/lit/ - Literature

>>18275968
>implying a focus-grouped hollywood blockbuster can compare in any way to the sublimely personal joy of reading a book and seeing the scenes play out in your head

>>18275968
Why are they standing before a giant butthole

>>18275968
It was adapted in 1984

hi aud

>>18275968
>>18275996
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNAkbbKycCM

>>18275968
David Lynch made a great adaptation

>>18276075
Denis villenueve is a shit director, David Lynch is on another level . im expecting people will love dune like Blade runner and arrival

>>18275968
So the niggas waiting for forty years have less patience than some shitty zoomer who discovered dune by skimming threads on lit?

There is a YouTuber called Akira, and he has done an audiobook version of Dune with lofi hip hop music. It is 11 hrs long, so I’ve only listened to the start.

That French hack director is going to learn the hard way that Dune is cursed. It's unfilmable.

The fanbase is nowhere near large enough to justify the insane budget it got. Villeneuve didn't learn that from BR2049.
It will unironically probably be the biggest flop in movie history, like Heaven's Gate tier. Villeneuve will never work again, and rightly so.

>>18276093
>>18276075

Villeneuve is an amazing director with a great ability to create otherworldly awe through imagery and sound (Blade Runner 2049, Arrival). He's also great at centering performances to anchor films while, at the same time, making them feel like part of a larger thematic universe (Sicario, Enemy). He's a perfect choice for something like Dune (and his early catalog are worth watching as character studies with tight-focused narratives).

Dune is, arguably, Lynch's greatest failure as a director. It's the reason he was never again trusted with a large budget and chose to work largely outside the Hollywood system. He just isn't capable of creating a blockbuster; he's at home using dream logic to make esoteric films that demand a lot from their audiences.

Anyway, this is /lit (not /tv). With the Pandemic, it's highly likely that Dune won't recoup its budget and we'll probably never see Villeneuve adapt the second half of the book (let alone any of its sequels). It's likely OP won't see a cinematic adaptation of the full novel, let alone the series of novels, until they try again another 3+ decades from now.

>>18276075
that movie is shit

>>18275991
This. My imagination will always create a better, more interesting scene, then whatever Hollywood shits out. Movie adapts are cool and all but it'll never compare. I remember being so let down by the Harry Potter movies.

>>18276891
You're a midwit. Don't you have a YA novel to read?

>>18276997
Anon this was years ago. It was just an example grow TF up.

>>18276891
No, it's a masturbatory midwit take.
>My imagination will always create a better, more interesting scene
You mean depth of characterization? Seeing as you referenced Harry Potter, my guess is you were just jerking off to the idea that your magical power of imagination makes the Battle of Hogwarts or whatever the fuck they do in those books look WAY WAY COOLER!

Go over to /tv and see how impressed they are that you read.

>>18277004
>It was just an example grow TF up.
Coming from the guy who brags about his imagination as it relates to visualizing Hermione.

>>18276872
Only good take in this thread.
And Dune is premiering at the Venice Film Festival, which means WB is going to push it as an Awards contender. At a minimum, it is good. I don't think any pretentious Hollywood dork would vote for Dune for any of prestige awards though - they weren't forced to read in high school like LotR so they won't realize this is something they're supposed to virtue signal over having read/hold it up as an outlier in genre fiction.

>>18277022
thats just like his opinion dude he’s not forcing you to read but.. that is the point of this board
if you wanna watch movies instead you can hang out on /tv/, no one will miss you here

>>18277056
>thats just like his opinion dude
No, citing textual evidence about I can in fact prove he's a midwit.
Further, with reference to sentence structure I can make a good case that this is the same anon coming to his own defense. Sad.
>if you wanna watch movies instead you can hang out on /tv
I already used that dis...maybe if you were reading something other than YA you could come up with something original. Fucking NPC fag.

>>18277055
Maybe they'll hear references to "Jihad" and overly read into the idea of desert dwellers and give them awards based on identity politics. Probably not though...we all know who runs Hollywood and Dune references the wrong identity; if only the Fremen were all black...

>>18277082
im a different dude actually but i read the first 3 books in elementary school and thought they were fun, all the nerds at school would talk about them so it was a fun social thing to share with people
theres no deeper meaning but they’re fun to imagine and get lost in, you cant deny that
> no, citing textual evidence about I can in fact prove he's a midwit
for reading a silly book and not enjoying the movie as much?
damn you annihilated him there. I guess subjective opinion just goes out the window when anon steps on the mat

>>18277141
>theres no deeper meaning but they’re fun to imagine and get lost in, you cant deny that
I'm knocking the idea that he used the Harry Potter franchise to underscore his midwit take about how great his imagination is compared to cinematic adaptations. He self-lauded his imagination and then cited something that actually did the technical elements of filmmaking amazingly alongside a book that isn't known for it's deep characterizations (but rather, the wide appeal of its archetypes and simplified themes).
>reading a silly book and not enjoying the movie as much?
I see you don't understand the concept of textual evidence (probably because you read YA novels). No stupid, the evidence isn't Harry Potter but what he himself wrote. Fuck you're a retard.
>subjective opinion
Reasoned opinion idiot. See above and learn the difference.

>>18277141
>subjective opinion
P.S. All opinions are subjective. That's what makes them opinions and not facts.

>>18277207
>>18277237
shit i honestly might just be a dumbass here but what textual evidence does he cite about harry potters deep characterization i thought he just said the scenes looked cool in his head.
I imagined hermione different and hogwarts smaller and more french castley. I’m entitled to thinking thats cooler.
I wont deny that im retarded as far as thinking my personal reading is ‘more interesting’ than the movies, which are incredibly well done, but at age 8-12 i guess I was more impressed by building worlds in my head.
Honestly I feel his pain watching the witcher after reading the books and seeing how not eastern european it was. I imagined everyone as silly drunk poles in traditional dress not all the anglo accents and silly overall tone.
I could just be in the wrong, you’ve made a lot of good points here but i still enjoy most movies less than the books (probably not harry potter tho)

>>18275968
>In adapting the book written in the 1960s for the 21st century, Villeneuve wanted to reflect on realities that have happened related to overexploitation of the Earth, and considered his screenplay "a coming-of-age story, but also a call for action for the youth".[26] Other changes included altering some of the arcs of the female characters in the book. According to Rebecca Ferguson, who was cast as Lady Jessica, "Denis was very respectful of Frank’s work in the book, [but] the quality of the arcs for [many] of the women have been brought up to a new level. There were some shifts he did, and they are beautifully portrayed now."[26] Lady Jessica was given an expanded role as a soldier as well as being part of the Bene Gesserit, which the studio labeled as a "warrior priestess", comparing to the joking label of "space nun" that Villeneuve felt the book gave across.[26] Dr. Liet Kynes, the ecologist on Arrakis who is male in the novel, was also given to a female lead Sharon Duncan-Brewster to help expand the cast diversity.[26] Villeneuve also wanted to move the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen from being a caricature as he was presented in the novel to a more complex antagonist.[26]

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(2021_film)

Fucking rip guys. Why does everything has to be so fucking pozzed. I just want something normal for once. Not even able to follow a book. I was so hype about this book and earlier today I talked about it to mmy friend and went on wiki to see when it will coming out and I found quote ahead.

>>18277108
Didn't you watch the trailer? He says crusade instead of jihad, they're gonna butcher this shit.

>>18277022
>>18277046
You guys sure are salty as fuck. You're in /lit/ you stupid fucks. Obviously people here are going to prefer reading to movies jfc

>>18277575
What kind of fucking retard think this will be any good in the first place? Dune is the ultimate work of reactionary fiction, it's fucking space Nietzsche and people think the Hollywood kikes are going to do a good job. Fucking yikes.

>>18277575
Not the point midwit (i.e. the argument was about anon using a movie that nailed the visuals and highlighting a series that isn't known for the most glaring advantage lit has over film (depth of characterization; active empathy vs, passive empathy)).

If you're going to laud your own imagination over that of cinema; at least use a decent example that alludes to something literary and not something at the heart of the medium you're attempting to denigrate.

Fuck off retard.

>>18277517
It was a joke autist. (But I still think the movie will have amazing visuals and Villeneuve is well suited to adapt it. Maybe instead of being a hipster, you should be happy Hollywood invested heavily into something like Dune instead of something lazy like making another superhero franchise or attempting a LOTR cinematic universe, adapting the Silmarillion into a thin franchise. Who knows, maybe if it does ok we could see CS Lewis's space trilogy made into a decent series somewhere; at least it's novel).

>>18277468
>Lady Jessica was given an expanded role as a soldier as well as being part of the Bene Gesserit

>>18277517
The book has both "crusade" and "jihad"

>>18277468
Diversity is marketing; no sense being triggered by it. It's a big-budget studio film so of course they're going to ape that shit. Besides, Villeneuve handles female characters well (Arrival, Incendies, Sicario, and even those in Blade Runner 2049) and his explorations of gender are heady (Enemy, Polytechnique, Maelstrom) and not just surface-level identity politics shit.

He's Quebecois; he hails from the last bastion of traditional femininity in North America.

>>18277332
>what textual evidence does he cite
I was making fun of him (the joke was I could point to his own comments to prove he's a retard so it isn't just a subjective insult)
>I imagined everyone as silly drunk poles in traditional dress
That's pretty funny actually.
>i still enjoy most movies less than the books
Most people who read do (and it isn't unreasonable or even pretentious to discuss the attributes of either as they relate to each other as artistic mediums). There are examples of terrible books that made great movies though (I found "I'm Thinking of Ending Things" to be a pretty lame book. I read it when I found out Charlie Kaufman was going to adapt and direct a film version of it (seeing as this is /lit, I'll point out he's known for his screenwriting more than his filmmaking (which is a more recent endeavor). The ideas are treated more deeply and the twist comes off as less gimmicky and more in line with the thrust of the story being told. It's worth checking out if you're interested. The book is only worth reading if you're filtered by the movie, at least it's short).

>>18277624
>continues to be a salty bitch

Whatever schizo. Forget your meds today?

>>18277575
with the "patience-chads" statement I assumed OP was trolling us with splendid irony

>>18277698
Diversity isnt marketing, it's ideology. Nobody fucking likes diversity movies. That's why people love lotr and hate nuStar Wars.

>>18277468

Lady Rebecca was always supposed to be a badass that could disarm the best fremen one-handed. Expanding her role to represent that further than a one-off scene makes some sense.

>>18277849
>Rebecca
kek, Jessica, ffs too tired.

>>18277821
see >>18277332 and >>18277803

It actually turned into a half-decent discussion. What's YOUR problem? (My guess is you're a loser who gets bullied a lot. You "stand up" to strangers on /lit and visualize the victories you lack in real life. Too bad you lose on here too).

Take your medicine...go read your shitty YA novels and pretend you're Harry Potter.

>>18276872
Lynch's Dune film is good. The problem is that it wasn't palatable (bland enough) for the masses like something like Titanic or Avatar.

>>18277022
>holding the opinions of /tv/ as an appeal to authority
LMAO

>>18277844
>Diversity isnt marketing, it's ideology.
It's both.
>why people love lotr and hate nuStar Wars
Well, LOTR were well-made adaptations of a beloved franchise (The Hobbit movies totally sucked though). I've never been into Star Wars, but I think there's validity to the "Get Woke, Go Broke" argument. Annihilation was a decent movie though (and it had an all-female cast); they didn't make it the central thrust of the marketing (like that Ghostbusters movie that came out around the same thing); it still bombed though.

>>18277332
FYI: There's another movie that was better than the novel. Annihilation was a decent movie that expanded a lot on the book from which it was adapted; made more out of the themes and it was visually striking.

>>18277892
Are you a complete and total retard? (The joke was his low-level understanding of what makes literature "literature" belongs on /tv; maybe they'll be impressed by his shitty insights).

Learn to read.

>>18277899
Always nice to see someone on /lit/ schizo out because someone dared to share an opinion. Lol never change anon so years from now when you're alone you can look back on all the times you decided to be an asshole. I've never seen someone get so enraged by a YA comment in my life. I mean damn anon who the fuck hurt you? I'm going to go crack open my copy of Scythe just for you.

>>18277908
>Learn to read.
Fuck off.

>>18278003
Cope

>>18278013
That Children of Dune mini-series from early 2000's is on Amazon, it is pretty good.

>>18275968
I watched lynches kino and it got me to read the book

>>18277999
I actually agreed with most of that comment (I dissented on the idea that ideology doesn't influence marketing; they aren't mutually exclusive).

What, you're SO triggered by the mere idea of women and minorities that your reading comprehension drops to zero? I'd tell you to do something about that...but seeing as you can't handle an honest (and mild) retort, my guess is you're less of a man than a tranny's imagined self-image.

(FYI: You responded to the wrong comment, but seeing as you ignored what was actually being discussed and made the entire body of your post about defending YA, I'll respond in kind).

Go fuck yourself.

>>18278041
Based redditor

>>18278020
I've heard that and thought about checking it out. I'll probably wait until I read the book one day (I only read the first one).

>>18278041
>I'd tell you to do something about that
Please by all means, oh great One, let's hear it.

>>18278057
It's all 4 books in the series after Dune. If you've read Dune it won't matter really unless you get annoyed with not having your own imagery when first reading, I do somewhat.

>>18278063
Did you just get filtered by a declarative statement followed by an ellipsis? I was pointing out that you're a pussy (not offering you advice on how to overcome that fact). You'll have to sort that out for yourself, champ!

>>18277880
Lynch's Dune is bland though. It would've been a smashing success if it was actually as weird as Jodorowsky wanted to make it.

>>18278086
Damn I was hoping for more fortune cookie wisdom. Oh well. Have a nice evening anon.

>>18277899
>I think there's validity to the "Get Woke, Go Broke" argument.
The problem is that there's no way to substantiate this claim with the current crop of "woke" movies, since the easier explanation is that they've been terrible.

>>18278086
>>18278098
Both of you outside right now, we will smoke my cigarettes and keep an eye out for cats to befriend. I may be able to carry one can of tuna in my pocket and a can opener tied to my belt.

>>18276872
>we'll probably never see Villeneuve adapt the second half of the book (let alone any of its sequels).
The sequels were never going to be adapted, even in the best case, but we'll likely see the second half of the book, since Villeneuve wasn't brought on to make a successful blockbuster, given his track record on that front is poor. For all the accolades for 2049 and Arrival, those movies were not exactly smash successes.

>>18277575
/lit/ assuredly watches far more television than it reads.

>>18278121
As long as we can name the first one Harold.

>>18278073
Thanks, I'll have to check it out. I've been meaning to reread Dune (and was waiting to get my hands on a decent edition of it...I saw a boxed one that was supposed to come out at the same time as the movie, but it disappeared from Amazon. It was a nice boxed hardcover...didn't have movie images on it or anything).

>>18277055
No one is forced to read LoTR in high school, or any speculative fiction that isn't Lord of the Flies or Fahrenheit 451.

>>18278137
Even if it is a girl cat, so be it.

>>18276753
The SyFy miniseries was actually half decent despite the budget.

>>18278098
Ooooo, good one! Too bad referencing cookies doesn't make you seem like less of a pussy.

>>18278121
I'd actually be down for that.

>>18277620
>Dune is the ultimate work of reactionary fiction
Holy shit, you need to take Herbert's Shai-Hulud out of your mouth. Dune isn't even that good.

>>18278132
Kek

>>18278152
Heeeellll ya >>18278086 you in?

>>18277698
>Villeneuve handles female characters well
The various cocksleeves in 2049 beg to differ.

>>18276884

>>18278107
When something is ideological to the point of being dishonest and people can sense it's forced...odds are it won't go down as an instant classic or become a cultural artifact. Get Out did pretty well (and that movie contained a lot of wokeness), but then he apparently butchered the Twilight Zone revival and that other movie didn't get the same accolades (just standard virtue-signaling reviews).

As such, I think there's a connection between wokeness and pandering. Not only will people not like what you've created, but they also won't respect it either.

>>18278125
>we'll likely see the second half of the book
Maybe, I'm not going to hold my breath.
>Villeneuve wasn't brought on to make a successful blockbuster
Of course he was. He demonstrated that he could handle a big budget product (Blade Runner 2049), even if it didn't preform as greatly as expected. Studios don't make movies to lose money (that's why most of them suck). M. Night still gets money thrown at him and he didn't make a successful movie for like 15 years (or longer), studios can sometimes chase bad money with good money.

>>18278176
That's an opinion. Justify it.

>>18275968
Get the classic illustrated edition instead. The John Schoenherr one. Frank said it was so close to what he had in mind it was like John was on dune. Better than any shitty movie. Color illustrations are detailed and gorgeous, ink illustrations are trippy and also good.

Fuck genre fiction

>>18278234
I love this thing people here on /lit/ do: how they never justify their opinions while simultaneously scrambling for everyone else to justify theirs. The women in 2049 with any characterization have little to do beyond pining for the two male opponents. They're barely characters.

>>18278230
>even if it didn't preform as greatly as expected
2049 was a complete flop. Maybe Arrival did better, maybe even better than expected, but Villeneuve and Dune, neither have shown to be profitable.

>>18276075
Lynch doesn't even want to be associated with that film

>>18278132
lit is zoomers
zoomers don't watch movies or shows, much less tv.

>>18277517
Read the book before commenting on it you fag, they use crusade and jihad interchangably. Paul just uses Jihad because he is comparing it to the Butlerian Jihad.

>>18278496
The point is that /lit/ reads far less than it pretends to, and really nothing outside just reading /lit/. If /lit/ is full of zoomers, then it watches YouTube and Twitch more than it reads.

>>18278230
The Village is a really good film ruined by spoilers.

>>18278480
I gave an example as part of a wider argument; that's not the same thing as a flat statement (that isn't even toward the larger idea being expressed) . You know, like you wrote: "The various cocksleeves in 2049 beg to differ."

We can break do the specifics of that one particular reference (not even the entire reference, one specific example pulled from it, literally 2 words and a number). First though, I noticed you didn't reference Sicario, Arrival, Incendies, or Maelstrom; all of which contain a female lead (August 32nd on Earth does as well, but I didn't mention it in the earlier comment). In fact, the only films in his catalog that don't have female leads as the specific lead characters are Enemy (which is in part about masculinity), Prisoners, and Blade Runner 2049. So, out of 10 films, only 3 don't feature a female leading roll. (I'd say my main point still stands up just given that).

Now, I'd disagree with you that the female characters aren't done well in BR 2049. What, are you triggered because one of them was a companion robot (a literal object created to satisfy a man)? Well, that character serviced the theme of consciousness/value and the nature of what makes a relationship real. You're meant to reflect on the fact she is just an object and the empathy you have for the character (e.g. when she's destroyed) should be toward that (not Hurr durr, she a sex robot object!)

How about the Luv? She's a replicant and she's very effective when it comes to traditionally "masculine" acts (she's more effective when it comes to violence than any other character). Are you saying she should be a man? Is it so terrible that she's in the serivce of Jared Leto's character? I think she was fleshed out a lot more than he was.

How about the police chief? She exudes authority and is a very strong character. What, are you offended that she uses her authority to sexually harass K? Does twisting that gender role back on itself offend you? Do you honestly have to read that as her just wanting some dick from K...because you could read it as a power relationship/a reason why she later lets K run away instead of being retired.

How about Deckards daughter? She literally creates worlds and gives consciousness to synthetic humans. Too feminine of an archetype for you?

What about the leader of the replicant resistance? She's a woman. (Yet another female in a role of authority/management).

So no. I don't think you've given any good reason as to why the female characters weren't done well at all. Nothing. Also. given that 70% of Villeneuve's films had female leads, I think I'll give him the benefit of the doubt over your midwit opinion that probably read on HuffPo or Buzzfeed.

Midwit.

>>18277676
>Get back! She has the weirding way! Great gods, if you can do this to the strongest of us you're worth ten times your weight in water

>>18275968
I didn't believe the Dune is unfilmable meme before, but now i'm in the middle of God Emperor and there's no fucking way they can make billion dollar revenue movies out of these. I'm loving it so far, but normies are going to glaze over hard.

>>18278645
yeah no shit
people admit they don't read. like in this thread where cunts are trying to say fucking adaptations are better. what's the point of these threads.

>>18277082
Thus guy is so obviously insecure with his intelligence I'm unironically cringing rn

Fremen looked horrible in the trailer but sadly am still gonna watch it. Definitely just read the book OP

>>18279087
Villenueve said he only wanted the movies to go through Dune and Dune Messiah. Tell Paul's story, basically. Maybe the rest of the books could get picked up for a TV run - I bet if Apple makes Foundation work for TV and these new movies do well, there's a decent chance the later books get picked up for a TV run.

>>18276872
Good take, agree with it. I wish they would do it as a series rather a set of films. That way they could pace them better and give more detail. The series of the first two books is decent, if campy, and admittley has some of the worst costume design iv seen, but it had real potential, as well as some good casting.

>>18276726
>dune with hip hop

Every day we start further from god.

>>18281101
It's just Dune, man

>>18278694
>Deckard's daughter
>Resistance leader
These aren't even characters.

>>18283093
>Deckard's daughter
The person the entire plot revolves around. (As stated, she literally creates worlds and gives replicants consciousness/humanity. The miracle birth religious symbolism is also there).
>Resistance leader (pic)
The person who eventually leads K to Deckard's daughter. She was responsible for saving and hiding her; now she leads a group of other military replicants as a freedom fighter. What, do you think her eye is missing so she can be skull-fucked? (re: "cocksleeve").

Did you just not pay attention to the movie or is your midwit take that they're not the MAIN characters so they don't count? Regardless of the identity politics nonsense you read, the movie had multiple female characters. It was a pretty stupid criticism to make in the first place (one only has to either: A) Actually pay attention to the movie and/or B) Look who the director is and realize most of his films have female leads).

Seriously, it's a retarded take made by ideological midwits. Do you have anything substantive to add to the actual discussion that was going on or do you still want to focus on that one particular example (which you're wrong about anyway)?

>>18283093
P.S. You should look up "cherry-picking" and reflect on it.

the best a post worldwar 2 novelist can hope for is for their novel to be adapted into a movie.

so why not just watch movies?

>>18283477
>the best a post worldwar 2 novelist can hope for is for their novel to be adapted into a movie.
>so why not just watch movies?

>>18275968
Dune, like most other books, is best suited for an anime adaptation.

Whenever possible I like to read the source before I watch the adaptation. When I watch an adaptation first there's always a voice in the back of my head saying things like "I wonder how many subplots and details I'm missing out on and if I'm oblivious to any major changes?".

>>18276075
I agree. very underrated and misunderstood film imo

>>18284296
Too bad nips and weebs have no taste and would rather watch shounen battle anime #1532 or some shit about a beta male being bullied by a 90 pound teenage cunt

>>18275968
>IS THAT IS THAT A PHALLUS...WITH AN ANAL OPENING?!?!? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! HOW CAN IT PENETRATE THE PLANET ITSELF WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY GUARDING AS IN BEING THE RECEPTACLE OF ITS MOST COVETED SECRETION??!?! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! IT PURSUES WITH PHALLIC ACTIVITY YET TERRORIZES WITH ITS ENGULFING ORIFICE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! THE WORM IS OBVIOUSLY SYMBOLIC OF OSTENSIBLE HETEROSEXUALITY AS A DECORUM FOR SUBCONSCIOUSLY YEARNING YOUR OWN ANUS!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M I'M I'M AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! THE OUROBOROS IS MERELY AN INNOCUOUS EFFIGY MEANT TO PACIFY AND CHANNEL THE OCCULT ESCHATOLOGY OF AUTOANILINGUS INTO THE STILL CRYPTO-HETEROSXUAL AUTOFELLATIO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! I'M GOOOOOOING AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT IF ALL PROPERTIES ASCRIBED TO THE SPICE ARE IN FACT LITERAL ILLUSIONS CAUSED BY ITS MONSTROUSLY INDUCED DEMAND?!?!?!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! I'M GOOOOOOOOOOOOING I'M GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIIIING!!!!!!!!! WHAT IF PEOPLE ARE THEREBY DOING THE WORMS' BIDDING?!?!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! MUST WARN CARL NOT TO TOUCH HIS OWN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAANUUUUUUUUUUUUUS!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I'M GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING IIIIIIIIIIIIIINSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

>>18278675
Cloverfield also really good but ruined by spoilers.

>>18275991
This is why I don't read, I just lay down and imagine things

>>18287587

Now with the fitting image.

>>18276872
>Villeneuve is an amazing director with a great ability to create otherworldly awe through imagery and sound (Blade Runner 2049, Arrival). He's also great at centering performances to anchor films while, at the same time, making them feel like part of a larger thematic universe (Sicario, Enemy). He's a perfect choice for something like Dune (and his early catalog are worth watching as character studies with tight-focused narratives).

>>18277698
diversity is PR garbage and Villnueve is a hack, fuck off

>>18287838
Nobody wants to see a gay overtly white supremacist sci fi movie

>>18278694
it´s painful to read pseuds hailing a mediocre filmmaker as talented

>>18287848

it´s funny how /lit/ gets all pretentious when it comes to literary taste but the second they see a big budget movie, they hailed it as a masterpiece, what a bunch of dunnin-krueger plebs

>>18287857
excuse me?

>>18287880
Cinema Paradiso
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Apocalypse Now

There’s three masterpieces for you.

>>18287880
>dunnin-krueger
Funny how it's always absolute retards invoking Dunning-Krugger

>>18287910
it´s the perfection description for low iq retards with no taste like (you)

>>18287910
>Dunning-Krugger
I don't even know what that is

>>18287880
You ever consider if the people truly about that life haven't wasted their time watching bookmovies in order to shout them down and give themselves representation among the swell of people who do watch bookmovies? Asking for a friend

>>18287928
Hobbyists all.

>>18287924

>>18287880
>>18287910
>>18287924
Three comments by three different people; all referencing a study about midwits, all misspelling the name.

KRUGER retards.

>>18287880 >"dunnin-krueger"
>>18287910 >"Dunning-Krugger"
>>18287924 >"Dunning-Krugger"
Three comments by three different people; all referencing a study about midwits, all misspelling the name.

DUNNING-KRUGER retards.

>>18283427
>The person the entire plot revolves around.
That just makes her a MacGuffin.

>>18290228
Classifying her as a MacGuffin would be straining the term. The wooden horse found by K is a better example, it's inconsequential to the resolution of the plot/character archs, but it drives things forward and brings out depth of character in those who interact with it (K and the prostitute). I actually expected the person I was arguing with would try to say that.

Yeah, the idea of a naturally born replicant and the subsequent search for him/her is the essential plot, but I wouldn't say the character was an empty vessel that was largely irrelevant in and of itself.

Besides, the opinion was that the female characters in BR 2049 were "various cocksleves." My argument is that that opinion is a stupid take. I remember hearing that shit in the media when the film was released, it was right at the beginning of the #metoo movement when allegations against Harvey Weinstein reached their peak. (Midwits were taken aback by the companion hologram; ideologues are generally blind to anything other than their own preprogrammed projections).

>>18290199
Kek'd and checked.

>>18287849
>it´s painful to read pseuds hailing a mediocre filmmaker as talented
Edgy. Why don't you head over to /tv and tell everyone about the Criterion John Cassavetes boxset you got at a used record/bookstore. Hipsterfag.

>>18286505
pseud

>>18276872
No. Kys tranny.

>>18291045
You're just describing what Deckard's daughter is, and importance to the plot does not make her a character. Who is she? What are her desires? How will she react to and reflect on the information Deckard will give her? How will her life change? Maybe we can answer a few of these questions, but I don't know that we can answer all of them, which I think we would need to be able to in order to call her a proper character. She's not a cocksleeve, obviously, and I suppose we should acknowledge the distinction between one- or two- and three-dimensional characters, but I don't know that I'd use her as evidence of Villeneuve's ability to write, direct, what have you female characters.

But I also find it silly to either praise or get on Villeneuve's case about his female characters. Amy Adam's character in Arrival is interesting and well-rounded because Ted Chaing wrote her that way. If there are scant well-rounded female characters in Blade Runner 2049, that's because the writers didn't write any. The question is whether he will handle Lady Jessica or Chani with fidelity, and I'd tend to think so.

>>18278020
Agree

>>18278073
All 3

>>18278096
Are you sure? There was going to be a scene where 2000 people have a shit at the same time.

>>18280520
Paul plays a big part in Children.

>>18275968
>>18275991
imagine not seeing the one david lynch directed in 1984 instead. i mean do zoomers really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzUlXEyvJeA

>>18291527
Again, the point is that the female characters in BR 2049 wren't just "cocksleves." That's a simplistic take based on pseud articles that were published at the height of the #metoo movement (the movie literally came out as the Weinstein allegations were the major focus of, not just entertainment news, but the media in general. (Midwits were triggered by the idea of a subservient female companion hologram, ignored the other female characters in the film, and didn't even bother to look at the director's catalogue and its overwhelming tendency toward female leads). I gave brief overviews of most of female characters in the film; I've only seen it twice but it was very memorable.
>importance to the plot does not make her a character
Not the point. Being a character makes her a character.
>a)Who is she? b)What are her desires? c) How will she react to and reflect on the information Deckard will give her? d)How will her life change?
I only saw the movie twice (and it was back in 2017 when it came out). However, I can actually answer those questions (but I'm not going to write a lengthy character study). a) A woman with a tragic backstory who doesn't even realize she's in hiding because of her importance (and not an immune disorder or whatever it was). She's sensitive and artistic; her outlet is creating worlds and transmitting her memories to replicants. Symbolically, she's a miracle birth and a world-giver (i.e. she's a classic feminine archetype...I was actually hoping someone would call out the fact that's what she represents to the story...but the guest we got so far was "muh identity politics"). B) Her desires are implicit in the above (artistic creation because she is locked away, she relives happy memories from her past (despite the plethora of tragic ones) by manufacturing synthetic memories for replicants). C) That is left for the viewer to decide (from what I remember, Deckard doesn't tell her who she actually is). D) It is likely that that would have figured in any sequels (which were scrapped because the film didn't do as well as expected).

> we would need to be able to in order to call her a proper character
This is /lit, so I'm going to take a leap and say you're familiar with the idea of "round" characters and "flat" characters (The Art of the Novel). Based on what I've written above, she's hardly a flat character; she just isn't a main character. I liked BR 2049 because there was actually a lot of depth in pretty much every character in the film.
>But I also find it silly to either praise or get on Villeneuve's case about his female characters
Again, it was one example taken from a list of films put forward specifically in regard to someone taking issue that I had said "Villeneuve does female characters well." They probably haven't even seen most of his movies and I sincerely doubt they have much to add to any serious discussion about gender in film. Out of space.

>>18291527
P.S. I think the real issue is people's kneejerk reaction to surface-level indicators that trigger preconceived notions which are largely steeped in ideology (identity politics). Because of this, even well done depictions of traditional feminine archetypes trigger pseuds and plebs without them even noticing it. They just notice the giant holograms of naked women (no one has even mentioned that K literally used a woman as a sex puppet stand-in...but what are prostitutes anyway?)

>>18291668
I don't disagree that she's a character, but that's a banal assessment. What kind of character is she? That's a meatier subject.

A. All right, yeah, I think that works for an answer. She clearly doesn't know her whole backstory, but she's experienced a lot of trauma in her past, which likely informs the empathetic nature we see.

B. But what she's doing in the course of the film isn't necessarily what she desires. She certainly could desire giving meaningful and emotional false memories to replicants—in effect, giving them the necessary exigency to live lives she can't—but given her circumscribed daily life, I suspect she'd like something more. The audience isn't given this information however.

Her archetype or symbolic status isn't her character.

C. Right, but what I was getting at is that the audience likely can't come to a conclusion on this, which isn't exactly a good thing if we're discussing her roundness as a character.

D. That's possible, but again, being unable to answer this question doesn't bode well.

All told, I think she's a somewhat rote secondary character. The audience can see into her life a bit, but not enough to see her as a rounded character. Does she need to be more than this? I suppose not, but I'm curious as to how the the movie might have changed (maybe even improved) had she been fleshed out.

>>18291704
>no one has even mentioned that K literally used a woman as a sex puppet stand-in
Aren't Joi and the prostitute the likely rationale for "cocksleeves"? Not that K was making the initial choice there. I don't know if that scene makes for great female characters, but it's fascinating nonetheless (not to mention utterly lonely).

>>18277082
are you trans?

>>18291752
>I don't disagree that she's a character, but that's a banal assessment
As I fucking said: the point was listing characters who weren't "cocksleves." I was a math major, have you ever heard of a proof by contradiction?
>But what she's doing in the course of the film isn't necessarily what she desires.
It literally does. She even says plainly that she uses her creative outlet as a substitute for her DESIRE to be outside. (i.e. she's a tragic figure). She's in the movie for like 5 minutes. (What, do you want a 4-hour long movie that goes off on tangents that aren't even related to its themes or plot for the sake of identity politics?)
>what I was getting at is that the audience likely can't come to a conclusion on this
And the point I was getting at is that its a device that actively engages the audience's empathy by asking something of them. It's like Murakami ending Norwegian Wood on a phone call (FYI: I'm not a big fan, that example was off the top of my head). It's unrelated to her character's roundness.
>being unable to answer this question doesn't bode well
See above. It's open for the audience and a lead in for future drama. It doesn't bode anything (her character isn't meant to be resolved...we also don't know what ends up happening to Jared Leto's character or even Deckard, it isn't the focus of the movie and delving into it wouldn't serve any of the themes and would be beside the plot).
>not enough to see her as a rounded character.
The point is she has like 5 mintues of screentime, is a minor character, and you can still write essays about the symbolic meaning of her character and a lengthy study on her personality. She's a MINOR character but hardly "flat" in the sense meant by Forrester.
>I'm curious as to how the movie might have changed (maybe even improved) had she been fleshed out
It would have detracted from the central focus of the film without necessity. Besides, it would have ended up on the cutting room floor because it wouldn't have added anything substantive to the central thrust of a movie (which ended up losing money because it was already so long that its runtime limited the number of screenings per day; you can even look that last point up).

>>18291765
They're probably the reason the film triggered people and that they neglected to notice the other female characters in the film (the ones who had leadership roles, were more effective than the men when it came to things traditionally associated with masculinity (i.e. authority, violence, and even sexual harassment lol)).
> I don't know if that scene makes for great female characters, but it's fascinating nonetheless (not to mention utterly lonely).
The hologram bled into the larger theme of what gives something its humanity (replicants). Giving it agency wouldn't have made sense (no one would have had a problem if K were gay and the hologram/prostitute a male). The juxtaposition of a living breathing sex worker and a companion hologram with synthetic empathy could actually make for a decent discussion that goes above the surface level observation that they're objects (because that was the point). That would probably belong on /tv though.

It's still a big-budget blockbuster meant for a mass audience (we're not reading Woolf/Tolstoy) but it was nice to have something other than Marvel shit; only a hipster with self-confidence issues would call appreciating the movie pseud.

>>18291902
>the point was listing characters who weren't "cocksleves."
Yes, I saw that you were baited a few times by someone disinterested in having a discussion in earnest. I suppose my few posts are a continuation of sorts, so fine, I'm sorry to rankle with hair splitting unrelated to your initial claim.
>She even says plainly that she uses her creative outlet as a substitute for her DESIRE to be outside.
Fair enough. I don't recall her saying that, but there we go. By the way, why are you so incessant in your evocation of identity politics? You seem to be the only one bringing them up.
>And the point I was getting at is that its a device that actively engages the audience's empathy by asking something of them.
So by leaving the ending open enough to elude audience inference, the audience feels more empathetic? Asking an audience to make an inference is one thing, but there needs to be enough material on the page to reasonably get the audience to that inference. I'm not sure that the ending of the film does that. Admittedly, I'm not sure that it needs to. I think the open question is whether Deckard's daughter needs to be more fleshed out than she is, and I feel ambivalent about this. The final moments of the movie are focused on Deckard and his emotions and the dramatic irony of the audience knowing the importance of this meeting before his daughter does. Ultimately, she's not the focus of any of the scenes she's in, so I don't really expect to know more about her.
>The point is she has like 5 mintues of screentime, is a minor character
Yes, right, we're in agreement. And Forrester might not deem her flat, but I'm not using his work as a theoretical apparatus, so I don't see how he's relevant beyond his informing your understanding of flat and round characters (terms you used instead of my three-dimensions, but I did adopt them). Regardless of whose work informs our thinking, you make an interesting point regarding the lesser burden of roundness on minor characters, one I suspect I'm liable to agree with.
>It would have detracted from the central focus of the film
I suppose, given that the central focus is K and Deckard's emotional journey, but I was speculating about a film that wasn't made. I was wondering whether elevating her from minor character status would make the film more interesting. But I suppose noir tends to function voyeuristically, where the "detective" functions as both a main character and a bystander in another character's story, and thrusting Deckard's daughter into a major role may represent a breach of genre.

>>18278490
death of the author, who gives a shit what he thinks, lol

>>18290199
It's actually Dunning-Krüger

>>18292017
>why are you so incessant in your evocation of identity politics
Because that was the basis for the discussion (of which you're now a part).
>So by leaving the ending open enough to elude audience inference, the audience feels more empathetic?
The keyword was "actively." It's a narrative device that's effective for "passive media" like film; it forces the audience to think and elaborate on ideas (and emotions). It isn't used very often when a mass audience is the target (it undermines escapism and can leave people feeling dissatisfied and confused). I mentioned the film "Annihilation" above and it does this as well (another example is 2001); the former doesn't provide the audience with any answers (it ends with a character responding "I don't know" over and over to questions she's being asked) and the latter is known for it's vague ending. (Aside, a friend of mine lists 2001 as one of his favorite novels--he told me that it makes things more clear; Annihilation is as vague as its adaptation (and even more so in terms of its themes)).
>The final moments of the movie are focused on Deckard and his emotions and the dramatic irony of the audience knowing the importance of this meeting before his daughter does. Ultimately, she's not the focus of any of the scenes she's in, so I don't really expect to know more about her.
Decent take.
>I don't see how he's relevant beyond his informing your understanding of flat and round characters
The point was that she isn't a meaningless side character. Someone in the discussion had said she was a MacGuffin (the comment you replied to was me explaining why that isn't a fair assessment). I didn't know you weren't the same person (i.e. your response to that was that she isn't a "proper character.") I linked Forrester into the discussion because this is /lit; it underscores the point that she isn't a MacGuffin AND has more depth than a plot device.
> I suppose noir tends to function voyeuristically, where the "detective" functions as both a main character and a bystander in another character's story, and thrusting Deckard's daughter into a major role may represent a breach of genre
That's a great take. I haven't read very much noir (just a couple Chandler novels and "The Postman Always Rings Twice," if that counts). That aspect of noir probably triggered a lot of people; I know noir is generally centered around seediness and corruption in power (bearing witness to fucked up shit/tearing down facades of respectability and meritocracy)...I'd have to think about it (and read more examples) but it seems to me like those aspects of the genre get distorted and less accessible when crossed with scifi. I have a copy of Neuromancer somewhere...I've heard that's good (it's considered noir scifi I think).

>>18292113
>Dunning-Krüger
If you're serious, great work adding yet another example. If you're joking: good one (sincerely).

>>18291396
the pseud lynch pick would be mulholland dr. 2bh

>>18292204
>Because that was the basis for the discussion
Inasmuch as you've evoked it numerous times. Well, maybe others were too. I don't want to assume writers. That said, it didn't strike me as so fundamental to the conversation.
>The keyword was "actively."
I think our disagreement here is one of degree. I tend to look at endings under the assumption that the writer has given me everything I need to know to make a reasonable inference on what occurs on the next few (unwritten) pages, so even when things are left unsaid, an audience can actively consider what occurs beyond the scope of the story. Bringing this around to Blade Runner 2049, I began my inquiry into... Ana Stelline's character (may as well look it up now) because I wondered whether I should expect to make inferences about her. Given that we apparently do know her desires (as well as the broader political landscape Deckard's daughter would be "born" into were they to pursue a relationship), I suspect we can.

Now, endings needn't work this way, either through choice or poor craft, but I still think it worthwhile to ask why a text ends where it does.

>I linked Forrester into the discussion because this is /lit/
Sure, but there are many works that analyze narrative and character.

>>18292434
>Inasmuch as you've evoked it numerous times.
The conversation was literally about gender diversity and whether or not a specific film was sexist. How do you not get this? How do you think it's a valid criticism of anything? I literally made fun of someone for bringing it up in one of the first comments I wrote for fucks sake.
>That said, it didn't strike me as so fundamental to the conversation.
Why not? The entire conversation centres around the represention of gender in popular media. You can't be accuse someone of being fixated on something when it's literally the subject of conversation. Am I fixated on BR 2049 or its director? Because the former became the central element in what was a wider discussion while I gave information about the latter in multiple comments. Work on your reading comprehension.
>I still think it worthwhile to ask why a text ends where it does
No shit. I've already addressed what it does as a device and why it was used; it causes the audience to actively reflect. That's one question out of many that should come up. (I answered it mechanistically).
>Sure, but there are many works that analyze narrative and character.
You don't say? Well, I chose one. It's also one of the most famous works of criticism ever written, is extremely accessible and is widely read (it's never been out of print), and is a touchstone frequently used by authors and critics when generalizing characters and how they function within a plot. Alongside all of that, round/flat is a simple classification and is useful when it comes to discussion about character depth. Did it filter you or something?