I think you are clutching at stuff here tbh. It's made clear in the books that the baron is a colossal pervert in any way imaginable and that to offend is part of his style. I am not convinced Herbert was trying to portray gays as evil.
This does not make it into the new film and I bet it’s because same sex attraction as a signifier of depravity doesn’t fly in 2021.( Not putting this in spoilers as I hope there aren’t too many people here were looking forward to the Baron getting it on with young boys. )
sex with children is still a "tabboo" isnt it? whatever their sex
Last time I checked it was. I didn't read the book, but the "young boy" in the Lynch film was probably in his 20s and "young men" would have been better, though Gramski refers to him as a young boy. Villains being queer is an old trope to also make them appear even more depraved, you'll find it as recently as in Zach Snyder's 300.
Enjoying a piece of fantasy literature must be a long dead concept to you
Popping up to sneer again, I see. It was a thoughtful analysis that was interesting to read and you come along and peacock your ignorance and shallowness
Feedback innit.
I love this article. And although the long edit is a bit slow in parts, I find all of it believable. I have no trouble buying into every detail. I feel sorry for people who can't do that. They must be some other species. Also, I'm still in love with Lady Jessica. I'm a bit shocked that Paul didn't jump her. If I was the writer I'd add that to the plot. Of course it would be wrong, but how can a man not lose control when she's there? Miss "tell me of your homeworld, usul" is a poor substitute. Hard to believe that she's the fragrant Rachael out of Blade Runner. Her unfortunate bun emphasises her pointy ears. She looks like an elf extra from a lost Lord of the Rings scene set in a Bangkok ladyboy bar.this is probably the kindest take on Lynch's Dune for anyone still on the fence (i.e. no-one) and more-or-less the same as my opinion: a glorious, gorgeous mess of a film that couldn't have been made by anyone else. How much of its majestic incoherence is due to Lynch, the studio, or the source material itself is of course the stuff of Hollywood legend.
Before the new version, let’s revisit 1984’s Dune—the greatest movie ever made
The pursuit of greatness must embrace the ridiculous.arstechnica.com
There is so much wrong with this post, I don't even know where to start. Maybe keep your infamous knob in your pants while posting ?
If you mean a loud obnoxious unpleasant jarring noise that comes out of faulty equipment, then you’d be correct
This is a Bad Post full of Shit Attitudes and would be best retracted.
Your take is a far from a minority take on Lynch's film, as it's been reevaluated a while ago. I find that article a little glib, all I learned from it is that the author liked the film because it's weird and cool or something, well that's David Lynch for you. A quick google produced almost nothing but kind or sympathetic takes on the film, some even give some context as to why in terms of storytelling the film is a bit of a mess:As much as I've been trying to avoid any trailers or spoilers for this, I endured sitting through this when I saw Bond at the flicks over the weekend. The trailer was frenetically edited in a way that I found horribly distracting, and I suspect a massive contrast to Villeneuve's usual grandiose style, but it looked far too "ordinary" at first glance, if that makes any sense. Take out the sand worms and it could have been a fly-on-the-wall documentary about soldiers in the desert.
I'll still be going to see it at the cinema, because if nothing else Villeneuve's films have always delivered on epic eye-candy, but the trailer certainly didn't have me jumping out of my seat. I'll be interested to see whether Crispy gives it the thumbs up or not...
I think it's safe to say that the visual style of Lynch's Dune has become iconic for me at least (I'd seen the 1984 film on TV before I read the books). Never really got the massive amount of adulation for the books TBH,not really my bag; I never really liked Herbert's prose and prefer hard sci-fi to all the mystical bollocks. :shrugs: But when I did read them, the imagery in my head was largely straight from Lynch in a way that didn't happen for any other "film first, book later" experiences I had.
If you can get past the clickbait title, this is probably the kindest take on Lynch's Dune for anyone still on the fence (i.e. no-one) and more-or-less the same as my opinion: a glorious, gorgeous mess of a film that couldn't have been made by anyone else. How much of its majestic incoherence is due to Lynch, the studio, or the source material itself is of course the stuff of Hollywood legend.
Before the new version, let’s revisit 1984’s Dune—the greatest movie ever made
The pursuit of greatness must embrace the ridiculous.
www.escapistmagazine.com
www.vulture.com
www.pastemagazine.com
No shit, Sherlock.
What's that supposed to mean ? That was a load of sexist, misogynist and transphobic shite you posted there.
aren't you the guy who was doing all that performative chest-beating on the Sarah Everard thread last week? Now you're posting creepy shit like this? Have a fucking word with yourself you weirdo.
I made the right choice
deadline.com
Anyway, no-one 'jumps' a Bene Gesserit. Not if they want to live.
I went to see this last night having not read the book, seen the first movie, watched trailers or read reviews. Didn't know the story at all other than it had the worms from Tremors in it.
I really enjoyed it! The 2.5 hours run time didn't drag at all. Thought it was funny that it was promoted as starring Zendaya presumably to attract a young audience when she had maybe 3 lines
Hope it is successful enough that they make the second half though.
screenrant.com
