Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by throw0101d | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

throw0101d

> A few decades from now, I think Lynch's Dune will be looked upon more favorably than the recent films.

By whom? Lynch's has been out for decades and is at 6.3:

* https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/

Villeneuve's is currently at 8.0:

* https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1160419/

The RT for each are at 44% and 83%:

* https://www.rottentomatoes.com/search?search=Dune

Even with recency bias, do you think their scores will change much in 20+ years?

The recent one was so "indistinguishable" from recent sci-fi movies it won Best Original Score, Sound, Film Editing, Cinematography, Production Design, and Visual Effects:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_...

How many other sci-fi films even get nominated (including Best Picture and Screenplay), let alone win? What were the accolades for Lynch's movie?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(1984_film)#Accolades

View on HN

I said "a few decades from now" because I wanted to highlight the fact that the recent Dune movies are unremarkable and similar to other films made today, whereas the 80s Dune is fairly unique, even for the 80s. In other words: in 2050, Dune 2021 will be perceived as just another sci-fi film, whereas Dune 1984 will still be weird and unique.

As a side note: does anyone take RT or the Oscars seriously anymore? That whole line of argument isn't very compelling to me, but I guess it is for some.

And as a final comment: note that I didn't say Dune 1984 was an amazing film, I just said it would be looked at more favorably than the current films because of its uniqueness. This tends to happen to older films: the solid-but-boring ones get forgotten, while the weird-but-unique ones develop a cult following and get re-evaluated positively.

> In other words: in 2050, Dune 2021 will be perceived as just another sci-fi film, whereas Dune 1984 will still be weird and unique.

Just like The Room is "weird and unique"? :)

> As a side note: does anyone take RT or the Oscars seriously anymore? That whole line of argument isn't very compelling to me, but I guess it is for some.

How much would you agree or disagree with this 'ranking' of Lynch's works?

* https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/david-lynch/

The Room is an extreme example because it’s mostly remembered for being so bad that it’s funny, but sure: it has had a thousand times more influence than the hundreds of competent but procedural thrillers that came out at the same time. It will still be watched in fifty years.

I don’t like that list at all and think it’s basically a list of how “traditional” the Lynch film is. I’d put Mulholland Drive first personally.

It’s using RT’s scoring, which tends to favor movies that are broadly likable over movies that are more willing to take risks that don’t connect with all of their audience.

A big-budget Hollywood blockbuster will have a high RT score even if it’s kinda bland. A filmmaker like Lynch will have a lower RT score, but the people who connect with his movies are more likely have a deeper experience than someone who connects with the blockbuster.

the room is pretty well known, and is more memorable / has probably had a bigger impact on cinema than at least half of the entries in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_in_film#Highest-grossing_...

"good" or "bad" is sort of irrelevant

>good" or "bad" is sort of irrelevant

To whether something is looked on favourably?

Only had to look at the first two spots to strongly disagree.

> the fact that the recent Dune movies are unremarkable

What makes this a fact? Why are they so unremarkable?

I can think of no memorable visuals despite having seen it on IMAX.

I can remember plenty of interesting visuals from the Lynch one despite thinking many other aspects of it were horrible, and having seen it in my room 4 years ago.

> I can think of no memorable visuals despite having seen it on IMAX.

Off the top of my head:

* The arrival of the Imperial delegation for the 'signing ceremony'.

* The fight training sequence.

* The view from behind Paul's head, with the Gom Jabbar at his neck.

* The opening of the doors on arrival at Arrakis.

* The starting of the ornithopters' engines.

* The found hunter-seeker operator.

* The cockpit view dive of the ornithopter.

* The view of the spice harvester being swallowed from the ornithopter ramp.

* The bombs penetrating the ship shields and the contained explosions.

* Paul and Jessica on the top of the hill, viewing the aftermath of Arakeen.

* The wide dining room shot with the Barron on the left and the Duke on the right.

* Paul 'tripping' in the tent.

A few you didn't mention that stand out to me, just because it brings me joy: - Jessica meeting Mohiam in the unrelenting rain of Caladan - The first time a transport picks up a harvester - Paul's vision of Jessica holding Alia - Salusa Secondus... - Sardaukar dropping into the research station, and the Fremen revealing themselves from the sand to attack

don't remember any of these except maybe the second to last

It’s hard for me to think of any one specific scene that is visually memorable, because _the entire movie_ is visually memorable to me. It’s easily one of the most visually and auditory impressive films I’ve seen in the past decade, whereas Lynch’s seemed like a low-budget SyFy film in comparison.

The new one is basically unfinished, it's a nice setup for part 2.

Of course you're right, somehow Lynch did more in less time, but also maybe (hopefully!) part1-2 together will be a valuable take on Dune.

I have one vivid memory from the Lynch one. The Baron's blood torture contraption seared into my mind about 25 years ago, and I have some half faded ones about the last attack, the Imperial palace, and ... that's it probably.

For me Dune was more about vibe, atmosphere, scale, grand space opera mindfuck than concreteness and still images.

These are all personal opinions, but I agree that the first Dune is a much more interesting movie than the newer one. Awards are much more about politics and trend engineering than anything else. It’s good when they are on your side but I bet I can find highly awarded movies that you hate.

Villeneuve’s Dune looks like what a very advanced moviemaking ChatGPT would do: technically flawless, completely soulless, and an absolute snore fest. Lynch’s Dune is flawed, but full of character, and excitingly weird. It’s not a superb movie but then again the comparison isn’t either.

Your ChatGPT comment is a perfect description of Villeneuve’s movies and I’ve thought similar things for a long time. There’s just something missing that prevents them from being great.

It’s a real shame, because he is technically brilliant. Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most beautifully shot/edited movies I’ve ever seen, but it just cannot reach me beyond the surface.

If you’re interested in seeing him put his skills to tell an actual impactful story, watch Incendies. By far his best movie.

Also Prisoners and Enemy were impactful imo (and Sicario of course). I feel like where Villeneuve fails in that respect, filmmakers such as Nicholas Winding Refn succeed— I just watched Drive for the first time (I know I know), and it was one of the best cinematic experiences I’ve had in probably 5 years. Even though the film had a bit of a distant, hands-off quality, one connected with the film and characters completely (a lot of that maybe had to do with Gosling’s impeccable performance, but I’m sure the director had something to do with it).

I agree that Enemy, Sicario, and Prisoner are very good movies, not among my favorites but certainly much better than his newer stuff.

About Gosling I’ll refrain from commenting as it can get ugly. :)

> About Gosling I’ll refrain from commenting as it can get ugly. :)

I think it's fair to say that any particular performance of Gosling may be good/er or bad/er, but his broad range is impressive: The Notebook, Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl, Blue Valentine, The Place Beyond the Pines, Only God Forgives, The Big Short, The Nice Guys, La La Land, Barbie.

Also: Crazy, Stupid, Love and Drive came out in the same year.

He was outstanding in The Big Short, I'll give him that. And his casting in BR2049 was the perfect choice; all he had to do to act like a robot was to act as usual...

Whenever I feel like something is more fan service than contributing something original, I use a couple of mental models: pilgrim vs tourist

But also canon vs fan fiction

Do you think villaneuve's dune is more fan service / tourism? Is it adding anything new to the world of dune?

(As much as I enjoyed it and want the answer to be "yes it's adding something," I'm worried the answer is no)

For me it's fan service, but there must be more to it that I'm missing. Apparently it made nearly half a billion dollars over a budget of 165 million, so it cannot be just hardcore sci-fi fans. Chances are it's simply not my cup of tea, or not the cup of tea of a few people who value other kinds of experience on movies. I have a cousin who loves the movie and he says that the cinema experience is amazing, the images and sounds and the whole thing kinda pulls you in. Maybe that's just it: technical quality.

While I agree, I'd say the merit to the new Dune film is as an excellent example of ambient film - think of it less as a film in which things must happen and more of the waves at the beach - calming and tranquil, mostly, an occasional freak wave to keep you on your toes.

(Yes, I think it was solidly average otherwise and arguably the most boring of Villeneuve's work if watched conventionally).

But Dune is very much a story where many things do happen, intricate things that have a lot of text and subtext.

The tone you describe is at odds with the story it presents (and its run time).

But dune is also a world that I grew up imagining, and the movie does an effective job of letting me visit for a few hours

I agree that the story is lacking! But the world feels real

Oh the world and the characters in my head from when I read it are much more interesting. I will keep this in mind for when (if) I watch the 2nd one tho.

I agree, I don't think it's a particularly interesting Dune film. One could say my perspective is a 'cope'.

Maybe, but in that case wouldn’t you be more interested in another, more intimate/human movie?

People tend to project their personal preferences with an aura of superiority to the unknown future when everyone will ascend to their level and reach enlightenment.

For what it's worth, I think he is most likely correct that 20 years from now, any discussion of Dune and its adaptations will call Lynch's version "inventive, but flawed" and Villeneuve's "drab and lifeless, aimed at movie-goers who had freshly aged out of Iron Man and wanted to feel like it". I can practically feel this article stare at me from the screen already, too. And it probably wants to provoke a little. If anyone still cares, that is.

The reception of Lynch's version will continue to be colored by his overall ouvre, and it's all just so much more interesting and charming for anyone who has to see and write about movies all week long.

That article will be an expression of an opinion which could be written today as well. Doesn’t make it fact. Tastes shouldn’t be discussed.

It's rife in the arts. Such a thing would never happen in my preferred field of engineering, of course...

Yup, too many overconfident people mistake their own subjective opinion for fact and then tell others that their opinion is wrong.

> By whom? Lynch's has been out for decades and is at 6.3:

IMDB has a well known bias towards newer movies.

Citation needed; the top X on IMDB has a mix of recent (2014's Interstellar) and older (1972's The Godfather) films in their top ranked films: https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/

Of course, rankings on any platform should be taken with a grain of salt; if you like the film you like it, can't argue with taste or personal preference. Ranking tries to apply an objective fact (a number, an expert's say-so) to an inherently subjective question (did you enjoy it).

Citation I dont have but I analyzed score dumps before from imdb and there was a clear correlation between recency and higher score over time

> sci-fi films even get nominated (including Best Picture and Screenplay), let alone win? What were the accolades for Lynch's movie?

Most of the time the awards are just about rewarding relationships in the business. They have no bearing on movie quality.

No offense meant to OP, but this is a good example how the commercialization of criticism can really suck the joy out of things.

By everyone who has seen the Extended cut on YouTube. They took a lot of important scenes out of that movie, which Lynch hated.

I generally don't trust IMDB or RT scores, but I agree with your assessment. They Shoot Pictures Don't They [1] has always been my go to for critically acclaimed movies. Neither Dune film makes it to their top 1000 of all time. The new Dune is #430 in the 21st century, which isn't spectacular, but it's ranked above some movies that I would consider quite good.

I'm a huge fan of Lynch and enjoy the original Dune for what it is, but there has been plenty of time for the critical assessment of it to settle, and it doesn't look good.

[1] https://www.theyshootpictures.com/

The new dune is just better. Some people can’t get around that fact and I think it’s the same realm as retro computing. Sure it’s cool, it’s interesting, it’s fun, but it’s not better. I think they have the same “hobby” as retro computing but won’t admit it so to speak.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com