Favorite Sci-fi or Privacy movies/tv?

Off Topic
63

Not a privacy related movie, but Red Rooms was how I found out about Tor and haveibeenpwned, and pretty much kickstarted my privacy journey.

3 Likes
64

I just noticed this is sci-fi or privacy recommendations, and considering that I’m shocked that no one has mentioned Dune (the books) yet. The original six by Frank Herbert:

  1. Dune
  2. Dune Messiah
  3. Children of Dune
  4. God Emperor of Dune
  5. Heretics of Dune
  6. Chapterhouse: Dune
3 Likes
65

I can’t wait for Dune Part III. Then the movies would cover Dune and Dune Messiah.

2 Likes
66

I read The Final Architecture series by Adrian Tchaikovsky last year and would highly reccommend it.

2 Likes
67

Eh maybe not, it’s debatable if Dune Part II was even really adapting the book anymore with how many changes they made. I suspect it will draw inspiration from Dune Messiah but largely be it’s own story.

1 Like
68

Among even the cinephiles and folks who love the book, the general consensus is that Dune Part I and Part II are modern masterpieces.

While I know movies and any art form is subjective, there are some generally accepted truths and axioms about said art forms and I believe this is one of them. Of course, you may choose to disagree still because you may not see it that way and that’s okay.

A movie which has its own story would never have characters previously introduced unless they are being reintroduced which they won’t be. So no, it won’t be its own story because it’s literally called, Dune Part III.

1 Like
69

Dune Part 2 is a good blockbuster movie, but it is not a good Dune adaptation. I wasn’t saying it was bad or that Part 3 will be bad, just that it was a major departure from the books, which it objectively was.

From what I’ve seen, the consensus among book fans is that Dune Part 2 just wasn’t made for them, and any enjoyment needs to be independent from the books. Which is fine.

Some complaints I do have if we are discussing it’s success as an adaptation

  • The lack of time skip doesn’t really make sense. Paul goes from fleeing with his mother to winning over the Fremen in what 3 months now? The timeline in the film doesn’t make any sense. I think they basically entirely did it to avoid having to portray Alia, which that I think is fair on its own, but they needed to be cleverer than just removing the time skip.
  • For some reason they swapped the roles of Chani and Stilgar. Chani is supposed to be Paul’s most loyal supporter among the Fremen, and Stilgar is meant to be skeptical and trying to prevent the Fremen from buying into his cult of personality. And then they even abandon the whole point of having a character among the Fremen soft oppose Paul, which is that eventually even they fall under his spell and become a loyal disciple. I think they did it to make Chani appear to be more of a strong independent female character, which I don’t have an issue with, but Chani kind of already was strong in the books just within the context of Fremen society and the fact that she came under Paul’s spell despite having such strength is kind of the point? Also there already is the kind of strong independent female character in the books they were trying to turn Chani into, it’s Irulan.
  • In the film, Jessica is basically the architect of the cult of Paul, but this doesn’t make a lot of sense with the intended theme of the books, in which Paul is the one building it himself. It takes away from his internal struggle where he has to either choose victory that results in the Jihad, or failure. His mother playing that much of a role in his success takes away from that conflict and reduces Paul’s agency.
  • The emperor looking like an old man doesn’t make sense in universe. Minor nitpick I know but it has implications for the worldbuilding. Does spice not actually prolong age in the films?
  • Paul threatening the spice with nukes doesn’t make sense. Anyone could have done that if it would work (and there’s no explanation for why it would either). In the books, what makes much more sense for how he’s able to hold the universe hostage, is him and Jessica discover a secret chemical process by which a chain reaction can destroy the spice and sandworms forever, which no one else knows. This is what allows them uniquely to hold the universe hostage as they do.
  • The Great Houses refusing to accept Paul as emperor at the end as a whole doesn’t make sense if he’s able to destroy all spice forever. What, do they not need spice now? What’s their plan if he follows through on destroying it? In the books there is opposition of course, leading to the Jihad, but not by the entirety of the Landsraad.
3 Likes
70

What is supposed to happen with the characters is happening, just not how and when. And that’s okay. Books and films are different art forms so there will obviously be differences. The adaptation is brilliant which again is the general consensus. You don’t think so because you want it to be more in line with the books and don’t like the decisions being made to make it into the movies. That’s a personal opinion.

All I am saying is that these movies are fantastic especially given all the elements of storytelling that a movie is supposed to have and how. It’s not only the story that should be evaluated when judging movies. It’s also how it’s shown - its an audio visual medium afterall.

People cried over how Harry Potter books weren’t exactly made as the books. But everyone still loves them and make sense for the art form that are films.

But what do I know? I only went to film school for 6 years and now currently work in the industry. I’m not trying to change your mind cause it doesn’t matter. Facts are indisputable and differences in the art form of books and movies are well established for one to critically evaluate the two if they know enough about it.

Your gripes about the differences are not invalid but they also don’t apply when it comes to the art form of cinema because what needs to happen more or less happens - the how it happens will always be different. Not everything can and will be shown on screen because it would not make sense -again, for the art form and especially for the kind of story that the filmmaker wants to tell and how.

(apologies for the many edits of this comment - I wanted to choose my words carefully)

1 Like
71

First, you keep responding to me like I’m saying the movies are bad when I have been clear I’m only saying they aren’t really adapting the books. Second, I don’t have a problem with them changing things. Like I said, not having Alia as a real character on its own was a good call for a film adaptation. I am not a purist in terms of film adaptations of books even in general. Like not depicting the scouring of the Shire in the LOTR films was a good choice. The issue with Dune Part 2 is they are making changes that alter the core themes from the book. If you changed LOTR so that Sam actually did end up taking the ring from Frodo and finishing the job, that would be a problem (and that actually is really analagous to some of the Dune Part 2 changes). You may have gone to film school (like ok and?), but you can’t argue these points if you haven’t read the books, because you don’t know the themes of the books so all you have to go off of is the films which are again in a vacuum, pretty awesome.

I’m going to leave it at that because it’s going to get quite off topic I feel if we continue.

1 Like
72

yeah, sorry about that. I’m being defensive. I just love the movies and it’s hard for me to fathom anyone would have anything against them (even the differences from the books).

Only said that to establish some credibility on my end to inform that I may indeed know what I am talking about. Not meant to mean anything else or to discount your views necessarily.

–

But alright. Either way, let’s see how Dune Part III is.

2 Likes