Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't think a directors cut would result in a different film, if one is expecting something closer to the book. Unlike the 1984 film, they didn't lack for screen time and Denis intended to tell Dune in a very different way, exploring exploring alternatives.

Directors cuts can make a big difference - look at Alien 3. However you are right the core of the film will remain the same; some parts might flow smoother as they add in or lengthen parts that were dropped for time constraints and sometimes those can make plot holes in the story vanish. So its more a refinement than a rebuilding of the whole film .

 Overread wrote:
Directors cuts can make a big difference - look at Alien 3. However you are right the core of the film will remain the same; some parts might flow smoother as they add in or lengthen parts that were dropped for time constraints and sometimes those can make plot holes in the story vanish. So its more a refinement than a rebuilding of the whole film .

There is no director's cut for Alien 3. The Assembly Cut had no involvement from David Fincher.

Funnily enough, the "Director's Cut" of Blade Runner is also not a director's cut, it was done by the studio albeit using notes provided by Scott (this is also the case of the Alien "Director's Cut"). The "Final Cut" of Blade Runner is the actual director's cut.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Directors cuts can make a big difference - look at Alien 3. However you are right the core of the film will remain the same; some parts might flow smoother as they add in or lengthen parts that were dropped for time constraints and sometimes those can make plot holes in the story vanish. So its more a refinement than a rebuilding of the whole film .

There is no director's cut for Alien 3. The Assembly Cut had no involvement from David Fincher.

Funnily enough, the "Director's Cut" of Blade Runner is also not a director's cut, it was done by the studio albeit using notes provided by Scott (this is also the case of the Alien "Director's Cut"). The "Final Cut" of Blade Runner is the actual director's cut.

Scott was directly involved in the directors cut of Alien. That version, even in it's theatrical release, had an opening little interview with Scott where he discusses the reintroduction of the previously cut film to create the directors cut.

The biggest impact I have seen from theatrical to directors cut is Kingdom of Heaven. The directors cut reintroduces an entire character that drastically changes the motivations and impact of a large swathe of the movie. It's a case study for how editing some stuff out can still create a cohesive movie but fundamentally an entirely different one.

I was reading through everything to make sure someone hadn't already brought up Kingdom of Heaven

 LunarSol wrote:
I was reading through everything to make sure someone hadn't already brought up Kingdom of Heaven

Great movie. Both versions. I own them both on dvd. Would be nice if there was a 4k rerelease at some point.

 Lance845 wrote:
Scott was directly involved in the directors cut of Alien.

Ok but they didn't talk about Alien they referred to Alien 3 and Blade Runner.

Maybe it wasn't meant as a rebuttal of there not being a Directors Cut of Alien 3 but it certainly comes across that way.

 Lance845 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Directors cuts can make a big difference - look at Alien 3. However you are right the core of the film will remain the same; some parts might flow smoother as they add in or lengthen parts that were dropped for time constraints and sometimes those can make plot holes in the story vanish. So its more a refinement than a rebuilding of the whole film .

There is no director's cut for Alien 3. The Assembly Cut had no involvement from David Fincher.

Funnily enough, the "Director's Cut" of Blade Runner is also not a director's cut, it was done by the studio albeit using notes provided by Scott (this is also the case of the Alien "Director's Cut"). The "Final Cut" of Blade Runner is the actual director's cut.

Scott was directly involved in the directors cut of Alien.

Ah, you are correct. He did actually make that one himself. However he has said that his actual preferred cut is the theatrical cut.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Scott was directly involved in the directors cut of Alien.

Ok but they didn't talk about Alien they referred to Alien 3 and Blade Runner.

Maybe it wasn't meant as a rebuttal of there not being a Directors Cut of Alien 3 but it certainly comes across that way.

I mentioned Alien.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I mentioned Alien.

I see it in the parenthetical now. My bad.

Speaking of scenes cut from Dune (well, Part One anyway):

Hey guys, I didn't find the proper Dune 2 thread so I'm posting here. I have a question about the beginning of the movie, about the scene in which the Harkonnen soldiers got on the rocky hill and got snipped one by one. I know that shields cannot be used on Arrakis in general because it attracts worms, but in this scene, we can distinctly hear one shout "Shields !" And another answering something like "doesn't work" or something like that. In addition, they went on this hill in order to be protected from the worms, which mean that the main reason not to use the shields don't apply there. So, were the fremen using shield-piercing ammo or what ?
Thanks !

IIRC the "shields" "no don't" (or whatever it was) happened at the base of the rock formation, before they climbed to the top. Once they were on top they probably should have been able to activate their shields but they were I think relatively quickly sniped faster than they could respond.

I think it was more of a "don't, it'll attract the worms!" cry, but IIRC the sand storms of Arrakis also flat out disable/interfere with shields to an extent(we see this at the final battle on the Emperor's ship) so they may not have worked at all too.


The real oversight with Dune weaponry is that logically everybody should be basically invulnerable except on Arrakis where shields are useless, and then only to ranged weapons.

Because shields make you immune to ranged weaponry and a good chunk of melee too. Such that only slow cuts can pierce shields. So why doesn't everybody wear power armor in addition to a shield? Heck, even a basic chainmail hauberk would pretty much make you immune to being killed. Let alone a suit of gothic plate with some sci-fi additions like temperature control, servos, etc...

Sure, you could theoretically still be stabbed through a joint, but it would be rather impossible in a practical sense so fights would be reduced to wrestling on the floor ineffectually trying to force an ice pick through joints which are still covered by protective material.

Arrakis would still disable your shields, but regular armor would still work. So logically, Arrakis should be dominated by ranged weaponry while the rest of the galaxy is reduced to lobbing nukes at each other.

Seems like flamethrowers and landmines could also exploit weaknesses in the shields. Also, someone in shields can be knocked down, so grenades, artillery, and light cannon should still be deadly in a blunt trauma kind of way.

 Grey Templar wrote:

The real oversight with Dune weaponry is that logically everybody should be basically invulnerable except on Arrakis where shields are useless, and then only to ranged weapons.

Because shields make you immune to ranged weaponry and a good chunk of melee too.

This was ultimately a part of the deliberate setup by Herbert to create a setting where everyone used knives. The only ranged weapons that are ever mentioned, IIRC, are lasguns (in the first book, at least), and shooting a shielded target with a lasgun has the potential to create a massive explosion. So lasguns are just not used other than in very specific situations, as the potential presence of a shield makes them too great a risk, and even on Arrakis they still have shields, even if they're not generally turned on in the deep desert.

I believe the first book also has the Harkonnens using antiquated artillery cannons, and eventually the Fremen using some kind of slug-throwing small arms.

The Harkonans do use old school Artillery when making their initial attack on the capital city. The Baron even makes a point of highlighting how he resurrected the old technology.

I was surprised we didn't see it in the new film, but then again they are going for a more space Blitzkrieg effect.

Also the lasers in the movie just looked damn cool.

I think the standout part is seeing an Ornithropter in action. Because I think until the new Dune film, most Ornithropters in fantasy and sci fi were always shown as rather pondering or at least only fast in a straight line. Never really the kind of thing that banked, rolled, tumbled and appeared to be the perfect fusion of a jet fighter and helicopter in one .

 Grey Templar wrote:

Because shields make you immune to ranged weaponry and a good chunk of melee too. Such that only slow cuts can pierce shields. So why doesn't everybody wear power armor in addition to a shield? Heck, even a basic chainmail hauberk would pretty much make you immune to being killed. Let alone a suit of gothic plate with some sci-fi additions like temperature control, servos, etc...

Well I believe they have mono molecular tech, so presumably the cutting edge of weapons defeats those materials (insert enough handwaving to ensure the intent isn't lost).

Those given they have suicide troops and remotes - clearly remote lasers are the way to go to constantly try and trigger nuke explosions, especially for insurgents. You would have to heavily regulate lasers...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
The only ranged weapons that are ever mentioned, IIRC, are lasguns (in the first book, at least),

Did they not have slug/dart throwers that were regarded as fairly useless?

They did a really nice job mimicking the way dragonflies move for that.

Pretty sure Dr. Yueh used some sort of shield-penetrating dart gun. If you were fast enough, you could knock it away from the shield before it penetrated though.

 Overread wrote:
I think the standout part is seeing an Ornithropter in action. Because I think until the new Dune film, most Ornithropters in fantasy and sci fi were always shown as rather pondering or at least only fast in a straight line. Never really the kind of thing that banked, rolled, tumbled and appeared to be the perfect fusion of a jet fighter and helicopter in one .

"And the academy award for best supporting actor goes to...the Ornithopter!"

Hands down the best thing in Denis' Dune.

I saw it in a theater where the sound system was integrated into the seating and the ornithopters made the whole place rumble.

 Overread wrote:
The Harkonans do use old school Artillery when making their initial attack on the capital city. The Baron even makes a point of highlighting how he resurrected the old technology.

I was surprised we didn't see it in the new film, but then again they are going for a more space Blitzkrieg effect.

I just returned from the theater after watching Dune second part, and the line about resurrecting artillery is said though out of it's proper place on the aftermath of the Atreides massacre.

M.

I didn’t like the combat.

The shields are just set dressing and get completely ignored. Missiles go straight through them and none of this slow blade as people just lightly tap one another or make swipes. No thought went into how this would change the combat and make life difficult for the Fremen.

The Fremen do a human wave attack that should have been cut to pieces by artillery and machine gun fire. One shell into that mass would have killed and wounded hundreds.

All the Harkonan planes and artillery either disappears in the final battle or are even shown shooting toward the Fremen but not having the result of them being mown down like canon fodder which is what should be happening as the Fremen are entirely unshielded and just mindlessly throwing themselves at the enemy strongholds.

If nukes are a thing why doesn’t the Emperor nuke the worms and the Fremen army? Or why given the centuries they’ve been on Arrakis have they not invented a weapon that can kill one? They are not that big and why would they land on Arrakis if they know giant unkillable worms are there?

Again, hundreds of thousands of Fremen should have died if Paul decided to do a human wave attack and use them as his canon fodder. But the film very much framed this as Uber man Fremen killing hundreds of enemies apiece and not losing a single man. You do not get the impression at all that he is throwing their lives away to achieve his own power and I don’t see any reason not to have done so apart from not wanting to undermine the Fremen.

They also decided to make the Sardaukar Stormtroopers which is a real shame given how strongly they were introduced in the first film. Going through audiobook, maybe that is true to the story; but I am not a fan of building something up just to tear it down to make the other guy look cooler.

Fortunately there isn’t that much combat in the film and the scenes they do have a fairly brief with good music behind them. But what’s happening in them is about as silly as anything in Flash Gordon.

I forget, but does the movie even mention the Weirding Way, the Bene Gesserit martial art Paul teaches the Fremen that allows them to defeat the Sardaukar? Because desiccated footsoldiers winning a siege without magical space Kung Fu is just not realistic.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
I didn’t like the combat.

The shields are just set dressing and get completely ignored. Missiles go straight through them and none of this slow blade as people just lightly tap one another or make swipes. No thought went into how this would change the combat and make life difficult for the Fremen.

The Fremen do a human wave attack that should have been cut to pieces by artillery and machine gun fire. One shell into that mass would have killed and wounded hundreds.

All the Harkonan planes and artillery either disappears in the final battle or are even shown shooting toward the Fremen but not having the result of them being mown down like canon fodder which is what should be happening as the Fremen are entirely unshielded and just mindlessly throwing themselves at the enemy strongholds.

If nukes are a thing why doesn’t the Emperor nuke the worms and the Fremen army? Or why given the centuries they’ve been on Arrakis have they not invented a weapon that can kill one? They are not that big and why would they land on Arrakis if they know giant unkillable worms are there?

Again, hundreds of thousands of Fremen should have died if Paul decided to do a human wave attack and use them as his canon fodder. But the film very much framed this as Uber man Fremen killing hundreds of enemies apiece and not losing a single man. You do not get the impression at all that he is throwing their lives away to achieve his own power and I don’t see any reason not to have done so apart from not wanting to undermine the Fremen.

They also decided to make the Sardaukar Stormtroopers which is a real shame given how strongly they were introduced in the first film. Going through audiobook, maybe that is true to the story; but I am not a fan of building something up just to tear it down to make the other guy look cooler.

Fortunately there isn’t that much combat in the film and the scenes they do have a fairly brief with good music behind them. But what’s happening in them is about as silly as anything in Flash Gordon.

So, you've never read Dune, then?

I got the audiobook and I am a few hours in.

The audiobook has talked a little about the shields but no fighting has occurred so I can’t judge how consistent they’re going to be and if it’s an improvement over the film. But it comes across more as the author wanting a hard reason for people to be using knives. As opposed to people using flamethrowers or as the film has it where the shields do not work at all and rockets and shells pass straight through them along with quick jabs or slashes of blunt knives.

Also the anti technology vibe is massively more present in the books where they mention the Butlerian Jihad a lot and so the absence of computers is being noted. But, that’s only to push the idea that the human mind can achieve so much if we stop relying on machines and just light up a few instead. So I am not holding my breath that the book will be better in addressing this as there an obvious bias within the text. If the author believes that people taking drugs gives you superpowers I can’t exactly expect him to understand a 50 cal machine guns destructive potential. The Boxers and the actual Mahdists didn’t have a good time relying on willpower and faith to deflect bullets. But that’s just what happened versus him making stuff up about technology being a crutch.

It’s slow going because I am rolling my eyes a lot.

Using atomics on other houses is illegal, if I recall correctly. The Fremen were fighting under the flag of House Atreides.

Paul gets away with it because he argues that he didn't use them on anyone, but rather on the terrain.

As for why not kill the great worms of arrakis? Because you don't mess with the ecology of the only planet in the galaxy that produces the drug that allows for the safe and reliable interstellar navigation that allows your empire to exist.