I would say that the Dune of the novels is one of the landmark examples of what many would call Science Fantasy. So it's a feudal legend set in space having Worms, Spice, and Energy Shields in the place of Dragons, Magic, and Plated Armor. Once I realized that I was able to suspend enough disbelief to get interested. Though I must say I'm a bit curious as to what you consider there to be a difference between actually Good Worldbuilding, just Solid Worldbuilding (The mechanical logic of the world makes more sense than the characters) , and when worldbuilding doesn't matter. Because I've seen many people claim that worldbuilding is one of the most important things in writing but I've read several books where the world beyond the characters doesn't really matter at all.
There is no scenario where worldbuilding does not matter. I would agree that it is not the most important aspect of a story, but it informs everything else, having massive implications for the plot and characters. Declaring that any aspect of writing does not matter in my eyes is a sign of laziness. Characters can carry you through even a nonsensical plot, inconsistent world and contradictive theme, but to say that it is not even worth spending time developing those is ridiculous. Imagine two paintings side by side. One vividly depicts people, but the background is all muddled and murky, even distorting said people at various parts. The second one also shows impeccable figures at the forefront, but the scenery behind is just as beautiful, serving as a lively backdrop that elevates the core elements of the figures. To say that both of them are of the same quality because the characters are well made is incorrect, as for the first one, half of the painting is inferior. As for what differentiates good and servicable worldbuilding, I'd say it is how interconnected the dirrefent parts are. If various elements inform each other, and you can follow the logical influences throughout the setting, that's what I'd call excellent. Something that reflects a world that's lived-in, suggesting something much greater than what we can see or read. It is also important to note, that I don't think there is any scenario for a traditional story, where worldbuilding is more important than characters. It should not be a tradeoff if one has enough time to flesh out both, but under less than ideal conditions, the latter should take precenece. However, there are numerous protential projects where the opposite is true. For example, in the cases of a roleplaying campaign, non narrative-focused games, historic accounts of a different world (or alternative past/future), characters play less crucial roles than in traditional stories. TL;DR: Everything is varying degrees of important. It is up to the writer to determine how much effort they put into which aspect. But if something is poorly made, that is an objective issue, regardless of where their focus lies. I'd implore everyone to try to do their best, and not just 'good enough'.
@@ACrowingCockatrice When I say there are times when the world doesn't matter, I mean it in things like fairy tales, character interaction pieces, and a surprising amount of horror. The most prominent example of what I mean that I can point to is "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass". To go on your painting metaphor, imagine those being like portraits or tapestry where there is next to no background to distract from the focus of the story be it a moral, the characters, or just the scenarios the character is going through. Outside of that clarification on my part, that was all very well thought out and makes sense. I applaud you on your ability to explain your point of view!
I would say the world of Wonderland does absolutely matter. The fact that it is whacky, weird and not scientifically accurate is not relevant here. Same applies for any story where the world is established to follow unusual rules and logic. The key here is consistency. Accounting for all the unusual possibilities throughout the story. If a magical item, a recurring event, or an abnormal interaction are introduced, it is the writer's job to make sure they will inform future events and do not contradict anything in the past. If we go by the painting example, I'd say the background can still be very well made, complimenting the characters, but in this case it is surrealistic or abstract. The only genre I can think of that could be considered somewhat of an exception is comedy. Even there, consistent rules are important for dramatic payoffs, but those are usually far less prevalent.
@@ACrowingCockatrice I think for canonically 'fictional' settings, such as a personalized Purgatory, a comatose Dreamscape, or a literal Simulation as in the Matrix, they still require an internal 'logic' but can otherwise follow the Rule of Cool. They still have to make sense within the lens of their creators psychology, but beyond that only need to 'seem' legitimate, for the purpose of their 'audience' experiencing them. Speaking more generally, for regular Sci-fi and Fantasy, there is a limit to how far world building 'needs' to be taken. If the characters are written well enough, suspension of disbelief tends to be extended farther, as the author 'obviously' knows what they are talking about, and a more accurate explanation (or worldbuilding caveat/exception) will likely follow. Like, if a guy is established as loving his kid, then next scene he kills the kid, the plothole is so obvious that people assume additional context exists, and then wait for it to be explained later, unless it's at the very end of the narrative. With enough retconing, bad worldbuilding can become good worldbuilding, and if the pacing is done right, it doesn't feel like retconing.
Liked and subscribed. I enjoyed the critique of the world and it was very in depth and thought-out. I commend you for making such a long and thought-out critique since editing takes quite a while, and finding a way around not showing any movie clips was good. I will say that while I enjoyed the movie Dune, I did not enjoy it to the same level as the book. Many of the critiques you gave as fair about the movie since it frankly turned a lot of the villains and characters into a more simplistic light, and arcs in dune are ridiculously long (Jessica spends an entire chapter thinking about similarities and differences of freemen use of the spice white drinking coffee.) Of course, you are correct that all works should be able to stand on your own but the dune series (The books I mean) address, either in the original book or in a later book many of the criticisms. I would say that the general stupidity and inefficiency of the world is a major point in the book, that they themselves hold back their progress as even being far into the future, they run themselves in a feudal light and have decided to use no computers at all. (Although a part of it is that the author wrote ethe book sixty years ago and therefore could not have known how far computers would advance, and ways to counteract them, and chose to make the future a backward and dystopic one to avoid the problem all tougher.) I will admit that is silly that humanity will eliminate all of the computers especially with how it turned out to do, but I hardly think judging the author of the book is fair, in my opinion, as sixty years ago computers have evolved tremendously and things like the internet and our extreme depended on them can't be judged, although that is simply my opinion. The worms and freemen, I will admit quite a thing about them, are good in the book and movie, but they are also not scientifically feasible. In the book, the freemen do sell spice to the spacing guild, as bribes for not revealing their location to the government, which seems likely to me, honestly. The worms and what they eat is not explained in the movie, but in the book Thye gave a long explanation about how spice was made both from dead bodies of juvenile larvae, since they possess a long-life cycle. They actually come from sand plankton, who seem to be like real plankton and burrow in the sand for sunlight or some other form of life, strangely enough, the plankton becomes sand trout to find water and seal it away until they become tiny sandworms, and their dead bodies become spice, and the survivors slowly grow until they become sandworms. It is not entirely unheard of for living creatures to have separate ecological niches like jellyfish and many kinds of fish, but it does seem strange that they are able to do so many things, produce such a substance, and that they hunt for human's while being filter feeders. This alongside the fact that they possess an unknown biology that is not-water based, since water is toxic to them, and that they produce such a powerful substance, terraform whole planets and are not actually native to Arrakis actually led me to personally believe that they are artificially engineered creatures made to create spice prior to the Butlerian jihad, btu that is kind of just my own head canon to explain the inconsistency, as it seems unlikely to me that frank Herbert would have made such a large sticking point when denning the creatures, and your criticism that sand is pretty hard to dig into is very much true. They do Worm riding is admittedly pretty dumb although I suspended my disbelief since I personally think it is cool, even if a real creature would murder them, but I find the way they measure distances using worms instead of miles of kilometers to be interesting and well thought-out(I also think that as another sing of the worms being engineered). I think he reason worms haven't been used yet is because no outright war erupted between them, as I think that Paul uses worms to fight the Harkonens later on as a proper war ensues, but I may be remembering wrong, and the worms are pretty dumb int eh book and movie honestly, as they seem to forget about enemies as they go out of their sight, and seem to be as smart as real worms despite being much, much larger. The characters also become morally grey as time goes on since they murder a bunch of people and Paul himself genocides 61 billion people(althouh.really, that moment was pretty casual, and it wasn't white as impactful as it could). I find the way the freemen and their culture are developed in the book and honestly parts in the movie too to be pretty good, Ith their worship of water and vowing the worms as holy symbols to be quite great, although the worldbuilding and culture is vast. I would also like to take a minute to point out that Dune is less science fiction but also a bit of fantasy as they have ghosts, magic words, mind-reading, absorbing the memories of thud Ead, superpowers, giant worms, castles, nobility and other stuff which makes it hard for me to take it seriously as hard sci-fi, and I find it best not to judge it as such. I am also not that doubtfully about the imperial knowledge of the Freman, since they always treat them as barbarians and do not take a look into their culture, it is not as if there as any scientific investigation of Dune, and there is a serious difference between things that the locals know, and things serious sources know, an example is medicinal plants, many of them are locally known but no official source mentions most of them, so I aim[t surprised. I should not happen with how advanced in technology dune is, but with how backward it is in many ways I am not the slightest bit surprised. In the book, they show that there is no natural water aboveground water, in Arrakis, but the inhabitants have done extensive terraforming systems that utilize water from the ground, although it is still extremely limited, and there is little Aimal life since the worm-created deserts cover the land, and the humans need to actively fight the worms to keep the desert alive. Overall, the desert is not natural, which I find it a pretty good way to explain the usual space-opera's where there is simply a planet made Soley out of something with no expiations as to why an entire planet has a single biome, and I don’t remember it clearly, but I think here are ice-caps around Arrakis. I will say that one thing about dune is that the universe is not visited, and much of the story, not only in this book but others, focuses and revolves around the single planet of Arrakis Personally, I think the book is not perfect, but it’s pretty good. Frankly however, most of what I have said does not apply to the movie, and the criticism is still entirely valid, with a smaller but still manageable number of carnism's also applying tithe book. However, I do not think a movie could ever hope you capture the whole entirety of the world of Dune, as it is very slow-going and takes quite a while to set up, and only an extremely long, multi-hour series could dyer hope you translate the length of the book, so I did not expect much. I knew things needed to be cut in order to make into a movie format, and I think the people who worked on a movie did a good job, but I think they should have separated the book into a long series instead of a movie, and don’t really think they will fix most of the problems. Of coruse, I am biased due to my love of the book, and while I try to be objective, true, total objectives is an unreachable goal and this is pretty much just my own thoughts both on the video and on the movie, since I was pretty much talking about how much better the book was than the move while I watched it. It’s still a very thought-out video and you most definitely deserve more than just 2k subscribers, I just wanted to voice my own thoughts.
Liked and subscribed! This was delightfully in-depth and thought out. As someone who is finishing a novel that has about 7 years of worldbuilding behind it, I genuinely appreciate what you have done here. Worldbuilding, IMO, is not the same as writing. The two are often paired up, but they are distinct entities. That said, the better the world, the better the writing. And there needs to be a larger community dedicated to pure worldbuilding. When my book is finished, I would love to send you a copy!! Any analysis, tips, and critiques on my own product would greatly help out. Cheers, and keep up the good work!
I'm glad you found the video informative, and since you seem to be invested in worldbuilding, I'd encourage you to join the channel's Discord server (link in the video description). We dabble in the subject quite a bit there. As for the book, I'd gladly help out if I can. I don't really consider myself an expert, I'm still figuring stuff out as I go about my own projects, but if this video makes you think you'd value my input, I'm open to the idea.
@@ACrowingCockatrice A discord dedicated to worldbuilding and such?? Sign me right up! I would be glad to join. And I think you have a keen eye for this subject. As long as you are open to the idea, I would be glad to discuss it in further detail. :)
Eh, I know this is a matter of opinion and up to interpretation based on each viewers' life experience, but I feel like the worldbuilding is perfectly reasonable. I mean, I'm not out here criticizing how kiber crystals aren't harvested in mass and used in every kind of machinery, all I need to know is that jedi get lazer swords that represent their skill and mastery in their line of work. Similarly, especially with the spice stuff, I feel like it's reasonable to say that this is a sort of wild west time for them, finding this wild nearly inhospitable planet with sand worms and people don't really have the resources to settle it. I mean like, how are they gonna consistantly transport large enough amounts of water there to both support human settlements and also not destroy the delicate ecosystem. And with the sand worms themselves, they just seem to perform the role dragons do in many stories. They're an ancient revered species that probably couldn't exist in real life alongside humans, but do in this setting to give a sense of danger and awe to the wilderness beyond the normal. I love your channel and you clearly and obviously have skill and expertise in this field, but going too far in search of unrealism can sometimes throw out a lot of realism and mechanical usefulness in aspects if the story. With all of this in mind, I personally worldbuild more like you, I just think about stories a bit differently and don't mind when other people do things a bit different than I do, so long as it's not a terrible or boring experience.
I see a way shields like this could work. Instead of a barrier it’s a field of effect. It acts like non Newtonian fluid (like corn starch and water) but it’s in the air. Very fast things like bullets can’t pass through but slow moving things like people, melee weapons and air can. Now we just need to make up whatever material is light enough and able to contain enough oxygen and how it is suspended in the shield field.
There is a huge difference between how fast a human can grab things/move weapons compared to how fast bullets go. Also energy weapons would still be able to pass through. This is a feature not a bug as you get the reason for laser guns. And if you don’t like that just tack on an energy diverted shield.
Yeah, a Newtonian fluid that is capable of withstanding a gunshot, and is sufficiently transparent, combined with a technology that can suspend it could work to some extent. This approach has a lot more factors supporting it, and with enough tinkering, it could certainly be an effective tool. It could be great for vehicles at any rate, as weight restrictions are not as severe there.
@@ACrowingCockatrice Ot could begin with civilian use. Such around around a school to prevent shootings or a bank or store to prevent gun robberies. Then it would move on to military use to make buildings a no gun fire zone. I’ve also done a bit of math and arrows are much slower then bullets, so those might be able to be used.
One guy hunted a sand worm and the cartilaginous skeleton melted within weeks - no trophy. And they basically poop spice. No worm = no spice. The Shield Wall is the rock that encircles the 'valley' Arrakeen lies in, the shield tech would attract worms but the cliff outer barrier would dissuade them.
Probably explained later, but the Fremen try to look like a small population of fierce but not very powerful enemies for... reasons. Riding a worm in full view of Imperials would surely attract attention. They pay spice bribes to the Guild so satellites don't find them.
Its is science fiction/fantasy, but I agree that the spitting in the coffee thing was dumb and disgusting and makes no sense. Maybe one could argue that everyone needed to ante up some liquid and those guys didn't have any stored in their suits at the moment but that still doesn't really make sense, they would most likely carry extra reserves of water beyond just their suits
Great! And also a crowing cockatrice, i will request you to do monsters dissected: boston bahumagosh - carnivorous bigfoot species that eats small wildlife video.
Good examination of new dune. After some lore in later books I consider saga in any regard grounded or realistic. This cold analises was very bizzar and refreshing. The most frusteting think about te shilds and swords is that they aren't rewelent to history. After the trening scen shilds are never used in important scean. After first book they are only mension. "Cool" swords figths migth be just a nobility custom. Batalistic scenst aren't in books and that good, becouse films show how stupid they are. Alsow series admit that shilds are stupid. The must inteligent person in history of univers autlow they(that not good sign for rest of humanity).
Well, the fact that an explanation exists in the books does not necessarily mean it is the same for the show, as adaptations can always make alterations. Additionally, just because it is in the books, that does not automatically mean it is a good or viable worldbuilding element. Just look at the lasgun and shield interactions, which fundamentally break the setting as it is presented. Either way, I'm sorry the video frustrated you.
@@ACrowingCockatrice oh, please, don’t take me wrong it is a foundamental flaw of the movie, since the book is super into science, and especially biology, a lot of your problems with it are, in the source material, not just addressed, but explained in a way that makes arrakis feel not only alive, but beautiful in a brutal, alien fashion; and that comes from someone who hates the heat and the desert, but it has a way of pulling you in. That being said part of the criticism is super valid, especially around the politics, in which a few holes are left even in the books. I cannot recommend reading it enough, like, I could address some of the points and explain them, but that would take the fun off of it, wouldn’t it? As an aside, I must say I didn’t mean to offend you, I’ve been finding your videos and ideas quite nice and helpful; honestly if you’d want to talk about the stuff privately I’m open to it
@@elskaalfhollr4743 We talk a lot about this sort of stuff on the channel's Discord server, so you are more than welcome to join and share your thoughts.
I did note I am not familiar with the books and go solely off of the movies, but sure. It still doesn't invalidate any of my actual criticisms (or compliments for that matter).
@@ACrowingCockatrice your criticisms are that of world building. With the added excuse of ignorance that you didn’t read the books. And the caveat of “a work should stand on its own” The story stands on its own as a work without many of the criticisms leveled such as dune’s lack of infrastructure or the lives of the sand works. And any justification or rationalizes are explored in the works where it’s relevant. Your logic is circular. Because it states that a good work can stand on its own. When in reality good fiction can have further elaborations on its world through subsequent installments. And as such to you the criticism is “valid” Even though the work as a whole explains it but that doesn’t count to you because good fiction should stand on its own.
Any adaptation by its nature begins a new continuity, and until story beats, character traits or worldbuilding elements are confirmed to be the same as in the source material, the viewer cannot know if any changes have been made or not. Therefore, even if someone is familiar with the original work, it is simply meta knowledge that does not necessarily apply to the adaptation. I don't think general audience members can or should be expected to read/play through/watch anything outside of the adaptation to understand it. It should be treated as a standalone work, as it technically is, since if something crucial or fundamental is missing or not adequately explored, the source material may not even hold the correct answer. By your logic, a story may lack any sort of explanation, it may very well begin halfway through the third act, and still be acceptable, since there is a book that has all the information one needs. Conversely, apparently none of the bad Star Wars movies have plot holes, since the novelizations managed to contrive some reason for everything. Taking this thought process to the extreme, 5 hours of sand blown in the wind still constitutes a good movie, since there are all those novels where something actually happens. Also, I very explicitly proposed criticism that could be explained later on as *potential* problems. If they aren't, they will remain issues, if they are, that is a good thing, but criticism cannot be based on the prospect of "one day they may addressed". Any problem is nonexistent if we assume there is or will be a good explanation. Plus, even if some things are adequately explained in the books, there are others that absolutely cannot work as presented (sand worms being one of the biggies, as some of the flaws are beyond salvaging), or are actively made much worse by the books (shield + lasgun interaction). Even if we apply all of the existing external works to the movie (and there are miraculously no contradictions), some worldbuilding blunders present in the movie remain unaffected. Those thopters remain completely dysfunctional and unfit for the planet. Additionally, if by lack of infrastructure you mean the missing settlements, that is another example where the books can have little effect. Even if the source material mentions the extra cities, the movie still acts like there is only the one. So yeah. When I point out elements that are objective problems for the world at large, I do consider that valid criticism. Showing nondefinitive issues, or ill-explored areas is also completely valid, as I am basing it all on information we have, and not might have. I still fail to see why I cannot criticise something based on its own merit, or why it would be pointless.
@@ACrowingCockatrice if a general audience member wants a deeper world building question answered by a property that has given answers in later works then bitching about it is the equivalent of a child wanting to handed the answer. New adaptions can also not need to explain something verbally or overtly due to the medium. And some questions are minor enough to not need exposition. By my logic if a story has questions raised that are explained already and you the viewer want to know them then you should find them. In the context of the first dune film the life cycle of the sandworm is not relevant to the story so taking time to explain it would be worse for pacing and writing. Hyperspace ramming is a good example. There were already explanations outside of the films that justified how this FTL works. Using it in a way that contradicts sources outside of the film is more inline with your justification that because something is an adaption or “new continuity” it needed to spelled out to not be contradictions. As for your 5 hour disingenuous sand example. That also ignores other things that make a film good but it’s a stupid example so it’s better to call it stupid call the person who made the point pedantic and move on. Proposing changes to an established property that are answered already and will be introduced when it’s appropriate is a justification for the video then a real objective reason why the changes proposed are valid. And your argument at its core outside of being self justifying is that realism should always matter. Which if applied evenly anything that can not be hundred percent justified is only being vague to hide its inability to justify its creature and or system. Which outside of things like magic which by the virtue of being magic will be unexplainable on the whole. Most things in sci-fi and fantasy if dug deep enough have not basis in reality, break a rule of the universe to justify its existence, or are vague. Or more simply, your not honest enough to break down a piece of word building to the point that you’ll just whole scale admit speculative fiction is a pointless endeavor. My question for your last point is this” are sets ups and mysteries inherently bad because they aren’t justified by the work they first appear in” because your argument as you said states that a good work should stand on its own.
Your critique is the most boring i've ever heard. Not only is completely wrong but also extremely irritating. You can't read great movies. You don't recognize masterpieces. You focus on useless and petty details. Your words are hollow and useless. Dune 2021 is the best movie in cinema history and you're too blind to see it.
I hate comments like this, people who think calling someone/something bad or staying how much *they* didn't like with any actual explanation of how or way. It just reeks of someone how assumes every thought they sh#t out is unquestionably correct no matter how poorly tough out
I would say that the Dune of the novels is one of the landmark examples of what many would call Science Fantasy. So it's a feudal legend set in space having Worms, Spice, and Energy Shields in the place of Dragons, Magic, and Plated Armor. Once I realized that I was able to suspend enough disbelief to get interested.
Though I must say I'm a bit curious as to what you consider there to be a difference between actually Good Worldbuilding, just Solid Worldbuilding (The mechanical logic of the world makes more sense than the characters) , and when worldbuilding doesn't matter. Because I've seen many people claim that worldbuilding is one of the most important things in writing but I've read several books where the world beyond the characters doesn't really matter at all.
There is no scenario where worldbuilding does not matter. I would agree that it is not the most important aspect of a story, but it informs everything else, having massive implications for the plot and characters. Declaring that any aspect of writing does not matter in my eyes is a sign of laziness. Characters can carry you through even a nonsensical plot, inconsistent world and contradictive theme, but to say that it is not even worth spending time developing those is ridiculous.
Imagine two paintings side by side. One vividly depicts people, but the background is all muddled and murky, even distorting said people at various parts. The second one also shows impeccable figures at the forefront, but the scenery behind is just as beautiful, serving as a lively backdrop that elevates the core elements of the figures. To say that both of them are of the same quality because the characters are well made is incorrect, as for the first one, half of the painting is inferior.
As for what differentiates good and servicable worldbuilding, I'd say it is how interconnected the dirrefent parts are. If various elements inform each other, and you can follow the logical influences throughout the setting, that's what I'd call excellent. Something that reflects a world that's lived-in, suggesting something much greater than what we can see or read.
It is also important to note, that I don't think there is any scenario for a traditional story, where worldbuilding is more important than characters. It should not be a tradeoff if one has enough time to flesh out both, but under less than ideal conditions, the latter should take precenece. However, there are numerous protential projects where the opposite is true. For example, in the cases of a roleplaying campaign, non narrative-focused games, historic accounts of a different world (or alternative past/future), characters play less crucial roles than in traditional stories.
TL;DR: Everything is varying degrees of important. It is up to the writer to determine how much effort they put into which aspect. But if something is poorly made, that is an objective issue, regardless of where their focus lies.
I'd implore everyone to try to do their best, and not just 'good enough'.
@@ACrowingCockatrice When I say there are times when the world doesn't matter, I mean it in things like fairy tales, character interaction pieces, and a surprising amount of horror. The most prominent example of what I mean that I can point to is "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass".
To go on your painting metaphor, imagine those being like portraits or tapestry where there is next to no background to distract from the focus of the story be it a moral, the characters, or just the scenarios the character is going through.
Outside of that clarification on my part, that was all very well thought out and makes sense. I applaud you on your ability to explain your point of view!
I would say the world of Wonderland does absolutely matter. The fact that it is whacky, weird and not scientifically accurate is not relevant here. Same applies for any story where the world is established to follow unusual rules and logic. The key here is consistency. Accounting for all the unusual possibilities throughout the story. If a magical item, a recurring event, or an abnormal interaction are introduced, it is the writer's job to make sure they will inform future events and do not contradict anything in the past.
If we go by the painting example, I'd say the background can still be very well made, complimenting the characters, but in this case it is surrealistic or abstract.
The only genre I can think of that could be considered somewhat of an exception is comedy. Even there, consistent rules are important for dramatic payoffs, but those are usually far less prevalent.
@@ACrowingCockatrice I think for canonically 'fictional' settings, such as a personalized Purgatory, a comatose Dreamscape, or a literal Simulation as in the Matrix, they still require an internal 'logic' but can otherwise follow the Rule of Cool. They still have to make sense within the lens of their creators psychology, but beyond that only need to 'seem' legitimate, for the purpose of their 'audience' experiencing them.
Speaking more generally, for regular Sci-fi and Fantasy, there is a limit to how far world building 'needs' to be taken. If the characters are written well enough, suspension of disbelief tends to be extended farther, as the author 'obviously' knows what they are talking about, and a more accurate explanation (or worldbuilding caveat/exception) will likely follow. Like, if a guy is established as loving his kid, then next scene he kills the kid, the plothole is so obvious that people assume additional context exists, and then wait for it to be explained later, unless it's at the very end of the narrative.
With enough retconing, bad worldbuilding can become good worldbuilding, and if the pacing is done right, it doesn't feel like retconing.
real earth worms breath through their skin
Liked and subscribed. I enjoyed the critique of the world and it was very in depth and thought-out. I commend you for making such a long and thought-out critique since editing takes quite a while, and finding a way around not showing any movie clips was good. I will say that while I enjoyed the movie Dune, I did not enjoy it to the same level as the book. Many of the critiques you gave as fair about the movie since it frankly turned a lot of the villains and characters into a more simplistic light, and arcs in dune are ridiculously long (Jessica spends an entire chapter thinking about similarities and differences of freemen use of the spice white drinking coffee.)
Of course, you are correct that all works should be able to stand on your own but the dune series (The books I mean) address, either in the original book or in a later book many of the criticisms.
I would say that the general stupidity and inefficiency of the world is a major point in the book, that they themselves hold back their progress as even being far into the future, they run themselves in a feudal light and have decided to use no computers at all.
(Although a part of it is that the author wrote ethe book sixty years ago and therefore could not have known how far computers would advance, and ways to counteract them, and chose to make the future a backward and dystopic one to avoid the problem all tougher.)
I will admit that is silly that humanity will eliminate all of the computers especially with how it turned out to do, but I hardly think judging the author of the book is fair, in my opinion, as sixty years ago computers have evolved tremendously and things like the internet and our extreme depended on them can't be judged, although that is simply my opinion.
The worms and freemen, I will admit quite a thing about them, are good in the book and movie, but they are also not scientifically feasible. In the book, the freemen do sell spice to the spacing guild, as bribes for not revealing their location to the government, which seems likely to me, honestly.
The worms and what they eat is not explained in the movie, but in the book Thye gave a long explanation about how spice was made both from dead bodies of juvenile larvae, since they possess a long-life cycle.
They actually come from sand plankton, who seem to be like real plankton and burrow in the sand for sunlight or some other form of life, strangely enough, the plankton becomes sand trout to find water and seal it away until they become tiny sandworms, and their dead bodies become spice, and the survivors slowly grow until they become sandworms.
It is not entirely unheard of for living creatures to have separate ecological niches like jellyfish and many kinds of fish, but it does seem strange that they are able to do so many things, produce such a substance, and that they hunt for human's while being filter feeders.
This alongside the fact that they possess an unknown biology that is not-water based, since water is toxic to them, and that they produce such a powerful substance, terraform whole planets and are not actually native to Arrakis actually led me to personally believe that they are artificially engineered creatures made to create spice prior to the Butlerian jihad, btu that is kind of just my own head canon to explain the inconsistency, as it seems unlikely to me that frank Herbert would have made such a large sticking point when denning the creatures, and your criticism that sand is pretty hard to dig into is very much true. They do
Worm riding is admittedly pretty dumb although I suspended my disbelief since I personally think it is cool, even if a real creature would murder them, but I find the way they measure distances using worms instead of miles of kilometers to be interesting and well thought-out(I also think that as another sing of the worms being engineered). I think he reason worms haven't been used yet is because no outright war erupted between them, as I think that Paul uses worms to fight the Harkonens later on as a proper war ensues, but I may be remembering wrong, and the worms are pretty dumb int eh book and movie honestly, as they seem to forget about enemies as they go out of their sight, and seem to be as smart as real worms despite being much, much larger.
The characters also become morally grey as time goes on since they murder a bunch of people and Paul himself genocides 61 billion people(althouh.really, that moment was pretty casual, and it wasn't white as impactful as it could).
I find the way the freemen and their culture are developed in the book and honestly parts in the movie too to be pretty good, Ith their worship of water and vowing the worms as holy symbols to be quite great, although the worldbuilding and culture is vast.
I would also like to take a minute to point out that Dune is less science fiction but also a bit of fantasy as they have ghosts, magic words, mind-reading, absorbing the memories of thud Ead, superpowers, giant worms, castles, nobility and other stuff which makes it hard for me to take it seriously as hard sci-fi, and I find it best not to judge it as such.
I am also not that doubtfully about the imperial knowledge of the Freman, since they always treat them as barbarians and do not take a look into their culture, it is not as if there as any scientific investigation of Dune, and there is a serious difference between things that the locals know, and things serious sources know, an example is medicinal plants, many of them are locally known but no official source mentions most of them, so I aim[t surprised.
I should not happen with how advanced in technology dune is, but with how backward it is in many ways I am not the slightest bit surprised.
In the book, they show that there is no natural water aboveground water, in Arrakis, but the inhabitants have done extensive terraforming systems that utilize water from the ground, although it is still extremely limited, and there is little Aimal life since the worm-created deserts cover the land, and the humans need to actively fight the worms to keep the desert alive. Overall, the desert is not natural, which I find it a pretty good way to explain the usual space-opera's where there is simply a planet made Soley out of something with no expiations as to why an entire planet has a single biome, and I don’t remember it clearly, but I think here are ice-caps around Arrakis.
I will say that one thing about dune is that the universe is not visited, and much of the story, not only in this book but others, focuses and revolves around the single planet of Arrakis
Personally, I think the book is not perfect, but it’s pretty good.
Frankly however, most of what I have said does not apply to the movie, and the criticism is still entirely valid, with a smaller but still manageable number of carnism's also applying tithe book.
However, I do not think a movie could ever hope you capture the whole entirety of the world of Dune, as it is very slow-going and takes quite a while to set up, and only an extremely long, multi-hour series could dyer hope you translate the length of the book, so I did not expect much.
I knew things needed to be cut in order to make into a movie format, and I think the people who worked on a movie did a good job, but I think they should have separated the book into a long series instead of a movie, and don’t really think they will fix most of the problems.
Of coruse, I am biased due to my love of the book, and while I try to be objective, true, total objectives is an unreachable goal and this is pretty much just my own thoughts both on the video and on the movie, since I was pretty much talking about how much better the book was than the move while I watched it.
It’s still a very thought-out video and you most definitely deserve more than just 2k subscribers, I just wanted to voice my own thoughts.
Liked and subscribed! This was delightfully in-depth and thought out. As someone who is finishing a novel that has about 7 years of worldbuilding behind it, I genuinely appreciate what you have done here.
Worldbuilding, IMO, is not the same as writing. The two are often paired up, but they are distinct entities. That said, the better the world, the better the writing. And there needs to be a larger community dedicated to pure worldbuilding.
When my book is finished, I would love to send you a copy!! Any analysis, tips, and critiques on my own product would greatly help out.
Cheers, and keep up the good work!
I'm glad you found the video informative, and since you seem to be invested in worldbuilding, I'd encourage you to join the channel's Discord server (link in the video description). We dabble in the subject quite a bit there.
As for the book, I'd gladly help out if I can. I don't really consider myself an expert, I'm still figuring stuff out as I go about my own projects, but if this video makes you think you'd value my input, I'm open to the idea.
@@ACrowingCockatrice A discord dedicated to worldbuilding and such??
Sign me right up! I would be glad to join.
And I think you have a keen eye for this subject. As long as you are open to the idea, I would be glad to discuss it in further detail. :)
wow a 1 hour video! I wonder how much effort you put in to this. regardles its a great video. I am The Doom Slayer from the dc server btw.
Let's just say it's been in the works since the end of last year.
Eh, I know this is a matter of opinion and up to interpretation based on each viewers' life experience, but I feel like the worldbuilding is perfectly reasonable. I mean, I'm not out here criticizing how kiber crystals aren't harvested in mass and used in every kind of machinery, all I need to know is that jedi get lazer swords that represent their skill and mastery in their line of work. Similarly, especially with the spice stuff, I feel like it's reasonable to say that this is a sort of wild west time for them, finding this wild nearly inhospitable planet with sand worms and people don't really have the resources to settle it. I mean like, how are they gonna consistantly transport large enough amounts of water there to both support human settlements and also not destroy the delicate ecosystem. And with the sand worms themselves, they just seem to perform the role dragons do in many stories. They're an ancient revered species that probably couldn't exist in real life alongside humans, but do in this setting to give a sense of danger and awe to the wilderness beyond the normal.
I love your channel and you clearly and obviously have skill and expertise in this field, but going too far in search of unrealism can sometimes throw out a lot of realism and mechanical usefulness in aspects if the story. With all of this in mind, I personally worldbuild more like you, I just think about stories a bit differently and don't mind when other people do things a bit different than I do, so long as it's not a terrible or boring experience.
Great video under the context of just the film. It is valid film worldbuilding after all.
You deserve way more than only 656 subs!
I see a way shields like this could work. Instead of a barrier it’s a field of effect. It acts like non Newtonian fluid (like corn starch and water) but it’s in the air. Very fast things like bullets can’t pass through but slow moving things like people, melee weapons and air can. Now we just need to make up whatever material is light enough and able to contain enough oxygen and how it is suspended in the shield field.
There is a huge difference between how fast a human can grab things/move weapons compared to how fast bullets go. Also energy weapons would still be able to pass through. This is a feature not a bug as you get the reason for laser guns. And if you don’t like that just tack on an energy diverted shield.
Yeah, a Newtonian fluid that is capable of withstanding a gunshot, and is sufficiently transparent, combined with a technology that can suspend it could work to some extent. This approach has a lot more factors supporting it, and with enough tinkering, it could certainly be an effective tool. It could be great for vehicles at any rate, as weight restrictions are not as severe there.
@@ACrowingCockatrice Ot could begin with civilian use. Such around around a school to prevent shootings or a bank or store to prevent gun robberies. Then it would move on to military use to make buildings a no gun fire zone.
I’ve also done a bit of math and arrows are much slower then bullets, so those might be able to be used.
In the books, they mention riding the tail end will burn you.because of the friction and 'internal aldehyde furnaces'
Krill is known as sand plankton so imaginative Frank
One guy hunted a sand worm and the cartilaginous skeleton melted within weeks - no trophy. And they basically poop spice. No worm = no spice. The Shield Wall is the rock that encircles the 'valley' Arrakeen lies in, the shield tech would attract worms but the cliff outer barrier would dissuade them.
Probably explained later, but the Fremen try to look like a small population of fierce but not very powerful enemies for... reasons. Riding a worm in full view of Imperials would surely attract attention. They pay spice bribes to the Guild so satellites don't find them.
Carthag and Arrakeen's people are not Fremen.
Goggles are a really good point.
'Touch your eyes. They're wet.' 😂🤣
Its is science fiction/fantasy, but I agree that the spitting in the coffee thing was dumb and disgusting and makes no sense.
Maybe one could argue that everyone needed to ante up some liquid and those guys didn't have any stored in their suits at the moment but that still doesn't really make sense, they would most likely carry extra reserves of water beyond just their suits
Great! And also a crowing cockatrice, i will request you to do monsters dissected: boston bahumagosh - carnivorous bigfoot species that eats small wildlife video.
📖✍️
Good examination of new dune. After some lore in later books I consider saga in any regard grounded or realistic. This cold analises was very bizzar and refreshing.
The most frusteting think about te shilds and swords is that they aren't rewelent to history. After the trening scen shilds are never used in important scean. After first book they are only mension. "Cool" swords figths migth be just a nobility custom. Batalistic scenst aren't in books and that good, becouse films show how stupid they are. Alsow series admit that shilds are stupid. The must inteligent person in history of univers autlow they(that not good sign for rest of humanity).
as a person who read the book and ignored the movie i just cant with this video, i am practically screaming all the answers
Well, the fact that an explanation exists in the books does not necessarily mean it is the same for the show, as adaptations can always make alterations. Additionally, just because it is in the books, that does not automatically mean it is a good or viable worldbuilding element. Just look at the lasgun and shield interactions, which fundamentally break the setting as it is presented.
Either way, I'm sorry the video frustrated you.
@@ACrowingCockatrice oh, please, don’t take me wrong it is a foundamental flaw of the movie, since the book is super into science, and especially biology, a lot of your problems with it are, in the source material, not just addressed, but explained in a way that makes arrakis feel not only alive, but beautiful in a brutal, alien fashion; and that comes from someone who hates the heat and the desert, but it has a way of pulling you in.
That being said part of the criticism is super valid, especially around the politics, in which a few holes are left even in the books.
I cannot recommend reading it enough, like, I could address some of the points and explain them, but that would take the fun off of it, wouldn’t it?
As an aside, I must say I didn’t mean to offend you, I’ve been finding your videos and ideas quite nice and helpful; honestly if you’d want to talk about the stuff privately I’m open to it
@@elskaalfhollr4743 We talk a lot about this sort of stuff on the channel's Discord server, so you are more than welcome to join and share your thoughts.
Hey
It's simply one of the greatest movies ever made! Totally underrated and misunderstood.
Stopped watching when you started ranting about the Ornithopters, its a sci-fi fantasy movie, not a fucking documentary.
5 minutes into the video and a lack of understanding of dunes world is already astounding.
I did note I am not familiar with the books and go solely off of the movies, but sure. It still doesn't invalidate any of my actual criticisms (or compliments for that matter).
@@ACrowingCockatrice your criticisms are that of world building.
With the added excuse of ignorance that you didn’t read the books. And the caveat of “a work should stand on its own”
The story stands on its own as a work without many of the criticisms leveled such as dune’s lack of infrastructure or the lives of the sand works. And any justification or rationalizes are explored in the works where it’s relevant.
Your logic is circular. Because it states that a good work can stand on its own. When in reality good fiction can have further elaborations on its world through subsequent installments.
And as such to you the criticism is “valid”
Even though the work as a whole explains it but that doesn’t count to you because good fiction should stand on its own.
Any adaptation by its nature begins a new continuity, and until story beats, character traits or worldbuilding elements are confirmed to be the same as in the source material, the viewer cannot know if any changes have been made or not. Therefore, even if someone is familiar with the original work, it is simply meta knowledge that does not necessarily apply to the adaptation.
I don't think general audience members can or should be expected to read/play through/watch anything outside of the adaptation to understand it. It should be treated as a standalone work, as it technically is, since if something crucial or fundamental is missing or not adequately explored, the source material may not even hold the correct answer.
By your logic, a story may lack any sort of explanation, it may very well begin halfway through the third act, and still be acceptable, since there is a book that has all the information one needs. Conversely, apparently none of the bad Star Wars movies have plot holes, since the novelizations managed to contrive some reason for everything.
Taking this thought process to the extreme, 5 hours of sand blown in the wind still constitutes a good movie, since there are all those novels where something actually happens.
Also, I very explicitly proposed criticism that could be explained later on as *potential* problems. If they aren't, they will remain issues, if they are, that is a good thing, but criticism cannot be based on the prospect of "one day they may addressed". Any problem is nonexistent if we assume there is or will be a good explanation.
Plus, even if some things are adequately explained in the books, there are others that absolutely cannot work as presented (sand worms being one of the biggies, as some of the flaws are beyond salvaging), or are actively made much worse by the books (shield + lasgun interaction).
Even if we apply all of the existing external works to the movie (and there are miraculously no contradictions), some worldbuilding blunders present in the movie remain unaffected. Those thopters remain completely dysfunctional and unfit for the planet.
Additionally, if by lack of infrastructure you mean the missing settlements, that is another example where the books can have little effect. Even if the source material mentions the extra cities, the movie still acts like there is only the one.
So yeah. When I point out elements that are objective problems for the world at large, I do consider that valid criticism. Showing nondefinitive issues, or ill-explored areas is also completely valid, as I am basing it all on information we have, and not might have.
I still fail to see why I cannot criticise something based on its own merit, or why it would be pointless.
@@ACrowingCockatrice if a general audience member wants a deeper world building question answered by a property that has given answers in later works then bitching about it is the equivalent of a child wanting to handed the answer. New adaptions can also not need to explain something verbally or overtly due to the medium. And some questions are minor enough to not need exposition.
By my logic if a story has questions raised that are explained already and you the viewer want to know them then you should find them. In the context of the first dune film the life cycle of the sandworm is not relevant to the story so taking time to explain it would be worse for pacing and writing.
Hyperspace ramming is a good example. There were already explanations outside of the films that justified how this FTL works. Using it in a way that contradicts sources outside of the film is more inline with your justification that because something is an adaption or “new continuity” it needed to spelled out to not be contradictions.
As for your 5 hour disingenuous sand example. That also ignores other things that make a film good but it’s a stupid example so it’s better to call it stupid call the person who made the point pedantic and move on.
Proposing changes to an established property that are answered already and will be introduced when it’s appropriate is a justification for the video then a real objective reason why the changes proposed are valid.
And your argument at its core outside of being self justifying is that realism should always matter. Which if applied evenly anything that can not be hundred percent justified is only being vague to hide its inability to justify its creature and or system. Which outside of things like magic which by the virtue of being magic will be unexplainable on the whole. Most things in sci-fi and fantasy if dug deep enough have not basis in reality, break a rule of the universe to justify its existence, or are vague.
Or more simply, your not honest enough to break down a piece of word building to the point that you’ll just whole scale admit speculative fiction is a pointless endeavor.
My question for your last point is this” are sets ups and mysteries inherently bad because they aren’t justified by the work they first appear in” because your argument as you said states that a good work should stand on its own.
Your critique is the most boring i've ever heard. Not only is completely wrong but also extremely irritating. You can't read great movies. You don't recognize masterpieces. You focus on useless and petty details. Your words are hollow and useless. Dune 2021 is the best movie in cinema history and you're too blind to see it.
Would you care to point out where I am wrong? Addressing criticism could actually get your point across, this comment tells me nothing.
I hate comments like this, people who think calling someone/something bad or staying how much *they* didn't like with any actual explanation of how or way.
It just reeks of someone how assumes every thought they sh#t out is unquestionably correct no matter how poorly tough out
This feels like a troll/joke