Movie News, Reviews, and Discussion Super-Thread

[Cheebs]

And it was still better than David Lynch's Dune.

Lynch's Dune still looked and felt like a actual movie with real actors. Sci-Fi's looked like super cheap sci-fi nonsense. Like every tv movie that comes from it it is unwatchable $10 budget shit filmed somewhere in Canada. It is incapable of being as watchable as Lynch's purely from directoral and production value level imo.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Both kind of sucked but I gotta side with Cheebo, at least Lynch's was an interesting mess of a film. The SyFy version from what I saw was just a typical generic low-rent made for TV cash-in.

[The Fake Shemp]

And it was still better than David Lynch's Dune.

Lynch's Dune still looked and felt like a actual movie with real actors. Sci-Fi's looked like super cheap sci-fi nonsense. Like every tv movie that comes from it it is unwatchable $10 budget shit filmed somewhere in Canada. It is incapable of being as watchable as Lynch's purely from directoral and production value level imo.

It's not as if Lynch's Dune was the pinnacle of special effects; it has aged quite badly. Seriously, Cheebs, you've got to be kidding me.

There's nothing "interesting" about Lynch's adaptation other than it was a trainwreck, at least the cable adaptation was competent from a storytelling perspective.

[Joe Molotov]

It's the 30 years old, but it still had great production values, and everything just looked a lot cooler. Here's the Guild Navigators from each version.


vs.

[The Fake Shemp]

It had great production values... when compared to a made-for-cable television movie?

Really, guys?

[Joe Molotov]

You're the one that said the TV version was better.

Really, Wilco.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

EDIT - Also at the post above. SyFy's looks like an episode of Xavier: Renegade Angel.

[Robo]

Now that Green Shinobi is gone,    should be redesignated to :willco

[The Fake Shemp]

It is better! That was my point: Lynch's Dune is so bad that a made-for-cable television adaptation is better!

The set design is certainly better in Lynch's adaptation, but the production values for its time period are still pretty bad. We're talking Flash Gordon bad. They weren't good for the time, and they certainly haven't aged well.

So, if we're going to take set design over, I dunno, proper storytelling - considering the visual effects for both adaptations are bad - then that is pretty laughable.

[The Fake Shemp]

Now that Green Shinobi is gone,    should be redesignated to :willco

And if we are to use the Glen Shinobi (TM) measuring stick of quality that is critical consensus and awards, the television adaptation is also superior.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

The SyFy version was just a boring half-hearted condensation of the events of the book, iirc. Lynch's pretty much forgets the book entirely and focuses on the absurd character tics and what have you. I'd rather watch that greasy fat alien eating bugs and Sting looking like a posh prick than a ham-handed lame attempt at turning Dune into Mac and Me 2: This Time With Bullets.

[Great Rumbler]

Lynch's Dune had a much better visual style, especially Giedi Prime. The Scifi version, as I recall, was kind of bland.

[The Fake Shemp]

Lynch's pretty much forgets the book entirely and focuses on the absurd character tics and what have you.

Wow, sounds like a really interesting movie.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Fuck, even this is more interesting than the SyFy version:

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

[The Fake Shemp]

I would agree; I'm always in favor of Lynch keeping his mouth shut.

[Cheebs]

Lynch's pretty much forgets the book entirely and focuses on the absurd character tics and what have you.

Wow, sounds like a really interesting movie.

More interesting than a straight translation of the book. Book to movie translations are great because it gives you the chance to use that universe and change it up. Jaws would not have been half the movie it was if it was loyal to the book.

It's why stuff like Watchmen and many of the Harry Potter movies are so forgettable. Focusing too much on being loyal to the source material makes you forget to make a good movie.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

It's why stuff like Watchmen and many of the Harry Potter movies are so forgettable. Focusing too much on being loyal to the source material makes you forget to make a good movie.

Couldn't agree more. That's why I'd have preferred seeing Gilliam's take on Watchmen; it would have at least been more than a pretty 2.5 hour summary of the novel, perhaps even an actual (gasp!) film. Slavishly recreating the source material rarely does anything more than remind people how much more fulfilling the source is.

[Cheebs]

It's why stuff like Watchmen and many of the Harry Potter movies are so forgettable. Focusing too much on being loyal to the source material makes you forget to make a good movie.

Couldn't agree more. That's why I'd have preferred seeing Gilliam's take on Watchmen; it would have at least been more than a pretty 2.5 hour summary of the novel, perhaps even an actual (gasp!) film. Slavishly recreating the source material rarely does anything more than remind people how much more fulfilling the source is.

Ironically Gilliam was as well considered for Harry Potter (and he said the studios wouldn't like what he would want to do, he wouldn't have followed the books as closely).

Being slavish to the source material serves nobody but obsessed fanboys of the given original material (like Devin of Chud.com in the case of both of these franchises).

[Phoenix Dark]

The Harry Potter films are loyal to the source material? They butchered many key elements of HBP. I still really enjoyed it though.

[Joe Molotov]

Right. So basically what is boils down with Dune is we have a movie that doesn't tell a story well, but is is 6 hours long and looks like poop. Or an awesome 2 1/2 hour long movie that doesn't tell the story that tell either.

And Wilco chooses the 6 hour poop version.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Gilliam is a good choice for adaptations -- he's a filmmaker with a voice of his own who can actually provide an interesting interpretation of the work rather than empty recreation. Someone like, say, Mr. Zack Snyder.

[The Fake Shemp]

Oh, please. Don't regurgitate my talking points in regards to taking liberties with the source material - especially in respect to Harry Potter and Watchmen - and apply it to this situation. Lynch's Dune isn't better because it disregards the book - it just sucks.

The television adaptation is actually a pretty solid teleplay and was developed for a completely different medium (it's called television, Cheebs) that allows for more faithful adaptations of the source material because of the running time. Would I have opposed a faithful and straightforward HBO miniseries of Watchmen? Probably not.

That's because one is for television and the other is for film.

The cable version of Dune absolutely spanks Lynch's version in regards to storytelling. You can criticize set design and laughably cheesy CG (versus laughably cheese practical effects featured prominently in the movie), but saying that the film is more compelling from a story perspective is just laughable. At least Shake had the cajones to admit that he just wants to watch two hours of characters doing weird shit because he absolutely loathes storytelling.

[Cheebs]

The Harry Potter films are loyal to the source material? They butchered many key elements of HBP. I still really enjoyed it though.

Cutting stuff out doesn't mean they changed it up. Changing it would be completely changing characters and plot lines and the like. They are basically cliffnotes of the book.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Oh, please. Don't regurgitate my talking points in regards to taking liberties with the source material - especially in respect to Harry Potter and Watchmen - and apply it to this situation. Lynch's Dune isn't better because it disregards the book - it just sucks.

The television adaptation is actually a pretty solid teleplay and was developed for a completely different medium (it's called television, Cheebs) that allows for more faithful adaptations of the source material because of the running time. Would I have opposed a faithful and straightforward HBO miniseries of Watchmen? Probably not.

That's because one is for television and the other is for film.

The cable version of Dune absolutely spanks Lynch's version in regards to storytelling. You can criticize set design and laughably cheesy CG (versus laughably cheese practical effects featured prominently in the movie), but saying that the film is more compelling from a story perspective is just laughable. At least Shake had the cajones to admit that he just wants to watch two hours of characters doing weird shit because he absolutely loathes storytelling.

I don't loathe storytelling, I just would rather watch a filmmaker like Lynch indulging in his odd brand of humor than some hired hand making a cheap high school play calibre recreation of the novel for a shitty joke of a cable television network.

[The Fake Shemp]

No, I totally get it, Shake. You appreciate style over substance. I got it!

[Cheebs]

but saying that the film is more compelling from a story perspective is just laughable. At least Shake had the cajones to admit that he just wants to watch two hours of characters doing weird shit because he absolutely loathes storytelling.

I never said on a story level it was a good movie, I compared the two purely on the production level and directing basis. Which is all that matters seeing how the Dune film is pretty much ALL production values it has no coherent plot to speak of.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

No, I totally get it, Shake. You appreciate style over substance. I got it!

Did you miss my last few posts bashing Zack Snyder's filmography?

[The Fake Shemp]

Sorry, Shake - I'll try to pay more attention to your troll bait.

... and Cheebs, the production values for Dune sucked in 1984 and they suck now. Saying that they're better than the production values for a made-for-cable adaptation doesn't make the film any better.

I would get your point if it looked like, say, BLADE RUNNER, but it's on par with FLASH GORDON - which at least had the audacity to be completely ridiculous and revel in its shitty production values. There's nothing of any real value to take away from Lynch's Dune, at least the cable adaptation can point to a solid teleplay and an Emmy.

[Cheebs]

No, I totally get it, Shake. You appreciate style over substance. I got it!

Did you miss my last few posts bashing Zack Snyder's filmography?

I don't think there is a film fan who would defend Zack Synder who is not named Devin Faraci though.

[Eric P]

if Lynch hadn't done Dune, it would be forgettable

as it is now, it's still forgettable but now comes with a cultural cache that means that it must be defended by movie nerds

[The Fake Shemp]

if Lynch hadn't done Dune, it would be forgettable

as it is now, it's still forgettable but now comes with a cultural cache that means that it must be defended by movie nerds

Ding, ding, ding.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

I think it's kind of unfair to bash Lynch for what a tonal and narrative mess Dune is either, considering it was taken away from him and to my knowledge he was never allowed to complete the film at all. Most films that get taken away from their directors, especially ones as domineering and with such a distinctive voice as Lynch's, tend to be messy flops. At least the Lynchian bits make his Dune a more worhtwhile experience than six hours of awful SyFy sandbox sci-fi.

But to reiterate I don't even think Dune is a good movie. It's a mess, and kind of a slog to get through, but still has a few worthwhile moments in there.

[Cheebs]

... and Cheebs, the production values for Dune sucked in 1984 and they suck now. Saying that they're better than the production values for a made-for-cable adaptation doesn't make the film any better.

No it doesn't make it a better movie, it isn't even a good movie. It's rather shitty. A horrible mess of a movie in fact. I said it is good in COMPARISON to the tv movie. Which I only brought up because you brought the tv movie into the discussion and claimed it was better.

What I gather is you think the tv movie is better but any reasoning someone has for the theatrical one being better is invalid because the other is tv and thus it is unfair to compare? If so then why compare them in the first place?

[Eric P]

must we argue over which two horrible things are the least horrible?

[Cheebs]

must we argue over which two horrible things are the least horrible?

Up next is Batman & Robin vs Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

So basically the argument is:

Me/Cheebs - Dune sucks! But it's an interesting trainwreck.

Willco - No, good sirs! Avert thy gaze! Lynch is a charlatan and an imposter, I say! The SyFy original series is of much nobler repute!

 

[The Fake Shemp]

I think I made my argument pretty clear: the teleplay is actually solid, it is competently written. Excuse me for valuing WRITING over shitty 1980s production values that look better than shitty late 90s cable television production values. WHAT RIDICULOUS NONSENSE.

Shake then argues that all the characters are quirky and interesting, so it must be good as a result - probably because he likes Wes Anderson films.

And Shake, there's nothing interesting about Dune other than the fact that it's amazing Lynch was able to have a career afterwards.

[Cheebs]

I think I made my argument pretty clear: the teleplay is actually solid, it is competently written. Excuse me for valuing WRITING over shitty 1980s production values that look better than shitty late 90s cable television production values. WHAT RIDICULOUS NONSENSE.

You are talking about comparing it to a DAVID LYNCH movie. David Lynch! Scripts are like one of the least important elements of his movies, hell half the time there is barely script going in. It's like trying to judge a Godard movie on it's script. There are film makers where the screenplay just is not a huge element of the final product and for a lot of Lynch movies, it is like that.

It seems abusrd to compare that.

Hell comparing a movie to a syfy channel mini-series is fucking absurd in the first place but you made the comparison initially not any of us.

[brob]

Fuck this shitty-ass quarrel about some nerdy sci-fi. More on Jodorowsky and how fucking pimp he is.  

[Cheebs]

And Shake, there's nothing interesting about Dune other than the fact that it's amazing Lynch was able to have a career afterwards.

He got a multi-film funding deal with Dune. Doing Dune guaranteed he had the funding for Blue Velvet.

[Phoenix Dark]

The Harry Potter films are loyal to the source material? They butchered many key elements of HBP. I still really enjoyed it though.

Cutting stuff out doesn't mean they changed it up. Changing it would be completely changing characters and plot lines and the like. They are basically cliffnotes of the book.

They butchered Snape in that film, especially towards the end with the confrontation between him and Harry. That reveal is truly the crux of the novel and in many ways one of the biggest parts of the next book. Snape's outburst is really the first time that he completely loses it during the entire series, and then of course he saves Harry from being tortured - which also isn't in the movie

In fact, the entire fight is not even in the movie. It's as if the Death Eaters waltz into the school, snipe Dumbledore, and calmly walk out. There's no sense of mortal danger on display in the film. You don't see Bill get ravaged or the emotional sense of the teachers defending the students.

While I really liked the movie, that REALLY upset me. And I'm not the type to complain about something not being 100% like the adapted work. As long as the general essence is captured (LOTR comes to mind) I'm fine with it. But good lord, they didn't even get to the essence of HBP

[The Dark Shake 3000]

I think I made my argument pretty clear: the teleplay is actually solid, it is competently written. Excuse me for valuing WRITING over shitty 1980s production values that look better than shitty late 90s cable television production values. WHAT RIDICULOUS NONSENSE.

Shake then argues that all the characters are quirky and interesting, so it must be good as a result - probably because he likes Wes Anderson films.

And Shake, there's nothing interesting about Dune other than the fact that it's amazing Lynch was able to have a career afterwards.

Huh? I've said like four times I don't even like the film, just that it is worth watching. And I just bashed Mr. Fox in here before for being too typical Anderson. Semantics.

[The Fake Shemp]

Oh, so I just don't "get" David Lynch. I'm sorry, Cheebs. I should have known that demanding a competent "script" is crazy talk - he's David Lynch! His films don't need scripts!

EDIT: I knew Dune was his "studio" film, but I doubt anyone was liable for funding after its release if they wanted to pull the plug. Most directors can sign deals like that, the studio doesn't necessarily have to honor the agreement.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Oh, so I just don't "get" David Lynch. I'm sorry, Cheebs. I should have known that demanding a competent "script" is crazy talk - he's David Lynch! His films don't need scripts!

Again, ragging on the script for a film that was taken away from the director and never even officially completed is kind of weak.

[The Fake Shemp]

Again, ragging on the script for a film that was taken away from the director and never even officially completed is kind of weak.

I know you're not this naive, because I do believe you go to film school, no?

[Cheebs]

Oh, so I just don't "get" David Lynch. I'm sorry, Cheebs. I should have known that demanding a competent "script" is crazy talk - he's David Lynch! His films don't need scripts!

It's not a matter of getting the movie, its a shit movie.

But yes there are films that don't need scripts to be good. Scripts aren't that important for many filmmakers.

Jean-Luc Godard is one of the highest regarded filmmakers of all time. And he rarely had a script for any of his movies. Demanding a script seems absurd, a fully written script isn't a necessity for many filmmakers. Including often times with David Lynch. There are endless great movies that had shit scripts going in that were endlessly re-written or scrapped on set.

Some directors are slavish to scripts, some aren't. It isn't something that is universal.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Again, ragging on the script for a film that was taken away from the director and never even officially completed is kind of weak.

I know you're not this naive, because I do believe you go to film school, no?

Yeah, I do. What do you mean? Are you unaware of the production history of the film?

[The Fake Shemp]

Let me put this argument to rest, because I think we're just going in circles at this point.

Lynch doesn't get a pass because production was tough on his artistic sensibilities. The script was taken away from him, and the shooting script was not even completed before cameras were rolling? Welcome to Hollywood. I can point to a number of productions off the top of my head that had similar circumstances (because it happens all the fucking time) and managed to put together something at least resembles a competent film. It's a rarity that a writer-director (or either) has complete control of a script.

Yes, the cable adaptation looks worse, but it is at least competently written. I really cannot take anything away from Lynch's Dune other than LOL PATRICK STEWART. I wouldn't own either in my collection.

The degree to which you are willing to give Lynch a pass on this trainwreck and search for positives is the degree to which you are a fan of his filmography. And guess what, I'm obviously not. I'm hard pressed to think of another director that I find as overrated as Lynch, especially in the film geek set.

[Solo]

So, how about that Dune?

[Phoenix Dark]

Let me put this argument to rest, because I think we're just going in circles at this point.

Lynch doesn't get a pass because production was tough on his artistic sensibilities. The script was taken away from him, and the shooting script was not even completed before cameras were rolling? Welcome to Hollywood. I can point to a number of productions off the top of my head that had similar circumstances (because it happens all the fucking time) and managed to put together something at least resembles a competent film. It's a rarity that a writer-director (or either) has complete control of a script.

Yes, the cable adaptation looks worse, but it is at least competently written. I really cannot take anything away from Lynch's Dune other than LOL PATRICK STEWART. I wouldn't own either in my collection.

The degree to which you are willing to give Lynch a pass on this trainwreck and search for positives is the degree to which you are a fan of his filmography. And guess what, I'm obviously not. I'm hard pressed to think of another director that I find as overrated as Lynch, especially in the film geek set.

Real talk.

Don't see the point in arguing over a shitty movie.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

I agree Willco, clearly since we are fans of Lynch we wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a film of his. I'm sure you would be willing to admit Spider-Man 3 has faults, but as a Raimi fan you still find something about it to enjoy, no? It's all about perspective. But what I'm saying is hampering on the narrative issues for a film that's literally cobbled together from whatever material they had when they fired Lynch is attacking the film at it's weakest element, and ignoring whatever positive traits the film does have. Spider-Man 3 is a fucking mess and the script is awful, but I'm sure you would defend some part of it as a Raimi fan, no?

[Phoenix Dark]

fuuuuck, I was about to bring up Spiderman 3

he hates it so you can't use it against him

[The Fake Shemp]

Also, Cheebs crazy post about how scripts aren't important or something makes me want to rescind my previous declaration that Lynch is the most overrated director of the film geek set and officially nominate Godard in his place.

[Eric P]

And guess what, I'm obviously not. I'm hard pressed to think of another director that I find as overrated as Lynch, especially in the film geek set.

truffaut

[The Fake Shemp]

Eric P wins.

[Cheebs]

They aren't important in EVERY case. You really think Godard movies needed scripts? Of course not.

Cinema would be shit if everyone made films the same way. We don't need endless Steven Spielbergs. People like Godard (and often times Lynch) ignoring completely the standards and wants of the average movie goer is what makes them great.


And Truffaut is indeed over-rated.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Also, Cheebs crazy post about how scripts aren't important or something makes me want to rescind my previous declaration that Lynch is the most overrated director of the film geek set and officially nominate Godard in his place.

Godard is another filmmaker you may not like personally, but I fail to see how you can think he's a bad filmmaker in the slightest. His films and the plethora of films which have cribbed from them (and still are) have radically altered the films are made today. Whether or not you like him doesn't change the fact that he has had an enormous impact (and indisputably for the better); arguing otherwise is ridiculous.

Truffaut made a number of good films, and even more mediocre ones, so I might have to agree.

[Eric P]

he's a better cultural critic than he is a filmmaker

[Cheebs]

Also, Cheebs crazy post about how scripts aren't important or something makes me want to rescind my previous declaration that Lynch is the most overrated director of the film geek set and officially nominate Godard in his place.

Godard is another filmmaker you may not like personally, but I fail to see how you can think he's a bad filmmaker in the slightest. His films and the plethora of films which have cribbed from them (and still are) have radically altered the films are made today. Whether or not you like him doesn't change the fact that he has had an enormous impact (and indisputably for the better); arguing otherwise is ridiculous.

Truffaut made a number of good films, and even more mediocre ones, so I might have to agree.

Shake right as always.

There would have been no new-Hollywood movement as we know it of Scorsese, DePalma, Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas etc without Godard and the french new wave movement.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

he's a better cultural critic than he is a filmmaker

Godard and others of his ilk helped make cultural criticism acceptable in the cinema. And even on a technical level -- shot types, camera movement etc. Godard is still aces. Anyone who appreciates a good lengthy single-take sequence should pay the man their respects.