NEW PRODUCT: AUG TOYS: "Dune" Paul Atreides' 1:6 scale collectible doll

GubernatorFan wrote:I'd actually love hear more on that topic (Dune, John Carter, Star Wars, Disney), MBAM.

Well, I may need to put on my tinfoil, conspiracy hat, and start ranting, but ok.  At the time the John Carter movie came out, Disney was very fresh from its then frighteningly expensive acquisiton of the Star Wars license.  The number of things that Lucas "borrowed" from John Carter (and Dune, and Flash Gordon, etc) was substantial.  I do not begrudge Lucas for this in the slightest, artistically it was a fully legitimate creative act of fusion with respect for his inspirations and predecessors.  But at the studio "branding" level, it is argued that they perceived the forthcoming John Carter film might devalue the Star Wars brand, if people (knowing that John Carter originally came first) saw it as somehow lessening Star Wars or making it less original.  So once Disney paid $4.05 Billion for Star Wars, and at the same time took over control for the near-finished John Carter film, the argument is that Disney (notwithstanding the loss it would take on John Carter) intentionally set it up to fail.

IMHO John Carter was pretty good (not absolutely great) and it should have performed much better than it did.  It is a proven fact that Disney slashed the promotional budget to mere fraction of what had been intended, and much less for a movie of its kind.  The "official story" is that Disney supposedly slashed the promotional and advertising budget at the last minute based on poor performance in the test screening in the last month before it came out.

Here's some proof for my conviction that actually the deliberate decision to sabotage John Carter was made inevitably long before these "test screenings" in the last month.  Something that you and I and all our friends at OSF are keenly aware of (but critics and media writers wouldn't normally know) is that the development curve for Toys must be at least 6 months to a year in advance.   Toys would be inevitable for a Disney movie of that size, especially one so Star Wars like.  We know that basically it was the sale of Toys from SW New Hope that made it possible to pay for making Empire Strikes Back.  In the normal course John Carter Toys would have been inevitable.  In my mind the fact that Disney didn't license any John Carter Toys whatsoever proves that they had cut the movie loose months or a year before supposedly it was some poor performing test screenings in the last month that made them pull the plug, and send John Carter out with virtually no advertising.  Normally by 2012 standards there would have been John Carter toys in the stores a month or two before the opening, necessarily unaffacted by test screening or anything else in the last month.  What follows is IMHO the only explanation that fits the facts.  John Carter didn't flounder, John Carter was murdered.  And as the Latins say about solving crimes, Cui Bono?  Who benefits?  The Star Wars Brand does, by comparison.  Endeth the rant.

GubernatorFan wrote:This is a fair point. But there are two flaws, both of them on my end: the thirst for instant gratification; and this is not actually the reason I'm not really drawn to the present film (i.e., that it is only Part 1, and that it might not cover enough or in enough depth) -- that reason is probably largely subconscious. But I do wish them well. Eventually, I will probably see it -- perhaps well before Part 2 appears. As for the Sci Fi series, there were two; the second one was perhaps called Children of Dune. I'm not sure exactly how these different attempts align with Herbert's volumes and how much ground they cover individually or in full.

The subsequent publication history of Dune is equalled perhaps only by the two Asimov Foundation and Robot series, and maybe Lord of the Rings, in terms of getting other authors to write long trilogies based upon every Herbert/Asimov/Tolkien laundry list, Christmas card, or scrap of paper that they could find iin their discarded wastebaskets, usually ratified by an author's family member or friend.  I recall Children of Dune but I think it doesn't come into this.  My understanding (I stand to be corrected) is that Villeneuve Dune I and 2 will parallel the 3 parts of 2000 TV Dune and Children of Dune is entirely something separate, though still directly written by Herbert himself, not one of the above family improvised sequels and offshoots.  (The 1984 is its own weird mix of course).  My friend, I think there is a reasonable chance that you may love the Villeneuve Dune, in 2023 or sooner, and if you do, and say so here. I promise not to say "Nyeah Nyeah I told you so."

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:Well, I may need to put on my tinfoil, conspiracy hat, and start ranting, but ok.  At the time the John Carter movie came out, Disney was very fresh from its then frighteningly expensive acquisiton of the Star Wars license.  The number of things that Lucas "borrowed" from John Carter (and Dune, and Flash Gordon, etc) was substantial.  I do not begrudge Lucas for this in the slightest, artistically it was a fully legitimate creative act of fusion with respect for his inspirations and predecessors.  But at the studio "branding" level, it is argued that they perceived the forthcoming John Carter film might devalue the Star Wars brand, if people (knowing that John Carter originally came first) saw it as somehow lessening Star Wars or making it less original.  So once Disney paid $4.05 Billion for Star Wars, and at the same time took over control for the near-finished John Carter film, the argument is that Disney (notwithstanding the loss it would take on John Carter) intentionally set it up to fail.

IMHO John Carter was pretty good (not absolutely great) and it should have performed much better than it did.  It is a proven fact that Disney slashed the promotional budget to mere fraction of what had been intended, and much less for a movie of its kind.  The "official story" is that Disney supposedly slashed the promotional and advertising budget at the last minute based on poor performance in the test screening in the last month before it came out.

Here's some proof for my conviction that actually the deliberate decision to sabotage John Carter was made inevitably long before these "test screenings" in the last month.  Something that you and I and all our friends at OSF are keenly aware of (but critics and media writers wouldn't normally know) is that the development curve for Toys must be at least 6 months to a year in advance.   Toys would be inevitable for a Disney movie of that size, especially one so Star Wars like.  We know that basically it was the sale of Toys from SW New Hope that made it possible to pay for making Empire Strikes Back.  In the normal course John Carter Toys would have been inevitable.  In my mind the fact that Disney didn't license any John Carter Toys whatsoever proves that they had cut the movie loose months or a year before supposedly it was some poor performing test screenings in the last month that made them pull the plug, and send John Carter out with virtually no advertising.  Normally by 2012 standards there would have been John Carter toys in the stores a month or two before the opening, necessarily unaffacted by test screening or anything else in the last month.  What follows is IMHO the only explanation that fits the facts.  John Carter didn't flounder, John Carter was murdered.  And as the Latins say about solving crimes, Cui Bono?  Who benefits?  The Star Wars Brand does, by comparison.  Endeth the rant.

I see what you mean. There are theater goers who would be discouraged by poor reviews, and I seem to remember something along these lines going on about the John Carter film. For my part, I prefer to make my own mind, usually. I did see it eventually and did not dislike it, in fact I rather liked it for what it was (not every science fiction needs to look and feel like Star Wars or Star Trek for me) -- keep in mind I had never read the source text and had no expectations to be dashed whatsoever. I wouldn't have minded to see another installment, and I wouldn't have minded to see action figures and other toys. I recall Triad Toys did a John Carter figure, but I believe it was more generic or at any rate not specifically based on Taylor Kitsch' rendition of the character. But thank you for the explanation and the partial demonstration -- which was both reasonable and convincing.

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:The subsequent publication history of Dune is equalled perhaps only by the two Asimov Foundation and Robot series, and maybe Lord of the Rings, in terms of getting other authors to write long trilogies based upon every Herbert/Asimov/Tolkien laundry list, Christmas card, or scrap of paper that they could find iin their discarded wastebaskets, usually ratified by an author's family member or friend.  I recall Children of Dune but I think it doesn't come into this.  My understanding (I stand to be corrected) is that Villeneuve Dune I and 2 will parallel the 3 parts of 2000 TV Dune and Children of Dune is entirely something separate, though still directly written by Herbert himself, not one of the above family improvised sequels and offshoots.  (The 1984 is its own weird mix of course).  My friend, I think there is a reasonable chance that you may love the Villeneuve Dune, in 2023 or sooner, and if you do, and say so here. I promise not to say "Nyeah Nyeah I told you so."

I did not know that these works had such an afterlife. I looked it up again specifically (I remember I did some basic research -- not extending to reading the books themselves -- after getting curious when I watched one of the series), and while the 1984 and present films are based on the original Dune novel, the Sci Fi 2000 series was based on it too, and the Sci Fi 2003 series was based on two sequels by Herbert himself, Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. Herbert wrote six Dune books, but apparently his son and a co-author have published many more, including one last year, one this year, and one set to come out next year. That is impressive indeed. I agree with you -- there is a reasonable chance I will both see and like the Villeneuve Dune. And I am not averse to admitting I was wrong -- technically I've just said that what little I have seen of promotional materials does not draw me in, and I have no attachment to the actor playing the protagonist. That does not inspire me to see it, but it says nothing about the film itself.

I read the Barsoom (John Carter) books… and… yeah, Disney ruined that movie (which was, a somewhat cobbled together, and not done well, compilation of the first three books in the series — only taking very loose elements from all three, but making up sort of their own crap story to go along with random scenes, some of which weren’t in any of the books). If they had done the books right, the movie would have been rated X for excessive, full-frontal, nudity — both male and female. The books were entertaining, but fall more in the Fantasy, rather than Science Fiction, category.

Stryker2011 wrote: If they had done the books right, the movie would have been rated X for excessive, full-frontal, nudity — both male and female. .

Welp, I guess that wasn't going to happen with a Disney version...

Stryker2011 wrote:The books were entertaining, but fall more in the Fantasy, rather than Science Fiction, category

Yeah, the line between sci-fi and fantasy can often be rather blurred. I guess 'Speculative Fiction' can encompass both...


ETA: and speaking of Dune's 'afterlife', I'm pretty sure there is an entire plotline in the Wheel of Time series that was influenced by it.

So happy about this release, I just hope they will get to the full line up of houses atreides and harkonnen at least!

Personnally I did love the movie, by far the best adaptation of the novels, and finally giving the needed and long desired imagery of Dune as I always imagined it from the books. It is actually sad that it only arrives now, after all scifi movies took huge inspiration from the world created in Dune but mostly from its failed adaptation (which was a very "original" adaptation, taking a lot of liberties from the book)

To put it back in its context the book was first released in the 60's, 20 years after Isaac Asimov's foundation cycle started, so it can't deny some concepts directly taken from Asimov (Star Wars is also greatly inspired by Asimov's novels, but even more by Dune in the facts)

Two years before starwars started being shot, in 1974 Alejandro Jodorowsky was the first man to try to adapt Dune for the cinema. The project will never be achieved sadly, but during a year, he assembled a team of artists in Paris to design the whole movie, from characters to technology and scenery, and complete storyboard, which was given to major american studios as a teaser to have the movie produced and distributed.
The team of artists were Jean Giraud / Moebius (famous for his work on the fifth elements and aliens), H.R. Giger (designer of the alien creature and environment a few years later), Dan O'bannon, (creator of the Aliens!), and Chris Foss (famous starship designer and artist that illustrated all Asimov's books)

And that masterpiece of teamwork is actually the graphic base for most scifi movies since 1976! The Lynch version of Dune is itself more an adaptation of Jodorowski's Dune than of the original Herbert novels!

Anyway I hope they will carry on further than two characters, and I hope they won't cut on female characters either to focus only on the "war/soldiers" aspect, that would be a great mistake to my eyes

Beautiful post blackpool, concerning New Dune, Jodorowsky and Foundation ( I read the books some years ago, is the TV series good?)
Dune might only arrive now, but at least it's art design and visual effects look kind of timeless now. (We will see how timeless it feels in 30 years, let's all come back here then.   ) On top of that it is also quite the timeless setting, technology and society wise.

And of course, everything is influencing each other, that is just the way how things work with stories, haha.
Your man Villieneuve and his team really pulled that one off quite well. And unlike 007 the Corona break didn't force them to re shoot scenes, because the product placement products became outdated.

Oh and don't forget Jodorowsky got Salvador fking Dali to play the emperor for 100000$/minute!
Although I think the story and myth about the 'best movie never made' is much better than the actual movie might have been. I mean I saw Jodorowsky's Montana Sacra. It's a fun, creative but very weird watch. Jodorowsky is an extreme person with a mind and world view shaped by long time use of psychedelic drugs, after all.
He is a great and persuasive talent scout though, getting Moebius, Orson Wells and Dali, finding Giger etc.

The movie might have become a cult movie or an obscure footnote. Surely not a classical movie in any sense. It also wouldn't have had much to do with Book-Dune in the end. I think it ends with Paul and the Planet merging into some being traveling the universe or something, and everyone becoming on organism?
It might have been great for an LSD-based society.
If the movie was ever made, maybe we would have achieved world peace by now or humanity would have wiped out itself in a craze. Who knows.
There would have been some weird scenes, probably tainting the brand that is 'Dune' in pop cultural consciousness forever. And I don't mean Leto being cut limb by limb with giant pliers, but hundreds of Harkonnen soldier extras actually pulling down their pants and defecating in front of Leto's Palace or something. "Dune? You mean that one with the scene where they mass sh......"

skywalkersaga wrote:Agree with you on basic assessments of the previous adaptations, Ovy. Still haven't seen this one as I'm waiting to finish The Expanse before I watch it ... my mind can only deal one sci-fi thing at a time.

If I'm being honest, the casting for Paul is one of the things I find least appealing about the latest Dune adaptation (which otherwise looks quite well made). Feels like Timothee Chalamet has been in every damn thing lately, and I'm just tired of him now. He might be a good actor, idk, but I wish they'd cast someone else in the main role -- I would have jumped to see it, in that case. Maybe I just can't get past the stupid meme that compared his appearance to a pointed medieval shoe.

I think he is a good Paul, several times better than the other two Movie Pauls for sure. But I didn't really notice the actor before as I didn't watch the newer movies he was in yet, so I wasn't influenced by that.
But I just realized/read he was that Matthew McCaughnehaheyey's unloved son from Interstellar, haha. :p

Ovy wrote:Although I think the story and myth about the 'best movie never made' is much better than the actual movie might have been. I mean I saw Jodorowsky's Montana Sacra. It's a fun, creative but very weird watch. Jodorowsky is an extreme person with a mind and world view shaped by long time use of psychedelic drugs, after all. ... The movie might have become a cult movie or an obscure footnote. Surely not a classical movie in any sense. It also wouldn't have had much to do with Book-Dune in the end. I think it ends with Paul and the Planet merging into some being traveling the universe or something, and everyone becoming on organism? It might have been great for an LSD-based society. ... There would have been some weird scenes, probably tainting the brand that is 'Dune' in pop cultural consciousness forever. And I don't mean Leto being cut limb by limb with giant pliers, but hundreds of Harkonnen soldier extras actually pulling down their pants and defecating in front of Leto's Palace or something. "Dune? You mean that one with the scene where they mass sh......"

I think he is a good Paul, several times better than the other two Movie Pauls for sure. But I didn't really notice  the actor before as I didn't watch the newer movies he was in yet, so I wasn't influenced by that.
But I just realized/read he was that Matthew McCaughnehaheyey's unloved son from Interstellar, haha. :p

Your points about what Jodorowsky's Dune might have been are, I think, totally on target -- except I think you still give him too much credit (except for having apparently attracted remarkable talent for his project, which is undeniable). Thanks to some previous discussion here (I forget about what), I looked up some of his work, and, while in some ways impressive, it was thoroughly off-putting, self-indulgent, weird for the sake of being weird, and ultimately not worth it. A glorified carnie act, to put it very kindly. Somewhere hidden within there is some insightful deeper meaning, but one should not have to dig through that to reach it -- and the intellectual reward seems too little for too much. As for Paul -- I have not read the books -- is he supposed to be unlikable? Anyway, I suppose art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder.

GubernatorFan wrote:

Ovy wrote:Although I think the story and myth about the 'best movie never made' is much better than the actual movie might have been. I mean I saw Jodorowsky's Montana Sacra. It's a fun, creative but very weird watch. Jodorowsky is an extreme person with a mind and world view shaped by long time use of psychedelic drugs, after all. ... The movie might have become a cult movie or an obscure footnote. Surely not a classical movie in any sense. It also wouldn't have had much to do with Book-Dune in the end. I think it ends with Paul and the Planet merging into some being traveling the universe or something, and everyone becoming on organism? It might have been great for an LSD-based society. ... There would have been some weird scenes, probably tainting the brand that is 'Dune' in pop cultural consciousness forever. And I don't mean Leto being cut limb by limb with giant pliers, but hundreds of Harkonnen soldier extras actually pulling down their pants and defecating in front of Leto's Palace or something. "Dune? You mean that one with the scene where they mass sh......"

I think he is a good Paul, several times better than the other two Movie Pauls for sure. But I didn't really notice  the actor before as I didn't watch the newer movies he was in yet, so I wasn't influenced by that.
But I just realized/read he was that Matthew McCaughnehaheyey's unloved son from Interstellar, haha. :p

Your points about what Jodorowsky's Dune might have been are, I think, totally on target -- except I think you still give him too much credit (except for having apparently attracted remarkable talent for his project, which is undeniable). Thanks to some previous discussion here (I forget about what), I looked up some of his work, and, while in some ways impressive, it was thoroughly off-putting, self-indulgent, weird for the sake of being weird, and ultimately not worth it. A glorified carnie act, to put it very kindly. Somewhere hidden within there is some insightful deeper meaning, but one should not have to dig through that to reach it -- and the intellectual reward seems too little for too much. As for Paul -- I have not read the books -- is he supposed to be unlikable? Anyway, I suppose art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder.

On the subject of Paul, I don't think he is meant to be either likeable or or unlikeable, per se. It's more about identifying with his difficulties and recognising his overall noble intentions. The reader isn't intended to love him, just understand that he wants what is best for his people (which also happens to coincide nicely with getting revenge against his great house's destroyers). There is also a big part of his story, that shows his decisions aren't really all his own, and his destiny has been decided for him, which also makes him somewhat sympathetic.
The fact he isn't strictly intended to be a totally loved hero, is evident from the subsequent books. Where his character's arc takes a very different turn, but I won't elaborate more in case anyone hasn't yet, but wishes to read the books.
Again, not wishing to reveal too many spoilers. He isn't actually the overall hero of the full series either.

Thanks for the background info, Ghost. It makes sense given what I have seen the first movie and the TV series try to do -- good to know that was also in the books. I suppose Dune and its environment is the overall protagonist, at series scale.

I absolutely loved this movie, am very excited for part 2 as well as the series.
Still, this head sculpt, while recognizable, looks terribly distorted, and this particular outfit, while nice, is boring to me. Improve the sculpt and gimme that Stillsuit and I'm in.

Diana wrote:I absolutely loved this movie, am very excited for part 2 as well as the series.
Still, this head sculpt, while recognizable, looks terribly distorted, and this particular outfit, while nice, is boring to me. Improve the sculpt and gimme that Stillsuit and I'm in.

Second that. I've already seen nice custom HS of him on facebook and that stillsuit would look awesome. I'm sure someone will make it.

Ovy wrote:Beautiful post blackpool, concerning New Dune, Jodorowsky and Foundation ( I read the books some years ago, is the TV series good?)
Dune might only arrive now, but at least it's art design and visual effects look kind of timeless now. (We will see how timeless it feels in 30 years, let's all come back here then.   ) On top of that it is also quite the timeless setting, technology and society wise.

And of course, everything is influencing each other, that is just the way how things work with stories, haha.
Your man Villieneuve and his team really pulled that one off quite well. And unlike 007 the Corona break didn't force them to re shoot scenes, because the product placement products became outdated.

Oh and don't forget Jodorowsky got Salvador fking Dali to play the emperor for 100000$/minute!
Although I think the story and myth about the 'best movie never made' is much better than the actual movie might have been. I mean I saw Jodorowsky's Montana Sacra. It's a fun, creative but very weird watch. Jodorowsky is an extreme person with a mind and world view shaped by long time use of psychedelic drugs, after all.
He is a great and persuasive talent scout though, getting Moebius, Orson Wells and Dali, finding Giger etc.

The movie might have become a cult movie or an obscure footnote. Surely not a classical movie in any sense. It also wouldn't have had much to do with Book-Dune in the end. I think it ends with Paul and the Planet merging into some being traveling the universe or something, and everyone becoming on organism?
It might have been great for an LSD-based society.
If the movie was ever made, maybe we would have achieved world peace by now or humanity would have wiped out itself in a craze. Who knows.
There would have been some weird scenes, probably tainting the brand that is 'Dune' in pop cultural consciousness forever. And I don't mean Leto being cut limb by limb with giant pliers, but hundreds of Harkonnen soldier extras actually pulling down their pants and defecating in front of Leto's Palace or something. "Dune? You mean that one with the scene where they mass sh......"

GubernatorFan wrote:
Your points about what Jodorowsky's Dune might have been are, I think, totally on target -- except I think you still give him too much credit (except for having apparently attracted remarkable talent for his project, which is undeniable). Thanks to some previous discussion here (I forget about what), I looked up some of his work, and, while in some ways impressive, it was thoroughly off-putting, self-indulgent, weird for the sake of being weird, and ultimately not worth it. A glorified carnie act, to put it very kindly. Somewhere hidden within there is some insightful deeper meaning, but one should not have to dig through that to reach it -- and the intellectual reward seems too little for too much. As for Paul -- I have not read the books -- is he supposed to be unlikable? Anyway, I suppose art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder.

The guy is a narcissic psycho for sure, the very few movies he directed are "contemporary conceptual art" for the fans, "a huge self adoration drug commercial" for haters... And to my eyes, it's very hard to watch, I don't even see the cinematographic talent in his movies, I believe they were just made in a time when LSD and subversive imagery was enough to be an artistic statement lmao...

He actually stars in most his movies, along with his sons and family, usually playing a god or a messiah, that says it all...

My opinion on Jodorowsky is that working alone took him quite nowhere, but he had this talent to catalize creativity of other artists, giving them at the same time a strong direction, and total freedom. Might be the reason why he kinda failed as a movie director, but is a pillar of the comic culture. He's the guy behind the Incal, the meta barons, the technopriests, some of those concepts being taken directly from his work on Dune. In the 70's those comics artists working for/with jodorowsky assembled as the collective "metal hurlant", which inspired the later "Heavy metal" magazine, movies, and culture. (quite a founding father of modern scifi in the end)
But I do agree the character is excentric, and surely insane, which couldn't work with hollywood studios, so far his Dune would have never happened anyway lol

(For the records he had planned on having Salvador Dali as the emperor, Mick Jagger as Paul Atreides, Orson Welles as the Baron Harkonnen, the whole thing with a score from the Pink Floyd... Ambitious lmao)

Thanks for the added insight, blackpool. Glad I'm not the only one to take a dim view of Jodorowsky's pretentious excess. Which is of course not to say that he lacked guts or talent -- neither of which is necessarily going to product something to everyone's delight. Or that he did not contribute, directly or indirectly to something else, less weird and more interesting.

Haven't been around in a while, so I'm pleasantly surprised to see this. Looks like a great effort for a first figure from a new company.
As for the books and movies, while not perfect, Villeneuve's film is a great interpretation of an amazing book, and a great movie in and of itself.
To those who didn't see at the movies, you missed on quite a cinematic experience.

Update from AUG TOYS:

Aug Toys on Facebook wrote:We finished product upgrade for all 3 figures DL002、DL003、DL004

Expect to be released in April

Thank you for your support