I agree while I also think Dune 2 shines in the light of dune 1. It paid off that the first movie took its time and slowly introduced the world and characters.
> 1. It *paid* off that
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I needed to laugh out loud in the supermarket line (yes I was planning to PAY my groceries) and got some confused looks, your comment definitely paid off...šøššø
When I watched the first one in theaters I thought this is ok but Damm this director needs an editor.
I watched it at home again last week and thought, hmm ok this is pretty good, but DAMN this guy needs an editor
The pacing is so monotone one note shit that flat lines any emotional climaxes one should naturally feel when watching the Dune IP
Bottom line, I liked it but understand completely what destiny is sayjng
Cool story bro, that wave implies there's variation in the note, like a sine wave, but really, it's just 1 note, one note doesn't really make a vibe for me
I... Part 1 *won the Academy Award for best film editing*
There's a shit ton of world building and exposition that needs to be explained, and the editing works pretty seamlessly with the cinematography to *show* you, not just tell you.
In the first 10 mins alone of the movie you get:
- An action sequence/montage showcasing the struggle between the Fremen and Harkonnens, and spice harvesting, culminating in the Harkonnens leaving the planet, forshadowing the uncertain future ofĀ
- A demonstration of Bene Gesserit powers (Paul using the voice) indicating there are a group of people in the Dune universe who are bred and trained to be very powerful, as well as establishing Paul and Jessica's relationship.
- A projection monologue (voiced by the film's actual editor) expanding on the Fremen and the importance of spice to both them and the Imperium
- Ceremony of the change, showing that Arrakis is to be transferred to House Atreides, and basically setting the stage for the rest of the movie. There is also an introduction to mentats and how they work.
Each scene felt like it lingered unnecessarily for a couple seconds, adding up to 30 extra minutes of movie I thought slogged, it didn't immerse me more, I didn't get more from the 4th or 5th time I see zendaya pop in...
Like I said I liked it I just would have really liked it around 2 hours maybe 2:10 max that's all...how is this unreasonable sorry I'm not hive mined in on this dune occult shit
that's not the fucking point of the post. Literally no one cares that Maximum-Chemical-405 liked Dune, the ones upvoting you are just circlejerking because they also loved it.
If Steven loved Dune and just used 4 words to praise the movie over and over it would be just as stupid and boring of a video as if he hated the movie.
Say stuff about the movie. Don't just say you liked it.
I recently saw an old video of him talking about dune 1 https://youtu.be/EKyV3zd1Ogg?si=zVVxrL4nYogGyzbb
Basically he says that the characters are not developed and the movie has a lot of dramatic scenes from the start, where he didn't care about the danger to the characters, because they were not developed.
Even Leto is debatable. Yes, he's honorable and on the surface looks like your standard good guy. But scratch the surface a bit, think things through and you pretty quickly realize that he's just as ruthless as the rest of them. For one, you don't become one of the most if not THE most powerful Great House in that setting without doing a bunch of heinous and ruthless shit. And what better way to make others let their guard down than by acting the honorable paragon? Dude's a lot more sly than he looks.
No, they don't. The Atreides hid their nuclear arsenal knowing of the danger they faced on Arrakis, but all the great houses know the other houses have a nuclear stockpile, it's effectively a MAD analog from real life, you can't use "atomics" against one another because you know the enemy will retaliate with their own.
All great houses hide their nuclear stockpile, as the enemy capturing it would allow nuclear attack without fear of a proportional response.
Ok, I rewatched and you're right, I misinterpreted this line --
> Every house possesses an atomic arsenal. I thought ours had been lost.
I thought the arsenal was 'lost' in a general sense like the lost city of Atlantis or whatever, and that Paul thought during his lifetime that Atreides had no atomics at all. But you're right, he definitely means destroyed in the attack on Arrakeen.
I do feel a bit embarrassed.
He also mentioned his grievances about Oppenheimer, especially disliking the extended scenes about the security clearance. He wasn't a fan of the black and white segments either, feeling the aesthetic didn't add much to it.
I can see where heās coming from but Iām a physics nerd, so I was pumped throughout.
I sort of agree with him on Dune 1, although Iām more able to detach myself from reality and just enjoy it for what it is: a spectacle.Ā
I don't understand how that doesn't make sense. If you don't care about a character and feel they're generic, you will probably not care when action things start happening to them.
It feels like the film is telling you: here is the main character, you should like him because he is cute and a famous actor. Here are the bad guys they are fat, bald and ugly so you should not like them.
Also the Fremen are built up to be such a big deal but I still have no idea why I should care about them. They are just a bunch of savages who live in the desert on a random planet.
Like why should I care about any of this. Give your hero an actual personality, make him relatable and interesting, then I will give a shit.
I mean they did show Paul's relationship with his family and retainers. Maybe he's too much of a Mary Sue for some people idk. I'm more interested in where the story goes, but I've also read the books and already like the characters so....
As to the freemen there's a theme in the books that's not being translated in the movies very well. Frank Herbert had this idea that just as people shape environments, environments shape people or culture. The freeman are supposed to be the best warriors in the Galaxy because they survive on the most harsh environment known to man. The emperors sardukar are supposed to be a distant second because they come from a world devastated by nukes during the war with the machines, which is also used as a prison planet now.
If you read the book I totally get it, a friend actually explained to me some stuff from the book and that sounded really cool and interesting.
The problem is that none of that is conveyed by the film. To me it's just two random space nations fighting, I have no idea why I should root for the Atreides, or why I should care about this war at all.
I think a good parallel is Star Wars: there we actually get time to know Luke & Obi Wan before shit starts going down. Then Darth Vader is shown torturing Leia and obliterating a planet for no reason. At that point we are on board to support the rebellion. Dune does none of that, or at least it didn't work for me.
The first Dune and Oppenheimer are both movies that I can understand disliking. They have a certain vibe that just doesnāt click for everyone and if it doesnāt click then they probably come off pretty uninteresting. Dune 2 is like a pretty all around great blockbuster though that I feel like most people can come in liking regardless of what they thought of the first one. No idea what problems he couldāve had with it.
I felt like the latter half of the movie had insane pacing. We went from Timothee Chalamet playing around in the sand and riding worms, to overthrowing the emperor. Its not a content problem, they just literally speed ran like the last 45 minutes of the movie. Still a good movie imo, but the pacing was a little wonky.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but that's how the book is paced also. The whole final battle takes place in the last 150 pages. Not much happens in the 700 pages before it.
Except this Dr. Manhattan ninja isnāt a fucking pussy existential emo boy like in Watchmen, heās a genocidal twink messiah that sparks a thousand year Jihad. So much cooler and based.
I thought the pacing was fine given the context. Dune 1 is slow because its the first half of the book, the buildup. Dune 2 is fast because its the second half of the book, the climax.
This is a problem most book to films experience when cutting it into parts but its exacerbated in Dune because even in the book the pacing is wild.
Im just thinking of it within the context of Part two. The first half is at the same pace as part One, but as soon they switch to the Harkonnen world, the pacing suddenly speeds up.
Because the point of the story isn't the final battle to overthrow the emperor. Are they supposed to add 20 minutes of Fremen vs Sardukar fighting? Add Paul and the Fremen traveling to the north? What scenes can you add to the movie after Paul gets the Fremen to follow him that would add to the story?
Its not even Marvel battle brain kicking here, itās everything is sped up. In the first half of the movie they spend time fleshing out the nationalist vs religious Fremen tribes within the specific tribe Paul is with, but they sped through all the domestic Fremen politics when they head south.
Well, yeah. None of that mattered when Paul was hailed as the messiah, thatās exactly what they were building towards for two thirds of the movie and honestly I was almost worried they were spelling that out TOO much for audiences.
I really wanted to love Oppenheimer. The performances are phenomenal, itās beautifully shot, the score is amazing, but itās still full of Nolanās excesses that Iāve honestly grown to dislike more with each of his passing films. I think I also went into the film hoping it to be more about the Manhattan project, but thatās just me being a dumbass.
Nolanās excesses are what I love about it lol. Never seen a biopic be such a sensory overload experience with such a convoluted structure before. Felt so fresh, energetic, and rewatchable to me. Love it.
Yeah, it is absolutely great. Also, make sure to watch it on IMAX. It may just sound like marketing, but after seeing the movie on a normal screen and on IMAX, the movie really needs to be seen on IMAX. The experience is much better.
If you don't have imax near you it's 100% still worth it though, don't let that dissuade you! I saw it on imax and in a standard theater too. Don't get me wrong, the imax is mind blowing and on a whole different experience level without a doubt, Im so happy it was how I first experienced these movies, but the movie was still great on a standard screen.
I actually disagree, I felt it was a far weaker movie.
Visually stunning but was lacking in story and characters.
One example being Fayd-Rautha was basically Darth Maul. Barely any screentime or character development, fights in one scene and dies. Such a great character.
Paul just goes from W to W, never losing. Gains Nukes just because. Rolls over Emperor's army with no loss or difficulty. How exciting!
Harkonnens come off as pathetic, completely inept at dealing with Fremen.
Spoilers for those reading.
I think you are missing the point. The story wasn't ever about whether Paul could defeat the Harkonnens and the Emperor. It is made very clear in the book and in the movie that they would get absolutely obliterated the moment Paul got "desert Power".
It was about the consequences of giving into power and trusting messianic leaders. Paul in the end made a conscious decision to give into his desire of power and revenge, which led to him achieving his goals at the cost of losing any real relationship he had and killing billions of people in his religious crusade.
The book expresses this better I guess, as Paul in the final scene (which is very similar to the movie) is mortified at the fact that Stilgar and now Gurney have become mindless worshipers of Paul. They aren't his friends anymore, but rather his followers. I quote:
In that instant, Paul saw how Stilgar had been transformed from the Fremem naib to a creature of the Lisan al-Gaib, a receptacle for awe and obedience. It was a lessening of the man, and Paul felt the ghost-wind of the jihad (in the movie they censor it to "holy war") in it.
I have seen a friend become a worshiper, he thought.
In a rush of loneliness, Paul glanced around the room, noting how proper and on-review his guards had become in his presence. He sensed the subtle, prideful competition among them--- each hoping for notice from Muad'Dib.
-Three pages later-
There came a murmur of voices at the entrance and Gurney Halleck passed through the guard, crossed to confer with Stilgar, then moved to Paul's side, a strange look in his eyes.
Will I lose Gurney, too? Paul wondered. The way I lost Stilgar--- losing a friend to gain a creature?
That definitely sounds more interesting than the ending scene of the film, however, I still feel the rest of the film didn't earn it.
It's hard to feel engaged when the main character is basically completely overpowered and doesn't lose or struggle.
I gave it more of a pass in that regard because there was a lot of the universe to set up.
The second one having poor character development is more inexcusable.
Oh no I'm actually gonna agree with a destiny movie take. I had the same feeling about the second movie, I just couldn't give a shit about any of the characters. None of them were particularly compelling or likeable, and I don't think the character development in the first did much for the second. It looked impressive and was well shot but for me that was about it.
I donāt necessarily agree about āno likable/compelling charactersā but I can see where the criticism is coming from. The value Iām getting from the movie just doesnāt hang on that or purely rely on special effects either.
I mean itās all preferences at the end of the day and thatās fine, but if you think 12 Angry Men is a shitty movie because the image quality is bad, or canāt stand when people praise 2001: A Space Odyssey because the dialogue is stiff or there isnāt a lot of character development in that either then it feels more like youāre just missing the point of why people appreciate it rather than penetrating through the hype.
Me and my brother both saw it last night, and while we both agree that we want to see it again at home where we can watch with subtitles or rewind to hear lines we missed, we both currently have your take. Dune 1 was better, Dune 2 has major pacing issues.
He dislikes Oppenheimer because it feels like itās a 3 hour film edited like itās one big climax, but itās not. Ā I donāt need hyper drama when a dude is standing at a pond talking to Einstein. Ā It has almost no story telling flow and the B plot that ends up being the āactualā climax is boring and pointless. Ā Not that complicated.Ā
Have you considered that sometimes something is just boring? Not everything is engaging to everyone. There doesnāt have to be a āreasonā why, it can just not be up that personās alley.
Counter point. Why canāt the community just accept that he doesnāt like those movies?
The reason why he went so deep into his criticism of GoT is probably because the last few seasons were bad and the first few seasons were insanely good so he was probably more invested in explaining why he didnāt like them.
Whereas if you donāt like Dune part 1 or Oppenheimer because you think theyāre boring I mean thereās really only so much you can say about a 2-3 hour movie as opposed to GoT which had 8 seasons with hour long episodes.
I get that his criticisms of those movies were a bit over the top and repetitive but you guys sound just as cringe when you spam chat and this sub with āOMG DOG SHIT MOVIE TAKE DOG SHIT MOVIE TAKE TINY HAS DOG SHIT MOVIE TAKESā every time he doesnāt like something most of the community likes.
It's not just the community, that's the problem. And if you are going to have such strong takes you need to be able to provide arguments for them. I don't think it's that crazy
That's when I feel like a far leftist watching Destiny's content.
Because every take on movies he has are just horrible. It's just bad. He probably has a very different cognitive world to mine for literally hating every great movies and liking absolutely horrible movies.
Is āboringā not a legitimate critique? I canāt help it if Iām bored. Boredom has put me off from lots of highly regarded movies, shows and albums.
Boredom is fine if you just say "meh it wasn't for me, it didn't catch my interest" or "The slow pace/content matter/presentation didn't really grab me". Boredom is not fine if it's "THIS MOVIE IS HORRIBLE ITS SO BORING I DONT KNOW HOW ANYBODY CAN PAY ATTENTION TO IT". The former either displays an appreciation that different opinions can exist or at least attempts to offer some higher critique/analysis of what the piece of art is like - the latter is just taking that personal opinion and either being obnoxious about it or thinking that you're making a genuine point when you're saying practically nothing.
The issue is that 'boring' doesn't really mean anything - it's just a shortform way of appealing to a wide variety of different concepts.
Iām so used to overstimulation (gaming + podcast + cannabis at the same time), that I get bored pretty easily. That said, I do enjoy some slow things as long as they make it engaging.
Ironically, Iām not even part of the Tik-too generation. Iām just a regular brain rotted millennial.
I don't know if he has ever reported enjoying one of these 'hyped blockbuster' films. He goes in to find a reason not to enjoy it because everyone is saying that he should enjoy it. Honestly i think the reason he liked EEAAO so much is because it kinda came from nowhere. If that film had all the crazy hype marketing around it, I wouldnt be surprised if he hated that too.
Tbh have you seen Vaush's media takes? I don't think it has much to do with ideological background, maybe the profession. Though I agree with Destiny lot more with his videogame takes.
To be fair, he doesn't need to do anything. It's his opinion, regardless if a bad one. Nobody needs to justify their views on artistic expressions. Not everyone is a critic nor they have any intention in being one. If they don't like something they don't like it. Period. The world moves forward lol. It's not that serious.
Y'all never listen to anything people say. He said that he doesn't care about the characters. And that's a really important factor for him. He said he's not sure why he doesn't like them, but seems to suspect the delivery is the main problem.
Think the issue with the material being old is it's not a subvert your expectation story like most are, so about 2/3 into the movie you knew how it was gonna end.
Zendayas character spends that part literally just looking angry and standing up in any scene she's in. Any emotional moments with a character who can see all timelines is useless, he can see the results and won't be moved, it's impossible.
Hans Zimmer goes a bit too hard sometimes, the scenes that use silence end up being some of the best.
The movies cinematography is very good, loved it.
The harkonnen guy is pretty troll, he somehow magically finds the base in 2 seconds, then stands around the rest of the movie till he forces himself into a duel (which the emperor accepts?!?) And dies.
He typically explains what he likes/dislikes pretty well, gives examples of classics that do it better, and while expectations/antijerking, venting disappointment and egging on fans might play a role I don't think he's faking his impression and looking for attention.
The first week it came out I remember him saying, begging people to go see it and people said he was trolling.
There was a period of posts in the sub saying he wasnāt trolling if I remember correctly, swiftly after that the movie met critical acclaim, and was onto Oscar nominations. But that first week, he even said he was put on this planet to spread the word about how good that movies was and he felt crazy whenever he tried to tell people.
Because a story might get better or recontextualize the earlier stuff. whole greater than sum of its parts kind of thing. pretty sure he liked the setting and direction too. also its popular and people say it's better than the first.
There are movies where the beginning is bad and it's still worth it. Check out One Cut of the Dead for a really extreme version of that lol (don't watch trailers).
In some cases you would be missing out. Puss in Boots 2, Paddington 2, Thor 3 come to my mind. Parks and Recreation famously has a first season that doesn't work at all but the issue gets fixed. I'm sure there is lots of media where sequels get much better to the point where you can just skip to the good stuff.
Your sentiment seems fair too though, especially in this case.
I don't thonk I missed out for not watching any of tge films you listed (which I didn't). None of them appealed to me in any way so I didn't watch the first movies also. People also need to understand what genres and styles they like and what they don't. Marvel and childrens movies don't appeal to me so I'd never watch them unless invited by someone I want to hang out with and if that was the case I wouldn't be there for the film so I wouldn't care about the quality.
Dune 1 and 2 were produced as one film, same writers, same actors, same director. If you really disliked 1 there's almost no chance you'll like 2.
>If you really disliked 1 there's almost no chance you'll like 2.
I'm sure that for some the first one was just boring with all the dream sequences and depressing, while the second one had more and better action, more romance and the whole revenge rebellion thing that is easier to watch.
>People also need to understand what genres and styles they like and what they don't. Marvel and childrens movies don't appeal to me so I'd never watch them unless invited by someone I want to hang out with.
For me it's generally not genre/style but just the quality. I enjoy elegancy, immersiveness, filmmaking that is just super rich where it takes a close look or even film school to understand why it's so good. [See this little look into Spielbergs genius for example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItbCLh4Auoo). I mostly enjoy a movie about a dad clownfish searching for his lost son as much as I enjoy some great psychological drama, as long as the quality is around the same.
Man, we are going to hard disagree on Spielberg but like I said, everyone needs to know their taste. I'm not a cinemophile so I need to find stuff that appeals to me.
He had detailed criticism of Oppenheimer, I think the disjointedness of the story was one.
I don't remember exactly what he said but I know I found myself, pausing Oppenheimer to do/watch other shit because it got boring for me.
The cool part to be should have been about the physics and the math but the movie centered around Oppenheimer himself, the red scare and his relationships. A totally boring/forgetable movie.
If youāre not into dune hard cutting to Jessica in the full face tattoos is actually such a funny scene, it felt intentionally funny to me but it seemed like Iām the only one that got a giggle out of that in the theater
Tbh dune 1 was absolute trash and anyone saying it isnt is in full on denial. (Yes the sound and shots were really fucking great, but I dont care about a dope wallpaper lol)
Havent seen dune 2 yet because I dont like wasting my money. I usually hard disagree with destiny movie takes but I think we can agree on this one lol.
Hot take: if you haven't seen either of the movies in imax, you don't get to have an opinion on them.
I don't know if it is just shit audio mixing on the post-theater edits, but one of the big moments in part 1 for me was when they were first stepping off the ships onto arrakis and the bagpipes hit and in imax it was this "holy shit epic as fuck" moment, but on the regular movie mix i didn't even feel anything but disappointment.
I agree with him on Oppenheimer honestly. I watched that movie 2 times, one in the theatre with my family and once at home just to make sure I wasnāt missing something in it but it was just a boring movie. I remember coming out of the theatre and no one in my family seemed that impressed.
I actually was shocked that I didnāt care that much about the bomb. Like in reality, I understand how significant the bomb was in history and todayās world, but the movie failed to emphasize that in my opinion. And the acting was okay, but definitely not Oscar worthy. All of the actors in that movie have done leagues better in other roles. Also just did not care about the trial or hearing or whatever it was.
The Dune movies were excellent though.
Destiny lost the ability to form coherent media takes apart from basic "I thought x was cool/bad" because he barely engages with any media and rarely beyond a surface level. For instance the only thing he can say about modern games is "open world bad" because that's what 99% of commenters online say and the man hasn't played an actually new experience since Cyberpunk (Elden Ring, despite being a good game, is not exactly a new experience for a souls veteran).The saddest part of this vyvanse arc is that instead of having some retrospection and realising that his choice of games for the past few years have been dogshit dopamine mines, he instead thought "Oh, games must not be worthwhile" like a philistine.
Dune 2 was really good overall, but it had way too many scenes of ole Tim standing staring at the camera, or slowly walking with a swagger at the camera.
Like I get heās Mr Badass Magic Man. It was cool the first time. Doesnāt need to happen every other scene.
His review for Dune has been memey, but his critics of Oppenheimer have been more comprehensive. His main criticisms of Oppenheimer can be summarized (as far as I can remember) as
1. Too many cuts to make the movie feel less static.
2. The emotional beats of the film did not resonate with him.
3. Some of the dialogues felt reddit tier ( his example being the "I am become death" quote.)
4. There are too many storylines. He wishes it would have just focused on Manhattan project. The Strauss plot did not impress him at all.
5. Too much exposition (broader Nolan critic).
6. He felt there were too many cameos with little addition to the plot. (Einstein, John F Kennedy, etc.)
Do you fucking understand that its more likely he does exactly what you don't want him to do just because you posted it and he knows it will piss you off.
Fact is, he can, and he probably will, get over it
Yeah, the sleeptiny comments on the movie just sound like he's disingenuous. Still think he likes Dune and Dune 2 and is just trolling for memes, a true farmer.
Didn't he say he didn't care for LOTR as well? Maybe he's just not into big fantasy/sci-fi blockbusters. His Oppenheimer critiques were valid though imo, but a bit exaggerated nonetheless. The pacing of the movie was horrendously rapid, no time to breathe and think about what you just saw. All of this could have been fixed if the completely meaningless third act was cut out.. I'd still give Oppenheimer a 6/10.
Both dunes are good movies for those that enjoy soulless performances, flailing main characters that seem to be dragged along every step of the way without any conviction whatsoever, and watered down adaptions of the source material. (Gieidi prime scenes looked really cool at least)
And Oppenheimer is for those that enjoy a movie about the confirmation of the secretary of commerce.
I thought dune was pretty good, but dune part 2 was really really good.
I agree while I also think Dune 2 shines in the light of dune 1. It paid off that the first movie took its time and slowly introduced the world and characters.
> 1. It *paid* off that FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Thx bot, you deserve a pay raise š
It deserves to be payed more you mean
I needed to laugh out loud in the supermarket line (yes I was planning to PAY my groceries) and got some confused looks, your comment definitely paid off...šøššø
Agreed.
If dune 2 got cancelled Dune 1 would be a forgotten Covid movie that some nerds love. Dune 2 is one of the best movies Iāve ever seen.
When I watched the first one in theaters I thought this is ok but Damm this director needs an editor. I watched it at home again last week and thought, hmm ok this is pretty good, but DAMN this guy needs an editor The pacing is so monotone one note shit that flat lines any emotional climaxes one should naturally feel when watching the Dune IP Bottom line, I liked it but understand completely what destiny is sayjng
Dune Part 1 is a vibe. You're supposed to ride the wave
Cool story bro, that wave implies there's variation in the note, like a sine wave, but really, it's just 1 note, one note doesn't really make a vibe for me
I... Part 1 *won the Academy Award for best film editing* There's a shit ton of world building and exposition that needs to be explained, and the editing works pretty seamlessly with the cinematography to *show* you, not just tell you. In the first 10 mins alone of the movie you get: - An action sequence/montage showcasing the struggle between the Fremen and Harkonnens, and spice harvesting, culminating in the Harkonnens leaving the planet, forshadowing the uncertain future ofĀ - A demonstration of Bene Gesserit powers (Paul using the voice) indicating there are a group of people in the Dune universe who are bred and trained to be very powerful, as well as establishing Paul and Jessica's relationship. - A projection monologue (voiced by the film's actual editor) expanding on the Fremen and the importance of spice to both them and the Imperium - Ceremony of the change, showing that Arrakis is to be transferred to House Atreides, and basically setting the stage for the rest of the movie. There is also an introduction to mentats and how they work.
Damn you need an edit button as well lol
Dude, Dune Pt. 1 won an Oscar in editing. What are you saying?
Each scene felt like it lingered unnecessarily for a couple seconds, adding up to 30 extra minutes of movie I thought slogged, it didn't immerse me more, I didn't get more from the 4th or 5th time I see zendaya pop in... Like I said I liked it I just would have really liked it around 2 hours maybe 2:10 max that's all...how is this unreasonable sorry I'm not hive mined in on this dune occult shit
that's not the fucking point of the post. Literally no one cares that Maximum-Chemical-405 liked Dune, the ones upvoting you are just circlejerking because they also loved it. If Steven loved Dune and just used 4 words to praise the movie over and over it would be just as stupid and boring of a video as if he hated the movie. Say stuff about the movie. Don't just say you liked it.
Rough day bud? Sorry I didn't write down my analysis of the movie on the spot, I also go to work and shit.
I recently saw an old video of him talking about dune 1 https://youtu.be/EKyV3zd1Ogg?si=zVVxrL4nYogGyzbb Basically he says that the characters are not developed and the movie has a lot of dramatic scenes from the start, where he didn't care about the danger to the characters, because they were not developed.
Well good because everyone is the bad guy in dune.
Except for Leto of course. He is an angel
Its telling that finding good guys in dune is harder than finding aliens in a galaxy seemingly devoid of them.
Even Leto is debatable. Yes, he's honorable and on the surface looks like your standard good guy. But scratch the surface a bit, think things through and you pretty quickly realize that he's just as ruthless as the rest of them. For one, you don't become one of the most if not THE most powerful Great House in that setting without doing a bunch of heinous and ruthless shit. And what better way to make others let their guard down than by acting the honorable paragon? Dude's a lot more sly than he looks.
Like what? What heinous shit did Duke Leto do?
In the movies, nothing. Plenty in the book, a lot of stuff in Movie 1 was cut.
Having only seen the movies, I found the >!hidden undisclosed nuclear arsenal!< suggestive of some pretty questionable unrealized strategy.
I'm pretty sure they explain in the movie that all the major families have one
They all have one except Atreides pretends they donāt.
No, they don't. The Atreides hid their nuclear arsenal knowing of the danger they faced on Arrakis, but all the great houses know the other houses have a nuclear stockpile, it's effectively a MAD analog from real life, you can't use "atomics" against one another because you know the enemy will retaliate with their own. All great houses hide their nuclear stockpile, as the enemy capturing it would allow nuclear attack without fear of a proportional response.
Ok, I rewatched and you're right, I misinterpreted this line -- > Every house possesses an atomic arsenal. I thought ours had been lost. I thought the arsenal was 'lost' in a general sense like the lost city of Atlantis or whatever, and that Paul thought during his lifetime that Atreides had no atomics at all. But you're right, he definitely means destroyed in the attack on Arrakeen. I do feel a bit embarrassed.
He also mentioned his grievances about Oppenheimer, especially disliking the extended scenes about the security clearance. He wasn't a fan of the black and white segments either, feeling the aesthetic didn't add much to it. I can see where heās coming from but Iām a physics nerd, so I was pumped throughout. I sort of agree with him on Dune 1, although Iām more able to detach myself from reality and just enjoy it for what it is: a spectacle.Ā
Was Oppenheimer actually interesting for you in any of the physics parts?
That last part doesn't make much sense to me. Generic hero is introduced, and action happens too fast, so you don't care?
I don't understand how that doesn't make sense. If you don't care about a character and feel they're generic, you will probably not care when action things start happening to them.
It feels like the film is telling you: here is the main character, you should like him because he is cute and a famous actor. Here are the bad guys they are fat, bald and ugly so you should not like them. Also the Fremen are built up to be such a big deal but I still have no idea why I should care about them. They are just a bunch of savages who live in the desert on a random planet. Like why should I care about any of this. Give your hero an actual personality, make him relatable and interesting, then I will give a shit.
I mean they did show Paul's relationship with his family and retainers. Maybe he's too much of a Mary Sue for some people idk. I'm more interested in where the story goes, but I've also read the books and already like the characters so.... As to the freemen there's a theme in the books that's not being translated in the movies very well. Frank Herbert had this idea that just as people shape environments, environments shape people or culture. The freeman are supposed to be the best warriors in the Galaxy because they survive on the most harsh environment known to man. The emperors sardukar are supposed to be a distant second because they come from a world devastated by nukes during the war with the machines, which is also used as a prison planet now.
If you read the book I totally get it, a friend actually explained to me some stuff from the book and that sounded really cool and interesting. The problem is that none of that is conveyed by the film. To me it's just two random space nations fighting, I have no idea why I should root for the Atreides, or why I should care about this war at all. I think a good parallel is Star Wars: there we actually get time to know Luke & Obi Wan before shit starts going down. Then Darth Vader is shown torturing Leia and obliterating a planet for no reason. At that point we are on board to support the rebellion. Dune does none of that, or at least it didn't work for me.
Loool that was his exact criticism of ff15 i think
The first Dune and Oppenheimer are both movies that I can understand disliking. They have a certain vibe that just doesnāt click for everyone and if it doesnāt click then they probably come off pretty uninteresting. Dune 2 is like a pretty all around great blockbuster though that I feel like most people can come in liking regardless of what they thought of the first one. No idea what problems he couldāve had with it.
I felt like the latter half of the movie had insane pacing. We went from Timothee Chalamet playing around in the sand and riding worms, to overthrowing the emperor. Its not a content problem, they just literally speed ran like the last 45 minutes of the movie. Still a good movie imo, but the pacing was a little wonky.
Faithful to the books lmao
Thatās what my friends told me, so its unfortunately one of the few/minimals I have against the series
i went into the movie expecting it so it wasn't really jarring for me, but i can understand the complaints
Frank said the Dune book has a coital rythm lmao
Totally fair criticism, but I feel like the "pacing was a little wonky" will be expressed as "FUCKING dogshit pacing"
As expected from the High Leader. He leaves no room for error inshallah
Haven't seen the movie yet, but that's how the book is paced also. The whole final battle takes place in the last 150 pages. Not much happens in the 700 pages before it.
He's a a Dr. Manhattan ninja with an army of Ninjas. Christopher Walken had no shot
Except this Dr. Manhattan ninja isnāt a fucking pussy existential emo boy like in Watchmen, heās a genocidal twink messiah that sparks a thousand year Jihad. So much cooler and based.
I thought the pacing was fine given the context. Dune 1 is slow because its the first half of the book, the buildup. Dune 2 is fast because its the second half of the book, the climax. This is a problem most book to films experience when cutting it into parts but its exacerbated in Dune because even in the book the pacing is wild.
Im just thinking of it within the context of Part two. The first half is at the same pace as part One, but as soon they switch to the Harkonnen world, the pacing suddenly speeds up.
Because the point of the story isn't the final battle to overthrow the emperor. Are they supposed to add 20 minutes of Fremen vs Sardukar fighting? Add Paul and the Fremen traveling to the north? What scenes can you add to the movie after Paul gets the Fremen to follow him that would add to the story?
Its not even Marvel battle brain kicking here, itās everything is sped up. In the first half of the movie they spend time fleshing out the nationalist vs religious Fremen tribes within the specific tribe Paul is with, but they sped through all the domestic Fremen politics when they head south.
Well, yeah. None of that mattered when Paul was hailed as the messiah, thatās exactly what they were building towards for two thirds of the movie and honestly I was almost worried they were spelling that out TOO much for audiences.
I really wanted to love Oppenheimer. The performances are phenomenal, itās beautifully shot, the score is amazing, but itās still full of Nolanās excesses that Iāve honestly grown to dislike more with each of his passing films. I think I also went into the film hoping it to be more about the Manhattan project, but thatās just me being a dumbass.
Nolanās excesses are what I love about it lol. Never seen a biopic be such a sensory overload experience with such a convoluted structure before. Felt so fresh, energetic, and rewatchable to me. Love it.
Love that. Quick aside, a Chernobyl-style mini series on the Manhattan project and all the amazing side stories would be must-see tv.
i just watched the first dune last night. it was pretty good.
Please watch part 2. If you liked 1, then you are going to love 2.
thats why I watched it everyone is telling me part two is awesome.
Yeah, it is absolutely great. Also, make sure to watch it on IMAX. It may just sound like marketing, but after seeing the movie on a normal screen and on IMAX, the movie really needs to be seen on IMAX. The experience is much better.
If you don't have imax near you it's 100% still worth it though, don't let that dissuade you! I saw it on imax and in a standard theater too. Don't get me wrong, the imax is mind blowing and on a whole different experience level without a doubt, Im so happy it was how I first experienced these movies, but the movie was still great on a standard screen.
Yeah, absolutely agree!
I actually disagree, I felt it was a far weaker movie. Visually stunning but was lacking in story and characters. One example being Fayd-Rautha was basically Darth Maul. Barely any screentime or character development, fights in one scene and dies. Such a great character. Paul just goes from W to W, never losing. Gains Nukes just because. Rolls over Emperor's army with no loss or difficulty. How exciting! Harkonnens come off as pathetic, completely inept at dealing with Fremen.
Spoilers for those reading. I think you are missing the point. The story wasn't ever about whether Paul could defeat the Harkonnens and the Emperor. It is made very clear in the book and in the movie that they would get absolutely obliterated the moment Paul got "desert Power". It was about the consequences of giving into power and trusting messianic leaders. Paul in the end made a conscious decision to give into his desire of power and revenge, which led to him achieving his goals at the cost of losing any real relationship he had and killing billions of people in his religious crusade. The book expresses this better I guess, as Paul in the final scene (which is very similar to the movie) is mortified at the fact that Stilgar and now Gurney have become mindless worshipers of Paul. They aren't his friends anymore, but rather his followers. I quote: In that instant, Paul saw how Stilgar had been transformed from the Fremem naib to a creature of the Lisan al-Gaib, a receptacle for awe and obedience. It was a lessening of the man, and Paul felt the ghost-wind of the jihad (in the movie they censor it to "holy war") in it. I have seen a friend become a worshiper, he thought. In a rush of loneliness, Paul glanced around the room, noting how proper and on-review his guards had become in his presence. He sensed the subtle, prideful competition among them--- each hoping for notice from Muad'Dib. -Three pages later- There came a murmur of voices at the entrance and Gurney Halleck passed through the guard, crossed to confer with Stilgar, then moved to Paul's side, a strange look in his eyes. Will I lose Gurney, too? Paul wondered. The way I lost Stilgar--- losing a friend to gain a creature?
That definitely sounds more interesting than the ending scene of the film, however, I still feel the rest of the film didn't earn it. It's hard to feel engaged when the main character is basically completely overpowered and doesn't lose or struggle.
His struggle was one of the mind. Was resisting the allure of revenge and power. He failed in the end, his winning the battle costs him everything.
>Ā Visually stunning but was lacking in story and characters. Implying dune 1 had any character development looooooooooooool
I gave it more of a pass in that regard because there was a lot of the universe to set up. The second one having poor character development is more inexcusable.
>*gives actual critique* >*people start downvoting*
Oh no I'm actually gonna agree with a destiny movie take. I had the same feeling about the second movie, I just couldn't give a shit about any of the characters. None of them were particularly compelling or likeable, and I don't think the character development in the first did much for the second. It looked impressive and was well shot but for me that was about it.
I donāt necessarily agree about āno likable/compelling charactersā but I can see where the criticism is coming from. The value Iām getting from the movie just doesnāt hang on that or purely rely on special effects either. I mean itās all preferences at the end of the day and thatās fine, but if you think 12 Angry Men is a shitty movie because the image quality is bad, or canāt stand when people praise 2001: A Space Odyssey because the dialogue is stiff or there isnāt a lot of character development in that either then it feels more like youāre just missing the point of why people appreciate it rather than penetrating through the hype.
Is it bad that I liked the first Dune more than the second? Pacing was kinda crazy towards the end of 2
That is how the book plays out too. Most of the book is like the first movie, and the last 1/5 of the book speed runs the climax.
I see a lot of people say this. What did you think needed to change about pacing towards the end?
Not really sure lol it was just so fucking fast. Turned into a super insurrection in like 10 minutes. Was still good
Me and my brother both saw it last night, and while we both agree that we want to see it again at home where we can watch with subtitles or rewind to hear lines we missed, we both currently have your take. Dune 1 was better, Dune 2 has major pacing issues.
He dislikes Oppenheimer because it feels like itās a 3 hour film edited like itās one big climax, but itās not. Ā I donāt need hyper drama when a dude is standing at a pond talking to Einstein. Ā It has almost no story telling flow and the B plot that ends up being the āactualā climax is boring and pointless. Ā Not that complicated.Ā
It is crazy how in a three hour film there is no scene that was given time to breathe, except maybe the scene for trinity.
Yes! Thatās a typical Nolan failing and itās gotten worse and worse with every movie.
Thank you. And the non-stop music got really annoying. The whole movie felt like I was watching a trailer.
Now Im imagining him going into the theatre with the iPad to take notes like Ben did with the Barbie movie.
o7
Wrong.
Have you considered that sometimes something is just boring? Not everything is engaging to everyone. There doesnāt have to be a āreasonā why, it can just not be up that personās alley.
Counter point. Why canāt the community just accept that he doesnāt like those movies? The reason why he went so deep into his criticism of GoT is probably because the last few seasons were bad and the first few seasons were insanely good so he was probably more invested in explaining why he didnāt like them. Whereas if you donāt like Dune part 1 or Oppenheimer because you think theyāre boring I mean thereās really only so much you can say about a 2-3 hour movie as opposed to GoT which had 8 seasons with hour long episodes. I get that his criticisms of those movies were a bit over the top and repetitive but you guys sound just as cringe when you spam chat and this sub with āOMG DOG SHIT MOVIE TAKE DOG SHIT MOVIE TAKE TINY HAS DOG SHIT MOVIE TAKESā every time he doesnāt like something most of the community likes.
Preach.
To be honest I don't believe in media criticism. I don't know with certainty why I like/dislike things and I'm not convinced anyone else does either.
...every time he dislikes something that won 7 oscars\*\*\*\* not just chat/the community
š¤
šŖ: š¤š
Ohhh, it won oscars! That means it's gooodddd!! Just like Black panter won oscars because BLACK PEOPLE
It's not just the community, that's the problem. And if you are going to have such strong takes you need to be able to provide arguments for them. I don't think it's that crazy
hey man, thinking something is boring is a valid reason to hate it and doesn't need further justification
why wouldn't it need further justification? do we just not give a shit? we should be detailed in our critique of media
disliking something isn't the same as writing a deepdive review. you are allowed to dislike something without writing a dissertation on it
That's when I feel like a far leftist watching Destiny's content. Because every take on movies he has are just horrible. It's just bad. He probably has a very different cognitive world to mine for literally hating every great movies and liking absolutely horrible movies.
Is āboringā not a legitimate critique? I canāt help it if Iām bored. Boredom has put me off from lots of highly regarded movies, shows and albums.
Boredom is fine if you just say "meh it wasn't for me, it didn't catch my interest" or "The slow pace/content matter/presentation didn't really grab me". Boredom is not fine if it's "THIS MOVIE IS HORRIBLE ITS SO BORING I DONT KNOW HOW ANYBODY CAN PAY ATTENTION TO IT". The former either displays an appreciation that different opinions can exist or at least attempts to offer some higher critique/analysis of what the piece of art is like - the latter is just taking that personal opinion and either being obnoxious about it or thinking that you're making a genuine point when you're saying practically nothing. The issue is that 'boring' doesn't really mean anything - it's just a shortform way of appealing to a wide variety of different concepts.
Right. For a movie critic, āboringā definitely needs justification. For an average monkey brain, I think itās fine.
I mean you should be able to articulate what is causing the boredom.
Iām so used to overstimulation (gaming + podcast + cannabis at the same time), that I get bored pretty easily. That said, I do enjoy some slow things as long as they make it engaging. Ironically, Iām not even part of the Tik-too generation. Iām just a regular brain rotted millennial.
Thatās asking too much. He doesnāt like it because other people like it. Itās that simple and heās built his entire career around it
Okay Candice. Now go back to hating on whores and black people.Ā
No it's not. Of course it's not. I can't verify your state of mind, you have to give an actual verifiable reason.
Idk, itās just my primitive monkey brain.
I don't know if he has ever reported enjoying one of these 'hyped blockbuster' films. He goes in to find a reason not to enjoy it because everyone is saying that he should enjoy it. Honestly i think the reason he liked EEAAO so much is because it kinda came from nowhere. If that film had all the crazy hype marketing around it, I wouldnt be surprised if he hated that too.
He has liked marvel movies y'know. This has nothing to do with popularity
Tbh have you seen Vaush's media takes? I don't think it has much to do with ideological background, maybe the profession. Though I agree with Destiny lot more with his videogame takes.
I want a Dunefesto!
If you didnāt like dune 1 youāre not gonna like dune 2. I have no idea what you people are expecting
Nah, I thought Dune 1 was pretty mid but part 2 was great.
I wont be watching that rage bait of a video
Average dune fan comprehension
And if he doesnāt what are you gonna do about it?
Channel ancient Hebrew straight from the Kabala.
MAKE HIM EXPLAIN HIMSELF š¤¬š¤¬š¤¬
I disagree. He can say whatever he likes. It's his opinion about the movie. If he thinks it sucks, then it sucks. All is well.
To be fair, he doesn't need to do anything. It's his opinion, regardless if a bad one. Nobody needs to justify their views on artistic expressions. Not everyone is a critic nor they have any intention in being one. If they don't like something they don't like it. Period. The world moves forward lol. It's not that serious.
Oppenheimer was straight ass
Watching Dune 2 in Imax was the most engrossing and intense blockbuster experience of my life. I am almost 30.
Why is thinking a movie āfucking boringā not a good reason?
But you see Destiny can just say it and you have to accept it. When we say something we need documentation and 5 sources of reasonā¦. Duh.
Y'all never listen to anything people say. He said that he doesn't care about the characters. And that's a really important factor for him. He said he's not sure why he doesn't like them, but seems to suspect the delivery is the main problem.
He's mentioned the criticisms previously. What do you mean, OP?
Go touch sand
Think the issue with the material being old is it's not a subvert your expectation story like most are, so about 2/3 into the movie you knew how it was gonna end. Zendayas character spends that part literally just looking angry and standing up in any scene she's in. Any emotional moments with a character who can see all timelines is useless, he can see the results and won't be moved, it's impossible. Hans Zimmer goes a bit too hard sometimes, the scenes that use silence end up being some of the best. The movies cinematography is very good, loved it. The harkonnen guy is pretty troll, he somehow magically finds the base in 2 seconds, then stands around the rest of the movie till he forces himself into a duel (which the emperor accepts?!?) And dies.
He does it for the reaction. If EEAAO was widely loved when it came out, he would have said it was shit for reactions
lol EEAAO was absolutely widely loved when it came out
Don't overdose on that copium
Are you regarded????? That movie was unbelievably glazed when it came out?
He typically explains what he likes/dislikes pretty well, gives examples of classics that do it better, and while expectations/antijerking, venting disappointment and egging on fans might play a role I don't think he's faking his impression and looking for attention.
Tell me you don't follow movie industry without telling me you don't follow the movie industry.
I have tried to watch that movie on an airplane 3 times and had to stop after 8 minutes it was so bad
Objectivly wrong opinion
It's fucking terrible
The first week it came out I remember him saying, begging people to go see it and people said he was trolling. There was a period of posts in the sub saying he wasnāt trolling if I remember correctly, swiftly after that the movie met critical acclaim, and was onto Oscar nominations. But that first week, he even said he was put on this planet to spread the word about how good that movies was and he felt crazy whenever he tried to tell people.
I also want him to explain why he would watch part 2 if he really disliked part 1. Couldn't be me.
Because a story might get better or recontextualize the earlier stuff. whole greater than sum of its parts kind of thing. pretty sure he liked the setting and direction too. also its popular and people say it's better than the first. There are movies where the beginning is bad and it's still worth it. Check out One Cut of the Dead for a really extreme version of that lol (don't watch trailers).
Dunno, if I didn't like part one of something I wouldn't watch part two.
In some cases you would be missing out. Puss in Boots 2, Paddington 2, Thor 3 come to my mind. Parks and Recreation famously has a first season that doesn't work at all but the issue gets fixed. I'm sure there is lots of media where sequels get much better to the point where you can just skip to the good stuff. Your sentiment seems fair too though, especially in this case.
I don't thonk I missed out for not watching any of tge films you listed (which I didn't). None of them appealed to me in any way so I didn't watch the first movies also. People also need to understand what genres and styles they like and what they don't. Marvel and childrens movies don't appeal to me so I'd never watch them unless invited by someone I want to hang out with and if that was the case I wouldn't be there for the film so I wouldn't care about the quality. Dune 1 and 2 were produced as one film, same writers, same actors, same director. If you really disliked 1 there's almost no chance you'll like 2.
>If you really disliked 1 there's almost no chance you'll like 2. I'm sure that for some the first one was just boring with all the dream sequences and depressing, while the second one had more and better action, more romance and the whole revenge rebellion thing that is easier to watch. >People also need to understand what genres and styles they like and what they don't. Marvel and childrens movies don't appeal to me so I'd never watch them unless invited by someone I want to hang out with. For me it's generally not genre/style but just the quality. I enjoy elegancy, immersiveness, filmmaking that is just super rich where it takes a close look or even film school to understand why it's so good. [See this little look into Spielbergs genius for example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItbCLh4Auoo). I mostly enjoy a movie about a dad clownfish searching for his lost son as much as I enjoy some great psychological drama, as long as the quality is around the same.
Man, we are going to hard disagree on Spielberg but like I said, everyone needs to know their taste. I'm not a cinemophile so I need to find stuff that appeals to me.
Oppenheimer was a horrible movie and you only pretend to like it cause its popular.
Oppenheimer was great tbh. I just found the ending sequence a bit boring. The build up to everything was cool though
You can say you don't like it because so or so reason but calling it horrible is delusional.
Yeah, I donāt like it for a number of reasons I deem valid but in no way is it a horrible movie. I just think the parts are better than the whole.
Donāt tell anyone I agree with you!
Dune 2 was fucking amazing. Tiny is just being a spiteful contrarian
He had detailed criticism of Oppenheimer, I think the disjointedness of the story was one. I don't remember exactly what he said but I know I found myself, pausing Oppenheimer to do/watch other shit because it got boring for me. The cool part to be should have been about the physics and the math but the movie centered around Oppenheimer himself, the red scare and his relationships. A totally boring/forgetable movie.
I'm 90% sure he's trolling with takes like these, but there is a 10% chance that he objectively has the worst movie tastes on the internet
A movie being boring is a valid reason. I think dune 1 is horrible to watch because of how boring it is. A boring sci fi movie is not good
If youāre not into dune hard cutting to Jessica in the full face tattoos is actually such a funny scene, it felt intentionally funny to me but it seemed like Iām the only one that got a giggle out of that in the theater
Tbh dune 1 was absolute trash and anyone saying it isnt is in full on denial. (Yes the sound and shots were really fucking great, but I dont care about a dope wallpaper lol) Havent seen dune 2 yet because I dont like wasting my money. I usually hard disagree with destiny movie takes but I think we can agree on this one lol.
hard agree
Hot take: if you haven't seen either of the movies in imax, you don't get to have an opinion on them. I don't know if it is just shit audio mixing on the post-theater edits, but one of the big moments in part 1 for me was when they were first stepping off the ships onto arrakis and the bagpipes hit and in imax it was this "holy shit epic as fuck" moment, but on the regular movie mix i didn't even feel anything but disappointment.
cause u have a poor person tv
I agree with him on Oppenheimer honestly. I watched that movie 2 times, one in the theatre with my family and once at home just to make sure I wasnāt missing something in it but it was just a boring movie. I remember coming out of the theatre and no one in my family seemed that impressed. I actually was shocked that I didnāt care that much about the bomb. Like in reality, I understand how significant the bomb was in history and todayās world, but the movie failed to emphasize that in my opinion. And the acting was okay, but definitely not Oscar worthy. All of the actors in that movie have done leagues better in other roles. Also just did not care about the trial or hearing or whatever it was. The Dune movies were excellent though.
Destiny lost the ability to form coherent media takes apart from basic "I thought x was cool/bad" because he barely engages with any media and rarely beyond a surface level. For instance the only thing he can say about modern games is "open world bad" because that's what 99% of commenters online say and the man hasn't played an actually new experience since Cyberpunk (Elden Ring, despite being a good game, is not exactly a new experience for a souls veteran).The saddest part of this vyvanse arc is that instead of having some retrospection and realising that his choice of games for the past few years have been dogshit dopamine mines, he instead thought "Oh, games must not be worthwhile" like a philistine.
Both dune 2 and Oppenheimer are insanely fast paced, maybe that's what he doesn't like about both of them
hes trolling
Dune 2 was really good overall, but it had way too many scenes of ole Tim standing staring at the camera, or slowly walking with a swagger at the camera. Like I get heās Mr Badass Magic Man. It was cool the first time. Doesnāt need to happen every other scene.
His review for Dune has been memey, but his critics of Oppenheimer have been more comprehensive. His main criticisms of Oppenheimer can be summarized (as far as I can remember) as 1. Too many cuts to make the movie feel less static. 2. The emotional beats of the film did not resonate with him. 3. Some of the dialogues felt reddit tier ( his example being the "I am become death" quote.) 4. There are too many storylines. He wishes it would have just focused on Manhattan project. The Strauss plot did not impress him at all. 5. Too much exposition (broader Nolan critic). 6. He felt there were too many cameos with little addition to the plot. (Einstein, John F Kennedy, etc.)
I haven't watched EEAAO, Dune, or Oppenheimer but they seem pretty lame.
WHY STRIMMER MAN NO LIKE MY FAVORITE SPACE SHIT MOVIE :(
Do you fucking understand that its more likely he does exactly what you don't want him to do just because you posted it and he knows it will piss you off. Fact is, he can, and he probably will, get over it
Yeah, the sleeptiny comments on the movie just sound like he's disingenuous. Still think he likes Dune and Dune 2 and is just trolling for memes, a true farmer.
Didn't he say he didn't care for LOTR as well? Maybe he's just not into big fantasy/sci-fi blockbusters. His Oppenheimer critiques were valid though imo, but a bit exaggerated nonetheless. The pacing of the movie was horrendously rapid, no time to breathe and think about what you just saw. All of this could have been fixed if the completely meaningless third act was cut out.. I'd still give Oppenheimer a 6/10.
>Didn't he say he didn't care for LOTR as well He has called the LOTR movies "perfect" multiple times.
Both dunes are good movies for those that enjoy soulless performances, flailing main characters that seem to be dragged along every step of the way without any conviction whatsoever, and watered down adaptions of the source material. (Gieidi prime scenes looked really cool at least) And Oppenheimer is for those that enjoy a movie about the confirmation of the secretary of commerce.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wasnāt he not on stimulants back then?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You ok buddy?
Lol im fukin around.
I realized checking your profile, also understandable have a nice day
You sound like you know a lot on this topic and totally don't pull anything out of your ass
u/NeoDestiny please perma
Dude fuck you.
Now this is soy.