MovieChat Forums > eisbock > Replies
eisbock's Replies
"Yeah, the impression was they couldn't control the worms like horses, they just jumped on it, at least that is what happened to Paul."
The movie clearly showed the hooks latching onto "flaps" on the sand worm when Paul was riding it. Pull on a hook, the flap opens bigger, and the worm turns. This is how the sand worms are steered and is all shown in the film.
What's not clearly explained is that the sand worms are sensitive to sand and their "scales" provide protection. They close these flaps when traveling in the sand, so by opening them, you force the sand worm to lift that area out of the sand, effectively steering it.
"How did they get the worm to stop? Clearly that had to happen to put a carriage on it."
The sand worms don't stop. The carriage was a pop-up tent, as seen in other scenes. They set the tents up while riding the worms. Dismounting a worm is difficult, but easier than mounting it. I imagine they just ride it around in circles while everybody else hops on.
"Then why even bother to attack those giant spice collecting machines, why not just call the worms to attack those machines?"
The spice harvesters attract sand worms at baseline. They make a lot of rhythmic noise which is why they are airlifted to and from spice deposits. Calling a worm would take the same amount of time as just letting the worm be alerted naturally by spice harvesting. That's why they lie in wait at spice deposits to ambush the harvesters. Even if they were able to predict exactly when and where a harvester would be dropped down, they'd still need to already be on a worm and riding toward that location, at which point it would just seem like a worm was attracted by the harvesting, so they would airlift the thing out of there.
You do realize this is science FICTION, right? Yes, the universe should be grounded in science, sure, but artistic liberties are more than welcome. Encouraged, even.
This is a weird hill to die on considering all the other impossible stuff that happens in Dune.
I was actually wondering how they were going to portray a talking baby on the big screen. I think it would have felt too cartoonish and distracting. Having the child talk from the womb was probably the most "realistic" portrayal.
[quote]The food in the restaurant that seems to be so much variant in the menu but later appears as muffin alike when served and only differs by color(maybe taste?). I can't help but to smirk on that.[/quote]
He wanted medium rare, and during the bombing commotion, he mutters something about it being rare. Such a great detail.
But in general, I couldn't help but be amazed at the efficiency of the inefficiency. Things like instant responses from the tube machine and how quickly the police mobilize. It's impossible to get anything done with all the bureaucracy, yet you have so many resources being used effectively in all the wrong places.
It's not much of a defense, but to be fair, he was put on the spot. Him and his wife were terrified and barely able to utter a 3-letter word. My mind probably would've blanked at that point too.
Man, so many people upset that this fiction movie isn't a historically accurate documentary. I can't believe the whiny comments I'm reading.
Another vote against you. The way you're speaking to others is extremely inappropriate. Grow up.
I did finish it, but I'm not sure I can recommend it either. The film was bizarre and unique, something I can appreciate, but the plot was lackluster and the ending lame. Agreed on the bad acting, although at times it felt intentional and somewhat fit the mood of this cheap indie flick.
They didn't buy the tickets for the final stop until it was clear something fishy was going on. Hell, that wasn't even the "final" stop until several developments in the plot.
1. It's called a "bus" when you're in America.
2. How do you make a documentary about something that never happened?
[quote]So medieval.[/quote]
Yes, I think that was the entire point. Exactly.
I'm of the opinion that a well-made movie can and should piss you off. It evokes emotion, for better or worse, and that's a sign of a riveting film. Very much embodies that love/hate feeling.
I found the hunt for subtleties between the three re-tellings to be be incredibly enjoyable and engrossing.
I guess on the priority scale, if you had to rank the importance of a player or guard when it comes to accountability, the player would be ranked higher, even if not by much. The guard's quote could be hyperbolic.
Also, the show takes place on a remote island, so presumably an escaped guard wouldn't present an immediate threat to the games outside of shooting the place up or something. Again, something to be dealt with "later", though they'd prefer not to deal with it at all.
But yes, at the end of the day it's a movie that requires some element of suspension of disbelief and this is my paltry attempt at justifying one of the many plotholes!
That comment could've been more of a reference to the game itself. Priority #1 is entertaining the VIPs as we've seen from their lavish displays of hedonism. Paramount to making the VIPs happy is that the games continue which means every player must be accounted for. Guards aren't needed to keep the game functioning.
However, a missing guard is obviously a huge security risk and somebody will eventually care about that, but you can deal with that later as opposed to needing to deal with a missing player <i>now</i>.
It was definitely an attempt to be "hip" and "video gamey" because it's based on a hip video game, but they should've just gone for broke with the dark subject matter. I think if this were an original show not based off a game, the general composition would've been much more cohesive.
WHY ARE WE YELLING
It doesn't take a mathematician to see that the odds of survival are astronomically low if you're next in line to jump.
I probably would have risked the edges since playing the game normally almost certainly guarantees your death.
For funsies, the odds of survival for the first guy is a whopping .0004% or 1 in 250,000. Since the guards didn't kill anybody, you don't know if they're actually going to kill you if you find a loophole, so I would imagine the odds of cheating and surviving are at least better than 1 in a quarter million. After all, players in previous games have cheated and survived, sometimes ignored!
There's only 16 total players. Once you get to player 10, your odds of survival finally surpass 50%. So basically anybody before that is probably not going to make it, especially the first 4 which all have less than a 1% chance.
I wasn't a fan of this game because of how rigged it was against the earlier players. Bummer that we didn't see people try to be more clever.
I agree. I thought the players were going to find some clever ways to play this game, sometimes getting killed by the guards in the process.
I was a little let down that a bunch of people desperately fighting for their lives would follow the rules in a game of chance severely stacked against them.
I agree, but not <i>all</i> of the music was bad. There were some decent picks for a couple hypnotic sequences that I quite enjoyed.
However, we're probably all biased by the intro theme. The Imagine Dragons song does not fit. At all.
I loved the visuals... reminiscent of American Gods and Doom Patrol, but the awful song choice made me skip the intro every time when I would otherwise watch and enjoy it.
The show was darker and grittier than some of the song choices, which ruined the immersion at times.