if you're willing.
No, I'd say that LoTR more than holds it's own against lit in general, not just it's genre. For complexity of worldbuilding and backstory LoTR is probably the finest and best thought out work of fiction ever written, by anyone. Find me something with half the worldbuilding written since or before and I'll be more than surprised.Idahopotato wrote:I think your assessment would be pretty difficult to argue with. While LOTR might have been far ahead of its time in regards to complexity in that genre, Dune fits up there with some of the great works of art of any genre, not just sci-fi.The_Preacher wrote:Hard to tell either because of my screen or the font itself. A closer look seems to indicate that the bolded text is as follows: "LOTR really wasn't all that deep and complex to begin with. It's more a classic good versus evil "Redstar wrote:The smilies are over the text I bolded.
So, as a decades-long Dune fan, I compare LOTR to it in terms of their respective complexities and philosophical themes. I surmise from your confusion that you compare them favourably by those criteria, whereas I find Dune to be far superior and LOTR to be much simpler.
Assuming we disagree here, I'd be interested to hear (read?) your side of this argument, if you're willing.
Man, I don't even know where to begin here. Let's start with the fact that I have loved LoTR since I was a kid. It has a very vast back story to go along with a great adventure. But the "finest and best thought out work of fiction ever written, by anyone."? I can't even come close to possessing the hubris to make such a comment about anything in existence. Conservative estimate would be that I have read somewhere between one and two thousand books in life thus far. And that isn't even a dent in what exists. To make such a claim as the best written work in any language by anyone should pretty much end any debate. Like singing to a pig, it wastes your time and annoys the pig. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to respond anyway.A Thing of Eternity wrote: No, I'd say that LoTR more than holds it's own against lit in general, not just it's genre. For complexity of worldbuilding and backstory LoTR is probably the finest and best thought out work of fiction ever written, by anyone. Find me something with half the worldbuilding written since or before and I'll be more than surprised.
Now, for philosophical depth, that's a tough one. Yes, Dune is deep, but 95% of that depth we are only aware of because we love the shit out of it and study it endlessly. 999 people out of a thousand people who read it probably never grasp or even think to look for anything past the obvious surface philosophy - I would bet that the same is happening here with us looking at LoTR. There is a lot more going on in that book than "classic good versus evil", though that is how it was packaged on the surface. Just like Dune is "just" a classic coming of age story (not so much).
In the end I would definitely say that Dune is more philosophical, because the focus of LoTR was mainly to be a great work of fiction, hidden messages and such coming as a seconday, wheras FH has made it pretty clear that he had to struggle to remind himself to entertain the reader and make a work of fiction, rather than a soapbox rant. He did one hell of a job at that fiction of course, but I don't know if we can say for sure which was foremost in his mind, the fiction or the philosophy.
Reading is essential my friend, I didn't say it was the "finest and best thought out work of fiction ever written" - I said that in terms of worldbuilding and backstory only. Also I started with "probably", clearly admitting that I was making an assumption. Obviously I haven't read every story ever written, I would think that was a given.Idahopotato wrote:Man, I don't even know where to begin here. Let's start with the fact that I have loved LoTR since I was a kid. It has a very vast back story to go along with a great adventure. But the "finest and best thought out work of fiction ever written, by anyone."? I can't even come close to possessing the hubris to make such a comment about anything in existence. Conservative estimate would be that I have read somewhere between one and two thousand books in life thus far. And that isn't even a dent in what exists. To make such a claim as the best written work in any language by anyone should pretty much end any debate. Like singing to a pig, it wastes your time and annoys the pig. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to respond anyway.A Thing of Eternity wrote: No, I'd say that LoTR more than holds it's own against lit in general, not just it's genre. For complexity of worldbuilding and backstory LoTR is probably the finest and best thought out work of fiction ever written, by anyone. Find me something with half the worldbuilding written since or before and I'll be more than surprised.
Now, for philosophical depth, that's a tough one. Yes, Dune is deep, but 95% of that depth we are only aware of because we love the shit out of it and study it endlessly. 999 people out of a thousand people who read it probably never grasp or even think to look for anything past the obvious surface philosophy - I would bet that the same is happening here with us looking at LoTR. There is a lot more going on in that book than "classic good versus evil", though that is how it was packaged on the surface. Just like Dune is "just" a classic coming of age story (not so much).
In the end I would definitely say that Dune is more philosophical, because the focus of LoTR was mainly to be a great work of fiction, hidden messages and such coming as a seconday, wheras FH has made it pretty clear that he had to struggle to remind himself to entertain the reader and make a work of fiction, rather than a soapbox rant. He did one hell of a job at that fiction of course, but I don't know if we can say for sure which was foremost in his mind, the fiction or the philosophy.
Of course. At no point did I state that LoTR had a strong bullet proof plot, it certainly doesn't. I also made no claim that stories should be plot driven - I personally look for stories to be mainly character driven, or thematically driven.World building doesn't have to be a fantastical magic universe to have depth. Faulkner's As I lay dying is an amazing world that spans a mere county. And that is just the setting. No for the writing itself. LoTR is filled with plot holes and examples of bad writing techniques that would almost make a KJA proud. Adventure stories don't have to be solely plot driven. Don Quixote is a perfect example of an adventure tale that is far from plot driven. .
As for Dune, well I highly doubt any of us on here came to the determination that they were going to read it dozens of times so that they could be amongst the elite 1 person in a thousand that really gets it. It spoke to most of us the very first time we read it. The magic when a book takes a hold of you doesn't happen because you decided to study it endlessly. It happens automatically the first time you read it, or it doesn't happen. If you are forcing yourself to like something because people say you are supposed to, then I would say one doesn't really like it at all. Whether Frank intended to write philosophy first and fiction second, or the other way around doesn't really matter. The end result here is what is important.
They don't?Idahopotato wrote:I had a LoTR devotee friend that told me the back story and the linguistics were everything to Tolkien and that the story was merely a vessel to espouse these to the masses, since most people don't go to a book story and pick up linguistic books for fun reading.
That was another thing I had heard. Something about no modern spoken language having enough melody to it, so he created his own and then a world to make it live in. Again I have nothing in the way of evidence to back this up.SandChigger wrote:They don't?Idahopotato wrote:I had a LoTR devotee friend that told me the back story and the linguistics were everything to Tolkien and that the story was merely a vessel to espouse these to the masses, since most people don't go to a book story and pick up linguistic books for fun reading.
... I'M SO WEIRD!
I've read that he created one of the (Elven) languages and then asked himself who spoke it and where they lived ... and everything else followed from that. He was a conlanger become conworlder, in the modern parlance.
Wow, has anyone sat all the way through without ending up with piles and DVT?DuneFishUK wrote:They were really long, then they released the extended editions on DVD.