DUNE trailer

So you are saying that you are glad they are changing things in an arbitrary way just to appease a specific demographic but because of those same changes you will not watch it?

....progress???

I did not say that I was glad that things were changed in an arbitrary way. I commented that that is what studios have been doing, so it is not surprising to me in the case of Dune. I am generally annoyed by such changes, but I wanted to indicate that it is not because of being sexist, but rather because any sorts of changes annoy me.

I don't get why all sci-fi battles (including MCU) consist of masses of infantery running into each other. I get that swords and knives and close combat look great and make for more interesting fights than just shooting at long range, but it also mean that fights are rarely about tactics and characters, but mostly about people running into each other.

mads b. wrote: I don't get why all sci-fi battles (including MCU) consist of masses of infantery running into each other. I get that swords and knives and close combat look great and make for more interesting fights than just shooting at long range, but it also mean that fights are rarely about tactics and characters, but mostly about people running into each other.

I thought it was a looks thing, this kind of image has worked since the 1960s. Of course you are right that it doesn't make sense. Especially since you wouldn't want a world and society you intend to rule over be damaged. Neal Stephenson's the Diamond Age has some ideas about it, a permanent ongoing war is represented in grub and dirt (=dead nanobots) increasing in some areas for a while.
OTOH, if you are trying to make a point about the source material being about Oil&Jesus in the Middle East, you would need strong imagery.

After Bade Runner 2049 Villeneuve gets the benefit of the doubt from me. I will just go and see if I like what he did.

I get why it's done and part of me can ignore the stupidity of that kind of action because it looks cool. But I actually think the first Avengers did a pretty good job of showing tactics and how the heroes individually made an impact by having them move around and go for specific objectives.

You just can't let yourself be bothered by the complete lack of tactics in movie fights, unless it specifically uses authenticity as a selling point (Gettysburg) and fails miserably. An exception for me is that pretty much any and every Star Wars weapons system just makes my head explode Scanners style.

ETA: Every system except for the X-wing Death Star attack. That actually made sense.

It's important to remember that each form of media has its own strengths and weaknesses. Most things aren't one to one translations since that rarely works out as well as you might imagine.

Making a DUNE film doesn't change the book in any way; those words are still on those pages, and if the book is enough for you, have at it.

I used to be a stickler for details like that, but have come to the point that if I want a faithful following of the book then I will read the book.
Movies are an art and entertainment form, they have creative people making changes and that’s perfectly fine.
When I heard the same director from 2049 was doing Dune, I had faith it will be done well. Villeneuve understood the original film as a transformative odyssey for Decker and created a followup that exceeded any expectations I had. So many other people would have just made an action cop movie about hunting clones. He nailed what made Blade Runner, I think he will also understand what makes Dune.

mads b. wrote: I don't get why all sci-fi battles (including MCU) consist of masses of infantery running into each other. I get that swords and knives and close combat look great and make for more interesting fights than just shooting at long range, but it also mean that fights are rarely about tactics and characters, but mostly about people running into each other.

The in-world explanation for Dune is the body shields. Projectile weapons don't work against them and laser weaponry have nuclearly violent interactions. I get your point though, and explaining it away doesn't necessarily affect your argument.

The sticking point for old military history farts like me is that screaming and running headlong into the enemy if they're in any formation is a good way to get dead quick. The Swiss made that work with nothing more than long pointy sticks. And that your director would know this if they got in touch with the local community college and talked to the History 101 professor.

mads b. wrote: I don't get why all sci-fi battles (including MCU) consist of masses of infantery running into each other. I get that swords and knives and close combat look great and make for more interesting fights than just shooting at long range, but it also mean that fights are rarely about tactics and characters, but mostly about people running into each other.

Yeah, I dislike it as well. Wakanda is super tech advanced but they charge in on rhinos (at best?)?

Clearly in the old days it was budget, incorporating armored vehicles and aircraft was super expensive and dangerous. But with CGI that limitation is really artistic, most screenwriters and directors have no concept of a combined arms battle and in a character focused action movie they are depersonalizing. Plus I think hordes of anonymous CGI goons is much cheaper to CGI than lines of vehicles engaging each other.

Asian and Russian cinema seems to do this better. Either they have more access to military equipment to use as props or they just like it more.

I still hold out hope for Tobie Maguires Robotech film but that seems like it is always in development hell. Mechanized battles below the scale of Pacific Rim/Kaiju but not just one up armored humvee driving by either.

Dune specifically had more vehicles in the book, IIRC. I think Herbert designed his world more on the logistics of pre-industrial sail or maybe steam rather than WW2 era coal and mass transport. So a "Rommel in the desert" style was less viable than groups of infantry, particularly the highly trained sardaukar, lightly supported by ornithopters. Given their dislike of automation it makes even more sense. Until you get to that old Westwood RTS Dune game with heavy tanks and stuff rolling in the sand, getting swallowed by worms. Damn, I loved that game

RobertB wrote: The sticking point for old military history farts like me is that screaming and running headlong into the enemy if they're in any formation is a good way to get dead quick. The Swiss made that work with nothing more than long pointy sticks. And that your director would know this if they got in touch with the local community college and talked to the History 101 professor.

I have a long rant about this in regards to Gladiator (Full cavalry charge through dense forest? Sure! Can't be THAT suicidal, can it?!), Braveheart, and several other much-lauded films that I try to restrain when actually watching one of them. Sometimes I just can't stop the outburst of laughter, though.

Yep, Gladiator. Catapults too. I just saw that battle scene and Ridley Scott did at least keep them in formation.

Just finished this. Exceeds and subverts expectations. So many scenes played out differently than I thought they would. Like when Paul has his hand in the box it's his mother, Jessica, outside the door saying the mind-killer stuff to keep from going in and helping him. Baron isn't just a flying fat guy and is more of an intimidating Kingpin type. All of the casting was great. Easily one of the best looking sci-fi films I've ever seen. I'm still going to see it in the theater just for the visuals but also because it's really great. Bring on part two!

huh, you're making me want to see this. Villeneuve certainly has incredibly visuals, at absolute worst...