Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 191
- 1
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Concur about Javier Bardem. Best part of the movie.
I watched it with my wife, after renting part one for her to catch up. I've known the ins and outs of Dune since I was 13 and read all the books. She was utterly lost, and I can't blame her. The movies barely touch on why the spice is important. I know the director is a "Show, don't tell" guy, but even Lynch filled his movies with scenes of characters consuming mass quantities of spice to fuel their otherworldly abilities. Mentats, Guild Navigators, Bene Gesserit. We got none of that in the new movies.
I really disliked the "romance" between Paul and Chani. I think I counted one singular tender moment between them, and the rest was Chani talking down to him and scowling. I had to explain to my wife that in the books, and even the other adaptations, their romance is basically the perfect fated experience. That by the end of the first book they'd already had, and lost, a child together. That when Paul took the princess as essentially a hostage for the throne, Chani gloated that she was Paul's true wife, and Irulan would never be so much as touched by Paul. That far from it being Chani's humiliation, it was Irulan's.
So yeah, it was a feast for the eyes. Javier Bardem was amazing. Otherwise nearly all the themes and complexity of the books were lost or muddled with current year nonsense.
I have a soft spot for the director, perhaps his aim is to create a visual feast first movie that has time constraints. I am aware of the dune mythos and I liked the movie given the movies that have come out recently. It was unique and though nothing can ever compete with the books, it is a good interpretation regardless and is a great movie if seen in isolation from the books which I think is alright given that movies inherently cannot prtray the same level of depth written things can.
Yeah, I found it disappointing too.
What current year nonsense? please do elaborate, I did not see an overly political agenda being pushed by it.
I mean, just Chani and Paul's entire dynamic. Mother fucker is a god king and she still treats him like something she found on her boot. Like I said, they took this fated love from the books, and turned it into yet another girlboss scenario. You literally cannot show a woman treating a man with respect or kindness on the silver screen anymore. Much less deference.
Yeah, it was unnecessarily vitriolic and they cut out important parts of their relationships as well, besides chanis behavior, did you find any other subtle or overt political messages n the movie that you would say are more the same current year bs?
More options
Context Copy link
From what I remember Lady Jessica was plenty kind to Leto and Paul.
She is also portrayed as a much more antagonistic character in this movie than in the books.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link