Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

Is this the first poll?


  • Total voters
    37

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,024
1,085
118
Country
Argentina
Dune (2021)

In IMAX no less. I didn't go to an IMAX screening since Joker. I haven't read the book so with only the Lynch movie to go by I was surprised how similar the plot was (some of the weirder or sillier stuff I would've assumed was Lynch's doing) yet how infinitely clearer the Villeneuve movie is. It's also very slow and very deliberate: it's longer than Lynch's movie yet somehow covers less plot, ending at the halfway point or so. Gotta say I felt a bit scammed as soon as Dune: Part One appeared as the title. But nobody will say the 1984 version wasn't rushed as hell towards the end. Or that it was very good to begin with.

Visually it's a spectacle, sound, Hans Zimmer's bwaaaaam score, etc. I will say I doubt the movie's gonna connect with younger audiences though, and anybody who mistakes it for YA is gonna be disappointed. Paul is too passive a character, and the fiercely religious narrative and mystical tone don't play as well as uncomplicated bargain bin action adventure these days I think.
 

Mister Mumbler

Pronounced "Throat-wobbler Mangrove"
Legacy
Jun 17, 2020
1,442
1,157
118
The Grave
Country
United States
Ok so part of part 1 is that the Dad is buying the models as his thing then gluing them together permanently and the film was in part objecting to the idea of fans of Lego who buy these things as pristine models (something Lego has been leaning into somewhat with premium priced sort of sculpture stuff) while also taking shots at the Lego corporation itself with who employ people called Master Builders to come up with their designs (Lord Business is seen hooking up the Maser Builders to his machine to get them to design his stuff).
But that's not what the father is doing though. The only models that are straight out of the box are basically only a few of the cars (the most obvious one being the blue cement mixer), everything else we see was the product of the father's imagination. Plus, the film isn't objecting to him gluing the stuff out of some sort of 'the bricks need to be free man', but rather the fact that it is entirely in response to his son constantly playing with (and 'ruining') his stuff.

1634185697780.png
Ok, so I kind of had a hunch that this is where this would go, but goodness...
So first of all, that is not at all what I meant about Rex not working out too well. My point was, that in a film that can't decide whether we are operating on Where The Wild Things Are child imagination rules or just straight up Toy Story with sentient brick people, they decided to make him an evil version of Emmet from an alternate timeline who time travels back to ruin things. It's the sequel to the Lego Movie, not Total Recall. The movie isn't about fem vs macho or some shit, as the Queen and them aren't framed as such, but rather as alien invaders draining the world of resources and people as an 'imagination' stand in for the real world little sister growing her own lego collection from the basement like the son did. I mean, the first we see of the Queen is as a terrifying shapeshifter before going into an entire song about how she totally isn't going to have them and their friends tortured and killed, because she definitely isn't evil.
 

Mister Mumbler

Pronounced "Throat-wobbler Mangrove"
Legacy
Jun 17, 2020
1,442
1,157
118
The Grave
Country
United States
This formatting, I swear...
And I guess that having chiseled features previously hidden underneath baby fat is one of the 'macho' qualities of lego...you do realize, don't you, that that was a jokey reference to Pratt's career, right? He's a cowboy, a 'galaxy defender' and a raptor trainer, I mean come on man, could not have been more obvious. And yes, I did know that lego has a line for girls and you know, without having seen any of the actual arguments put forth by anyone, I can quickly see that this would be the problem right there: not that lego is too 'macho', but that there is a clear line in the sand between 'lego' and 'lego for girls, with malls and shopping and boys and stuff'. But hey, what do I know?
 

Mister Mumbler

Pronounced "Throat-wobbler Mangrove"
Legacy
Jun 17, 2020
1,442
1,157
118
The Grave
Country
United States
Okay, since I want to make up for so much Lego Movie talk, recently watched the original Assault On Precinct 13, and I thought it was pretty good. The gang is little more than zombies and have, in total throughout the entire gang, have about five lines of dialog between them, but I think it still works. Plus, I've come to notice that John Carpenter is just such a master of getting maximum tension from the simplest shots;
1634190618005.png

1634190829992.png

1634191251536.png

1634191058514.png
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,981
389
88
But that's not what the father is doing though. The only models that are straight out of the box are basically only a few of the cars (the most obvious one being the blue cement mixer), everything else we see was the product of the father's imagination. Plus, the film isn't objecting to him gluing the stuff out of some sort of 'the bricks need to be free man', but rather the fact that it is entirely in response to his son constantly playing with (and 'ruining') his stuff.
No really that's the whole stuff with Emmet and the plans is about and why he builds following the plans initially. Most of the Lego stuff with the Dad is meant to be based on sets. The near identical town sets the Western Saloon set and environment etc etc

View attachment 4667
Ok, so I kind of had a hunch that this is where this would go, but goodness...
So first of all, that is not at all what I meant about Rex not working out too well. My point was, that in a film that can't decide whether we are operating on Where The Wild Things Are child imagination rules or just straight up Toy Story with sentient brick people, they decided to make him an evil version of Emmet from an alternate timeline who time travels back to ruin things. It's the sequel to the Lego Movie, not Total Recall. The movie isn't about fem vs macho or some shit, as the Queen and them aren't framed as such, but rather as alien invaders draining the world of resources and people as an 'imagination' stand in for the real world little sister growing her own lego collection from the basement like the son did. I mean, the first we see of the Queen is as a terrifying shapeshifter before going into an entire song about how she totally isn't going to have them and their friends tortured and killed, because she definitely isn't evil.
Well with Rex on the logic. Rex is there to be a thematic prop for the film as a whole rather than make sense in the universe. That's why he doesn't make sense and fit in because the film was more interested in the message than the logistics of it. I mean at the time I think the PewDiePe "Bro fist" was still and thing and by a strange co-incidence Rex's space ship is a giant fist.

It's funny you bring up Toy Story because while that's somewhat clear about the toys being sentient the weird thing being with that film it's playing out an alternative history almost based on Andy's relationship with his parents. Woody = His dad, Bo Peep = Whom his dad is now seeing. Jesse in films 2 represents his mother and Buzz represents his new father figure (this is my theory based in part on the "Where's Andy's Dad" theory that is out there).

On the Fem vs Macho thing, yes it's a sequel to the Lego movie but kinds movies can have a number of layers to them and the first Lego movie managed to have the layer about the father son relationship etc going on and literally referencing the Lego company itself with hiring the Master Builders to farm ideas from which I doubt many kids would really get that whole thing on the level of "Lord Business is a character in part designed to take a shot at Lego as a corporation itself". Also I'd argue the alien invaders are framed more feminine after the initial invasion. I mean the whole pop music light pastel colours characters playing house in suburbia, part of the literal story is about planning an elaborate wedding for the Queen after she's seduced the Wealth Batchelor (pun intended) and well if that doesn't smell like a cheesy romance novel plotline I dunno what does. The whole monster and song stuff is part of the kind of weird thing of trying to frame feminine as evil because that's what other films do so they had to build up the queen or make her seem evil to pull of that kind of subversion as such.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,981
389
88
This formatting, I swear...
And I guess that having chiseled features previously hidden underneath baby fat is one of the 'macho' qualities of lego...you do realize, don't you, that that was a jokey reference to Pratt's career, right? He's a cowboy, a 'galaxy defender' and a raptor trainer, I mean come on man, could not have been more obvious. And yes, I did know that lego has a line for girls and you know, without having seen any of the actual arguments put forth by anyone, I can quickly see that this would be the problem right there: not that lego is too 'macho', but that there is a clear line in the sand between 'lego' and 'lego for girls, with malls and shopping and boys and stuff'. But hey, what do I know?
It happens, to carry on

Yes it's a reference to Pratt's career but also somewhat referencing actual sets seen as too macho

Here's something from before the Lego Movie part 2 or even part 1 that got passed round the internet

Also here's the longer Anita Sarkeesian argument

Worth pointing out Anita herself points out Lego was in it's default state getting more boys playing with it so part of the change was to get more girls playing with it by making a line for girls and then Lego diverged into 3 basically the more Macho Lego stuff with Ninja's and Pirates and Police officers with stubble; the Lego range aimed more at girls with softer pastel colours and playing house stuff and the more Neutral Lego of basic houses and vehicles and what it was initially.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
5,264
562
118
Country
USA
It Chapter 2

Just couldn't get into it. Movie can't decide between horror and comedy, often tries to do both at the same time, and neither (in my opinion) goes super well with the epic grandiosity in tone/style/significance the movie's clearly shooting for. It's a demon clown from space Andy, you're not making Lawrence of Arabia.
Got to wonder if it is unfilmable. Part 1 in the 1990s was fantastic. Part 2 just as much of a mess. Maybe even more so.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,615
1,657
118
Australia
Legionnaire - 9/10

Well shit do we have a rare beast here. Jean Claude Van Damme....in a period war drama. Yes in this one the Muscles from Brussels makes - in my view - a valiant attempt to flex his acting chops instead of his legs as a boxer who basically pulls a Butch on Marsellus in 1920s France. When that goes utterly pear shaped, he takes the option of many a man who feels he's lost it all and needs to regain his honour: the French Foreign Legion.

Van Damme is joined by reliable character actors Nicholas Farrell, Stephen Berkoff, Daniel Caltagirone and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as men searching for a purpose in life. There's maybe one or two brawls, but they're brawls. Not a spin kick to be seen. There's a training montage, a march, an ambush and a last stand. I mean sure there's better versions of this movie out there but all things being equal, this is pretty damn good. Especially since it ends on a rather down note.
 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
3,575
1,599
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Filth: ... / Great

I can't really "rate" this film because I only made it about 25-30 minutes in before deciding it was too much a mess to keep watching. Between James McAvoy's narration thing that supposedly sets the tone and characters (which I hate when films do this,) constant jumping around between McAvoy's interaction with various characters, the thick Scottish accents that made understanding the dialogue all but impossible and some fairly lewd and unnecessary sex scenes (including one with an underaged girl,) I was completely confused and turned off by what I was seeing. I might give it another shot someday, but as it stands, that day is a long ways out. Maybe someone has some input to encourage me to try it again, i.e.: does it get better and less gross? I know that's a tall order for a film called "Filth," but maybe it has some redeeming qualities?
 

Mister Mumbler

Pronounced "Throat-wobbler Mangrove"
Legacy
Jun 17, 2020
1,442
1,157
118
The Grave
Country
United States
No really that's the whole stuff with Emmet and the plans is about and why he builds following the plans initially. Most of the Lego stuff with the Dad is meant to be based on sets. The near identical town sets the Western Saloon set and environment etc etc
No, it really isn't. You're talking to a man who has spent pretty much his whole life around lego. First off, the movie is working with the knowledge of actual, genuine lego sets, because it straight up tells us;
1634274372677.png
This is the set they used to explain the 'pirate world' to Emmet's city-scape and their current location in the old west. With this in mind, actually take a look at the basement set the father has set up: he has a giant table, filled with huge 3-4 foot tall skyscrapers, he's built sweeping desert landscapes, and a giant castle. Now take a look at the sets that their 'based on';
1634274574394.png
1634274583788.png
1634274630629.png
'Near identical', I mean...have you actually played with lego before? Like, this is why Lego's recent push into more older/adult themed kits has been so great in the first place, because before you would have these sets or things like the giant, $1000+ Star Destroyer on the extreme opposite, with practically no in-between.
 

Mister Mumbler

Pronounced "Throat-wobbler Mangrove"
Legacy
Jun 17, 2020
1,442
1,157
118
The Grave
Country
United States
What's more, is you keep looking for boogiemen where there are none: there are no 'shots' taken, at anyone, least of all the Lego Corporation in what is the largest and most public love letter to them. They are called Master Builders because, what the fuck else would you call them? And actually think about their role in the story: they are stand-ins for the imaginations of the son and the father, but they are still actual things. Who are the Master Builders? They are all the special, cool mini-figures, and they get locked up because the father is confiscating them back (and I very much doubt the makers of the movie would bag on the real Master Builders, people who for a living, get to both play with lego and design new lego sets for others to enjoy, as you can see from the videos on Youtube of the various designers explaining the larger sets they work on Youtube). Which leads...
Part 2 stuff
Ok, so cards flat on the table, this is starting to sound less like someone watched these movies than it does like a set of talking points from the sort of 'video essay' like the sort posted ironically enough by people like Anita and that other guy you posted, but for the opposite side. I mean, his ship is a fist because his answer to problems is literally punching them. But the big one was that point you made last about how they were going for a 'soft hero who wins with words' because...that does not happen in Part 2. Emmet talked Lord Business with the 'everyone is special' speech in the first one, meanwhile Emmet ends part two in a fist fight with his evil, alternate timeline doppelganger that ends when Lucy shows up and Rex realizes that he's been caught in a Back-to-the-future-esque paradox and vanishes. And (sorry if I wasn't clearer before), my problem is that he does fit into the story, that's the problem. Remember, this whole 'anything goes rules' started in part 1, basically two minutes afer finding out 'kids imagination' we have Emmet moving around in the real world, to the point that he is noticed by the kid and father. Time-traveling-evil-doppelganger fits well in this sort of 'fuck-it' approach to the rules, that's why I don't like it. Plus, I would argue that Part 2's basic plot stucture of 'alien civilization that has been attacking us is now also kidnapping us to force a union of the two species in a shotgun wedding' is less 'cheap romance' and more of something from like Star Trek.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,981
389
88
What's more, is you keep looking for boogiemen where there are none: there are no 'shots' taken, at anyone, least of all the Lego Corporation in what is the largest and most public love letter to them. They are called Master Builders because, what the fuck else would you call them? And actually think about their role in the story: they are stand-ins for the imaginations of the son and the father, but they are still actual things. Who are the Master Builders? They are all the special, cool mini-figures, and they get locked up because the father is confiscating them back (and I very much doubt the makers of the movie would bag on the real Master Builders, people who for a living, get to both play with lego and design new lego sets for others to enjoy, as you can see from the videos on Youtube of the various designers explaining the larger sets they work on Youtube). Which leads...

Ok, so cards flat on the table, this is starting to sound less like someone watched these movies than it does like a set of talking points from the sort of 'video essay' like the sort posted ironically enough by people like Anita and that other guy you posted, but for the opposite side. I mean, his ship is a fist because his answer to problems is literally punching them. But the big one was that point you made last about how they were going for a 'soft hero who wins with words' because...that does not happen in Part 2. Emmet talked Lord Business with the 'everyone is special' speech in the first one, meanwhile Emmet ends part two in a fist fight with his evil, alternate timeline doppelganger that ends when Lucy shows up and Rex realizes that he's been caught in a Back-to-the-future-esque paradox and vanishes. And (sorry if I wasn't clearer before), my problem is that he does fit into the story, that's the problem. Remember, this whole 'anything goes rules' started in part 1, basically two minutes afer finding out 'kids imagination' we have Emmet moving around in the real world, to the point that he is noticed by the kid and father. Time-traveling-evil-doppelganger fits well in this sort of 'fuck-it' approach to the rules, that's why I don't like it. Plus, I would argue that Part 2's basic plot stucture of 'alien civilization that has been attacking us is now also kidnapping us to force a union of the two species in a shotgun wedding' is less 'cheap romance' and more of something from like Star Trek.
Now you can say I am sounding like a video essay but the issue is having seen the film, what I'm saying should very much make sense and it also makes sense as to why Rex doesn't fit that well into the movie logically. Also yes his answer to things is punching it which yeh again Toxic masculinity etc etc. with Lucy showing up it could be seen as Emmet realising he's not been abandoned so is no longer toxic. I'm sure if I stretched it a bit there would be some "incel" comparisons to make here too lol.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,588
253
88
Dune (2021)

In IMAX no less. I didn't go to an IMAX screening since Joker. I haven't read the book so with only the Lynch movie to go by I was surprised how similar the plot was (some of the weirder or sillier stuff I would've assumed was Lynch's doing) yet how infinitely clearer the Villeneuve movie is. It's also very slow and very deliberate: it's longer than Lynch's movie yet somehow covers less plot, ending at the halfway point or so. Gotta say I felt a bit scammed as soon as Dune: Part One appeared as the title. But nobody will say the 1984 version wasn't rushed as hell towards the end. Or that it was very good to begin with.

Visually it's a spectacle, sound, Hans Zimmer's bwaaaaam score, etc. I will say I doubt the movie's gonna connect with younger audiences though, and anybody who mistakes it for YA is gonna be disappointed. Paul is too passive a character, and the fiercely religious narrative and mystical tone don't play as well as uncomplicated bargain bin action adventure these days I think.
I have actually read the book before I saw either movie, and for all you can say about Lynch's version, it is a relatively faithful, if rushed, adaptation. I'm pretty sure the only things that really stuck out to me as Lynch taking creative liberties was the squid like appearance of the guild navigators (I'm pretty sure in the book they were still described as recognizably human) and Baron Harkonnens disfiguring skin condition. If anything, Lynch's movie tried to convey a bit more of the books worldbuilding than Villeneuve's did.

I too feel like the fact that the new movie wouldn't actually cover the entire book was conspicuously absent in any of its marketing and I was not exactly happy that the first time I had ever heard of it was when I was actually watching the movie. I feel like that was genuinely misleading marketing. For what it covers, it's hard to deny that Villeneuve's adaptation is better than Lynch's, though stylistically, where 80's Dune was easily the least David Lynch movie, 20's Dune is a very Denis Villeneuve movie. It's something that sticks out to me, considering his last two works were a sequel and an adaptation, respectively. His presentation is very cold and sterile. It's a bit jarring, watching Blade Runner 2049 and the original back to back. The original had such a lived in feel to it, which makes the sequel feel weirdly empty and lifeless in comparison.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,615
1,657
118
Australia
Danger Close: the Battle of Long Tan - 9/10

A dramatised but not overwrought war drama that depicts the engagement between Australian/New Zealand troops and a combined Viet Cong and North Vietnamese force at the titular Long Tan. It stars precisely one person who'll be recognised outside Australia: Travis Fimmel, playing the role of Major Harry Smith, commander of 6 Royal Australia Regiment in the field. The rest are local flavour, and most of them not ones I'd recognise off the bat outside of Richard Roxburgh. In fact there's two different blokes who at first go I thought were Sam Worthington.

The movie is not terribly introspective nor does it take any kind of meta nuance - short of one scene where a lone Australian soldier comes across two women taking a wounded Vietnamese soldier for aid - and presents itself as boots on the ground view of a single battle. In that sense however its pretty effective with blood and dirt flying all over and artillery getting shot and rained down. Its not quite as visceral as say, Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down but its good enough at getting the point across.

The movie's ending was fairly effective, its a just a roll call of the company while a montage of the wounded being recovered is played, and its backed by one of Australia's most famous songs about war. It then follows up with a cast call showing the actor and a photograph of whom they portrayed. Some of the resemblances were uncanny.



I loved the movie but its genetically designed to get a positive reaction out of me. Outside Australia, I'd recommend it if you an avid historian of the Vietnam war or just want to see a war movie that's a little different.
 
Last edited:

XsjadoBlayde

Intersectional Multidimensional Pansexual Alliance
Apr 29, 2020
1,551
1,325
118
Britannialand
Snowpiercer (Prime)
Been avoiding this for so long due to hearing negative meh's about it, which surprised me when I started watching as it seemed mostly alright with a fantastic grimy steampunk aesthetic and a distinct British sensibility to the acting and visual approach, with Tilda Swinton being an absolute screen hogger of a villain. At times it almost felt a tad Terry Gilliam-esque, and it's pace was not hanging about for any fool. Though Chris Evans is unavoidably a dull protagonist.

However, about halfway through, it's like the whole project got infected with syphilitic dementia and everyone only makes the dumbest choices they can muster from the bowels of idiocy. Why the fuck would you use your own limb to stop a machinery when literally right beside you is a perfectly good set of chair legs?? For crying out loud, not even panic-induced adrenaline would explain that level of lemming judgement! That brought me back to the moment in Brightburn when the father tried shooting evil superman boy in the back of the head which just bounced off, yet he goes to reload and try again, cheesus! There's a TV series I just found out about, so may give that a go. Pity, really. It started off somewhat promising alongside a fantastic cast apart from Chris, sorry dude.
 
Last edited:

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,718
523
118
Country
Philippines
Snowpiercer
Christ, I completely forgot that was Tilda Swinton.

I remember quite liking the movie, Chris Evans and all. But admittedly I don't remember most of it anymore, and I watched it like last year maybe. I wasn't a big fan of the ending either, but I'm not a fan of Game of Thrones style bleakness and despair. I wonder what the movie would have been like if the director had been allowed to do as he wished. I mean, the guy is clearly talented.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,024
1,085
118
Country
Argentina
I have actually read the book before I saw either movie, and for all you can say about Lynch's version, it is a relatively faithful, if rushed, adaptation. I'm pretty sure the only things that really stuck out to me as Lynch taking creative liberties was the squid like appearance of the guild navigators (I'm pretty sure in the book they were still described as recognizably human) and Baron Harkonnens disfiguring skin condition. If anything, Lynch's movie tried to convey a bit more of the books worldbuilding than Villeneuve's did.

I too feel like the fact that the new movie wouldn't actually cover the entire book was conspicuously absent in any of its marketing and I was not exactly happy that the first time I had ever heard of it was when I was actually watching the movie. I feel like that was genuinely misleading marketing. For what it covers, it's hard to deny that Villeneuve's adaptation is better than Lynch's, though stylistically, where 80's Dune was easily the least David Lynch movie, 20's Dune is a very Denis Villeneuve movie. It's something that sticks out to me, considering his last two works were a sequel and an adaptation, respectively. His presentation is very cold and sterile. It's a bit jarring, watching Blade Runner 2049 and the original back to back. The original had such a lived in feel to it, which makes the sequel feel weirdly empty and lifeless in comparison.
You know I rewatched the Lynch movie in preparation for Dune 2021 and was surprised by how it wasn't as awful as I remembered it. Messy and rushed, with some terrible effects even by 1984 standards, but nowhere near as incoherent as I remembered. I will fault the book for the lack of clarity - I read some of it and for a book mostly told through dialogue and action (like you would expect from a screenplay) it manages to be infuriatingly vague. Fuck context, description and knowing when and how to introduce your esoteric techno gobbledygook. Reminded me a bit of Neuromancer. That flow of making up super complex concepts as you go regardless of whether the story will have use for them or not, and not a care in the world for context.

Lord of the Rings starts with a birthday party. Dune begins with the bene gesserit using the gom jabbar to spot the kwisatz haderach.
 

XsjadoBlayde

Intersectional Multidimensional Pansexual Alliance
Apr 29, 2020
1,551
1,325
118
Britannialand
Christ, I completely forgot that was Tilda Swinton.

I remember quite liking the movie, Chris Evans and all. But admittedly I don't remember most of it anymore, and I watched it like last year maybe. I wasn't a big fan of the ending either, but I'm not a fan of Game of Thrones style bleakness and despair. I wonder what the movie would have been like if the director had been allowed to do as he wished. I mean, the guy is clearly talented.
Yeah, the film does have a lot to like, and Chris Evans isn't so much "bad" as he is more bland like an average videogame protagonist. I was on board (lol) for most of it until specific dumb moments clashed hard, like another part where people are shooting through glass at each other despite the outside being shown to be super deadly cold. Tbh I thought the film wasn't that bleak compared how the premise looks on paper, as the British sensibilities include a certain style of offbeat humour when it's not murdering everyone. And the ending was, in my opinion, unrealistically positive. It's...a bit of a rollercoaster.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,588
253
88
You know I rewatched the Lynch movie in preparation for Dune 2021 and was surprised by how it wasn't as awful as I remembered it. Messy and rushed, with some terrible effects even by 1984 standards, but nowhere near as incoherent as I remembered. I will fault the book for the lack of clarity - I read some of it and for a book mostly told through dialogue and action (like you would expect from a screenplay) it manages to be infuriatingly vague. Fuck context, description and knowing when and how to introduce your esoteric techno gobbledygook. Reminded me a bit of Neuromancer. That flow of making up super complex concepts as you go regardless of whether the story will have use for them or not, and not a care in the world for context.

Lord of the Rings starts with a birthday party. Dune begins with the bene gesserit using the gom jabbar to spot the kwisatz haderach.
Actually, Lord of the Rings starts with an elaborate description of the tobacco Hobbits smoke.

Yeah, but no, Dune is a weird novel and everyone trying to adapt it has to dig themselves through a shitload of very opaque world building. But, you know, that's what Science Fiction nerds are into.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,024
1,085
118
Country
Argentina
Actually, Lord of the Rings starts with an elaborate description of the tobacco Hobbits smoke.
By that you mean the prologue, which is largely meta and talks freely about The Hobbit book. The story proper - Chapter 1 of Fellowship of the Ring - begins with a birthday. A short one sentence paragraph about Bilbo, a character you already know from The Hobbit (or the prologue you just read).

Dune's relationship with anything realistically relatable is so cryptic and tenuous it's already hard to tell what the hell's going on even without the rampant esoteric technobabble clouding the text. Where you don't even get a feel for the significance of what's being presented because it feels like I dropped in the middle a business meeting and I don't even work there. It would be like Fellowship opening halfway through The Council of Elrond.

Since you read the book - what's up with Feyd and the cat? Is that Lynch or the novel?