SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Via the good people at io9, my attention was drawn this morning to news that Dune is coming back to the silver screen. This is probably old news to many of you; we've known for a while that the man at the helm is Denis Villeneuve, fresh off Blade Runner 2049 (a worthy sequel to most everyone's favorite futuristic film noir), and just this week Deadline pegged a certain young Hollywood heartthrob for Atreides.
The latest news, however, is that Brian Herbert—son of Dune author Frank Herbert and an author in his own right—revealed that the first script will only focus on the first half of the novel. This confirms an earlier report that Villeneuve plans to adapt the book across two movies.
Herbert's epic sci-fi novel is set far off in the future—about 20,000 years from now—and it tells the story of an intergalactic power struggle between different noble houses to control a substance called melange, which makes interstellar travel possible. (That's massively underselling things, but you try summarizing a 400-page novel in one sentence.) Published in 1965, it has gone on to have a huge influence in popular culture; here at Ars, our favorite descendants are Fatboy Slim's "Weapon of Choice" and the frequent references to the litany of fear by Peter Puppy in the Earthworm Jim cartoons. (The recreation of Dune using gummy worms gets a notable mention.)
[...] By now you may have decided I am an uncritical viewer of all things Dune, so you may not be surprised to know that I am greatly looking forward to see what Villeneuve does with the story. Again, I think he did a bang-up job with a follow-on to Blade Runner, but it's true there's not much similarity between the two franchises other than the fact that they both take place in the future. Other Dune watchers are less confident—upon the news that Kevin J. Anderson (of Star Wars novels fame) was collaborating with Brian Herbert, Ars editor Lee Hutchinson told me, "I can't believe this is going to end in anything other than a nuclear explosion of human excrement."
[...] Legendary (the company behind The Dark Knight and Interstellar) bought rights to Dune about two years ago, but for now there's no firm timetable for the first film.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:07AM (9 children)
I'm sorry, are we all pretending Blade Runner 2049 was a good film now, and not trash?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:21AM (3 children)
It wasn't nearly as good as the original but yes, it was a decent sequel.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @01:32AM (1 child)
Nah, missed completely. The original worked on a sublime and metaphorical level, the sequel was a literalist interpretation. It was shit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:13AM
Blade Runner was a key film in creating the cyber punk genre, it is a rare class of film. That is why the sequel was decent, while it couldn't live up to the original it still was a decent movie. But hey, that's just like, my opinion man.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:03AM
They wanted to have David Bowie play Mr. Wallace, unfortunately he died (RIP!!!). I would have done a much better job than Jared. But I was too busy.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:57AM (4 children)
Blade Runner 2049 was one of the very few movies in recent years that I went to see in a cinema. I deliberately avoided any info about it in media and instead relied on friends' opinions on whether it was worth watching.
After having been let down by too many 2000s remakes of or sequels to timeless classics (or prequels... fuck you Ridley Scott, for adding nothing of value with Prometheus), I went into the film prepared for the worst. Yet after a few minutes, it managed to pull me into the story and I stopped trying to compare it to the original. While it didn't quite capture the visual flair and scenery porn of its predecessor, BR 2049 got it mostly right IMO. Visuals are top notch, the acting is good, the story engaging - it's not as profoundly thought-provoking as the original, but it does put some open questions in the viewer's head, like whether an AI can feel love, or should be allowed to fake it so convincingly as to emotionally bind a real human.
Viewed in isolation, BR 2049 is a good movie. Not on the same level of genre-defining classic as the original, but outstanding among the load of crap coming out of Hollywood in recent years.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by choose another one on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:48PM (1 child)
Agreed. Blade Runner 2049 was one of the many remakes/sequels I avoided in the cinema for fear of wasted time/money, and later caught up on streaming for zero money, when I had time to kill. This strategy worked well for crap-fests like Prometheus (among others), but BR 2049 ? - that was the _only_ one I saw and regretted not seeing on the big screen. Good as the original? - hell no, outstanding among the load of crap coming out of Hollywood in recent years? - absolutely yes.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday July 29 2018, @05:51PM
It's streaming now? Thanks, I'll hunt for it. I doubt it will be better than the original.
Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
(Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday July 29 2018, @11:31PM (1 child)
Same here. It'll never compare to the original which was a sub-culture defining piece of work. However, it is quite a good movie on its own. I think it works because they didn't have Deckard until the 3rd act which kinda make it specifically not a Deckard centric sequel though it does continue from the plot which he was part of and weave into it perfectly by the 3rd act.
The audio-effects of this movie in a surround screen cinema is surreal - watching it again at home even with a decent speaker setup doesn't even come close.
I couldn't stand Ryan Gosling before this movie, now he's tolerable..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @01:30AM
After having been conned into watching many of his later works just for his name on the placard, I'm now somewhat convinced that Ridley Scott either was a lot richer when he was young and his master pieces have actually been directed by ghost directors in his employ... or that fame and riches have corrupted him, made him become complacent to studios' marketing execs screwing with the script or pegging mediocre flavor of the month audience magnet actor for lead roles.
Actually, the most likely theory is that in an inversion of the original theory, Ridley Scott now hires ghost directors because he's forgotten how to direct himself after coking his brains out and he'd much rather sit on his yacht, gold-plated fishing rod in hand, talking shit about the good old times and dissing "liberals".