In Herbert’s original Dune timeline, he briefly describes how artificial intelligence and all other thinking machines were wiped out in a series of devastating wars called the Butlerian Jihad. The original Dune novels explain that the fighting started because of an ideological schism between two factions of humanity – one that had come to rely on the thinking machines for most aspects of life, and one that believed doing so was inherently harmful to the human race. The latter group ultimately won, leading to the destruction of all thinking machines and a renewed focus on uniquely human intelligence, manifested in orders like the Mentats and the Bene Gesserits.
I think ultimately you are right - he was just riffing around on "cool lavender" with an edgelord ending and folks read way too much into it.
noddy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 5:31 am
My only real memory of Dune as a book was that the first 1 (or 2?) books are the earliest example I became aware of back in the day of the modern edge-lord/shitpost stuff in which the hero is really the villain, intentionally or not.
nowdays this is the norm, the boys, game of thrones, too many comic book heros to mention -- ooh aah, how spicey,
the other thing I remember is the books heading off into lala land once the main story in that initial book petered out.
.. its always been massively overrated to me, but I do like that guys visual style so will probably enjoy the movie - I enjoyed the first one just fine, despite being indifferent to the material.
Sand_worm_crew.jpg (87.22 KiB) Viewed 1408 times
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
We went to a family matinee screening of "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire"
What can be affirmed is that it is indeed a movie product. I've seen worse, and left the theater relieved that it wasn't atrocious, but its less a movie than a series of vignettes off of a checklist of what the film needs to accomplish. In a sense it is that cynical; in another, that out of touch with how to actually milk this cash cow.
There is the original comedy, which is a nearly perfect one, that can never be repeated.
But as popular as the movie is, there is the toyline/cartoon series for millenials which for better or worse the definition of what Ghostbusters is. That there was a popular original movie is just a spanner in the works because every Ghostbusters property has to cater to both the cartoon and the original movie, which are two separate things. The success of the two, more than almost anything, leads to a singular failure to capitalize on this franchise.
The guy who does the "What Makes This Song Stink" (RHCP episode) had a point about ripoffs (starting around 14:45). Parker Jr. totally ripped off Huey Lewis but he added that bridge.
---------------
I'm going for some stolen valor here. My whinge is at least there is some vague, shadowy Arnie-semblance; where are the comedies? With the broadest stroke, I don't think there is a single funny comedy writer in the business right now; or at least one under the age of 50. They all suck- not even a single silly one or gross out one.
oh absolutely - Its really hard to even imagine a comedy in the current corporatised puritan nightmares.
cant be sexist, cant be rascist, cant be ableist, cant punch down, cant punch sideways. (ya yah, all those concepts are dodgy but thats besides the point)
cant annoy sponsors or future employers...
cant annoy various quirks in various cultures and countries..
cant make a comedy
"The Most Hilarious Comedy Movies(2000-2023)" is a pretty scary list
I continue on in the hope that lewisaaron_1989's tastes are more singular and personal and don't have the pulse of the general viewing audience in mind. Leap of faith and all of that.
btw, nÜ ghostbusters, has a few brief scenes of Bill Murray. The first is a angle/reverse angle scene as a homage to his introductory scene from the original.
Then he shows up again in the finale of the third act, knocks on the door improvises some lines then there is a hard cut to this jarring shot of him alone in the scene reaching into the exposed wall of the building a pulling out a whisky bottle says some stupid line about how he knew he left it there, then proceeds to stumble around as background filler, wearing dark sunglasses. I'm pretty sure he was really intoxicated in those scenes, probably the only way to get him to do the movie in the first place.
Bizarre and sad...and maybe a summary of the whole thing.
Last edited by NapLajoieonSteroids on Wed Apr 03, 2024 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mank- the dramatized story about the screenwriter of Citizen Kane, filmed by David Fincher based off a screenplay from his late father, the screenwriter and journalist/editor Jack Fincher.
Smug and arrogant come to mind; 'specially when the story about the making of Citizen Kane begins to ape Kane itself. It's not worth it.
Though it did make me think of Citizen Kane again, which I haven't in a very long time. 80 years on, and all the politics and nonsense aside, it still looks good.
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:33 am
Mank- the dramatized story about the screenwriter of Citizen Kane, filmed by David Fincher based off a screenplay from his late father, the screenwriter and journalist/editor Jack Fincher.
Smug and arrogant come to mind; 'specially when the story about the making of Citizen Kane begins to ape Kane itself. It's not worth it.
Though it did make me think of Citizen Kane again, which I haven't in a very long time. 80 years on, and all the politics and nonsense aside, it still looks good.
In Herbert’s original Dune timeline, he briefly describes how artificial intelligence and all other thinking machines were wiped out in a series of devastating wars called the Butlerian Jihad. The original Dune novels explain that the fighting started because of an ideological schism between two factions of humanity – one that had come to rely on the thinking machines for most aspects of life, and one that believed doing so was inherently harmful to the human race. The latter group ultimately won, leading to the destruction of all thinking machines and a renewed focus on uniquely human intelligence, manifested in orders like the Mentats and the Bene Gesserits.
I think ultimately you are right - he was just riffing around on "cool lavender" with an edgelord ending and folks read way too much into it.
Finally watched "Dune 2". In the aether of the internet as always.
Well, it was better than "Dune 1" which I once summed up as "I've been to livelier funerals" when asked for a review.
Clearly set the stage for another sequel.
Having view the Lynch version, the made-for-TV version, and now the latest go by Villeneuve,
I'm beginning to think that the book "Dune" simply does not translate well to the screen.
I don't think that it's an issue of pacing. Thought "Blade Runner 2049" by the same director was a brilliant sequel
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
As I became older, I started to perceive the films of Chaplin as maudlin and appreciate the films of Keaton far more.
I largely agree. Chaplin's legacy is his character's image. A large amount of people will recognize it even if they've not seen the films. Keaton doesn't have that, and people watching movies from a century ago is becoming ever more rarer and specialized. But Keaton is still mined for templates and gags.
The first and only Star Wars movie that I watched was the original "Star Wars" and my review could best be summarized as a shrug.
Anyways, I've learned that Director Lucas sold the SW rights to Disney which then cranked out a series of SW "prequels", the most recent being something called the "The Acolyte".
The reason I mention this is that while searching for some TV series to watch, the discrepancy between the critic's review and those of the audience seem rather large.
Critics_vs_Audrience.png (1.27 MiB) Viewed 167 times
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Disney's net income peaked at $13,066 million in 2018 pre-COVID-19. One would expect it to drop and it did during COVID-19.
However, last year [2023] Disney's net income was only $3,390 million. Not much better than during the COVID-19 lockdown and far from their peak. Perhaps there's not much rage left to monetize, rather people are thinking justforgetaboutit or should that be fuhhgeddaboutit.
Disney is very popular in Japan. Tokyo Disneyland enjoys a huge number of visitors. Although I'm the odd man out, as it's my idea of hell [as is the Universal Studios theme park in Osaka].
However, unlike other Disney concerns, Tokyo Disneyland is an independent entity and operates under IP license from Disney. As far as I know, it has not followed the current Disney corporate philosophy of "put a chick in it and make it gay . . . and lame".
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Disney's net income peaked at $13,066 million in 2018 pre-COVID-19. One would expect it to drop and it did during COVID-19.
However, last year [2023] Disney's net income was only $3,390 million. Not much better than during the COVID-19 lockdown and far from their peak. Perhaps there's not much rage left to monetize, rather people are thinking justforgetaboutit or should that be fuhhgeddaboutit.
Disney is very popular in Japan. Tokyo Disneyland enjoys a huge number of visitors. Although I'm the odd man out, as it's my idea of hell [as is the Universal Studios theme park in Osaka].
However, unlike other Disney concerns, Tokyo Disneyland is an independent entity and operates under IP license from Disney. As far as I know, it has not followed the current Disney corporate philosophy of "put a chick in it and make it gay . . . and lame".
Good points. It is hard to see where more growth can actually be achieved; and whether or not they bought Lucasfilms out to have readymade "boy" material, that audience is elsewhere; whether video games or sports or the internet. While it might be a bit self-fulfilling to cede the audience, they do have to work with where they are at, and that's trying to make females okay with star wars as much as it is servicing the gen x audience from the original movies.
However, I'd argue that the numbers suggest flipping the argument on its head. Disney believes itself in a position where it is inured from any real market pressure. It's weird that a publicly traded company, and one where the board just survived a hostile takeover, refuses to change direction (though Bob Iger has given mouth service to change in the last few months) when it is stagnant.
Someone here once characterized the movie business as one of coke-vacuuming cynics looking to make a buck any which way possible.
And I'd say its more filled with alcoholic idealists & fanatics who are obsessed with securing infinite lines of credit so that they could make whatever they damn well please, regardless of audience.
The ideal has always been to have an oligopoly like the english-publishing world. It doesn't bother a single one of these nyc publishers that they've had a hand in bringing about a "post-literate" world; that less people read; that almost nothing they produce is a success. They need one James Paterson or Stephen King or a handful of widely read classics every few years to pay for the 80,000 other titles. And its all a form of laundering and politicking, through inane book tours and library purchases.
