Why do you think that? It was very plainly shot, just showing closeups of Paul holding the reins from bland angles getting blasted with sand or flying tracking shots of obvious CGI. The worm didn't seem to show any particular reaction or resistance and there was no impressionism or particularly distinct things happening on screen showing their bond, Paul's growing power, his increasing connection to the environment.

It showed the scale of the worms, but ... Like the news covering a flood

[–] triptrapper@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I should clarify that I only read half the book, so I haven't read that scene. It sounds like the movie didn't capture something special about his relationship with the worm. What I got from only seeing the movie is that there's a skyscraper-sized being that behaves more like a force of nature than a creature. So the vibe I got was more like Paul learning to surf than taming an animal.

That aside, visually I was impressed and thought afterwards, "Well, that could have looked a lot dumber than it did."

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I should clarify that I only read half the book, so I haven’t read that scene. It sounds like the movie didn’t capture something special about his relationship with the worm.

I didn't read any of the books. I read wikis and stuff, but from what I understand from the plot of the film, and the lore surrounding the works, we are seeing Paul and his gifts mature and manifest in their totality; part of him taming the worm is reaching his powers to their peak to the point where he can tame these huge creatures. The first scene we have of Paul (AFAIK) is him using the voice to force his mother to give him water. There was no impressionism or emotional expression in the scene (With the worm) from a technical viewpoint; no zooms, blurs, interesting camera angles, movements, lighting or anything of the sort. We didn't see him emanate his will in any way, he just climbed up the hooks, grabbed the reins, and that was about it.

Visually, it looked like he climbed unto a bumpy floor and grabbed a few strings, while people threw dust in his face. And then it showed these giant train worms going through a desert. There were so many interesting shots in the first film, and the way music melded with those scenes was amazing. A lot of the sequel just felt more of the same, repetitions of established things and sticking Paul's theme over the top.

Same with the hallucinations and drug trips. He just sees a fucking beach? Great. I can look up pictures of beaches on earth at my computer.

EDIT : Comparisons, that I will also need to revisit later :

Paul and the box : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SCWy9gsw3E

Paul and the worm : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ3mJIh0bFY

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

From a story perspective, Paul riding the worm was more to demonstrate his acceptance and alignment with the fremen society. Don't need any special powers to ride, but offworlders would never be taught to do it.

As the other post said, it's closer to surfing a wave than taming an animal. The hooks do allow a level of direction control, though.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

Paul riding the worm was more to demonstrate his acceptance and alignment with the fremen society. Don’t need any special powers to ride, but does need technique and offworlders would never be taught to do it.

This further proves I know shit about the Dune series.

But the film was quite lackluster in its visuals doing something expressive and new, and I didn't appreciate the amount of musical recycling that was done.