←back to thread

The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

(www.newyorker.com)
231 points frogulis | 1 comments | 15 Jul 25 03:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.305s | source
Show context
decimalenough ◴[15 Jul 25 04:19 UTC] No.44567790[source]▶
I'm surprised they call out the Conclave as an example of a good movie. It's not a bad movie, but the final twist (I'm not going to spoil it) is way over the top and almost absurdly Hollywood.
replies(8): >>44567886 #>>44567927 #>>44568150 #>>44569034 #>>44571741 #>>44575267 #>>44577341 #>>44586029 #
1. Induane ◴[16 Jul 25 00:14 UTC] No.44577341[source]▶
And called out the second part of Dune as a bad film. It got written off as simply a "sci-fi sequel"; I think for that movie in particular it is more fair to say that doing the book justice couldn't be done in a single film as the source material is extraordinarily dense.

LOTR is a fascinating counter example; each book is quite dense but was able to be made into a single (albeit long) film. Part of that I think is because a lot of the density of those books is exquisite detailing of the animated natural world of the books; a picture is worth a thousand words may be obnoxiously overused but apropos in this case. The movies seemed to understand the animate life force of the visual landscape and so were able to say a lot visually.

I just don't see Dune: Part II as a true sequel in the traditional sense of the term (though perhaps the literal sense of the term, despite literalism being apparently despised by the articles author).