I wonder if any Dune fans missed seeing these in the mini series? I know they weren't in the books but I thought they were stunningly gruesome in Dune '84. They seemed to illustrate perfectly the pure evil of the ruling caste on Geidi Prime. They seemed to be the epitomy of spiteful, malevolent, wickedness.
Anbody any opinions on this?
I just watched Lynch's "Dune" a couple of weeks ago after not having seen it for a few years. I was actually put off a bit at the gruesome embellishments that were added to make the Baron even more repugnant and hideous than he was in the book. I'm no Harkonnen apologist, mind you, I'm not suggesting that the Baron should have been portrayed in a sympathetic light. In the book the Baron was ambitious, vain and ruthless, his motives to destroy the Atreides were perfectly clear. He was an evil character yet he was still plausible, it was understandable that he had no compassion for his fellow humans or subjects and was a hedonist, only interested in advancing himself.
The things Lynch added like the heart plugs, the casual killing of his own subjects, the gruesome boils on his face, all of these I thought were overkill just to drive the point home that THE BARON IS EVIL. I'd prefer a more plausible villain whose motives were understandable than a groteseque caricature who is disgusting and evil just for the sake of. Does it really make sense that the Baron would have devices surgically implanted into his subjects just so that he could 'pull the plug' whenever he felt like it? As though his people wouldn't know that he could kill them with a single word at any time, it's quite an extravagance for no real gain.
May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.
Fair comment. I think that the Baron would have these appendages surgically installed in early childhood as means to control them and, well, just because he could. What a horrifying reminder that you're nothing more than chattel to the Baron. I actually seen Dune at the cinema and the heart plugs absolutely threw me. I though they were an awesome touch. I thought the late Kenneth McMillan played the Baron superbly.
shareHe played the Baron, not the Duke ^_^
"Why would they want the Duke's...son killed?"
yes, i agree; they are somewhat unnecessary embellishments to overstate the evilness of the baron. as a child, though, when i saw them i shivered. that reaction still remains with me today. i think it's one of the things that sets Lynch (and others) apart from other film makers (for better of for worse) that he can tap into these almost primal fears or revulsions of ours.
share[deleted]
I agree, the Baron on the old version is TOO EVIL. They should have just filmed him raping lil boys and save the trouble of making him really evil or not evil enough :P
share[deleted]
They should have just filmed him raping lil boys and save the trouble of making him really evil or not evil enough
If they had done that then the NAMBLA crowd would have been in an uproar.
"I'm no Harkonnen apologist, mind you..."
Well played sir.
The things Lynch added like the heart plugs, the casual killing of his own subjects,Did you read the book? share
I'm not knocking the Lynch version but the heart plugs were entirely unneccessary, the Baron is ruthless and merciless, but he wasn't psychotic. I saw this movie before reading the book and I remember reading the novel for the first time thinking "hey I like this character, he's brilliant!", I never thought much of the Baron from the film other than he was disgusting, I definately prefer the Baron character in this mini-series, and the actor.
shareYes, the mini-series presented a much better portrayal of the Baron, in my opinion. He was cunning and devious, an evil genius -- exactly what one would expect in the leader of House Harkonnen and very much like the Baron in Frank Herbert's books.
In Lynch's movie, the Baron seems diminished. Lynch doesn't show anything that suggests he wasn't a genius, but he seems to sacrifice the chance to demonstrate the Baron's skillful mind in order to show many examples of his evil nature.
Brian Herbert's prequel novels are much worse than Lynch's film, however. Whereas Lynch doesn't show the Baron to be evil at the expense of intelligence, Brian Herbert makes the Baron so evil he becomes stupid. On more than one occasion, the Baron's evil nature plays out to his own disadvantage. The prequels' Baron is no more than an evil idiot and sadist who is always more interested in instant gratification and fulfillment of his blood lust than he is in doing what is best for him and his house. So one thing the prequels have done is make me dislike Lynch's Baron less, because at least he is the Baron and not some fool who goes around killing everyone he can.
I thought the heart plugs were a nice touch. I also like the maniacal version of the Baron in the Lynch version. He's really boring in the 2000 mini-series.
share[deleted]
>Could standards on violence for European broadcast prohibited truly bestial content?
Such as ...? I am wondering what we missed. The Baron in the mini series was more like the Baron in the book. I had not figured he was less like Lynch's Baron due to any sort of censorship.
[deleted]
Slave boys and sex toys was never given enough explicit content in the book to warrant anything that might need censorship. The Baron's appetites were alluded to, but they closest we got was the scene where Feyd sent in the booby-trapped slave boy to try to kill the Baron. The mini handled that pretty close to the book.
Lynch's Baron was grotesque, and that melodrama was not as he was in the book. The mini's version was closer. I do not think censorship played a part in hindering the depiction.
[deleted]
Oh, no, I understand your question, and I am a bit curious to know the answer. However, I was simply going from the angle that there was no such consideration in how he was portrayed.
I also fail to see how you cannot allude in a film. The Baron was shown in his bedchamber with a dead, young boy not entirely garbed in a way that would seem forthcoming for purely non-sexual activity. The book did not contain some explicit scene of their having sex, nor does the movie show it. The Baron's sexual appetites are alluded to in both the book and the film.
Regardless, if my contribution is immaterial, I shall not labor this any further. I wish you luck in figuring out the potential differences in European.
[deleted]
>You have my apologies for being so brusque.
Thank you. I understand completely, as migraines are a pain. Communicating via written word and without the benefit of tone and body language can also be a pain.
My original response was simply meant to wonder if different European standards would have been used at all, even if they do exist. So, I am not really answering your question. I do realize that.
I do still think, though, that I am using allude in the way I wish. There are no explicit sex scenes in the book with the Baron. We know he has sexual tastes in boys. The book and the film get this point across. We infer much of his "evil" nature from the commands he issues and the aftermath of what may have been explicit scenes. This is the same in both the book and film.
Of course, now I am curious as to what this word is you are seeking. If you figure it out, please let me know. :)
[deleted]
On another note related to censorship, there is an uncut version of the mini that was not shown on American television. I am afraid I am not sure what all was different in it, though.
share[deleted]