[ SECRET POST #5317 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5317 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicles]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Langoliers]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Howl's Moving Castle]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Letterkenny]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Lupin]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Pretty in Pink]









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 23 secrets from Secret Submission Post #761.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Valuing the ability to see actors' faces over hard-science realism and perfect fidelity to the book is a good sign, actually

[(Anonymous)]

When I'm a hardcore fan of something, I tend to be pretty uptight about wanting close adherence to the source material. So if I were a hardcore fan of Dune, I can see how a change like this--especially for something that ties directly into a huge aspect of the world-building--would bother me.

That said, I'm not a big fan of Dune, and I completely agree with you on this one.

Also, I think when making an adaptation, trying to please the hardcore fans is nearly impossible, and probably shouldn't even be attempted. Just my opinion.

[(Anonymous)]

This is my secret. I don't expect perfect fidelity. But in this particular case, the "hard scifi realism" was exactly the point of the author's writing along with the religious and political themes.

Herbert was very intentional in creating his world. He was very interested in designing a desert world and in coming up with how people could survive on such a world. The stillsuits are for a specific reason, and having open faces makes them not actually doing what they are designed to do. The science in the books was as much a reason for his writing the book as the other themes were. So losing what makes the stillsuits what they are designed to be misses the at least some of the author's intent in writing the book. And that's what I have an issue with. It feels like they might not understand this book they are adapting, and that worries me.

[(Anonymous)]

Herbert was very intentional in creating his world. He was very interested in designing a desert world and in coming up with how people could survive on such a world.

I addressed this exact point in my previous comment when I said, "I can see how a change like this--especially for something that ties directly into a huge aspect of the world-building--would bother me."

I just disagree with your priorities in this case. No matter how important the functionality of the suits is to the story (and I have read Dune, so I am aware that conservation of every last ml of water is pretty damn important), I agree with the anon who started the thread that having the characters faces visible is probably more important. It's a tough call, though, and if I had a strong attachment to the story I'd probably feel differently.

Also, it's been many years since I read the book and I can't recall, 1. whether they wear the full suits at all times or only when they venture outside, and 2. how much of the movie must necessarily take place in environments that necessitate them wearing the full gear.

If it were my movie I'd probably have them decked out in the full gear whenever they were out in the unsheltered environment, then have them switch to nose-tubes and body gear only when they were sheltered. But from a costuming standpoint that significantly ups the difficult factor, from an acting standpoint it spells added physical discomfort, and most importantly it risks losing the audience who may find the scenes where the characters' faces aren't visible difficult to emotionally engage with.

I mean, you're not wrong to think a decision like this probably indicates that narrative accessibility has been prioritized over conceptual rigor and nuance. But like, it's a $165 million dollar picture; of course it prioritizes accessibility. There was never any doubt that it would.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it's necessary to have every aspect of worldbuilding present in an adaptation, any more than it's necessary to have every single character or every plot beat or every jot and tittle of the source material present. Adaptations also have to consider their integrity as standalone works of art - in other words, the Dune movie has to succeed as a movie, not just as an adaptation of the book. Adaptations have to, and should, pick and choose what they adapt and how they represent things. The reality is that some things that work in books simply don't work on screen.

With Dune in particular, I don't think the specific details of how stillsuits are described and operate are really that important. I think ecology is really thematically important to the book in general, but I don't think the mechanical details of stillsuits are necessarily that central to the point where they can't be abandoned. Especially when it's really obvious why someone making a movie might move away from the book's depiction of stillsuits.