Talk:Dune (1984 film): Difference between revisions
Poor article... |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
This is a very poor article, in my opinion, on the film. It's less about the factual details of the film (if at all), and more a biased, totally opinionated assessment of the film as an interpretation of the novel, when the sentence "Some have criticized the film as not being wholly accurate to or in the spirit of the novel." would suffice. It seriously needs working on by someone knowledgable about the details behind the film's making and needs to have almost the entirety of the "Review" removed or placed under a different heading as criticism of the film. Just my two cents. |
This is a very poor article, in my opinion, on the film. It's less about the factual details of the film (if at all), and more a biased, totally opinionated assessment of the film as an interpretation of the novel, when the sentence "Some have criticized the film as not being wholly accurate to or in the spirit of the novel." would suffice. It seriously needs working on by someone knowledgable about the details behind the film's making and needs to have almost the entirety of the "Review" removed or placed under a different heading as criticism of the film. Just my two cents. |
||
I agree with the above assessment of this article. There are frequent weasel statements used to viciously attack benign creative liberties David Lynch took with the story. The author dismisses the cult following casually, attributing their enjoyment to an appreciation of camp (ironic when you see the ludicrously effete uniforms of the Sardaukar in the series), or as people who think of it as a "dark" Star Wars. Being a Lynch fan, I am not without bias of my own, but as a Dune fan, I can tell you there are strengths in this movie the series is without. David Lynch is able to show the wild and shocking ferocity behind the exquisite and elegant decorum of civilization in a way the series did not. What stunned and disappointed me about the series was how conventional, how prosaic its tone was by comparison. I would dare to say that the appearance of the guild navigator (who is NOT explicitly named Edric) is inconsequential, and the addition of such things as "heart plugs" actually enhance the atmosphere. I'll admit that the rain at the end, black stillsuits attracting the ghastly heat of day, and the use of "weirding modules" to cover for a lack of good martial arts choreography are lame, but they're hardly worth having a fit about. The attack on the film's special effects struck me as truly pathetic and petty. Also, the casting of Sting as Feyd-Rautha doesn't bother me even a little, as Hollywood routinely does worse, with people who are supposedly full-time "actors." --[[User:24.118.77.253|24.118.77.253]] 19:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:06, 14 February 2005
I'm not sure I care for the changes by 130.64.34.233 (splitting the penultimate paragraph into monospaced lines); I think italics could work just as well. Should this be changed back? RcktScientistX 01:05, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I think this was probably unintentional: he/she used leading spaces to start the paragraphs, and in wiki markup that renders in monospaced type. I think I fixed it: if not, just edit away. - Nunh-huh 01:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Kwisatz Haderach
Isn't he? Granted, Paul denies being the Kwisatz Haderach, but later he admits to it. ("I am the Kwisatz Haderach." "Once you denied to me that you were the Kwisatz Haderach." "I can deny nothing any more.") Also, he does (to me) seem to meet the glossary definition, which would seem to be authoritative, regardless of what he claims in the dialogue.
- Strictly speaking, I suppose, Paul is *a* Kwisatz Haderach. As is his son, Leto.
it looks like this is an comparison of the movie and the tv-series and not an article about the movie.
Elvis 15:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Poor article...
This is a very poor article, in my opinion, on the film. It's less about the factual details of the film (if at all), and more a biased, totally opinionated assessment of the film as an interpretation of the novel, when the sentence "Some have criticized the film as not being wholly accurate to or in the spirit of the novel." would suffice. It seriously needs working on by someone knowledgable about the details behind the film's making and needs to have almost the entirety of the "Review" removed or placed under a different heading as criticism of the film. Just my two cents.
I agree with the above assessment of this article. There are frequent weasel statements used to viciously attack benign creative liberties David Lynch took with the story. The author dismisses the cult following casually, attributing their enjoyment to an appreciation of camp (ironic when you see the ludicrously effete uniforms of the Sardaukar in the series), or as people who think of it as a "dark" Star Wars. Being a Lynch fan, I am not without bias of my own, but as a Dune fan, I can tell you there are strengths in this movie the series is without. David Lynch is able to show the wild and shocking ferocity behind the exquisite and elegant decorum of civilization in a way the series did not. What stunned and disappointed me about the series was how conventional, how prosaic its tone was by comparison. I would dare to say that the appearance of the guild navigator (who is NOT explicitly named Edric) is inconsequential, and the addition of such things as "heart plugs" actually enhance the atmosphere. I'll admit that the rain at the end, black stillsuits attracting the ghastly heat of day, and the use of "weirding modules" to cover for a lack of good martial arts choreography are lame, but they're hardly worth having a fit about. The attack on the film's special effects struck me as truly pathetic and petty. Also, the casting of Sting as Feyd-Rautha doesn't bother me even a little, as Hollywood routinely does worse, with people who are supposedly full-time "actors." --24.118.77.253 19:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)