[donatj]

How strange, the most positive review I heard from anyone I know was that "It ruined my childhood" and that it let's say "craped" on the source material. Mind you these are the nicest things people said.

I have not seen it nor the original film to be fair, but this is quite literally the first positive thing I have heard about it.

[icu]

If you're a sci-fi and/or a fantasy fan I really recommend watching the original film and the prequel in that order and make your own mind up.

I was young when the original came out so I found it good but scary. I felt the prequel was excellent and it left me wanting more.

These days I feel a lot of my youthful nostalgia has been vandalised for a quick corporate buck. Probably the worst has been Willow on Disney+.

There are so few examples of good follow-ups to nostalgic media. The only other example I can think of is Blade Runner (1982) and Blade Runner 2049 (2017).

[the_other]

I found Blade Runner 2049 painful to watch. The story is ok, but the presentstion, with its reliance on memes from the earlier film, ruins it for me. Also, the principle malevolent force is vacant and tepid. The story would have been better without him. If they’d just set it in the same world, without trying to look and sound like thenold film-but-updated, I’d have liked it… but they brought back Harrison Ford just for nostalgia, and copied loads of the shots and music. Sorry, no, they didn’t copy those things, they ‘extended” them. Copied-but-bigger. The story might have stood by itself without pandering to the entitlements of fans of the ealier film and I wish they had been brave enough to make it more unique.

[icu]

I need to rewatch in light of your criticisms. I focused on the film taking on the theme of what makes a human. In light of the AI developments since the film's release in 2017, and Her in 2013, I wonder a lot about the ethical issues around a slave class of intelligence.

[the_af]

> There are so few examples of good follow-ups to nostalgic media. The only other example I can think of is Blade Runner (1982) and Blade Runner 2049 (2017).

I know this is controversial, but I disliked Blade Runner 2049. It feels made by someone who just didn't get Blade Runner and was both copying it mechanically in parts, and improvising unfaithfully in others. (Coincidentally, I liked Arrival but the changes Villeneuve introduced to make it more "sentimental" ruined the reigned-in emotions in Ted Chiang's piece -- again it felt like he just didn't "get it").

I obsess about Blade Runner -- to me almost every scene is artwork, and the music is amazing. The plot? I mean, yes, there are plot holes aplenty, but I don't think this movie is truly about the plot, beyond the philosophical themes.

Blade Runner 2049 in contrast seems so cynical and shallow to me. It just didn't work.

PS: also, the insufferable Jared Leto. And the non-entity that is Luv. While Blade Runner has the best anti-hero ever in Roy Batty... and the best dying speech (vs Luv's "I'm the best!". Ugh).

[ultimafan]

I feel the same way about Villeneuve's last few movies, I don't think it's that controversial, I've had some people agree before. He seems to be very good at visual, audio effects, 2049/Dune both looked and sounded absolutely great at parts. But the writing, dialogue and respect for the source material is absolutely subpar, Dune part 2 was especially laughable and bad enough that the first time I tried to watch it I walked out halfway. It seems to be a trend in movies/shows that regardless of how alien the setting is everyone talks like how someone in Hollywood THINKS intellectual teenagers imagine themselves talking like when they've had several hours to think of a witty comeback to some situation. Too much snark, too many quips, too many jokes,it's like the idea of a movie taking a silly or absurd concept seriously for more than a minute without baiting a laugh from the audience is something to be embarrassed about.

[icu]

I somewhat agree. For me Dune: Part One (2021) and Dune: Part Two (2024) had the visual, sound and acting talent, but felt like it was missing something. I'd almost say it was soulless. I think the problem was in the dialogue or how scenes we acted, I don't know. I didn't think Dune (1984) was any good, but I think that had a lot to do with the technology and film making techniques at that time.

I think the only good Dune media besides the books was the video game Dune II: The Building of a Dynasty by Westwood Studios (RIP). Without it, I think there would be no Command & Conquer and no heyday for the real-time strategy (RTS) genre.

[ultimafan]

Dune 1984 had a lot of faults, that's true. It's been ages since I've seen it so my memory is hazy on a lot of it. I do vividly recall the duel between Paul and Feyd at the end though, Sting absolutely knocked his performance out of the park. When I look back on that scene now it feels like a great example of cheesy lines delivered with absolute, unashamed sincerity.

[icu]

Yeah I agree, Sting's acting was on point.

[domador]

What happened to Willow?

[moate]

Did you not see the TV show? It had a bit of production hell (Jon Chu from Wicked was going to direct, and had 2 different people come in after him) and was very uneven, cancelled after 1 season. They buried it so deep it's not even on Disney+ anymore and it only came out in late 2022.

https://ondisneyplus.disney.com/show/willow (notice you can only see clips/trailer)

[icu]

I think it was objectively terrible, certainly I found it almost entirely unredeemable except for very few CGI scenes (the wizard magic wand training sequence if I remember correctly) and a very golden set piece at the end.

Disney then canned it and I'm pretty sure they removed it from Disney+ for a tax write off.

[stuckinhell]

Yea I feel the same.