Poooor Emperor

What's the last recent movie you've seen you'd rate above a 7/10?

>letter grading
You have a broken brain.

Your movies suck now israelite and they'll never be classics, we're in a dark age of cinema and culture in general

>letter grading
You have a broken brain.

obviously if you're using a 10 point scale, 1 is terrible, 5 is ok and 10 is great. what the frick is the point of having 10 numbers in play if nothing except 8, 9 and 10 is any good in your mind?

I myself don't rate shit in numbers, but from what I've read, most people who do rate shit reserve those very low ratings for (hypothetical) films that are outright unwatchable and lack any technical merit whatsoever. Of course, they never come across such films, because such a film would never see the light of day in the first place. So they end up rating really really terrible things a 4 at worst, and anything mediocre gets at least a 6 or a 7. It's pretty moronic.

Cinemaphile hated Lynch Dune until Dunc came out. Kvetching and What-about-ing won't make you correct

It does not.

>no u
My, what eloquence!

I love it when they prove my point

that lynch!dunegays do not care about dune at all and are just another flavor of memester like the baskin roberts discord group

the fact that "lynch"gays talk about DUNC more than Lynch's Dune
sorry if I hurt your feelings, but not sorry

stop projecting

Even if that were true why should I give a frick?
I'm not going to change my opinion just because of some (real or imagined) general consensus by anonymous posters.
People who do that are no better than common redditers. Might as well not even bother pretending to have their own thoughts at all.

>"N-n-no it was this guy talking about bullshit. I have the same opinion but you're talking to the wrong guy."
I don't fricking care either way, I just think this is such a stupid thing to be complaining about in the first place.

>DUNC fanboy ...
>Autistic line spacing and juvenile insult
Are you Black personing me right now or are you just an actual moron who cries over sci-fi movie adaptations all day?

You don't have to imagine it, I know for a fact that you're 99.999% likely to be deeply autistic and queer just based on your weird little reactions to my messages.

Basically the rick and morty parody star trek cartoon was banned from Cinemaphile because they and the morons posting in those threads were too cancer even for a board like Cinemaphile,
so they invaded Cinemaphile's /trek/, spam unfunny memes, troony and NuTrek positivity (They love it because NuTrek caters to trannies, gays, and blacks), and always ALWAYS bring up rick and morty trek in every single discussion, especially 90's live action treks.

There's also a troony mod protecting them and they're quick to ban anything even slightly negative about trannies, especially if it's about the troony actor in one of the NuTrek episodes.

>an actual 15 year who probably can’t act
How is casting a 25-year-old who cannot act any better?

Correct. They both approved and thought well of the film. The characters couldn't have been cast better and I believe that they condensed the book fairly well into 2-3 hours. Lynch never said he disowned the film due to the film itself but a grudge against executives who didn't give him final cut, unrelated to what he had filmed which he has a billion times he really likes but people still parrot this nonsense.

>I read people saying that toddler Alia would never work in Villenueve's version and use Lynch's movie as example
Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. Had you ever seen anyone argue that Alia in Lynch's film was bad, or that she was bad in the miniseries, or that the character could not work in live action, BEFORE Villeneuve decided that he would write her out?
No, me neither. Alia was always cited as one of the best parts of Dune (both the books and the adaptations). Alicia Witt's performance in particular was generally applauded - now those imbeciles shit on her. When people brought up that Villeneuve would probably write out Alia after DUNC1 released (because we knew he would, it was signalled by how he had butchered part 1 already), those same people argued that he would never do that, and that Alia is needed, and that Jessica being pregnant meant they'd need to have Alia. Now they've changed their tune.

That's the length those "people" go to defend one of the worst decisions Villeneuve could have made. They don't care about what they said yesterday, it's all about kissing their favourite hack's arse.

>I'm sure Lynch tried his best to find the right child to play Alia the way he wanted
He probably selected her from an agency sedcard, invited her for an interview, looked at her once and knew he'd found his Alia.
That's how he cast pretty much everyone on Twin Peaks (that he hadn't arleady worked with), and it's how the Hara actress says her interview with him went as well.
Lynch has that kind of instinct.

They're not paid shills, that's not a thing. They're just dumb people who don't know any better and are probably young or want to LARP as young and defend the new ones because....who the frick knows why NPC's do what they do. Agent Smith theory in full effect.

It is not only in poor faith but it also is nonsensical. One quick look through objectively would reveal that Lynch Dune gays are articulate and always eloquently state their thoughts while DUNC gays are just people who don't care or know shit about what they're talking about and just want to piss people off.

It does not.

Paid shills are 100% a thing
It’s not even an open secret, it’s just an open fact at this point.

What specifically do you hate about it? I need correct data for my mentat brain.

>Opinion-based, shit opinion, opinion and shit opinion
>Muh story changes
Necessary at least in the first half
>That the cinematography is embarrassingly bad for a high-budget film.
I'll take your word for it, I guess
>Hans Zimmer bad
Shit opinion
>That the acting is shit, as is the casting.
I disagree
>That normalgays eat it all up because their favourite youtubers told them that all of this is good filmmaking.
Can't speak for them, but I agree that people who base their opinion on other peoples' are morons. Sounds like a very personal autistic anger, though.
>And that Villeneuve is a massive shithead
Opinion, but you're entitled to it no matter how weird it is. I just can't fathom getting this mad at someone who's done nothing to you.
>Muh telephone displays
There are certain films who aren't as enjoyable in a normal seating as they are in theater, that's why I've only seen certain movies in a cinema and then never again because the memory of that experience is much better than a home viewing. Also, you're getting too butthurt over what some rando says about something.

>No.
Nice way to elaborate on your intricate and well thought-out reasoning for why certain story beats need to be left in.
>Hans Zimmer fanboy huhuhu
He can write good music occasionally, I get what you're b***hing about but that's why I found the Dune music he did to be more palatable
>This is not a matter of opinion
Yeah it fricking is, as is every other thing you're complaining about dipshit. He was an awesome Baron
>Have you read the massive bullshit he said?
No because I don't care what he thinks. I don't spend my time being emotionally affected by and poring over what people say about shit.
>A telephone is not a "normal seating".
No shit, I wasn't talking about that. Also, I can name movies where a phone viewing enhances the experience.

>Robbing Yueh of any backstory or motivation?
Yes, all that was necessary was the reason why he'd betray the Atreides.
>Turning the baron into a Bond villain parody?
He felt menacing and cool, but I agree that he kinda looks like Gert Frobe.
>Destroying Liet Kynes?
Not much to destroy, since he doesn't really do much in the book or movie to begin with.
>Writing out Alia?
Yes
>Writing out Thufir?
For the sake of brevity, yes
>Turning Chani into a rebellious girl-boss who needs no man?
I didn't like her as a character anyway so I don't care.
>It was loud, mostly unmelodic, and really annoying.
Because you have sensitive ears who can't handle bombastic sounds. The Atreides theme was fricking cool, and if you disagree you're a homosexual.
>But others do care.
I fail to see why
>And he's insulting a whole profession.
Oh no! Not the whole profession! WHATEVER SHALL WE FRICKING DO?!?!??! SAVE US ANGRY AUTISTIC ANON!!
>Those that look so fricking terrible that not seeing as much of them can be considered an improvement
More just movies made intentionally badly, like the Trailer Park Boys movie or stuff like Gummo and Trash Humpers.
>Like DUNC.
Now that's just rude, you fricking rapscallion.

>To you, maybe.
I felt too fricking tryhard in DUNC 1. Every damn scene with him was to make him as evil and sinister as possible, which rendered him stoic and boring. To only exception to this being the very brief "Wonderful kitchen" bit. He was better in DUNC 2 because he actually displayed a bit of emotional range. Shit like his smugness and bemusement and even laughter during the Geidi Prime stuff, that whole admiring "Old fashioned artillery! Genius!" shit, actual fear and desperation with the Emperor and Paul, etc. It's not much but it was a improvement over his boring ass DUNC 1 counterpart.

>Which was largely dropped for the sake of brevity
It's literally the ONE thing that shouldn't be dropped from the first half of the book. It's what drives the plot forward and the one thing that ties into the bigger themes of the whole work.
>adding drama between a minor character and one of the protagonists is a waste of screentime
You're really jsut defending Villeneuve for the sake of it at this point, aren't you? You don't even think about the shit you write.
>He put a good word in and shit
No, he didn't. He died. The reason Paul was accepted was not that Kynes said anything to the fremen, it was that Kynes and his father did all the groundwork for what made the fremen open to the idea of accepting outsiders, and to outsiders having pivotal positions in their society. Kynes was all about cultural exchange, which is what Paul's story with the fremen build upon. Kynes' story is a parallel to Paul's story. Chani being Kynes' daughter means that her romance with Paul symbolizes mutual acceptance of cultures. You really know nothing about Dune as a work of literature.
>overly-sentimental
>his precious useless lore
Once again, you're being a dishonest piece of shit. I don't demand lore-accuracy, I demand respectful treatment of the themes and characters. If I was a lore-autist, I'd be crying about weirding-modules rather than characters being destroyed. I'd be like Villeneuve.
>offended by good soundtracks.
Maybe you just have shit taste then.
>people who are so angered by words
Word influence what people think. Words are how dictators gain a following. Words start wars. Words are how Hollywood ruins the public perception of what cinema is supposed to be.
>humorously
You're not funny. You're just a low-effort shitposter.

>It's literally the ONE thing that shouldn't be dropped from the first half of the book
Says who?
>It's what drives the plot forward
The thing that drives the plot forward is that the Atreides are given stewardship over Arrakis, not this intrigue bullshit and inter-house drama that was in the book. You can have characters playing chess in their heads in a book, but it's nonsense visually.
>You're really jsut defending Villeneuve for the sake of it at this point, aren't you?
Frick Villenueve, he can do whatever the frick he wants. I genuinely fail to see your attachment to a completely removable storyline given how Hawat has a far smaller role in this movie.
>He died.
So he did nothing then.
>The reason Paul was accepted
Was because the Bene Gesserit made arrangements for him and Paul played his hand right.
>Kynes and his father
Ah yes, the important character KYNES' DAD, who could forget such a memorable role?
>Blah blah blah culture and love and peace
All well and good, how the frick is this interesting in any way?
>You really know nothing about Dune as a work of literature.
Because I don't read into sci-fi novels as autistically as you do, it seems. It feels like you're trying to insult me but it's such an impotent and worthless insult that I can't fully tell.
>I don't demand lore-accuracy
Yeah you fricking do given how anal and whiny you're being about it
>I demand respectful treatment
Frick respectful, who are you to tell another man how to adapt a novel? You can think of hundreds of reasons why but they all amount to dick.
>Maybe you just have shit taste then.
I've already established that Zimmer did no wrong in Dune and if you fail to understand that you've got issues with your ears and an opinion made of shit.
>Word influence what people think.
Yes, but you're being a thin-skinned little pussy about it.
>You're not funny.
Yeah I am

About time you understood, tard boy. Don't bother defending yourself anymore if you're this slow to understand the obvious.

So you haven't read Frank Herbert's work and now think everything about the characters was only added by his son.
Wonderful.

>There's no "backstory" about the Baron either in Dune or in Children of Dune
Except there is. Read again. And more slowly this time.

Villains are best when you don't know the ins and outs of their backstory because the unsaid and the mystery makes them more interesting to the viewer, instead of them spelling out every facet of his childhood so that the audience can "understand" him for no real reason.

>Villains are best when you don't know the ins and outs of their backstory
Directors and actors should know at least a modicum of what motivates them. When they don't, you end up with something like DUNC.

>it's more natural to have them make their own conclusions since it adds a lot to their performance
WTF? No. Not ever has that been a good idea. There's a reason good actors and good directors argue about their characters and discuss them at length.
>giving a pedophilic rapist degenerate tyrant despot king a backstory is fricking stupid to begin with
Well, too bad, because Frank Herbert already did that. The baron has motivations, and he has a history with House Atreides, with the Emperor, with Arrakis, and so on. That's why the character does anything he does in the story. And DUNC just deletes all of that, not only from the story on-screen, but also from the performance, because the actor didn't know about anything of it, and the director didn't care about it. It makes the baron an empty character who is just "fricking evil" for no reason at all.

No one is talking about those superficial details in this thread, anon.
>not a sadistic jacking off to it all
You're really going to claim that the baron is not a sadist? Really?

>his cruel acts are done with purpose
Sadism doesn't lack purpose. Sadism just means that, no matter the purpose, it comes with some form of satisfaction. And I definetly read the baron as someone who enjoys torturing and asserting dominance. Not as someone who reluctantly gives in to those things for some higher purpose's sake.

>he's not going to order an execution for shits and giggles
I don't claim he would. Just that when he does, he does so with sadistic glee.

>Not ever has that been a good idea.
>Having actors make their own interpretation of a character is BAD BAD BAD
moron.
>Well, too bad, because Frank Herbert already did that.
What an autistic freak, no wonder it was cut out of the movie.
>The baron has motivations
Which can be easily boiled down to "we don't like House Atreides." which makes the purple prose completely needless in movie form.
>It makes the baron an empty character who is just "fricking evil" for no reason at all.
It's literally explained in one sentence what makes the Baron and the Harkonnens evil and depraved in the movie which is then built upon by Stellan's performance.

The Atreides and Hakonnen represent two different philosophies of power
Atreides rule through mutual loyalty between ruler and ruled
Harkonnen rule through fear

Which is conveyed almost 100% visually in the movie, apart from a few sentences about how great everyone thinks the Atreides are because they're such solid dudes.

>le visual storytelling is when the movie doesn't say shit
Snyder's school of le visual storytelling

>homosexuals don't comprehend "show don't tell" and how differently the two houses are depicted just by looking at their two home planets.

>Ah, good old Dunning-Kruger.
You're not funny.
>Let me inform you that I am right and you are wrong according to me, the smug homosexual who is very smart and intelligent
FIFY.
>It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with visual storytelling or filmmaking
According to you, but I fail to understand why you matter or have any importance.
>If "show don't tell" was correct, that would render Shakespeare a terrible playwright
>Brings in Shakespeare to badly explain why a modern sci-fi movie is bad according to you
I don't care if it means that Shakespeare was a dickhead according to you, "show don't tell" is always better in a visual medium. No one wants to be dictated to what happens instead of, y'know, shown.

>It's about you trying to shame people with "show don't tell" bullshit when you yourself don't know what you're talking about.
Okay, you're a little funny.
>Ah, so presenting facts is "smug"
Not inherently, but you are.
>You don't care about anything.
That's an unfair strawman, you dishonest shit.
>Other than shillnig for a hack like VIlleneuve
Learn to spell tard, also how do you say I don't care about anything and now you act like I give a shit about a random director? You're being very schizophrenic and incontinent rn.
>If that means Shakespeare must have been a bad writer, just so that you can pretend that Villeneuve and Brian Herbert are good, so be it!
I don't know who you're arguing with in your head, but your strawmanning makes you look like you're either unhinged or just a terrible debater who makes shit up on the spot.
>Again: "Show don't tell" has nothing to do with visuals. It's about writing styles.
According to you, but it fits perfectly in movie form given how insistent some homosexuals are about stuffing movies full of exposition when information should always be conveyed visually whenever possible. And never clutter with long paragraphs of explanation.

>"show don't tell" is always better in a visual medium.
Made up defense for thes inane blockbusters.
You have to show what needs to be shown and tell what needs to be told

>keeps going on about how it's all about visuals and how Shakespeare is a "shitty writer"
Why are you so resistant to learning from when you are proven wrong?

>If you think visual is the way to go
What a fricking strawman. You're either baiting or a complete clinical moron.

>I don't care what you claim "show don't tell" means
Yes. You've already made clear that you do not care about truth and facts.
You're just a shitposter, like most DUNC fanboys.

Case in point.

Yes. But Duke Leto's popularity is what earned the (secret) enmity of the Emperor, and why he conspired with the Baron to destroy the Atreides.
However, in defeat the loyalty of their people (like Idaho) enables them to escape, and their approach to ruling allows Paul to successfully influence and ultimately take control of Fremen society.
If the Baron had been defeated, he'd just be destroyed. Once people lost their fear he's done.
Dune is in part an exploration of the nature of power and its uses.

You seem very upset.
Have a nice lie down or something.

>Having actors make their own interpretation of a character is BAD BAD BAD
You do understand what a director's job is, right? Oh, wait, you're a Villeneuve fanboy. Of course you don't.
>Which can be easily boiled down to "we don't like House Atreides."
No. You're just showing how little understanding you have of anything.

No, his family history counts as a backstory. His stance on the Empire counts as a backstory. His daughter being Paul's mother counts as a backstory.
You just seem to think that a "backstory" needs to be some elaborate retelling of a character's misadventures as a youth or something. You're the kind of person who watches Star Wars and thinks that Obi-Wan and Darth Vader didn't have a backstory, until the prequels were made. Or that Han Solo didn't have a backstory until Solo A Star Wars Story got made.

>Irrelevant, it can literally be boiled down to "We don't like the Atreides and it's a long story."
Fricking speedreader.
>You don't need someone turning to the camera and telling the audience
No, fricktard. You don't need to tell the audience. This whole argument wasn't about telling the audience anything to begin with.
It's about how the director didn't tell the character's actor anything about it, and how that resulted in a completely lifeless performance.

>You want them to sit around talking about the backstory in a boring sit-down scene
No, you fricking moron. I want the director and the actor to sit down and talk about it with each other.
Fricking moron.

>the shit the character doesn't even know about and has nothing to do with the actor's performance
Except the character does know about most of it, and it does affect a performance. Troll.

>According to you
According to everyone who isn't a massive shitposter.

Introducing a character right into their place in the world doesn't count as "backstory"
Obi-Wan and Darth Vader clearly had an off-screen past together, they explicitly say they used to be mentor and student. Everything the Baron does happens during the events of Dune the book, and his motivations are based on regular old ambition/greed/lust plus the ancient Harkonnen-Atreides feud (which is in no way unique to the Baron as a character)

It's more part of the setting than actual backstory of a character. It's not backstory that the Rebels are fighting the Empire in Star Wars

In the sense that everything in any story is part of the setting, but character backstory isn't the setting's backstory even if the two are obviously related

Villains are best when you don't know the ins and outs of their backstory because the unsaid and the mystery makes them more interesting to the viewer, instead of them spelling out every facet of his childhood so that the audience can "understand" him for no real reason.

I honestly think one of the main themes of Dune is fate/causality. How Paul thought he had a choice but lost everything and did the Jihad on top of that. It's really brutal to think about. How no better future was really possible.