Here’s Ars Technica staffers’ reaction to it.
TL;DR: Mixed, most of them didn’t like it.
Disclaimer: “Dune” the book is in my top 10 SF list. I loathed the David Lynch film version of it. (The Ars author declared it, “almost comically unwatchable” and I’d agree.)
Having watched the trailer, I’m... not optimistic. I’m mindful that trailers are often cut to get audiences in, but don’t accurately represent the tone of the actual film. So, it’s possible this “Dune” isn’t mostly a Baysplosions-fest interrupted by occasional martial-arts and monsters. I hope it’s not, but I suspect it might be.
Also, I know the source must be devilshly hard to adapt to a 2-3-hour film. Respect for adaptations that choose the mini-series route instead. Jeers for adaptations that throw away all of the nuance and complexities in favor of your own weird-ass vision, hello David. And, trepidation for adaptations that, like Villeneuve’s, opt to make multiple films because... adapting & editing is hard, I guess?
TL;DR: Mixed, most of them didn’t like it.
Disclaimer: “Dune” the book is in my top 10 SF list. I loathed the David Lynch film version of it. (The Ars author declared it, “almost comically unwatchable” and I’d agree.)
Having watched the trailer, I’m... not optimistic. I’m mindful that trailers are often cut to get audiences in, but don’t accurately represent the tone of the actual film. So, it’s possible this “Dune” isn’t mostly a Baysplosions-fest interrupted by occasional martial-arts and monsters. I hope it’s not, but I suspect it might be.
Also, I know the source must be devilshly hard to adapt to a 2-3-hour film. Respect for adaptations that choose the mini-series route instead. Jeers for adaptations that throw away all of the nuance and complexities in favor of your own weird-ass vision, hello David. And, trepidation for adaptations that, like Villeneuve’s, opt to make multiple films because... adapting & editing is hard, I guess?