Villeneuve's Dune: Part One (2019)

[Toby Frost]

My friend Dave has seen the new film of Dune a couple of times now. I liked it more than he did, but I thought he had a point:

"I probably said this all last year when I saw it at the cinema, but it's just dull...

"The aesthetic seems deliberately bland, almost like it's a reaction against the richness and colour of Lynch. Sure, there are epic vistas, vast spaceships, tiny humans for scale etc, but there's no life. There's little to no character development either, the only relationship I understood even remotely was the friendship between Paul and Duncan Idaho... but that was effectively just thrust at the viewer by the warmth of the greeting when Duncan first approaches. Gurney Halleck is just a dour, functional combat teacher. Dad is a non-entity. Mother just seems to go through periods of distress.

"It was only towards the end when I remembered that it had been made by the same guy as did Bladerunner 2049, and it all clicked - because frankly that was boring and tried too hard as well."

 

[Foxbat]

I'd say 'deliberately bland' is a fair comment.

Lynch's version of House Atreides and their attire always made me think of Tsarist Russia. In Villeneuve's, the Atreides fashion doesn't remind me of anything.

Of course, it could be worse. I thought the TV miniseries of Dune had some of the worst costume design going. I never understood why Guild representatives would dress in blue velvet and similarly clothed pointed hats. Perhaps an homage to Lynch?

 

[Vince W]

Frankly, Villeneuve's attempt at Dune is a travesty. Boring, bland, and devoid of any emotion.

 

[Swank]

The blandness is, in part, a move to not take sides and present the characters as they are rather icons of heroism. The world looks lived-in.

There were a lot of things I really liked about the design of the film, so I would not call it drab and boring. But it is somewhat removed, and that seems like more the fault of it being a good adaptation of a very cerebral story.


I don't know of another director that does adaptations and SF that would have been better.

 

[Vince W]

I'd give the job to Ron Howard, if he'd take it. I've seen Apollo 13 many times and I still hold my breath during reentry.

 

[Swank]

I'd give the job to Ron Howard, if he'd take it. I've seen Apollo 13 many times and I still hold my breath during reentry.

I didn't think of him as a adaptation director, aside from Da Vinci Code. But he's going to direct SevenEves.

 

[Vince W]

I didn't think of him as a adaptation director, aside from Da Vinci Code. But he's going to direct SevenEves.

He's not an adapter per se but he really has a great touch with true life events that could be useful in adapting fiction.

 

[Swank]

He's not an adapter per se but he really has a great touch with true life events that could be useful in adapting fiction.

I would count him as someone comfortable adapting, compared to an SF director like Christopher Nolan that pretty much just does original stories.

 

[Foxbat]

I'd give the job to Ron Howard, if he'd take it. I've seen Apollo 13 many times and I still hold my breath during reentry.

For me, to know in advance how it all turns out and yet to be on the edge of your seat through it all is definitely the sign of great movie making

 

[Venusian Broon]

My friend Dave has seen the new film of Dune a couple of times now. I liked it more than he did, but I thought he had a point:

"I probably said this all last year when I saw it at the cinema, but it's just dull...

"The aesthetic seems deliberately bland, almost like it's a reaction against the richness and colour of Lynch. Sure, there are epic vistas, vast spaceships, tiny humans for scale etc, but there's no life. There's little to no character development either, the only relationship I understood even remotely was the friendship between Paul and Duncan Idaho... but that was effectively just thrust at the viewer by the warmth of the greeting when Duncan first approaches. Gurney Halleck is just a dour, functional combat teacher. Dad is a non-entity. Mother just seems to go through periods of distress.

"It was only towards the end when I remembered that it had been made by the same guy as did Bladerunner 2049, and it all clicked - because frankly that was boring and tried too hard as well."

Fair enough. Looking back at Lynch's Dune, apart from it breaking the story into incomprehension and missing the point of the actual book, it looks complete pantomime to me now. I'm sure I saw Widow Twanky. Aladdin and puss in boot are in some of the scenes.

 

[Toby Frost]

There comes a point where minimalism or the like just doesn't cut it. Having the Harkonnens, Sardaukar and Fremen wear black wetsuits, grey wetsuits and dusty wetsuits respectively just doesn't do the novel justice. Dune is a novel of huge imagination, and the lack of visual imagination in the Villeneuve adaptation is, to my mind, a failure to carry that imagination across.

And the Atreides and their advisors are much better in the Lynch version.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I dunno, when I read all six books, I did not take away any impression of gaudy and flamboyant clothing a'la Lynch- yes a feeling of 'high imperial diplomacy' and social ossification. But then, I admit, that might be a fault in my memory and reading. I'm not much of a fan of Bladerunner 2049 - boring story really - to tell you the truth, but I think Villeneuve's version of Dune is more in tune with what's in my head regarding Herbert's universe.

Different courses for different horses I suppose.

 

[Swank]

I dunno, when I read all six books, I did not take away any impression of gaudy and flamboyant clothing a'la Lynch- yes a feeling of 'high imperial diplomacy' and social ossification. But then, I admit, that might be a fault in my memory and reading. I'm not much of a fan of Bladerunner 2049 - boring story really - to tell you the truth, but I think Villeneuve's version of Dune is more in tune with what's in my head regarding Herbert's universe.

Different courses for different horses I suppose.

I would agree that the current Dune looks much more real - exotic stories don't benefit from style for style's sake. However, Star Wars, Bladerunner, 2001 have fascinating costume design that looks entirely utilitarian or of the current fashions. I think new Dune succeeded with the look of the Reverend Mother, Hawat, Jessica's formal wear and the Baron.

But Herbert didn't overly describe anyone's clothing, and if we go back just a few hundred years in our history you'll find the range of "English men's business attire" to be quite wild. So I agree with Toby in that these people living 20,000 years from now with vastly superior engineering and millions of planets are likely to have some slightly more exotic looking formalwear and even uniforms than what is shown. Exotic fabrics and cultures should yield something at least as wild as a kimono or codpiece - especially in a society that has been stuck in the formalities of feudalism for so long.

And the Atreides armor is ugly. But maybe that's a good thing.

 

[paranoid marvin]

My friend Dave has seen the new film of Dune a couple of times now. I liked it more than he did, but I thought he had a point:

"I probably said this all last year when I saw it at the cinema, but it's just dull...

"The aesthetic seems deliberately bland, almost like it's a reaction against the richness and colour of Lynch. Sure, there are epic vistas, vast spaceships, tiny humans for scale etc, but there's no life. There's little to no character development either, the only relationship I understood even remotely was the friendship between Paul and Duncan Idaho... but that was effectively just thrust at the viewer by the warmth of the greeting when Duncan first approaches. Gurney Halleck is just a dour, functional combat teacher. Dad is a non-entity. Mother just seems to go through periods of distress.

"It was only towards the end when I remembered that it had been made by the same guy as did Bladerunner 2049, and it all clicked - because frankly that was boring and tried too hard as well."

Full credit to anyone who can sit through it twice. I ended up watching over 3 sessions; I'll never watch it again. Honestly, if I'd been sat in the cinema it's the first movie that I would seriously consider walking out during. It's such a dull interpretation of such an imaginative novel.

 

[Elckerlyc]

I would imagine that Villeneuve has given this some serious thought and chose to not let the story be overrun by a riot of colours or outlandish designs, extravaganza's and whatnot. Like the novel it concentrates on the plot, on Paul's development. The desert looks bleak and hazy with washed-out colours due to the heat.
I think it is fitting. Granted, not a feast for the eyes. Lynch's version may have been and see what came of that approach. The plot went haywire.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I would imagine that Villeneuve has given this some serious thought and chose to not let the story be overrun by a riot of colours or outlandish designs, extravaganza's and whatnot. Like the novel it concentrates on the plot, on Paul's development. The desert looks bleak and hazy with washed-out colours due to the heat.
I think it is fitting. Granted, not a feast for the eyes. Lynch's version may have been and see what came of that approach. The plot went haywire.

The first time I watched Lynch's version I hadn't got a clue what was going on. Second time around, (after I'd read the novel) I understood and enjoyed it. In my opinion Lynch's Dune is for fans of the books, not for newcomers. Did he intend this to be the case? Dune was considered to be an 'unfilmable' book, and if that was the case Lynch's effort was creditable. Tbh I didn't see anything in Villeneuve's version that explains the story any better; in fact the betrayal of Dr.Yeuh seems less clear in the remake than in the original.

I fully understand why people dislike Lynch's Dune; there are a number of reasons why this could be the case, from garish visuals to comic-book villains to Sting in his underpants, coupled with an almost compulsory need to have read the book first. But Villeneuve's movie also has it's faults, one of the worst (in my opinion) is spreading the story over two movies, with an assumed runtime (given the length of the first movie) of over 5 hours.

For sure, the best cinematic version of Dune is yet to come.

 

[Elckerlyc]

For sure, the best cinematic version of Dune is yet to come.

A bit too early to say without having seen Part II. We don't know what will be shown and explained then.
I don't see how a 2-parter could be perceived as a fault. LOTR is a 3-parter with a total run-time of over 10 hours (12 if you watch the Extended Version). If a plot needs that length to do it justice, so be it. So much better than a rushed version that skips half of the plot.

 

[svalbard]

Full credit to anyone who can sit through it twice. I ended up watching over 3 sessions; I'll never watch it again. Honestly, if I'd been sat in the cinema it's the first movie that I would seriously consider walking out during. It's such a dull interpretation of such an imaginative novel.

Hands up. That's me. 3 times. I loved it and the movie got better with each viewing. I also loved Lynch's version. I was hopinv for something different to that though and Villeneuve delivered. But we all have differing tastes.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I had to watch the new Blade Runner several times before I started to appreciate the details. The first time I saw it was on DVD and for the tv screen it was way too dark. The fight in the dark water was almost meaningless the first time around, mostly WTF.

 

[ctg]

Spoiler