Dune clip - Chalamet and Brolin shield fighting

[Trafalgar]

So Vanity Fair has posted a clip from the movie showing Brolin as Gurney Halleck and Chalamet as Paul Atreides sparring with shields.

My thoughts:

I like the presentation of the shields better than what I saw in the other trailers. I especially like how it goes red if the shield is penetrated.

I remember this scene from the book. I think they have shortened it a bit but that's normal for a movie adaption. I remember in the book, Paul has time to wonder if Gurney has betrayed the Atreides because of how hard he attacks. This bodes well that they are trying to stay true to the book.

I initially thought Timothee Chalamet was a bad choice but that's because I didn't like him in "The King" on Netflix. Now I think he was a bad choice for Henry V but might be an alright choice for a young Paul Atreides.

What are everyone else's thoughts on this?

[Catullus64]

Well, the camera stays steadily fixed on the action, and doesn't cut between incoherent closeups every half a second. That already puts it above 75% of modern action cinema. Bravo.

I like how they've really captured the misdirection that is the essence of shield-fighting: the fast, direct attacks get deflected and are used mainly to throw the enemy off-balance or elicit a response. Only when Paul gets Gurney on the ground (and lets his guard down) do either of them have the opening for the slow attacks needed to bypass the shield.

When I saw the red shimmer in the trailers, I assumed it was meant to be blood vibrating on the shield edges. Just having it be a warning light is slightly less stylish, but maybe it's both.

[Fyraltari]

I am really hyped for this movie, but I find Paul's shirt here kind of funny for an epic space-opera.

"When you have to topple an empire and avenge your father at nine and sell insurance at ten" kind of look.

[Ionathus]

Eh, I prefer the original.

Okay, that was a joke, but I do think something about the new shields feels...fuzzy?

On the subject of Sci-Fi forcefields, I don't mind a clearer delineation for when a shield has done its job, or what the boundaries are for the defenses. Obviously I don't want polygon wireframes fighting each other, but in the past 10 years it's felt like a lot of Sci-Fi special effects come down to "energy wobble." The energy wobbles here are done well -- I'm looking forward to the final product -- but they also feel kind of generic. I feel like the live-action The Giver, Hunger Games, Divergent... their energy effects all give off that same vibe of "blurry blue fuzz that does whatever we want it to do."

I am really hyped for this movie, but I find Paul's shirt here kind of funny for an epic space-opera.

"When you have to topple an empire and avenge your father at nine and sell insurance at ten" kind of look.

Man, I would love it if our dress code allowed for this kind of shirt. The short collar and poet-style flap at the top is maybe a tiny bit like a modern dress shirt, but I think it's suitably different in design. Feels more like a generic white shirt you could put in a majority of fictional universes and pass off convincingly as "non-Earth" -- there are only so many ways you can design a practical upper-torso covering.

Coincidentally, my partner just walked in 30 minutes ago and asked my opinion on her new white shirt that had a slightly unconventional cut: "does this look like I'm dressed to hang out with friends, or I'm dressed to welcome another spaceship to the dystopian colony I live on?"

[truemane]

"does this look like I'm dressed to hang out with friends, or I'm dressed to welcome another spaceship to the dystopian colony I live on?"

Porque no los dos?

[Ionathus]

Porque no los dos?

Because we're all out of Socialization Credits, unfortunately, but the Gracious Arbiter says we'll get more if we just do a few murders on the Factionless finish our schoolwork.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Coincidentally, my partner just walked in 30 minutes ago and asked my opinion on her new white shirt that had a slightly unconventional cut: "does this look like I'm dressed to hang out with friends, or I'm dressed to welcome another spaceship to the dystopian colony I live on?"

It makes a nice change from "does my {anatomy} look big in this?"

[Trafalgar]

One problem with making a film adaption of an epic novel like Dune is including all the detailed world building for audience members who haven't read the book. I assume that most GitP members have read Dune at least once. Many, like myself, have read it numerous times. But how does the film explain personal shields to a viewer who hasn't read the books.

The Lynch version did a lot of whispered monologue for exposition dumps, which often gives that movie a very weird feel. I seem to recall the Sci Fi Channel Dune mini series dumped shields all together. That's why the various armies had rifles and machine guns. I will be curious to see how the new movie handles world building issues issue like this. How does melange work? Why is melange so important? Why do the Sardaukar kick butt? Why do the Fremen kick more butt? Who are the Bene Gesserit? The Spacing Guild? The houses of the Landsraad? etc. etc. etc.

One thing I find interesting is they are focusing on Gurney Halleck's hatred of Harkonnens. I hope they are not forgetting Gurney Halleck the musician or the quotable Gurney Halleck who would say things like “Behold, as a wild ass in the desert, go I forth to my work.”

[Cikomyr2]

One thing I find interesting is they are focusing on Gurney Halleck's hatred of Harkonnens. I hope they are not forgetting Gurney Halleck the musician or the quotable Gurney Halleck who would say things like “Behold, as a wild ass in the desert, go I forth to my work.”

Let's be honest. Halleck's deep-seated hatred of the Harkonnens is lot more plot relevant than the fact that he can curry a fudging tune.

It has absolutely no bearing on the plot or Gurney's character except that at some point someone says "hey Gurney sings something"

[Mechalich]

On the subject of Sci-Fi forcefields, I don't mind a clearer delineation for when a shield has done its job, or what the boundaries are for the defenses. Obviously I don't want polygon wireframes fighting each other, but in the past 10 years it's felt like a lot of Sci-Fi special effects come down to "energy wobble." The energy wobbles here are done well -- I'm looking forward to the final product -- but they also feel kind of generic. I feel like the live-action The Giver, Hunger Games, Divergent... their energy effects all give off that same vibe of "blurry blue fuzz that does whatever we want it to do."

VFX Houses in Hollywood are all using the same basic technological systems. As a result there are certain approaches that are effective and economical and different groups converge upon similar methods as a result. 'Blurry blue fuzz' is apparently a workable effect that scales easily, so you see it over and over again.

[Cikomyr2]

VFX Houses in Hollywood are all using the same basic technological systems. As a result there are certain approaches that are effective and economical and different groups converge upon similar methods as a result. 'Blurry blue fuzz' is apparently a workable effect that scales easily, so you see it over and over again.

I do think we have reached a level of comprehension in people's concept of sci-fi that the common public understands "blue shield safe, red shield danger". The details are not really important to the story.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Well, the film has apparantly gone down well in Venice...

(Although apparantly the Times isn't impressed, which may even be a point in favour...)

[Eldan]

Eh, even the Times calls it "visually jaw-dropping". Though they seem to give it 2/5 stars for being "boring". (Paywall, so I only read the first two paragraphs.) Which, I'm fine with? I like visual spectacle, I know Villeneuve is really good at visual spectacle. If it's actually good on top of that, that's a bonus for me. Though, I know people and reviewers who thought Blade Runner 2049 and Arrival were boring. Or the book. So, chances are I'll like the pacing of this one, too.

Anyway, I got lucky. There's only one mid-sized cinema in the city where I'm currently studying, and they stopped doing movies in English during the pandemic, since apparently not enough people went to see those. Except, it seems, the pre-premiere of Dune next week, which is the first English movie they are showing this year.. One show in English, their smallest theatre, at 1/3 capacity due to pandemic rules... and it sold out about ten minutes after I got my ticket. Seems me and about 20 other lucky nerds will get to see it next Wednesday.

[Cicciograna]

Eh, I prefer the original.

Okay, that was a joke, but I do think something about the new shields feels...fuzzy?

Was it really a joke? I have yet to meet anybody who didn't like Lynch's "Dune" even if everybody is quick to add that it's some sort of forbidden pleasure. Hell, I did that too from time to time. Yes, I do like Lynch's movie.

Can we finally admit that it's not a bad movie - or at least that it's so bad it's good?

[Catullus64]

Was it really a joke? I have yet to meet anybody who didn't like Lynch's "Dune" even if everybody is quick to add that it's some sort of forbidden pleasure. Hell, I did that too from time to time. Yes, I do like Lynch's movie.

Can we finally admit that it's not a bad movie - or at least that it's so bad it's good?

Can't admit that, sorry. Everyone I know who doesn't loathe the movie doesn't exactly like it either, but is somewhat fascinated by it. It watches like an incredibly expensive teleplay, and it never solves the issue of hammering Dune's intricate world and sprawling tale into the shape of an actual film.

I also don't think that "so bad it's good" is an apt label to describe any film so stiff and ponderous. There are plenty of things that are good in Dune '84, (the casting, a lot of the set and costume design, the score) but they're all structured around a script which is too fastidiously detailed and yet somehow vague.

All that said, I will forecast that Villeneuve's Dune will probably be a decidedly less weird film than Lynch's, even though it will probably be a better and stronger film for it, and we can regard that as a sad if necessary loss. I thought the same thing about his Blade Runner 2049 in comparison with its predecessor (which was a much better film than Lynch's Dune).

[Ionathus]

Can't admit that, sorry. Everyone I know who doesn't loathe the movie doesn't exactly like it either, but is somewhat fascinated by it. It watches like an incredibly expensive teleplay, and it never solves the issue of hammering Dune's intricate world and sprawling tale into the shape of an actual film.

I also don't think that "so bad it's good" is an apt label to describe any film so stiff and ponderous. There are plenty of things that are good in Dune '84, (the casting, a lot of the set and costume design, the score) but they're all structured around a script which is too fastidiously detailed and yet somehow vague.

All that said, I will forecast that Villeneuve's Dune will probably be a decidedly less weird film than Lynch's, even though it will probably be a better and stronger film for it, and we can regard that as a sad if necessary loss. I thought the same thing about his Blade Runner 2049 in comparison with its predecessor (which was a much better film than Lynch's Dune).

I'm probably in "so bad it's good" territory on it. Things can be so stiff and ponderous that they come out funny, and that's a great description of Lynch's Dune. It was certainly one of the most interesting things I've watched, in the way that being at your friend's family Thanksgiving while the extended relatives argue is interesting, but that doesn't make it enjoyable or well-constructed.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Was it really a joke? I have yet to meet anybody who didn't like Lynch's "Dune" even if everybody is quick to add that it's some sort of forbidden pleasure. Hell, I did that too from time to time. Yes, I do like Lynch's movie.

Can we finally admit that it's not a bad movie - or at least that it's so bad it's good?

It was interesting and engaging for the most part. The visuals were good to stunning, a lot of the imagery was quite good and I sat through it in the theatre quite happily. I wouldn't call it a bad movie per-se...

...but it was a very poor adaptation. Made worse because to understand the movie you really had to have read the book, and if you had read the book you could see the holes in the adaptation.

As I've said elsewhere, an adaptation is judged on two broad metrics - is it a good film in its own right? and is it a good adaptation of the source material?

It's swings and roundabouts - sometimes the film is good enough to carry the deficiencies of the adaptation, sometimes the quality of adaptation pulls the film down with it. Dune, unfortunately, falls into the latter category - at least, for me.

[Cikomyr2]

It was interesting and engaging for the most part. The visuals were good to stunning, a lot of the imagery was quite good and I sat through it in the theatre quite happily. I wouldn't call it a bad movie per-se...

...but it was a very poor adaptation. Made worse because to understand the movie you really had to have read the book, and if you had read the book you could see the holes in the adaptation.

As I've said elsewhere, an adaptation is judged on two broad metrics - is it a good film in its own right? and is it a good adaptation of the source material?

It's swings and roundabouts - sometimes the film is good enough to carry the deficiencies of the adaptation, sometimes the quality of adaptation pulls the film down with it. Dune, unfortunately, falls into the latter category - at least, for me.

People conflict "adaptation" with "recreation"

Adaptation means getting the core of the story, character, and transposing it in the new media in a way that's coherent and pleasant to the audience. It does not mean replicating every flippin' beat of the original work.

For example, someone mentionned earlier that the Chalamet/Brolin clip does not take the time to explain that you need a slow blade to penetrate the shield. Thing is, that detail is technically not important in the slightest*. What's important is that there's a shield that makes you invulnerable but care and skill allows you to penetrate it. THAT is what needs to be understood by the audience. Having a character explain why the shield protects but how you can beat it adds maybe 1-2 minutes of pointless dialogue in your movie when you can demonstrate it with a good fight coegraphy in 15 seconds.

Having the same "beat" as the written word, but faster and crisper, is the point of a good movie. An image is worth a thousand word, and a movie scene is worth a million when done well.


*The Shields in the original books was always an analogy of the conflict of the Landsrad Houses in the Duneverse, and how direct and violent blows between houses would never resolve any fight. To properly injure your opponent in Landsraad politics, you had to be slow, deliberate and sneaky. But Fremen don't have shield, nothing protects them, so they had to learn to overcome that disadvantage.

[Manga Shoggoth]

People conflict "adaptation" with "recreation"

Adaptation means getting the core of the story, character, and transposing it in the new media in a way that's coherent and pleasant to the audience. It does not mean replicating every flippin' beat of the original work.

Agreed, adaptation does not mean "replicating every flippin' beat of the original work". And I have never said that it does.

But whether you claim to be "adapting" or "recreating" something you are still working from a base, and your work should be judged on how you deal with that. At the extreme end if you offer up something that has the same character names but is otherwise has no relationship to the original, then it is nether a good adaptation or recreation.

There is some flexibility in this - I remember someone pointing out that Starship Troopers (the film) is good, not because it follows the form and message of the book, but because it was putting forward completely the opposite view.

For example, someone mentionned earlier that the Chalamet/Brolin clip does not take the time to explain that you need a slow blade to penetrate the shield. Thing is, that detail is technically not important in the slightest*. What's important is that there's a shield that makes you invulnerable but care and skill allows you to penetrate it. THAT is what needs to be understood by the audience. Having a character explain why the shield protects but how you can beat it adds maybe 1-2 minutes of pointless dialogue in your movie when you can demonstrate it with a good fight coegraphy in 15 seconds.

If I recall, this is actually one of the things the Lynch film did well.

[Cikomyr2]

If I recall, this is actually one of the things the Lynch film did well.

Let's check!

https://youtu.be/MPMRZfDm9y8

It's way more theatrical. It's so alien man

[Manga Shoggoth]

Let's check!

https://youtu.be/MPMRZfDm9y8

It's way more theatrical. It's so alien man

Thank you - it saved me digging out the DVD.

I think the main difference book-wise is that they are merging in three scenes from the book into one Gurney, Hawat and Yueh talk to Paul seperately - One interesting thing that I had forgotten - they remembered to have the shields distort the voices (I think they are described as flattened in the book). The film had a lot of little things that looked odd, but were really in the book.

I always thought the shields looked odd, but it is an interesting half-way house between the smooth-curved shield that you generally put on a spaceship, and straight armour. I don't think skin-tight would have worked so well.

[Cikomyr2]

Thank you - it saved me digging out the DVD.

I think the main difference book-wise is that they are merging in three scenes from the book into one Gurney, Hawat and Yueh talk to Paul seperately - One interesting thing that I had forgotten - they remembered to have the shields distort the voices (I think they are described as flattened in the book). The film had a lot of little things that looked odd, but were really in the book.

I always thought the shields looked odd, but it is an interesting half-way house between the smooth-curved shield that you generally put on a spaceship, and straight armour. I don't think skin-tight would have worked so well.

Have you ever seen that same scene from the series?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtCedI-q9vU

I think the voice distortion is an error to keep in a movie. You need to have clear dialogue between people talking. It's fine in a book, but not in a visual/audio medium.

I think I preferred the theatrical fighting style of the Lynch movie compared to the series, but the scene was easier to understand in the series.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Have you ever seen that same scene from the series?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtCedI-q9vU

I think the voice distortion is an error to keep in a movie. You need to have clear dialogue between people talking. It's fine in a book, but not in a visual/audio medium.

I think I preferred the theatrical fighting style of the Lynch movie compared to the series, but the scene was easier to understand in the series.

And again I am indebted to you - I never saw the series (I don't think it came out over here, at least not on anything I had access to).

[Trafalgar]

Have you ever seen that same scene from the series?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtCedI-q9vU

I think the voice distortion is an error to keep in a movie. You need to have clear dialogue between people talking. It's fine in a book, but not in a visual/audio medium.

I think I preferred the theatrical fighting style of the Lynch movie compared to the series, but the scene was easier to understand in the series.

I like the lynch version better. This Gurney seems too old and tired.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I like the lynch version better. This Gurney seems too old and tired.

Paul also has more of a "teenage brat" vibe here. In the book he's a lot more mature (although not entirely); In the book the fight gets serious at the point that Gurney browbeats him for the "I'm not in the mood" comment.

[Trafalgar]

Paul also has more of a "teenage brat" vibe here. In the book he's a lot more mature (although not entirely); In the book the fight gets serious at the point that Gurney browbeats him for the "I'm not in the mood" comment.

Yes, Paul comes off as very arrogant. At this point in the story, Paul should not be easily defeating Gurney. This scene makes it seem like Paul is teaching Gurney, not Gurney teaching Paul.

[ereinion]

...but it was a very poor adaptation.

Frank Herbert himself disagrees with you on this. In the introduction to his 1985 short story collection Eye he writes

The hype machine grinded into action, telling people to expect the complete Dune. My efforts were enlisted. I joined in wholeheartedly because I enjoyed the film even as cut and I told it as I saw it: What reached the screen is a visual feast that begins as Dune begins and you hear my dialogue all through it.

[...]

Was it a success or a failure as a movie? I'm the wrong person to ask. Like me, Dune movie audiences, fans and newcomers, wanted more. They would have returned many times to see that "more." What they saw was true to my book, even though most of it stayed on the cutting room floor. Dune fans could supply the missing scenes in imagination but they still longed for those scenes.

It's been too long since I watched it myself to really say anything about it, but from what I recall I was mostly happy with it way back when.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Frank Herbert himself disagrees with you on this. In the introduction to his 1985 short story collection Eye he writes

The hype machine grinded into action, telling people to expect the complete Dune. My efforts were enlisted. I joined in wholeheartedly because I enjoyed the film even as cut and I told it as I saw it: What reached the screen is a visual feast that begins as Dune begins and you hear my dialogue all through it.

[...]

Was it a success or a failure as a movie? I'm the wrong person to ask. Like me, Dune movie audiences, fans and newcomers, wanted more. They would have returned many times to see that "more." What they saw was true to my book, even though most of it stayed on the cutting room floor. Dune fans could supply the missing scenes in imagination but they still longed for those scenes.

It's been too long since I watched it myself to really say anything about it, but from what I recall I was mostly happy with it way back when.

And he's welcome to his opinion. I imagine seeing your work going on to the big screen is pretty amazing, no matter what they do to the work (I note that he was wise enough to say "Was it a success or a failure as a movie? I'm the wrong person to ask.").

Oh, there's lots and lots of stuff in the film that is in the book - some of the oddest things turned out to be minor points in the book, or even in the appendicies. But lots of things were different, missed ther mark or flat out contradicted the book - up to and including the sandworms being wiped out at the end of the film.

(No. I'm not joking. At the end of the film Paul changes the climate of the planet, summoning a major storm which as far as we know is planet-wide. Remember what the slightest amount of water does to Sandworms?)

The big problem was that to understand the film you had to have read the book, and if you had read the book you could see what a poor job they had done with the film.

[Fyraltari]

Just saw it on opening night, after watching Lynch's version yesterday evening.

God damn, you can see the difference in budget and technical means. Now, this is a spectacular movie.

Spoiler: Hot take

Show

I really liked it. Every actor is perfect in their role and it completely sells you on the utter scale of this world.

A bit miffed that this is only the first half though. It does give the story the room it needs to breathe (especially when you see how dense Lynch's version was), but still, not a fan of cutting stories on half. Also I did find that the "escaping the Harkonnen sequence" dragged a bit too long.

Feyd-Rautha is nowhere to be seen, so I guess Raban will take over his role. That does diminish the Baron's cunning a bit since his whole "set up Raban to fail so the people will welcome Feyd" looks to be simple greed now. With Feyd are also gone any mention of the Baron's sexuality and, frankly, good riddance because that was just plainly homophobic. Also instead of being inexplicably ginger, the Harkonnen are now inexplicably bald. The Baron still hover, but since I find that cooler than just lifting his gut like in the book, it gets a pass.

One thing I did find weird was that Paul's visions make no mention of his future names. Gone are "tell me of the water of your world, Usul" and his armies chanting Muad'dib. Well they are chanting, but we don't get to hear it. With that said, the desert-mouse is prominently shown a few times, so I'm confident he will take on the name... When part 2 comes out.

[Eldan]

Just caught the pre-premiere, because it was also the only showing in my town that's actually in English. Anyway.

Short summary: as good as a Dune movie can be. Visually stunning. Many, many nitpicks.

The technical (non-spoilery):

Spoiler

Show

As the trailers showed, the movie is weirdly monochromatic. Almost every scene is entirely grey, or entirely beige-brown, rarely something like a light blue or entirely red, but not much else. It makes the visuals pop less than they could, I think.

Many environments, like the palaces, or the city of Arakeen, also look weirdly sterile, especially combined with the washed-out colours. There's very little life or clutter anywhere, even on Caladan. Lots of gigantic stone halls with no furniture or any decoration except bas-reliefs, even in rooms that people are living in. You'd imagine that nobles would have a bit more ostentation.

Makes the uniforms and the ships look spectacular, though. And very fascist-brutalist.

Also, maybe just the cinema I was in but... everyone in this movie mumbles. Badly. Couldn't make out half the dialogue in some scenes. Doesn't usually happen to me with English movies, so something was weird. I felt like I needed subtitles.

Story-stuff (spoilery):

Spoiler

Show

They made the Voice too magical again. The big Voice scene was the Thopter escape, where Paul and Jessica are tied up and Jessica is gagged. In the book, Jessica offers herself to the soldiers sexually, tempts them into acting unwisely, before they overwhelm them. In the movie, the soldiers make a few rapey comments, Paul orders them to remove her gag then she just barks out "KILL HIM AND FREE ME" and the soldier does just that.

The Atreides arrival on Arrakis needed a bit more time. In the movie, it feels like the Atreides arrive on the planet and just a day or two later, the sky is suddenly full of ships and they are all killed. Not a fan. I hate saying "in the book" too much, but in the book, the Atreides discuss their defences, possible Harkonnen attack routes, how many spies and saboteurs they have caught or killed, they organize their troops for an attack.

Tying into that, Thufir Hawat is in this for like two minutes and has like five lines. They cut out the plotline about the Atreides knowing there's a traitor and him suspecting Lady Jessica and all the politicking about the local houses and the smugglers.

Together, it makes the Atreides look like unprepared idiots, I felt. All their soldiers are asleep in the barracks, suddenly the skies are full of ships and then they get all killed after a short melee, instead of a prolonged battle with many landing points and fallback positions.