#dune #duneparttwo #videoessay NGL This is kind of an experiment, not sure if I'm gonna make more content like this, depends on what kinda reaction this gets. Anyways here's my instagram if you wanna follow it: / ivanknightmusic
Пікірлер: 22
@MikePhilbin19664 ай бұрын
Yes, Piter DeVries in the 80s.... flipping amazing. But then I LOVED LOVED LOVED 80s Baron Harkonnen and Feyd.
@IvanKNIGHTFROGSROCK4 ай бұрын
Ehhhh sorry I can only go as far as piter on that one, respectfully. I just think the baron and especially Feyd were too corny for me, while they were a genuine threat in the new ones. But each to their own 😁
@MikePhilbin19664 ай бұрын
@@IvanKNIGHTFROGSROCK you can have that... I'm just weird. The lips stain'd. :)
@ataridc5 ай бұрын
Bladerunner 2049 was so good it made me appreciate the original more. That's quite an accomplishment imo.
@PeloquinDavid3 ай бұрын
Well done. One thing I'd add is that Villeneuve has the advantage that even Herbert didn't have of knowing exactly how the story unfolded beyond the first book or two. He's adapting the core messages and story more fully laid out in a series of Dune novels (arguably including at least "Children of Dune" and even "God Emperor") even though he claims he won't be making any further Dune films beyond "Messiah" - i.e. he's preparing to pass the baton off to another director (à la Riddley Scott with BR2049?) That means he knows the structure of the first four Dune books is fundamentally that of a multi-generational Greek tragedy of the sort that Herbert presumably had in mind when he first chose to name Paul's family "Atreides" (after the "House of Atreus" from Greek myth - who suffered for several generations from being the "chosen ones" under an archetypal curse of the gods).
@rini64 ай бұрын
Great video. You hit the proverbial nail on the head. This adaptation was so great. I think Frank Herbert would have been happy.
@KaesiumXP5 ай бұрын
LISAN AL-GAIB
@user-yz7sr6od1x5 ай бұрын
Keep it up!
@paulinhosasuke115 ай бұрын
Nice vídeo
@OSRSGuides5 ай бұрын
really nice video, but whats with the weird music
@IvanKNIGHTFROGSROCK5 ай бұрын
tbh i kinda just threw it together, cos i was sick of my old videos getting taken down cos of the music, so i decided to use my own. I'll defo consider what i use in the future.
@OSRSGuides5 ай бұрын
@@IvanKNIGHTFROGSROCK other than that it was a really good video, i was surprised to see you only had 500 subscribers as this was much better made than most reviews. no annoying jump cuts or weird memes non stop. just honest thoughts. good stuff!
@IvanKNIGHTFROGSROCK5 ай бұрын
@@OSRSGuides aw thanks man that's rly nice ☺️
@Tundra_Hunter5 ай бұрын
I think the first track is very good and very fitting for the vibe, but the vocals were a bit distracting from the essay, so I think you would be good if you just made them a bit quieter or removed them for the vid. Very good video btw!
@IvanKNIGHTFROGSROCK5 ай бұрын
@@Tundra_Hunter yeah I'll definitely stick to instrumentals in the future
@NicholasMcClure5 ай бұрын
Thank you so much for simply saying "ADAPTATION" rather than the incorrect and far too often repeated "ADAPTION" which, what the hell is that?
@IvanKNIGHTFROGSROCK5 ай бұрын
I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates when someone says "adaption"
@stefbeg5 ай бұрын
Though I agree in general to the thesis about adaptations you defend with good eloquence I must say, there are things I would nuance, the first being that when an artist choose to make an adaptation, he can't use this as an excuse to avoid comparisons with the source material or other adaptations. For instance, you say that introducing conflict and ambiguity in Paul and Chani's love story, or introducing tensions within Fremen society make the story more coherent or realistic. But it is not necessarily the case. The Fremen society is not any Earth society. When you are dissatisfied with the way your society works on Earth, you can go away, change country, live as an hermit. But Dune is a science-fiction story where the Fremen are trapped on the planet, they can't migrate (lack of spaceships and utter addiction to spice), and the planetary environmennt is so extreme that it changes Fremen society to a point where crying is no longer natural. What I mean, - and I say it hoping it will be taken kindly because I don't want to be disrepectful, your argumentation being really solid - you can't have at once a totally alien society and a totally familiar society. From a certain point of view, it should be more coherent in-universe that the Fremen society is monolithic because it is the only way it survived.You justify your take by "because in the real world, not every culture is the same..." but precisely, the Fremen society does not evolve in the real world, and the author studies the impact of a totally alien way of life, that could lead to a totally new way of thinking and behaving. (And the tau orgy in the novel alludes to that). Another common point I hear often these days is the conception that Frank Herbert wrote the second book, Dune Messiah, out of disappointement because readers misunderstood Paul in the first book. But all the interviews of him I have found online, one from 1969, others from 1982, 1983 or 1985 (one year prior his death) point to the opposite. He consistenly says that he wrote the three first (Dune, Messiah and Children) as one unique book, and that the way he wrote Dune (book 1), Paul was to be interpreted as a rather classical hero (a French essayist even compares Paul to some Alexandre Dumas hero-like figure). If you read only the first novel, you have absolutely no reason to think Paul is a failed character. You see the catastrophe coming, but despite Paul's will, not because of him. I am not at all convinced that Paul is losing his humanity, at least in the way he is written. There is no action Paul takes in the first novel that can be described as so despicable that you can doubt he is a heroic figure. What bothers me the most is that DV justifies his changes by a supposedly more faithful understanding of Herbert's message, thus creating a darker Paul that doesn't exist in the book. If you stick to Paul's personality in the book, then many changes are not justified, at least not in the way Villeneuve pretends they are necessary. Once again, I am not opposed to adapting and changing things from the source material, you can even alter the message from the author as Verhoeven did for Starship Troopers, but you can't do it saying it is to stay faithful to the author while overtly betraying and distorting what the author publicly explained for years. Despite the disgareement, your video was engaging and enjoyable. I hope you take my comment as an invitation to debate and not for an agressive, pointless rant against your really good work.
@IvanKNIGHTFROGSROCK5 ай бұрын
I just read this, and this is honestly great. I never thought of it like that and after consideration, I definitely could have worded my statements better. I guess what I meant by saying "it's not like that in the real world" is that I found it more relatable and contemporary. But you are totally right. It's silly to think that a society would behave like how we do in Gen z when this is 8000 years later. Especially as we talked and behaved differently 8000 years ago. I also totally agree with you about avoiding comparison, although I will say I did not intend to advocate against that. In fact, I invite it, hence why I wanted to make this video on why I think the new dune is superior (not to the book) but to the 80s film. I think comparing and critique is a great part of how ideas and expressions can flourish within a project. I will say that these are initial thoughts, and they could change in the future. I loved the last jedi when it came out and called it the most groundbreaking star wars film since empire. But now I can't even bring myself to say I like it 7 years later. Nonetheless, love your feedback and I'm so happy you invited discussion. This will definitely help make any future videos I make better
@stefbeg5 ай бұрын
@@IvanKNIGHTFROGSROCK Sincerely happy you appreciated the contribution. It's one thing - and quite an easy thing - to write comments, it's another thing to invest time writing and editing a whole video. Carry on !
@Kyljys-pt4up4 ай бұрын
While you write well, I think you're mostly writing out of purism (or fundamentalism if you prefer, ha). I don't think you are correct, I think you're just too stuck on your own interpretation of the book/character and the way they disagree with the movie. Also, saying that Fremen are a monolithic group is fundamentally false. There are several examples of disagreements within the book and the codex, that's why Amtal rule exists -- to settle disagreements to the point of failure (death). People tried to kill Paul because they disagreed with him. They couldn't do it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, his inherited kids eventually even tried to act as bodyguards and Chani killed his challengers to shame them, so there would be less of them. You're just too stuck on the idea that they're a monolithic entity, rather than a group of individuals. Sure, they don't explicitly show religious disagreements, but saying there's none is just straight up unrealistic -- if we're still talking about humans. Also saying that Paul is darker than in the book... not buying it, it's possible, but not by much. If anything, he seemed LESS dark towards the end of the movie than in the book. In the book he straight up says at the end "You will yearn for the benevolent rule of Sardaukar" (I'm rephrasing). In this film he seems sad that the Jihad happens, and sighs he line about paradise. In the book he says "...How can you tell what's ruthless unless you've plumbed the depths of both cruelty and kindness? You should fear me, Mother. I am the Kwisatz Haderach." to Jessica. I think you might want to actually re-read the book.
@stefbeg4 ай бұрын
@@Kyljys-pt4up Thank you for at least appreciate the prose. As I'm French, it's always some kind of ordeal to write something clear and conveying my opinion with sincerity and precision. You're perfectly right, there can be disagreements in Fremen society. What I mean with "monolithic" is that all Fremen seems to agree to the shared values and society functionings. for instance, in your example, there are disputes between Fremen and Fremen can settle these disputes through the Amtal rule but basically there is no opposition *to* the Amtal rule. All Fremen accept that or at least, the book suggests that. Since you invite me to re-read the book, let's do that : "Muad’Dib’s arrival is called “religiously timely” by Koneywell, but timing had little to do with it. As Muad’Dib himself said: “I am here; so….” It is, however, vital to an understanding of Muad’Dib’s religious impact that you never lose sight of one fact: the Fremen were a desert people whose entire ancestry was accustomed to hostile landscapes. Mysticism isn’t difficult when you survive each second by surmounting open hostility. “You are there-so ….” With such a tradition, suffering is accepted-perhaps as unconscious punishment, but accepted. And it’s well to note that Fremen ritual gives almost complete freedom from guilt feelings. This isn’t necessarily because their law and religion were identical, making disobedience a sin. It’s likely closer to the mark to say they cleansed themselves of guilt easily because their everyday existence required brutal judgments (often deadly) which in a softer land would burden men with unbearable guilt." And regarding the criticism of my "monolith" argument, you can't disregard it in my take, then applaude the movie where there is not one, but two "monololithic" societies described, the "Northern" and the "Southern" Fremen, because what is depicted in the movie is exactly the same : two blocs reacting with a general uniform mindset and general uniform sensibility to Paul's potential "godhood". Finally, just minutes before the duel against Feyd-Rautha, book Paul is still hoping sincerely that his taking the throne will prevent the jihad. "Muad’Dib from whom all blessingsflow,he thought, and it was the bitterest thought of his life. They sense that I must take the throne, he thought. But they cannot know I do it to prevent the jihad." He never actively unleash the jihad, but finally understands the futility of resisting because his final realisation is that the jihad is not a political or religious event, it's something primal, inscribed in mankind unconscious collective mind : "They’re accustomed to seeing the future, Paul thought. In this place and time they’re blind … even as I am. And he sampled the time- winds, sensing the turmoil, the storm nexus that now focused on this moment place. Even the faint gaps were closed now. Here was the unborn jihad, he knew. Here was the race consciousness that he had known once as his own terrible purpose. Here was reason enough for a Kwisatz Haderach or a Lisan al-Gaib or even the halting schemes of the Bene Gesserit. The race of humans had felt its own dormancy, sensed itself grown stale and knew now only the need to experience turmoil in which the genes would mingle and the strong new mixtures survive. All humans were alive as an unconscious single organism in this moment, experiencing a kind of sexual heat that could override any barrier. And Paul saw how futile were any efforts of his to change any smallest bit of this. He had thought to oppose the jihad within himself, but the jihad would be. His legions would rage out from Arrakis even without him. They needed only the legend he already had become. He had shown them the way, given them mastery even over the Guild which must have the spice to exist." The "even without him" part is particularly bitter, it insists on Paul's lack of agency in this matter. So yes, he warns the assembled court of Shaddam IV that the memory of Sardaukars will be sweet in comparison with what the Fremen are about to do, but deep in his thoughts, he knows he can't stop the jihad, and his mindset about it is more resignation, pathetic and helpless, than proactive anticipation.