Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

I'm curious to know if anyone has any thoughts on the fact that Lynch's movie put such emphasis on the mystery of Yueh's treachery while dear old Frank delved more deeply into the scenario of Jessica being set up as a patsy?? Was it just a diffence in pop culture between generations, better cinema, easier scripting, etc. Personally I think it was because of the difficulties of portraying such subtleties on film as those that existed in the relationship between Leto and Jessica. To me it seems a very important point to the setup of the whole series but as much as I love the film, it seriously is just eye candy for the fans of the books.

Lynch took WAY too much LSD?

Nah, come on! I love David Lynch. Twin Peaks is my favorite tv show of all time. The Dune movie was kinda just a flip through of the first book though. Not a whole lot of meat there.










edit-GDMF box.

Well, I would say that since the movie was pushing 4 hours that it was a lot easier to ignore that particular sub-plot. He had to find room for all those fucking pugs.

I have to agree with Nek, it would take two or three scenes to set up the frame and in the end you only get the one Gurney/Jessica payoff for it.
It would've been cool to see, but with everything else that was left out, I didn't miss that layer too much.

edit; How cool would it've been to see a little more Harkonnen motivation/machination?
All we get to show that both sides are doing the same thing is the one sentance, "...and when we've crushed them enough, we'll send in Feyd. Lovely Feyd..."

ahnnah wrote:Nah, come on! I love David Lynch. Twin Peaks is my favorite tv show of all time. The Dune movie was kinda just a flip through of the first book though. Not a whole lot of meat there.










edit-GDMF box.

This is a whole 'nother topic.

BUT, I have reasons far hating Dune (1984) as I do and they are innumerable.

I'm not saying DL was a bad director, just a bad director for DUNE.

Freakzilla wrote:

ahnnah wrote:Nah, come on! I love David Lynch. Twin Peaks is my favorite tv show of all time. The Dune movie was kinda just a flip through of the first book though. Not a whole lot of meat there.
edit-GDMF box.

This is a whole 'nother topic.

BUT, I have reasons far hating Dune (1984) as I do and they are innumerable.

I'm not saying DL was a bad director, just a bad director for DUNE.

I have more issues with the writing and overall changes in it than the directing personally. Not sure how big a role Lynch played in a lot of that.

What pissed me off (besides the six months spent of Fremen hats that weren't used in the movie) was scenes that were deleted to includes SHIT that wasn't in the book.

My thing with any book-to-movie is when changes are unnecessary. Dune and LoTR are prime examples - many of the changes made absolute sense, some needed to be explained, and some were not needed and I can't understand why they were done.

Dune as the example:

- cutting some subplots, instantly pretty clear why it had to be done, movies just don't have time.

- Changing the weirding way into soundguns... pretty dumb, but ok, once they explained that they wanted to avoid making a martial arts movie it did make sense. I would have come up with something less ridiculous, or just cut out any mention of the weirding way, but whatever, at least they had a good reason.

- adding dumb shit like milking cats, heart plugs, Baron with a skin problem... I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure the actions of the Harkonnens alone were PLENTY to convey to the audience just how big of assholes they were.

Yup, eye candy. I put it on to fall asleep at night since we don't subscribe to cable television. Knocks my husband out after 10 minutes. I usually last about a half an hour.

As eye candy it does a fantastic job.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:As eye candy it does a fantastic job.

It's a very visually entertaining movie, just not such a great portrayal of book 1. Apparently I made a mistake in judgement in selecting a topic I thought might be interesting to discuss. Thank you, come again.

Oh no, it's a great topic, I just don't know if any of us have great insights into why it was cut other than just that it was a subplot that was easy to cut, and they must have been looking for stuff to cut left right and center.

I love the movie personally, one of my all time favourites. They nailed the mood (the way the movie plays out really did a good job of mimicing FH's writing in my opinion) and the visuals are spectacular, and in the end it was just so weird and oddly done that it had no chance of NOT becoming a cult classic.

Probably got cut to add a pug dog scene.

Freakzilla wrote:Probably got cut to add a pug dog scene.

To be honest I never even really noticed the pugs until you pointed them out and I later watched it again.

The scene during the Harkonnen attack on Arrakeen where Gurney carries Leto's pug dog into battle really pisses me off.

They've been playing Dune all weekend (over and over) on BBC America.

The extended version.

Freakzilla wrote:The scene during the Harkonnen attack on Arrakeen where Gurney carries Leto's pug dog into battle really pisses me off.

Even as a kid that was always a wtf moment for me everytime I watched it.

Beats an aardvark.

Omphalos wrote:Beats an aardvark.

Thank god for Patrick Stewart's integrity, huh?

I dunno, an aardvark might've been even more amusing...

NOTHING BEATS AN AARD... Oh fuck, I'm an anteater."

I think I just.... yup. I just peed a little. Thanks.

ahnnah wrote:I think I just.... yup. I just peed a little. Thanks.

Do you know why the aardvark was brought up?

Freakzilla wrote:

ahnnah wrote:I think I just.... yup. I just peed a little. Thanks.

Do you know why the aardvark was brought up?

Um, no. To me that just seemed randomly hilarious. Did I stumble into a private joke?