The problem is that a lot of the payoff is at the end of book 3, and then book four tips the whole thing upside down with some deep religious and philosophical elements that I'm not sure everyone is ready for.
I'm always a little surprised how few people have read Dune relative to Lord of the Rings, but the more I think about Dune the more I get it.
This is how I felt about Battlestar. I barely remember watching the original series as a kid, but I just remember a couple of character names, Cylons (which I thought were cool), the space ships, and the human in the dark room ontop of the pyramid shape the Cylons talked to. That was it. Then I watched the reboot, and was shocked by the religious overtones. Clearly, I never researched anything about it until that point, and then it all made sense.
I'm nervous about Buck Rogers (biddybiddup, what's up Buck!) might turn out the same way on a reboot.
Ron Moore's reimagined version of Battlestar includes strong themes of reincarnation and life being a cycle, which also tracks with Moore's past interest in Hinduism and other Eastern religions.
Buck Rogers was not religious. It was pure episodic adventure. The TV series has nothing on the (or any) Buster Crabbe serial from the 30s.
Special effects don't make a movie anymore. What matters is plot (and music). For example, "Colossus the Forbin Project" is very good. Some other very good scifi movies:
. Invaders from Mars
. Flash Gordon (1980)
. Terminator
. Star Wars IV
. Alien
It came out the same time as 2001, and was eclipsed and forgotten.
Best line: "5 years of Caltech in 5 minutes!"
Colossus, although released in 1969, is particularly relevant today.
Alien was based on a short story in "Voyage of the Space Beagle", though the implementation of it was fresh. The discovery and exploration of the alien's life cycle was good scifi.
>fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.
I definitely expect more from scifi to be scifi.
I don't recall any science in it
Can't agree with you there. I think even Cameron would be the first to say that Aliens is primarily a thrill ride. But it is also objectively true that at least two hard scifi elements provide the scaffolding for the events of the movie.Two of the most central themes of the movie were fairly hard sci-fi... although admittedly one of them was nearly entirely deleted from the theatrical cut.
One: What would a person experience after decades of hibernation? In many ways the film revolves around or is set in motion by Ripley's extended cryosleep after Alien. She is now alone in a strange world where her skills are no longer relevant or current. This primes her for manipulation by Burke. She has also missed out on her deceased daughter's entire life, which primes her to think of Newt as a surrogate daughter and protect her with a mother's ferocity. (Unfortunately, the exposition about her daughter was removed from the theatrical cut. Huge miss.)
Two: How would mankind react to alien contact? Would we treat it with ontological reverence or would it be business as usual for warmongering corporations? The second half of the movie is set in motion by Burke doing the latter on behalf of Weyland-Yutani.
The terraforming stuff.... yeah I agree it's just a setting.
But I prefer Alien for its intimacy and slowly growing horror. John Hurt's character's arc stunned me as a child, and is still one of my favorite turns of storytelling. I love the set design and overall tone of the movie. It's a different space mood than other space movies. And it nails that feeling of being hunted on a spaceship (so far as I would know).
It's the Count of Monte Cristo meets Star Wars, with great world building, pretty good plot and characters and a lot of interesting philosophy, sociology, strategy and tactics. What's not to love?
The scifi miniseries was decent. The 1984 one was...barely Dune, though I enjoyed it. The current one is the first really good adaptation IMO, I don't think it's overrepresented at all.
I actually credit the 1984 Dune with turning me on to Lynch.
I think there are still rumors about him having/making directors cut that could happen. That would surely be very dofferent movie.
Then again this is the directors style. It would be probably end up worse if they would bend too much out of their comfort zone.
Dune isn't as bad as you imply IMO. To each their own though. It probably helped that I read Dune for the first time when I was young.
However, considering what you recommend, I doubt it would be something you'd enjoy.
I was only talking about the books written by Frank Herbert btw.
I haven't seen the other two, bet I'll just assume they also have better sequels.
These are great sequels, but they are Hollywood action movies compared to their predecessors. I do prefer ESB, but Star Wars has better structure and a more satisfying ending, so it is close.
The best thing about ALien is that when it came out, you had no idea who the "hero" was in the crew. Tom Skerritt was the biggest star, had first billing, and was the white male captain. There was no expectation the someone else would be the hero and survivor.
T1 was very focused. Again, nobody had seen anything like it before. The terminator stayed true to form in its relentless purpose, summed up in Reese's little speech. T2 rehashed the same plot, adding an asperger sidekick robot for comic relief. (I thought Harlan Ellison was way off base claiming that T1 was stolen from him.)
Have you considered what your agenda here is, and whether you’re participating in this discussion in good faith?
Dune is fine. But people need to re-read it as adults or something before extolling it’s virtues from the rooftops as they do in this thread.
You should consider that you feeling attacked is as much about you as it is about me.
Edit to clarify: for the precise reason that “you have terrible taste” is ad hominem, and contributes nothing to the discussion. This isn’t appreciated on HN.
I think if you worked on your delivery you might find folks have different reception to your ideas.
If they have an issue they are welcome to raise it, no need to go white knighting people.
But I know a lost cause when I see one, and you live by comparison. Wish you the best with that.
I read it, it was ok, and that was it.
There are some fun themes in there and I appreciate that it begins as a somewhat typical "hero's journey" tale and then turns that whole idea inside out. I like the intrigue and plotting and how various factions are always plotting several steps ahead.But none of that is why I absolutely love Dune (the novel). For me it just has this vibe that I've never been able to explain.
Maybe that's why I like it: because I can't even figure out why I like it.
Anyway, that's all crazy subjective and I can easily see why many are not enchanted by it.
. The Man from Earth
No special effects, no action, just talk. A great movie.
It has not gone well for me. I think it's just our special little thing.
The usual criticism is it's too over the top, too campy. But they miss the point - it was supposed to be over the top and campy.
The dialog is still funny after 40+ years:
Klytus: Bring me... the bore worms!
Princess Aura: No! Not the bore worms!
The movie is just crammed with gems like that. It should have won an Oscar for best screenplay.But it also has Max von Sydow in it, and Brian Blessed is every bit as over the top as he is in season 1 of Black Adder.
It occupies much the same genre as Big Trouble in Little China and the Evil Dead movies. If you're looking for something deep, you're in the wrong place.
The complete ridiculousness is Flash plays it deadpan straight with all the emotion of two by four, while everyone else goes berserk.
It's a turnabout from such things as a Groucho Marx movie, where Groucho has all the funny lines and everyone else plays it straight.
Wikipedia seems to support this theory as well:
"Lorenzo Semple Jr. wrote the script. He later recalled:
Dino wanted to make Flash Gordon humorous. At the time, I thought that was a possible way to go, but, in hindsight, I realize it was a terrible mistake. We kept fiddling around with the script, trying to decide whether to be funny or realistic. That was a catastrophic thing to do, with so much money involved... I never thought the character of Flash in the script was particularly good. But there was no pressure to make it any better. Dino had a vision of a comic-strip character treated in a comic style. That was silly, because Flash Gordon was never intended to be funny. The entire film got way out of control."
It seems like the kind of show that would fit well in mystery science theater though. This is likely just one of those things that is more of a time capsule, or a period piece, it's likely very difficult for people who grew up watching this type of show to be able to objectively have an opinion about it without nostalgia creeping in.
Personally, I can't fathom thinking the 1980s Flash Gordon was a good movie while the 1980s Dune movie was not.
Oh, absolutely. They're making fun of the inherent silliness of the Flash Gordon serials.
Another gem is the priest at the wedding:
"Do you promise not to blast her into space?"
[Ming gives him a warning look]
"Until such time as you may grow weary of her?"And here we find a rare ray of hope for humanity. People realizing that just because something is old doesn’t automatically make it a classic.
Dune is in many ways antithesis of Foundation. And in makes sense being written after it.
Dune - the book - is not popcorn. The series is probably the most brutally surgical examination of power, politics, religion, and economics ever to appear in print.
There are giant worms and weird drugs and such, but they're all metaphors.
If you're looking for the literary equivalent of CGI, that's very much not what it's about.
https://www.reddit.com/r/fanedits/comments/bo8how/middle_ear...
But when it came to the Hobbit films it was a different story entirely, I saw the first and didn't love it. I saw the second and actively disliked it, so I figured I'd save myself the pain and haven't seen the third and I have no intention of watching it.
It's a shame that it was badly rushed, and split (needlessly) into three parts. But despite the close association it didn't ruin my enjoyment of the LotR films, which I rewatch every few years.
That's just one of the issues I had, but they don't get any nicer from there
I passed on The Hobbit.
Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85gVFD7Dqwk
Info:
http://www.maple-films.com/jrr-tolkiens-the-hobbit/the-final...
My wife would probably head to her sister's for the weekend.
(Best movies ever)