Hacker News Reader

Comment by Buttons840 | Hacker News Reader

Imagine the cultural impact of a Dune movie showing the Butlerian Jihad, in which commoners rebel and overthrow a ruling class that maintains power via machines.

It's just foreign enough that perhaps it could be made--I'm assuming that popular films that just straight up depict overthrowing the ruling class wont happen--but if you add a little sci-fi and focus mostly on overthrowing the machines that are controlled by that ruling class...

Well, it would speak to a lot of people I think. It would make some interesting sci-fi too, and the Dune movies are popular right now.

View on HN

The only thing that could possibly be worse than the BH KJA books covering that era would be a Hollywood rendition of those same books made to capitalize on the success of Dune Part I, II, and III.

I am not sure if you are joking but HBO has series Dune: Prophecy which is exactly from that era and is most likely leading towards butlerian jihad.

Dune: Prophecy is set after the Butlerian Jihad (which is why the presence of an AI is controversial).

Thank you for correction.

Agreed, and also: what's with the obsession with filling every possible gap in stories, leaving nothing to the imagination?

I remember when the Butlerian Jihad and the Clone Wars from Star Wars were complete mysteries. We readers and watchers were left mostly with our imaginations. My own feelings about the Clone Wars, mentioned off hand in the original Star Wars, turned out to be way better than the pedestrian stuff that George Lucas later concocted. And the less said about Brian Herbert's books, the better.

I get why the industry must rehash and fill every possible gap: it makes business sense, and they are risk averse for blockbusters.

But the fans? Why do nerds want everything spelled out for them? It boggles the mind.

> But the fans? Why do nerds want everything spelled out for them? It boggles the mind.

Because it's enjoyable when done well. As a teenager I read LOTR, and noticed all the references to the larger mythos Tolkien had worked on - references to Fëanor, Elbereth, Valinor, and so on. Those were very intriguing, and the greatest joy I've ever had reading a book was when I finally read the Silmarillion and got to see what those things were all about. I concede that filling out the world can be done poorly (though I haven't read the Brian Herbert stuff and can't comment on whether he did a good job). But when done well, it is truly magical to have those elements in the background of the story take on a life and detail of their own.

Good point on Tolkien, though I would argue it's different because the Silmarillion was written for his own satisfaction, not his fans, and actually it was The Lord of the Rings which was initially written as "another Hobbit story" (though the story later "grew in the telling").

I think a more suitable example of what I find annoying is the extra material for the small and big screens, such as The Hobbit movies, suffering from movie elephantiasis; and The Rings of Power, which (over)explain and show the past of characters such as Galadriel, Elrond, and Sauron's rise to power, which in my opinion are best left as the ancient past of LotR (and maybe belong in the Silmarillion, but do note the latter is not as expository as the TV show). And does anybody really think The Hunt for Gollum was necessary?

Yet, if they make them, it's because they are sure fans will lap it up. To be honest I consider this need for endless "filling in the gaps" a sign of immaturity.

>> what's with the obsession with filling every possible gap in stories, leaving nothing to the imagination?

Isn't that just the imagination working as intended? Whats its use if not to try and fill the gaps ourselves?

As far as we all on the same page regarding what's in the book, it's fun to expore what could'ves and what should'ves of the story.

There's nothing left for your imagination to fill in if there's official content (or expanded universe stuff) making it explicit for you.

As an example, nothing George Lucas did compares to what I wondered about the mysterious clone wars back when I watched (and rewatched) Star Wars. Lucas effectively "filled in the gaps", leaving nothing to my imagination. That what he did envision turned out to be pedestrian only added insult to injury, but now I cannot unwatch his prequels.

There's a similar phenomenon to when you read a book and imagine the characters and even situations mentioned off hand in the text, and then someone makes a movie out of it and makes it explicit and locks in specific actors and CGI-filled situations for whatever you imagined in your mind. You may or may not like it, but your own imagination gets stifled.

For things like "The Hunt of Gollum" it becomes downright bizarre. Whatever became of Gollum as he crawled towards Mordor, tracked by Aragorn and later mentioned by Gandalf, is such a minor footnote; definitely something for your imagination. Tolkien definitely didn't think it warranted even a short story. But no, they must make a movie out of it, because why not; the fans will lap it up even if it garners bad reviews.

As I mentioned in another comment, and there's no polite way of saying this, the nerdy need to know "what really happened" in excruciating detail (not to speculate, but to know) is a sign of immaturity. Art, even pop art, thrives as much in the known as in the unknown. To want to cast light into every single detail and "make it official" is a mistake. Though of course publishers and studios salivate at the chance of milking the proverbial cash cow.

> popular films that just straight up depict overthrowing the ruling class [won't] happen

What now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uprising_(2026_film)

I have a sneaking suspicion the entire apocalypse category is also a reflection of the public wanting to see the rich and powerful fall.

What now? Move the goalposts! I see movies about historical uprisings as more of a "those governments in the past were sure bad, good think the good guys overthrew them"--I mean, that's the story of the founding of America if you watch the movies.

I was looking more for movies that depict overthrowing the government in the near future, and depicting it as a good thing. I think those types of movies are a little more distasteful to audiences, and perhaps for good reason.

Well, The Hunger Games series is exactly about that. Of course, it portrays the rebels as utterly heroic, self-sacrificing, and ultimately victorious.

However, I prefer to take a more nuanced reading, in context, considering the entire story. The rebels of The Hunger Games really don't succeed in building a better world. I mean, that's pretty obvious by how their first "President" Alma Coin goes about things and her fate. And it's fairly obvious, in the epilogue, that Katniss has a placid married life with Peeta and their children, but they are permanently and profoundly damaged by the entire revolution thing in their past.

So, while most people would say "rah rah brave Katniss and the rag-tag rebels overthrew The Oppressive Man", I would contend that, after all that bloodshed and revolution, nearly nothing changed.

My other favorites, of course: Star Wars is about the rise and overthrow of a villainous, oppressive galactic government, albeit a long time ago and far, far away.

And Harry Potter is also about the rise and overthrow of a tyrranical, fascist, supremacist "government" [within a government] as a very positive and necessary thing.

> My other favorites, of course: Star Wars is about the rise and overthrow of a villainous, oppressive galactic government, albeit a long time ago and far, far away.

Well, about a militant group of religious fundamentalists overthrowing a secular, oppressive galactic government.

Only a handful of the rebels are visibly religious. Most of the rebel leadership seems to consist of displaced aristocrats (senators, princesses) who no longer have elite positioning since the Empire took their jobs and started doing a better job of guaranteeing security and providing energy and resources.

Civil War was on the nose.

The best thing about movies is that you get to experience the vicarious thrill of being a heroic revolutionary without having to spill the popcorn.

Half of the action and sci-fi movies US has been producing in the 2000s is some form of this. Man vs. Evil Government. Man vs. Evil Corporation. People vs. Evil Government. Etc.

Frankly, it's boring at this point.

And actually makes me wonder whether the cause-and-effect isn't the opposite to what people assume. Perhaps it's not that the movies reflect people's sentiment. Perhaps it's the movies that cause the problem in the first place.

It would be subversive if the large corporation doing science in space turned out to be benign

Wat Tyler's Rebellion failed.

It went similar to Sparticus', which was also a movie. Braveheart is also in that class, even if William Wallace was himself landed nobility.

These are films of the underdog class trying to overthrow the ruling class... and failing. The leaders are dealt with gruesomely (IRL and movie depictions).

> Imagine the cultural impact of a Dune movie showing the Butlerian Jihad, in which commoners rebel and overthrow a ruling class that maintains power via machines.

Around zero.

It would be also nice to depict the attempts of the ruling class to present machines as sentient and self-conscious to write all their liability off and use as a cover for their atrocities. I hope there will be movies like this in the future, and that they'll be documentary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com