If you change "spice" to "oil" and then try to figure out who is being represented by the different political factions, it makes it a bit more interesting.
I know. I've only heard positive things about the books and why they don't translate well to movies (and that much I get, so much internal thought processes that the only real solution would be excessive narration).
Thing is, I think the story is actually quite good, especially for science fiction. We can disagree which is fine, but I think besides the story/plot there's really good character development as Paul realizes his role in all this (I have only read the first book mind you, so this is only about that book). In my view, it's got everything a good novel should have, in addition to all the political/etc observations.
I guess I should ask, what parts of the story don't hold up to scrutiny?
Highly recommend it. It is politically and conversationally heavy in the first 20% or so but it holds up so well.
And the movie is actually very very close to the book too (at least the new one).
Really enjoyed the Books. I thought the William Hurt movie several years ago was a good effort.
The one in 2000? Yeah that was good. The 1980s one was shit lol.
I don’t like the new movie.
Something special about watching the 1984 original movie that is clearly intended to be "in the face" of the cabal.
1984 you say??
The political intrigue and internal monologs are the only good parts of the books.
The overall story is good, but only if you don't really scrutinize much of any of it.
If you change "spice" to "oil" and then try to figure out who is being represented by the different political factions, it makes it a bit more interesting.
That's your opinion, and one that is definitely against the wind in terms of Dune's quality.
No one should ever be afraid to field an opinion that goes against the wind,
I was trying to be tactful about my opinion of his opinion.
No shit, it’s his opinion. That’s why he said it.
Glad you're still around, Bill.
I know. I've only heard positive things about the books and why they don't translate well to movies (and that much I get, so much internal thought processes that the only real solution would be excessive narration).
Thing is, I think the story is actually quite good, especially for science fiction. We can disagree which is fine, but I think besides the story/plot there's really good character development as Paul realizes his role in all this (I have only read the first book mind you, so this is only about that book). In my view, it's got everything a good novel should have, in addition to all the political/etc observations.
I guess I should ask, what parts of the story don't hold up to scrutiny?