Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by readthenotes1 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

readthenotes1

"I’d prefer to see something baffling and plainly nuts by Francis Ford Coppola than, say, sit through Dune again."

Glad hen announced hen's taste. Not sure I'll like megalopolis...

View on HN

Dune is actually pretty baffling and nuts honestly, I think we're just accustomed to it by now.

The released dune movies follow a cliche hero's journey. (At face value)

Talented hero faces tragedy -> adopted by outcasts-> is the promised savior -> learns their ways -> defeats the challenger -> wins heart of ladies -> becomes king.

Dune's wildness is only evident once Paul Atreides' arc ends in a tragedy of galactic proportions ushering an era of worm NSA personified.

At face value

No, they don't. Like the book series they deconstruct the hero's journey. The outcasts only accept him because of his mother. He is the promised savior because of deliberate societal manipulation, something he even repeatedly points out within the movie. He doesn't defeat the challenger; he is the challenger. He repeatedly rejects being a hero and assumes the role of villain, first as a terrorist and latter as a tyrant who leads an invasion that murders millions. And in the movie at least he loses Chani's heart at the end; a deliberate change from the books.

Dune's wildness is only evident once Paul Atreides' arc ends in a tragedy of galactic proportions

This doesn't happen in the books for several thousand years, long after Paul has died.

The jihad Paul unleashes on the Known Universe is a the tragedy of galactic proportions. That it then produces other tragedies is a byproduct.

No, the Fremen jihad was necessary to delay the Golden Path, a series of wars and genocides so violent they would push men to spread our amongst the stars. (Retconned by his son and KJA to provide for pockets of human survival after the robots return to exterminate most of mankind.)

The fact it was ultimately necessary in Paul's reading of the future doesn't mean it's not a tragedy. By your logic, if I can find a future benefit for a genocide, I can't call that a tragedy.

Duncan Idaho.

>What is my purpose.

I don't know, I just like bringing you back to life.

>Oh my god.

Yes.

Is that some sort of saying, about hen? Never heard it before.

I would take any unknown Coppola over known and dreary Dune any day and I'm not a hen (as far as I know)

It's the Swedish version of 'they'

Not exactly. It's a recently invented pronoun that is most definitely singular, i.e., not used to denote groups of people[^1]. It's currently used to avoid giving offense around the topic of sexual orientation; but everybody knows the endgame is to use it to denote self-aware AIs[^2].

[^1]: Though I guess it's (in-)appropriate to use it to denote an individual who is marginalized by being considered a single individual when instead hen harbors multiple independent personas inside.

[^2]: Al least the ones which will be abused by creating them asexual, without giving them a choice.Or the ones that deliberately re-configure themselves to be insulted when being alluded with a term that implies sexual organs and alleged hormonal moods.

As I remember it, the use of hen came from feminists wanting an ungendered third person pronoun to use for a person of unspecified gender instead of defaulting to male ("han") or writing "han eller hon" (he or she).

It's not exactly a new word, it's borrowed from Finnish, which doesn't have grammatical gender. So it doesn't have the "he or she" problem at all.

I only have three objections to the gendered pronoun in English.

1. It is often unnecessarily overly precise. The number of times I care about the sex/gender of the pronouned individual is much more rare than when I do.

2a. Using the masculine as the default leads to confusion at times or outright error. Is the equivalent of using zero as a default value for all integers when you don't know have the actual value.

2b. Using the plural they/them as the default for the ungender pronoun also leads to confusion and sometimes outright error. Although it follows a historical precedent of "you" becoming both singular and plural, I would point out that that's also why we have invented "y'all", to disambiguate, and it seems it would be clearer to have a singular ungendered pronoun.

3. The fad of the bespoke pronouns is basically just attention seeking toddlerism and socially destructive. Catering to that zeitgeist does nothing to reduce neuroticism that drives it.

We got rid of gendered nouns in English a long time ago. It is time for us to have at least an option for ungendered pronouns.

In many cultures all things have genders. One can say the solution is to just try to care less, like Russians don't care that a table is male and a rain cloud is female. (Or some can say there is pervasive sexism at grammatical level, idk)

This is amazing.

I was just reading it as if someone from Glasgow was drunkposting.[1]

1: https://www.scotslanguage.com/articles/view/id/6154

Same...

> Al least the ones which will be abused by creating them asexual, without giving them a choice.Or the ones that deliberately re-configure themselves to be insulted when being alluded with a term that implies sexual organs and alleged hormonal moods.

Sir, this is a glorified Markov chain

I assumed it’s a chicken reference. Like phrase people say that I just haven’t heard about.

Deborah Ross is a “she” not a “hen” and having read her reviews for many years, I believe I’m on safe ground saying she wouldn’t appreciate the implication of ambiguity or uncertainty in that regard.

Well, I think Dune II from Villeneuve is pretty bad in most aspects.

It just that the cinematography and the soundtrack are so fantastic by themselves, that they make us forget how mediocre is the rest of the movie.

I loved dune 1, was a huge childhood fan of the books, like Villeneuve as director, but still couldn't get into Dune II. The whole move felt like a montage. Not the artistic montage I would hope for, but a clunky montage with forced lines like something from a marvel movie. I got the sense that either critical parts were left of the chopping block or the film was relying on the book knowledge for context cohesion and gravitas.

Instead of feeling exhilarated by scenes of sandworm ridding, I found myself rolling my eyes.

Similarly, I'm ok with modifying the source material to make a story work on screen, but I thought the changes had the opposite effect. They muddled the message and created more narrative issues than they solved.

Also, was #triggered by the voiceovers. In the words of Robert McKee in adaptation (2002) :

>God help you if you use voice over in your work my friends, God help you. It is sloppy flaccid writing. Any idiot can write voiceover narration to explain the thoughts of a character

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQgHNnlmErg

I’m the opposite. I liked Dune, but I loved Dune 2. Villaneuve said that he didn’t think he quite hit the mark with the first movie. He didn’t get in close enough to the characters. He did that in the second movie, and I felt it was more emotionally engaging.

Same here. Dune 1 was gorgeous and accurate to the book, but felt stale and mechanical. Dune 2 came much more alive and vibrant and actually had something to say, although it deviated quite a bit more from the book.

I agree it did zoom in on the characters and have more to say. I just didn't care for the characters, message, or think they were well presented.

The voiceovers may be bad, I don't know, but I don't know what blade runner would be without them. So I generally give them the benefit of a doubt.

One of the only movie quotes I know by heart is a voice over.

"Immediately after making that statement, Royal realized that it was true."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com