Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

I didn't much care for BR2049—Villeneuve's Dune is a better movie in my opinion—but I think one point it made very well is that we're wrong to ask "replicant or human?" Replicants are humans, just ones that have been been genetically engineered and produced. (In terms of "hardware" it is clear that they are fully biological.) The distinction is a lie to justify slavery, and that's the takeaway we should have had even from the original movie.

As for the plot not making sense if Deckard is a replicant, I don't think that's true. We know some replicants are provided with false memories from real people (Rachael's were from Tyrell's niece), so it would be perfectly possible for Deckard to believe he's worked as a Blade Runner for years, has an ex-wife, etc., even if he's relatively recently activated. The only person he interacts with as if they have history is Bryant, his former boss (he also apparently knew Holden, and in a deleted scene they interact). If Deckard is a replicant, Bryant knows (just as Gaff knows) and is playing along. Many of Deckard's memories might even be Holden's. His memories of passing a VK test might similarly be false/borrowed, or the test may simply have been faked.

And his physical inferiority relative to Roy has several plausible potential explanations. It could be a tradeoff for a longer lifespan ("the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long," as Tyrell says). It could be a government condition for allowing replicants to operate on Earth in secret. It could be because they realize (from experience?) that if they gave him superhuman abilities he would suss out the truth, as you mention. But most fugitive replicants probably aren't combat models like Roy, so Deckard's physical abilities should normally suffice. And of course it makes sense to send a replicant out against them rather than a "real" human: he's as good as any blade runner they've got, and him being a replicant they're not too concerned about him getting killed. And Gaff is there in the background to do any mopping up that might be needed.

I thought a big problem with the sequel was that it tied itself so closely to the original movie, while being committed to maintaining the ambiguity on the replicant-or-not question. Which simply does not work. In-universe, there is a definite answer, and it makes no sense to have Gaff, for example, be unsure of what the truth is: his hints in the first film are the whole basis for this interpretation in the first place! BR2049 would have been a much better movie if it cut out Olmos, Harrison Ford and CGI Sean Young and allowed it to just be Ryan Gosling's story, with at most vague, blink-and-you-miss-it references to the events of the first film.

I'm about to see Villeneuve's Dune tomorrow. It's the (day before) the release date in Canada. Super excited, but I'm also not without trepidation as to how good the adaptation will be. It's always difficult when it's a novel you've been reading for years, and you have a clear idea of how it's supposed to be.

Hoping to see Dune in the movie theaters Sunday. Have been looking forward to this for a long time.

I've liked most of Villeneuve's movies with Sicario being the best IMO. I need to watch BR2049 one or two more times as I'm not sure if I didn't like it as much for the story or the shitty actor I find Ryan Gosling to be.

One thing I've noticed about Villeneuve's movies, for me anyway, is he has a really bland and subdued color palette. Dune looks to almost be in black and white from the trailers I've seen. Even Caladan looked blah. When I picture the Dune universe in my mind when I'm reading Frank's novels it's a rich and colorful universe. Even Arrakis is rich in color even if the palette is limited in choices. But I can let that go if the movie is well made and faithful to the book. We shall see.

I managed to catch a regular-screen showing of Dune this past Saturday. My review will be pretty short here, I'll try to post more details probably tomorrow on the OH Facebook page. Long story short: it's sort of exactly like Blade Runner 2049. If you loved that you're in luck, and if you found it boring and pointless as I did then you won't be happy. All of the budget and focus seem to have gone into cinematography and FX, and not much effort put into showing why any of it is important. Even the acting is mostly flat and uninvolving. When Momoa is a standout you know there's problems...

georgiedenbro wrote:When Momoa is a standout you know there's problems...

I've watched it about five times on HBO MAX. The first viewing pissed me off but since then it's grown on me a little.

It was fine. Beautiful to look at. I understand that they felt the need to cut the book in half, but really, that's where we're going with all this?

Hello friends!

I watched the movie a couple days ago. I thought the look of it was great. They cut out almost all the political intrigue, well really they cut out most of what makes Dune mean so much to us. I was hoping for the dinner scene at least

Anyway, I did not hate the movie. It was a good action movie, but not something I want to watch again.

I watched the film when it hit HBOMax and, as much as I was enjoying the visuals, I was angry by the end, once I saw how much they had gutted the story. I thought with the 2-film setup and the long runtime it would include a lot more than it did, especially since I kept hearing about how it was "the most faithful adaptation EVAR." For a given definition of "faithful," I guess. I had an argument with my friend who works in Hollywood and so is a big shill for the film industry; he said that he was glad they made a film that the average person could just watch and I pointed out that the secret of making a Dune adaptation shouldn't be to include less Dune.

It's the most minimalistic version I think they could have made - something along the lines of cutting LOTR down to mostly just the scenes involving Frodo, with only a few seconds at a time of scenes he's not directly involved in. Yes, you could make a decent movie out of that, but it wouldn't be what a lot of fans would want. It certainly wouldn't be called "faithful." Villeneuve's movie is beautiful, but it lacks just about everything, sticking to the messiah story and omitting pretty much all of the Machiavellian plotting and thus losing a lot of the depth of the action. The plans within plans element is gone and it's taken a bunch of characters with it (PIter might as well be "Harkonnen #4" for all he does.) At this point, I'm pretty convinced that Feyd-Rautha won't even make an appearance in the sequel, since there's no narrative reason to include him; Villeneuve has cut all his threads. Paul will fight Rabban at the end and that will be it.

So, as impressive as a lot of the cinematography is, it's an empty, superficial adaptation. It's too bad.

Mandy wrote:Hello friends!

I watched the movie a couple days ago. I thought the look of it was great. They cut out almost all the political intrigue, well really they cut out most of what makes Dune mean so much to us. I was hoping for the dinner scene at least

Anyway, I did not hate the movie. It was a good action movie, but not something I want to watch again.

MANDY!!! Long time no see!

The one point where I disagree with everyone is in saying that it's a superficially beautiful film lacking substance. One of my biggest complaints about the film is how drab the visuals are, offering no interesting details and featuring dull colors and forgettable sets. Lynch's Dune is much stronger in creating striking settings in the various locales. So on the aesthetics front I give Villeneuve's Dune a low score, despite the obvious FX budget for explosions, ship designs, and the rest. Frankly it wasn't even as imaginative as the SW prequels in terms of tech and ship design, notwithstanding the fact that the ornithopters look right.

And so much time is wasted on everything! On ships flying, on FX shots, on waiting for ornithopters to take off, shots of the deserts, you name it. I will have to push myself to watch part 2, just to be a completist, because I know I'll be bored for most of it.

Freakzilla wrote:

Mandy wrote:Hello friends!

I watched the movie a couple days ago. I thought the look of it was great. They cut out almost all the political intrigue, well really they cut out most of what makes Dune mean so much to us. I was hoping for the dinner scene at least

Anyway, I did not hate the movie. It was a good action movie, but not something I want to watch again.

MANDY!!! Long time no see!

Hey Freak!

Brutalism, bah.

georgiedenbro wrote:Brutalism, bah.

You'd think each planet would have it's own look. Too much concrete

2049 was rather disappointing

i hear they shot a ton more scenes that didnt make the release


so theirs probably a 4plus hour directors cut in the future...

Finally got around to watching it. This tells something about my expectations, which were fully met. I could write an essay about how crappy it is but that would be a waste of our time. Easier to note that Kevin J Anderson was listed as 'special consultant'. Very special.

The one point where I disagree with everyone is in saying that it's a superficially beautiful film lacking substance. One of my biggest complaints about the film is how drab the visuals are, offering no interesting details and featuring dull colors and forgettable sets. Lynch's Dune is much stronger in creating striking settings in the various locales. So on the aesthetics front I give Villeneuve's Dune a low score, despite the obvious FX budget for explosions, ship designs, and the rest. Frankly it wasn't even as imaginative as the SW prequels in terms of tech and ship design, notwithstanding the fact that the ornithopters look right.

And so much time is wasted on everything! On ships flying, on FX shots, on waiting for ornithopters to take off, shots of the deserts, you name it. I will have to push myself to watch part 2, just to be a completist, because I know I'll be bored for most of it.

Nailed it, exactly how I feel. I didn't see much 'eye candy'. It looks like every other 21st century sci fi, except more dull. Everything was gray and desaturated. The last hour really dragged. Took me a while to realize it was the first of two movies. They could have easily made it one by cutting all the scenes of Paul standing around staring at the scenery.

I suppose I can allow myself the indulgence of complaining about one scene, out of many I found galling. The scene where the worm devours the spice harvester. Why, the fuck, is Paul left alone to wander around staring at the desert? Without a guard, without training or self awareness or even common sense, so at the last minute he has to be rescued. An incredibly stupid scene, reeks of KJA.

The casting was bad enough to be worth mentioning. The guy that played the duke was believable, the rest awful. The actress playing Jessica was out of her depths. Wasn't attractive enough or motherly enough. Say what you will about Lynch's Dune, the involvement of Frank Herbert at least ensured the casting was good. The man who played Paul sucked of course. Paul looked young for his age, small and wiry. Not like a guy in his mid 20s. The most confusing was the guy that played Hawat. It took me quite a while to figure out who he was suppose to be.

Anyone excited about Dune: the Sisterhood? I bring bad tidings, it's been delayed again while they search for yet another director. Too bad...

I've made the fool mistake of reading the book again after watching the movie. The movie wasn't good but it wasn't awful, it was mediocre, but comparing it to the book makes me hate it. The dialogue in the book is so well written, so full of tension. It would work so well in a film. The focus from the filmmakers has always been to make it another Star Wars, an epic action movie. Dune is a play, it's about the people more then the violence and special effects. Bring in some actors who can really act and focus on the politics, the relationships, and the character development.

The only scene in the film I started to feel it was when they first met the Fremen and Jamis. It just started to get interesting and then they blew it. They drew out the helplessness of Jamis, made it ridiculous. Jamis snarled too much. I need to read the script of Jodorowsky's Dune, here's a link to it, with Moebius' drawnings.

https://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/jodorow ... -uncovered

the rev wrote: ↑04 Mar 2023 09:56 Paul looked young for his age, small and wiry. Not like a guy in his mid 20s.

Since Paul is supposed to be 15 doesn't that mean Chalamet looked the right age? Not that I thought he was any good in the role.

Since Paul is supposed to be 15 doesn't that mean Chalamet looked the right age? Not that I thought he was any good in the role.

I was poking fun. Chalamet is 27 years old now, 25 years old at the time of filming, no matter his looks. He looks awkward, like a teenager, but his body's filled in, he's tall, (taller then his 'mother') and he moves like an adult. I believe Paul was 14 at the start of the book, could be wrong. Paul was short and looked younger then his age, let's say 13 then. Children grow and change a lot between 15 and 18. Lose baby fat and softness. Hollywood doesn't like casting children, labor laws and puberty and such. I'd think that would work to their advantage casting a child who would grow with the filming but it would introduce a variable. It would change a lot about the film if Paul was much smaller then Janis, smaller then the adults around him. In the book everyone initially underestimates him, considers him a child, until he starts talking and shows he's incredibly mature for his age. Chalamet is the opposite. (not serious-poking fun again)

Ok, I guess. I know you're sort of kidding, but I always liked McLaughlin as Paul. He definitely didn't look like a teenager at all, but he had a je-ne-sais-quoi. Chalamet doesn't seem to bring anything to the table, he's just there.

Well, I am serious when I say I'd prefer them casting a kid, someone who is 15 years old or younger. Because that's how it is in the book, and Paul's small size and child-like appearance is an important piece of plot. The boy-man stuff in the film was grating. Jorodowsky's son Bronso of Ix would have been the best Paul out of the films. I like McLaughlin, a lot more then Chalamet, but there's a scene or 3 where he's treated like a kid.

One time, quite a while back, I was having a meal with some friends at a restaurant in West Seattle. My friend recognized McLaughlin at a nearby table. He was star-struck, couldn't help himself. Had to go over and interrupt the meal to tell him how great he was. Kyle didn't seem to mind.