quang Posted October 29, 2021 Author Share Posted October 29, 2021 1 hour ago, Confusionreigns178 said: As William Goldman, the author of "Adventures In The Screen-Trade", wrote many years ago: "No-one in Hollywood knows anything". It's as true today as when it was first written. Picking a random sentence in a book and making it sound like a haiku, confusion reigns indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusionreigns178 Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, quang said: Picking a random sentence in a book and making it sound like a haiku, confusion reigns indeed! I also do Limericks, on request. I did have a genuine point when I quoted that line.... I was suggesting that - despite all their bluff and bluster - Hollywood folk are just as fallible as the rest of us. Chris. Edited October 29, 2021 by Confusionreigns178 Correcting a typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eoyguy Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 2 hours ago, Confusionreigns178 said: It would appear that even the less-than-discerning part of the cinema-going public have had enough of Bay's ridiculous, over-the-top, headache-inducing fare. The box-office for his last Transformers debacle was a (relatively) disappointing $400 Million, I believe (might sound like a lot, but the earlier films regularly earned a lot closer to $1 Billion each). IIRC, each successive movie from the second one onwards did worse at the box-office than its predecessor. I think Bumblebee pulled in some good figures, but that one wasn't Bay directed. Personally, I reckon the Transformers concept has been flogged to death now, but I'm sure Hollywood will give it another go... Chris. We can only hope, but I'm not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quang Posted October 29, 2021 Author Share Posted October 29, 2021 5 hours ago, Confusionreigns178 said: I also do Limericks, on request. I did have a genuine point when I quoted that line.... i was suggesting that - despite all their bluff and bluster - Hollywwod folk are just as fallible as the rest of us. Chris. I have nothing against poetry It’s the over-simplification that annoys me. Cinema is not just only about Hollywood and the Box-office. There’s a whole wide world of films out there worthy of our interest apart from the blockbusters shown in US theaters and streaming platforms. Cheers, Quang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Madhatter Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 (edited) On 10/23/2021 at 2:33 AM, Scotsman said: For those of you out there who are wondering why I'm posting about the new Dune film , well I was blown away by the ornithopters in it , imagine an AH-64 crossed with a Humming bird, they are beautifully realised and appear totally practical as well as being totally badass - I really would love to build one of these beasts and with the Box Office for the film looking promising , who knows I may get the chance And if you are the least interested in SciFi please go and see it , it really is that good The closest thing to a kit of this is the Dragonfly or hornithopter kit from Industrialmechanika but they are much more organic looking than the one in the pic above. Ive built the Dragonfly and loved it. I had often wondered where the inspiration for that came from and I'd forgotten all about these craft from Dune. Im still in 2 minds as to whether or not I watch Dune. I found the original to be quite boring. Cool effects but the story is a tad dull for me. Edited October 29, 2021 by The Madhatter Typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusionreigns178 Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 2 hours ago, quang said: Cinema is not just only about Hollywood and the Box-office. Agree with you there, Quang, but this part of the thread was specifically about Hollywood's "diminishing returns", caused by churning out the same old, tired ideas ad nauseam. Chris. Paramedic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramedic Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 (edited) Quote Rebecca Ferguson (Paul's Mom) is a very "hot chick" (does anyone actually, seriously and "non-ironically" use these terms, nowadays? I think the 1960's want their dialogue back...). I've watched a few interviews with her and she is happy to tell some embarassing stories about herself (if you find the Youtube interview where's she's in a fight-scene with British actor Sean Harris for Mission Impossible No. 87, you'll see what I mean). In a world in which actors usually try to pretend they're utterly perfect in all ways, this makes a very refreshing change. Chris. Oh yeah, forgot she is in it! She´s Swedish so kinda down to Earth.. Edited October 29, 2021 by Paramedic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 I strongly believe that this film has to be watched after reading the book. Frank Herbert created a rich interweaving layercake of beliefs, customs, religion, tactics, all of which are present in the film, but may go unnoticed by the casual viewer. Take for example the "mentats": their purpose (human computers) and the reason for their existence (the Butlerian Jihad that took place centuries before forbade the existence of electronic computers) is explained in the book but none of that is in the movie, they just appear, flicker their eyelids when they do their job, and that is about that. As someone who read the book, they simply made sense to me and they enriched the storyline. But I spoke to someone else who had not read the book and thought that the mentats were some kind of weird lizard people and thought they were pointless. Another example is the "Holtzmann effect" which powered the shields, the suspensors holding Baron Harkonnen, the glowglobes and was also used by the giant Heighliners for faster-than-light travel. This is explained in the books, but in the movie they just appear. There are many other things that appear in the movie as fully-formed concepts without any explanation, but which are explained quite well in the book. I had a similar experience with Vietnam movies. I watched a few movies about Vietnam over the years and enjoyed them, but then I watched the Ken Burns documentary and suddenly those movies took a completely different meaning and I had a completely different understanding of what I was watching. Anyway, I thought that the movie was amazig and I am very glad to hear that they are going to make the second part. Radu D.B. Andrus, coogrfan, Uncarina and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quang Posted October 30, 2021 Author Share Posted October 30, 2021 The Villeneuve film contains numerous Easter eggs that only the readers of the book(s) can enjoy, like the desert rat which appears twice during Paul and Jessica’s flight in the desert or why despite their technology, they only use cutting weapons and not firearms. Possibly, all will be explained in Dune Part2 Uncarina 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyGhost Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 On 10/22/2021 at 4:20 PM, quang said: Watching the Dune 2021 on a TV screen is like assembling the new Border Lancaster with tube glue and painting it with a 2” synthetic paint brush. We just have a 75" 8K QLED Samsung with a 9.1 Surround Sound hooked up to it ... -Gregg Paramedic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quang Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 1 hour ago, GreyGhost said: We just have a 75" 8K QLED Samsung with a 9.1 Surround Sound hooked up to it ... -Gregg …and at least you won’t have the Dolby system covering the popcorn munching sound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyGhost Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 16 minutes ago, quang said: …and at least you won’t have the Dolby system covering the popcorn munching sound Popcorn munching isn't so bad, all the cell phone texting, screen glare etc is ... People are so rude these days ... -Gregg quang and Paramedic 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eoyguy Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 (edited) Well I saw it, and I have to say, I'm underwhelmed. A visual and auditory experience I guess, but the execution just left me...meh. When I think of Dune, I will not think of the images in this film, I will still think of the 1984 film. For all its faults, of which it had MANY, the 84 film had uniqueness. The design of the still suits, the look of the Bene Gesserits, the character like Dr. Yueh, the mentats as played by Brad Dourif and Freddie Jones, were memorable. While David Dastmalchian is good in the role of Peter De vries, its so limited as to be soon forgotten. Dave Bautista is wasted as Rabban. It appears the was told "be a mouth breather, look befuddled" and that was his character arc. And then there's the Baron. My guess is they told Stellan Skarsgard "remember Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now? Do that". I was just waiting for him to tell Leto that he was an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill. The overall production of the 1984 film left an image. This one? Not so much. The designs and colors of the interiors were fantastic in the 84 version. This one is just various shades of gr(e)ay, black and brown, and everything looked like they were living in a cave. I couldn't decide which was more disturbing; Kyle MacLachlan's perfect coif in 1984, or Timothée Chalamet's Emo mop top in this one. In fact, the entire emo take on Paul isn't great to me, and Rebecca Ferguesons take on Jessica seems to be constantly on the verge of tears or a nervous breakdown. I liked Oscar Isaac as Duke Leto, I thought he was the best of the bunch. I physically winced at the first use of colloquial English. "Good to go"??? That took me aback. Give me the formality of the 84 version, please. Bro Aquaman Duncan Idaho, as played by Jason Momoa, did nothing for me either. I won't say he's a terrible actor, but I don't see him replacing someone like Daniel Day-Lewis on my list of greatest actors, at least for this type of film. For Aquaman, I guess he's just right. Strangely, the tech left me cold as well. While the design of the Thopters is very cool, the fact that they, and a lot of the hardware, uniforms, and tech, resemble those used in modern militaries, doesn't really transport us 8,000 years into the future. It actually firmly grounds it in the modern day. I guess that's an effort to make it more "real", and not a pure sci-fi fantasy as the 84 film went for. It has its moments. Paul staring down the Reverend mother during the test, Mapes wailing when she presents the crysknife to Jessica, and the fight with Jamis are a few. Its obviously much more faithful to the book, which is good, but people slammed the first one for the inner thoughts being voiced to tell the story(which I liked), whereas this one has far too many flash..forwards, visions and the like. Anyhow, just another opinion on it. I don't think I will be revisiting it anytime soon, the story just kind of dragged a bit,some of the characters just sort of cycle through and then are discarded (Yueh, Mapes, Thufir Hawat, Peter de Vries) and overall, it didn't fascinate me enough to want to see it again. Now, where is Patrick Stewart, Pug in hand, leading his men against the Sardaukar???Now THAT was memorable! Edited November 3, 2021 by eoyguy Panzerwomble 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quang Posted November 3, 2021 Author Share Posted November 3, 2021 3 hours ago, eoyguy said: Now, where is Patrick Stewart, Pug in hand, leading his men against the Sardaukar???Now THAT was memorable! Indeed. Aside Kyle MacLachlan's perfect coif (in 1984), you can also memorize Sting’s diapers and Dean Stockwell’s moustache eoyguy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eoyguy Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, quang said: Indeed. Aside Kyle MacLachlan's perfect coif (in 1984), you can also memorize Sting’s diapers and Dean Stockwell’s moustache Stings mankini was worth 3 legion of Sardaukar, and Yueh's mustache had received its own Imperial conditioning! Edited November 3, 2021 by eoyguy quang 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now