Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheOtherHobbes | Hacker News Reader

The criticism reads like superficial snark, and misses the wood for the trees.

It's not a terrible film. Not by a long way.

It's a difficult film. It's risky. It's not entirely successful.

But terrible? Wisecracking CGI Superheroes Episode Number Actually I've Lost Count Now is a terrible film. (One of a long, long series.)

Men With Guns and So Very Much Shooting is a terrible film.

Too Many Explosions Looking for a Plot That Isn't All About Running and Shouting is a terrible film.

Dune was one of many drug-assisted weird things that fell out of the 1970s and never quite left. It's not a terrible film - it's a museum piece.

View on HN

drug-assisted weird things

Minor point - whilst Lynch's work certainly frequently looks like it was drug-assisted, Lynch is actually not at all a fan of drugs as a creativity aid:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/498489-we-all-want-expanded-...

He just has a remarkable vision and ability with the weird.

>But terrible? Wisecracking CGI Superheroes Episode Number Actually I've Lost Count Now is a terrible film.

That's a really low bar. A better comparison would be the three-part Dune miniseries that came out in 2000, one in which Lynch's version doesn't fare very well.

I respectfully disagree and think the 2000 version has aged very badly (artistically speaking, it also holds lower value for me).

For example, watch the harvester-eaten-by-worm scene [1] [2]. Which of the two has stood the test of time? I could watch the 1984 version over and over again. Everything about the 2000 version - even the timing of each shot - is uninspired and dated, almost like a Westwood Command and Conquer in-game video. Watch how much more engaging the storytelling is in 1984 in this essentially dialogue-free chapter.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P50b-19_j8c&t=18s

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxDjnSnbNhw&t=1m30s

The 2000 miniseries already looked awful and campy when it came out. I should know -- as a Dune fan I bought it instantly, and was deeply disappointed.

Lynch's version, for all its flaws, is still watchable.

The live play staging in the 2000 version looked really out of place on TV when I watched it. Having everyone retire to a dramatic pose with dramatic lighting at the end of a scene? It just looks amateurish on TV IMHO.

I never noticed it before and TVTropes' Dune page confirms, David Lynch was the voice on the harvester radio in that scene.

He's also the actor. There is a shot of him talking on the radio in the harvester as they decide to evacuate it.

That miniseries is terrible. The acting is wooden as all get out, all of the scenes look like they are shot on a hastily dressed community theater stage and it's boring as hell.

The Lynch movie has, like most Lynch works, a strange atmosphere that in this case helps highlight the changes that Paul is going through as his consciousness expands.

That said the children of dune miniseries fares much better, but maybe because there isn't anything to compare it to.

Dune the book was written in 65, the movie 84.

The book heavily references the middle east, and oil dependecy.

The movie has zero, or at the least, very little visual symbolism. Especially if compared to Lynch's other work.

Drug assisted is the last thing I'd say about either the book, or movie.

Drug assisted is the last thing I'd say about either the book, or movie.

I dunno about the movie, but I have heard sometimes that Herbert was quite fond of helping the creative process by those means.

http://dailygrail.com/Shamanism/2014/7/Magic-Mushrooms-were-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com