# Dune (1984) & re-releases



## Dave (Mar 10, 2001)

Dune. (1984) 140 minutes.

Directed by David Lynch.

Dune (1984) - IMDb

It is impossible to do justice to the epic Frank Herbert novel in 140 minutes. This film makes a bold attempt, but ultimately fails, for that reason.

It fairly well covers the plot "In the distant future, a man appears who may be the prophet that a long-suffering galaxy has been waiting for. " Armies from several planets and other interested parties, descend on the desert planet Arrakis, in 10191 which has valuable spice 'Melange' guarded by giant worms, and a inhabited by a race of reclusive 'Fremen' natives.

However, in order to make the exciting battle scenes and the killer robot-probe thing scene (which it does well), it has to leave out much of the political intrigue. As a result, a throng of characters, who are not properly introduced, and are mostly irrelevant in the film, immensely complicates the plot. It also cost nearly 50 million US Dollars to make and was a box-office flop. Some scenes are inaudible, invisible (due to poor lighting) and without having read the book first, incomprehensible.

On the other hand the book itself, is fairly difficult to follow, so attempting this film at all was an achievement.

Francesca Annis, Jose Ferrer, Sian Philips, Brad Dourif, Dean Stockwell, Freddie Jones, Linda Hunt, Kenneth McMillan, Richard Jordan, Kyle MacLachlan, Silvana Mangano, Jurgen Prochnow, Max Von Sydow, Sting.

â€˜Huge, hollow, imaginative and coldâ€™ Variety.


----------



## Dave (Mar 15, 2001)

This is a 'Dune' site - Welcome to Museum Arakeen:


			Wayback Machine
		


It has a links page with other sites, though many links were broken and many are in French. Je ne comprendes pas.

Edit: Link fixed to Waybackmachine but Waybackmachine has never copied some of the links on the page.


----------



## FarscapeX7 (Apr 8, 2001)

I haven't had much luck talking to anyone about Dune on other boards, so I thought I'd try here. Has anyone else seen the original David Lycnch version. I thought it was fantastic and I hope to read the book sometime in the fute. I thought the plot was excellent and whover played Paul and Leto Atreides did wonderful jobs. I also enjoyed Seeing Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck.


----------



## Vera (Apr 9, 2001)

David Lynch version wasn't bad but I think it's almost impossible put such a kind of book into one film. It seems to me that if you didn't read the book first, you'll not understand the film.


----------



## Lonewolf89 (Jul 23, 2002)

*Frank Herbert's Dune*

Has anyone seen the Sci Fi channel's movie version of _Dune_?


----------



## Tabitha (Jul 24, 2002)

DO you mean the mini-series from last year?  Or have SciFi stumped up something new?  I know that "Children of Dune" is in the works.

Have a wee look here:

http://www.ascifi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5417


----------



## Lonewolf89 (Jul 24, 2002)

I forgot about that thread! Thanks for the link Tabitha!


----------



## Tabitha (Jul 24, 2002)

No problem!  Glad to help!


----------



## King Donut (Jul 29, 2002)

This is one of my fave movies!!! is the mini-sseries good?


----------



## Tabitha (Jul 30, 2002)

Yep, the mini is pretty good, but very very very different to the movie.  It's closer to the book, but good in it's own way.  You should give it a look-see.  I posted a poll comparing the two (further down this forum) but no one seemed interested in replying 

I think I actually saw the original Dune in the cinema when it came out - me and the three other people that paid!  I don't know why it got so badly slated, I thought it was great.  I suppose it might not have made much sense if you hadn't reaf the book.


----------



## Dave (Jul 31, 2002)

That was me in the row behind you! 

It's still a good film, there is just too much in the book to fit into one film. They tried very hard to put everything in it, but it was the character development that suffered, so you have different characters appearing without any explanation of who they are. I think this is a film where you really need to read the book first.


----------



## Tabitha (Jul 31, 2002)

I remember the whole thing about using that 'sound' to make weapons more damaging was a bit crazy - you know, when Paul is training the other Fremen?  It had nothing to do with the book and was just plain confusing.

I did like how they portrayed the force shields, and I have to admit that the image of an oiled-up Sting in nothing but a codpiece has seared itself into my memory :blush:


----------



## darkjedi77 (Aug 25, 2002)

I loved the movie but couldn't stand the mini series that aried on the sci-fi channel, it was way too different from the film.  It had so many cool actors in it and sand worms were my favorite.


----------



## tabuno (Feb 11, 2003)

Wasn't nearly as gorgeous or epic as David Lynch's version.


----------



## Stryker (Nov 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by King Donut _
> *This is one of my fave movies!!! is the mini-sseries good? *




Dune 1984 is one of my favorites too.

With all the new ones out, it is now one of the grandfathers of science fiction movies IMO.

The movie remake was good and the series was good also.

You can't tell a FH fan of the first order anything different.

Got so busy lost track of reading all the books but will start back soon ( fingers crossed).


Stryker


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 28, 2005)

*Dune (1984)*

Please stick your Lynchian mental meanderings here


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 29, 2005)

*re: Dune (1984)*

Aaah! Dune. This film drives me nuts. Lemme explain.



Visually, this movie is very close to what I expected when I first read the book. The use of minute beads of glass instead of sand order to retain the proper perspective between worm and desert worked very well (and went some way towards making it the most expensive movie ever made in its day). The costumes were good and Paul Atreides looked almost as I had imagined him. I loved the Baron but felt that he was less of a character and more a caricature – a bit too out  there,  unhelped by dodgy dialogue (_everybody get’s one here, but that is not why we are here_ – every aspiring writer knows to avoid this kind of word repetition). 



If the dialogue did not always work, some of the acting was positively wooden which did not help matters. Many fans put down its faults to the harsh environment taking its toll (filmed mostly in the desert) and the  fact that it was (allegedly) mercilessly hacked from a five hour extravaganza to just over two hours on its release. This would explain many things – one in particular being all the confusing semi-whispered voice-overs moving the plot forward. 



I went to watch this movie on its release (and I still proudly possess the official programme) having read the book two or three times and I’ve often wondered how people would get on if they watched this movie without reading the novel? My guess is a lot of them would be a bit bemused. And that, in my book, makes this a flawed but noble attempt at bringing the Dune Universe to the big screen. I actually quite like this movie but, as I  said, parts of it just don’t work for me. Maybe one day we will see it how Lynch meant it to be and all will become a little clearer. We live in hope.


----------



## ravenus (Apr 29, 2005)

*re: Dune (1984)*



> acting was positively wooden...Many fans put down its faults to the harsh environment taking its toll (filmed mostly in the desert) and the fact that it was (allegedly) mercilessly hacked from a five hour extravaganza to just over two hours on its release.


IMO, a good actor is a good actor period. All he/she needs to have is an interest in the work being done and I think this is what seemed singularly missing in the people that worked in this movie. Mey be they were lured by the promise of being in a grand SF epic and when they saw what was actually expected of them just lost interest. I am one who sincerely doubts that a longer version of this film will suddenly make it's flaws in the acting and dialog dept vanish.
The whispered stuff was IMO not added to pad the deficiencies of its shorter length but a clumsy misguided attempt to depict the thought process of the characters as in the book.
In fact I feel the released film can be reasonably enjoyed by people that haven't read the book as a light futuristic fantasy adventure a la Star Wars. It's when people try to relate the book and film that all the conflict begins.


----------



## Leto (Apr 29, 2005)

*re: Dune (1984)*

Having both book and movie, I don't consider Dune the movie as a transcription from the book to movie theatre (like Peter Jackson's LOTR albeit with changes is), but a true Lynch reinterpretation of the story, even to the point of changing the end of it. 

Full with flaws and shorten from the original plan, Dune is a foundation stone in David Lynch filmography. Not only it's is first try at "mainstream" budget production, but it's his first work with Kyle MacLachlan (17 at the time) who will work again with him for Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks. And several classical element of Lynch's "obsessions" are present in it, even if they're distorting the original story : the Shadout Mapes as a dwarf woman, Sting's shower and the cat scene (from where Thufir takes its antidote). 

Yes, this movie is a failure, just like Icare's flight was a failure in flying history. But it still worth watching it, with or without knowledge of the book.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Apr 29, 2005)

*re: Dune (1984)*

Watching this, without having seen the film, the first thing that leapt to my mind was the environment suit. for years (i first saw this when i was a kid) i refused to watch it because of the suits. I watched this on the recomendation of the board, and found the surealism of his visions coupled with the supurb acting of the cast made a memorable film. Compared with the recent mini series (which did follow the book), it was very well done. the new series is ham fisted. I would like to have seen a mini series made by lynch.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 30, 2005)

*re: Dune (1984)*

I actually preferred the mini-series although I do accept that visually it was not as rich as the movie. I was very impressed, however,  by the use of lighting and backdrops in the miniseries which gave it a feel more akin to a stage play. 

But the main reason why I prefered the miniseries was the fact that, where the Fremen where concerned, it concentrated on the most important aspect - the oppression they suffered and the subsequent rise of a fundamentalist religion through the resultant resentment. This, I felt, was more in keeping with the spirit of Herbert's original vision (and certainly still holds some relevance in today's troubled times).


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Apr 30, 2005)

*re: Dune (1984)*

I agree with Foxbat to some extent. The series were definately more in keeping with the novel's spirit.
I enjoyed the film though as they did a fantastic job with some of the sets and production values. I thought the still-suits, weirding modules and bene gesserit were excellent.
Overall I enjoyed the film a lot. Once, I'm convinced I saw an extended version of this film on tv (with the initial fight with Paul & the fremen warrior whom he kills and then cries afterwards) but I've never seen this version ever again much to my disappointment. If this film had been released by David Lynch now (with advancements in digital techniques, audiences use to the idea of a 3hr movie etc) it would have been brilliant. I keep hoping for a decent extended cut version of this to come out on DVD


----------



## Princess Ivy (May 1, 2005)

*re: Dune (1984)*

from what i've read on this forum, it seems very unlikely that the extended version will be released on DVD. but while the mini series may have stuck to the novel(s), the film really captured for me the spirit of the fremen, their religion and the spirit of DUNE. For once, reading the book, only re-inforced the impact of the film. I was not disapointed in the film although it realy only highlighted a few episodes of the novel, they were important and relevant episodes. the film hung together surprisingly well, which i can only put down to lynchs work and herberts input into the project.


----------



## ravenus (May 1, 2005)

*re: Dune (1984)*



			
				Princess Ivy said:
			
		

> ...the film really captured for me the spirit of the fremen, their religion and the spirit of DUNE. For once, reading the book, only re-inforced the impact of the film. I was not disapointed in the film although it realy only highlighted a few episodes of the novel, they were important and relevant episodes. the film hung together surprisingly well, which i can only put down to lynchs work and herberts input into the project.


It did? Princess you must have a incredible ability to read between the lines. If I had not read the book I'd have never guessed anything about the Fremen religion or the role of the spice in their lives and ecology. whichIMO forms the crux of my interest in the book.
And as for the inputs of Herber and Lynch...well gien that they have utterly disowned the released product as a massively truncated and multilated, it's not entirely appropriate to credit/discredit them for what was seen.


----------



## Princess Ivy (May 2, 2005)

*re: Dune (1984)*

Well, i'd like to think i'm perceptive, but the use of the visions of paul attraidies, coupled with the fact that the bene geseritt had saught him out as possibly being the chosen one, and not to forget that stunning temple scene and the fact that his name said in religious battle fervour became a killing word, was hardly subtle! his mother was a mother superior in the order and his sister a saint. he is proclaimed as being a messiah. hmm, difficult to deduce.
no, it didn't go into the roots of the religion as being cyniclaly planted by the bene geserit. but it did hint and indicate that there was a structure in place. also, with the use of the bene geserit, it laid the scenes that this would be some sort of religion as depicted in our own society. and indeed our own religious history. 
Unfortunatly i didn't much bother with the dune movie, or novel, until this year, and so i did not hear any of the gossip about whether or not lynch and herbert liked the film. their names however are on my own copy of the film, and as i found much that i like about both of them translated into the film, it was my assumption that lynch did in fact direct, and herbert maintained some creative reigns in making the movie. whether or not they liked the release production, really isn't my issue, and hasn't affected my own personal enjoyment one iota.


----------



## Eradius Lore (Jul 13, 2005)

*Dune a science fiction great*

one of my all time fav films dune, i love all of dune, films, books, games. although i have only just bought children of dune of ebay and am waiting for it to come. im sure there are a few dune fans on the forum because its a brilliant step in sci fi. my favs clans are the Artreides and the Freman.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 14, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

There are quite a few Dune fans around here so you are definitely not alone. Personally, I preferred the miniseries to the movie (just my own preference) but there are others who rate Lynch's movie quite highly. If you are into Dune games - here's something to look out for - Avalon Hill's multiplayer board game (it is superb). Long out of print, you may find it on e-bay if you are lucky


----------



## Princess Ivy (Jul 14, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

yep, one of the few books that i also enjoyed the film and mini series of


----------



## don sky (Jul 15, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

Dune changed my life and perception of the world! It was so deep and Leto II was awesome in the miniseries! I've read almost all the books(for some inexplicable reason, I cant find Dune Messiah anywhere). Frank Herbert is a Sci Fi Master!
Favourite Quote; The Littany against Fear. I would quote it but I'm afraid I'll make it sound less cooler than it really is!


----------



## Leto (Jul 15, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

And very useful in stressful situation, don sky. A very efficient mantra. 

Do I really need to give my opinion ?


----------



## ravenus (Jul 15, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*



> I've read almost all the books(for some inexplicable reason, I cant find Dune Messiah anywhere)


That's sad because I read that one just some while back and it was an excellent book.  I liked it a LOT more than the first one (Dune) which I consider had stilted 2D characters and somewhat turgid pompous prose. The plot and character development in Messiah is a lot more intimate and compelling, and Paul's dilemmas about his destiny as a messiah and the sort of revolution he is bringing about are far better delineated.


----------



## don sky (Jul 15, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

Lucky you, dude! :smile: I cant believe the literary genius that is Herbert in creating the universe of dune. I like especially the fact that the series(book) dwells more on the character development and plot instead of scientific jargon that will only succeed in getting readers that are not scientific oriented, more confused !


----------



## garreth Jacks (Jul 15, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

Not really a fan though the book was ok and the film was a bit poor but saying that I do not read science fiction that much, I find it very bland that’s only my opinion though


----------



## Eradius Lore (Jul 15, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

just finished children of dune on dvd, its four and a half hours long  . its a shame there completely different to the film, i guess there the people from the mini series. it was very good, leto's skin was a bit strange but apart from that it was cool, i was also hoping for a battle between the Sardurkar and Alia’s forces, but that never happened


----------



## longplay (Jul 16, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

I've not read the books, but the film was fantastic, way ahead of it's time, and so dark (heart plugs, I don't think you'd see something like that in any other mainstream film).


----------



## don sky (Jul 18, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

Dune was a milestone in science fiction! I myself, dig scifi in movies and on the screen but not really in books. However with Dune, I was blown away by the Book series. It makes you think about the complexity of the Human mind and one has to marvel at how such a masterpiece was put 2getha. In my mind the Dune series is the best scifi read ever. I'm holding a W.M.D so noone had betta dispute wat I just sed!


----------



## dreamwalker (Aug 6, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

children of dune?
I don't read often, so'll give a pass on the books for the time being although i did like the film, possibly the darkness, the protagonists accession or maybe just the idea of having 'blue within blue eyes'. Yeah, it was highly inspirational to watch


----------



## MoonLover (Aug 7, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

Dune is also one of my favourite series of books. In fact, I think they were the first sci fi I'd ever read, and now I read nothing else but! My signed copy of Heretics is one of my prized possessions!

Karen


----------



## Tim Bond (Sep 6, 2005)

*Re: Dune a science fiction great*

The entire series seems important.

There are many great writters.

Once you get past infatuation and excitement (or reverse opinions) over the author, I found reception of patterns formally hidden became appariant.

By informing you I do no favors. The struggle to think works better in your favor than having a pill handed out.

Nothing truely weird like the freemasonry man looking for this symbol or that and delliberately muddling up the process of awareness through a desire for 'mystery'. - but pranna-bindu (Indian Yoga terms of a technical deffinition of certain state of mind) is very real. The fighting tips - all come from taoist/zen thought process used in combat training even today within legitimit martial art traditions - they work even better than repeating techniques over and over again - and together with practice unifying such thought with focused practice makes for superior performance in movement and strategy - as one. The rest appeared to yeild some insight into the vital interactions of various 'characteristics' of the mind that interact in a deffinite manner for a particular reason, under certain conditions.

I like Herberts writtings.


----------



## Tim Bond (Sep 6, 2005)

*re: Dune (1984)*

The Fremen religion resembled Islam in the book and its relationship with western powers comes into focus not just in terms of our relationship with oil and political policies at various times - but with their relationship with the 'scattering' (westerners - IX, is a greek numeral) and their technology.

I thought the art/set-design behind the movie was wonderful - better than the mini-series. The acting was terrible. The 'voice' I hated - but Herbert did say while at the set during production that although not how he intendeed it ( he did specificaly mention the 'voice') - that movies were a different media - and so differences set forth by a qualified director were acceptable and that on a whole he was happy with it. 

Not only was Herbert happy with the outcome - he knew people who would watch the movie and judge so immediately on superficials would not grasp the possible implications of his work. What he did put in mattered and appleals to a general audience or a specific readership already familar with the work? Anything more, and someone would just need to read the book/books to enjoy a little movie. The movie was entertaining to even some non-readers.

To understand the deeper implications in a writting you have to read the work first. You need to want to read the (any book - not just Herberts) book to have that happen.

People not interested won't read - they should not be forced or tricked into it - and if it takes a little time to get around to it and the person is just a little slower - remember: some messages people can receive are non-linear, it dosn't make you dumb or inferior for not wanting to read a book right away and it dosn't mean just because you didn't see a thing another could not.

I liked the heart-plug in the movie when my father took me to it - it scared the hell out of me when the Baron tore it off the prisoners chest.


----------



## asdar (Oct 14, 2005)

*re: Dune (1984)*

I read the book and couldn't wait for the movie and was very disapointed.

I felt like he tried to cram too much of the book into the movie. I felt like the only thing that kept the movie from being great was poor editing. They should have made the story more clear and dropped sections that weren't absolutely necessary replacing them with ones that gave depth.

I know that would take them even further from direct interpretation of the book but to me what they got was snapshots of a great book instead of a good movie.


----------



## dwndrgn (Feb 1, 2006)

*For Dune Fans*

You can win a copy of the movie but you've gotta answer some trivia first:

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=contests&id=5808


----------



## Paradox 99 (Feb 1, 2006)

*Re: For Dune Fans*

Oh dear! I think my wife has bought the old version for me for my birthday!


----------



## Priv8eye (Feb 2, 2006)

*Re: For Dune Fans*

One of the UK papers gave this away free the other weekend (not the extended version I dont think though)


----------



## inca (Jun 28, 2006)

What I enjoyed about the original film is mainly the costumes, they looked familiar and odd at the same time, something beyond earth. In the series it gave an impression of watching bediuns berebers.


----------



## inca (Jun 28, 2006)

Oop! Beduins!


----------



## MARKLS21 (Sep 3, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

The original movie is superb,with special editions now avaible on dvd,with extra scenes.The mini-series would have been ok if they hadn't made the movie first,as it overshadowed the tv version.


----------



## carrie221 (Sep 4, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

I adored this movie from the first time that I saw it. Like a lot of you I really didn't care for the miniseries as it just did not meet up to my expectations. I think that the movie did a much better job of portraying the book.


----------



## steve12553 (Sep 4, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

Both the 1984 movie and the miniseries showed a lot of respect for the material. At this point in time, I still think that the book(s) are nearly unfilmable. I enjoyed both attempts but having read the book twice by 1984 and a couple times since, I always knew what waas happening. Someone less familiar with the book(s) would not have a chance of understanding the movies. Many of you know exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## Hawkshaw_245 (Sep 4, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*



			
				Vera said:
			
		

> David Lynch version wasn't bad but I think it's almost impossible put such a kind of book into one film. It seems to me that if you didn't read the book first, you'll not understand the film.


 
Yeah. My sentiments exactly. I, fortunately, read the book about a year before the movie came out. 

But the producers appraently understood the need for background info for a viewing audience. At my local theaters, they had handouts with little notes on them about Fremen and spice, etc...

I thought the miniseries on Sci-Fi was more faithful to the books, and better all-around, though.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 4, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

I also preferred the mini-series to the film. That's not to say that I thought the film was bad - quite the opposite - I enjoyed the film very much, but I do think the miniseries captured the spirit of the book more. 

Perhaps we should just be glad that we have both film and miniseries. The world of Science Fiction would be a lesser place if neither had been made


----------



## carrie221 (Sep 4, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*



			
				steve12553 said:
			
		

> Both the 1984 movie and the miniseries showed a lot of respect for the material. At this point in time, I still think that the book(s) are nearly unfilmable. I enjoyed both attempts but having read the book twice by 1984 and a couple times since, I always knew what waas happening. Someone less familiar with the book(s) would not have a chance of understanding the movies. Many of you know exactly what I'm talking about.


 
Okay yeah you read the book and then you watch the movie but then you need to read the book again... but then you need to watch the movie again to see what is going on. It is a neverending cycle


----------



## Princess Ivy (Sep 11, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

I saw the film as a kid and wasn't impressed. it looked like sci-fi hokum to me. boy, did i get it wrong. i now own the film and watch it, i also have the first three books and re-read them constantly. i had no problem understanding the film seperatly, when i decided to watch it as an adult i saw it first. it inspired me to read the books and get more detail. i keep missing the mini series, but will be watching it next time it is screened.


----------



## steve12553 (Sep 12, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*



			
				Princess Ivy said:
			
		

> I saw the film as a kid and wasn't impressed. it looked like sci-fi hokum to me. boy, did i get it wrong. i now own the film and watch it, i also have the first three books and re-read them constantly. i had no problem understanding the film seperatly, when i decided to watch it as an adult i saw it first. it inspired me to read the books and get more detail. i keep missing the mini series, but will be watching it next time it is screened.


 
The mini-series was worthwhile, also. It tried pretty hard to maintain the mystical feel  of the book and cover as much of the material as was practical. Has a kind of SciFi channel/Battlestar Galacticca feel to it.


----------



## Nesacat (Sep 12, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

I saw the movie when it first came out and I've seen it several times since along with the mini-series and have both on DVD. While they became much more 'whole' for me after reading the books, I'll also say that the movie prompted me to read the books, which have been re-read several times since.

I like both of them for having done a fair job with a very difficult book. They both had a lot of respect for the contents of the books and although they are both very different, they are worth watching.

It's probably going to take more than one movie to get a true feel of the book and perhaps that may be attempted sometime in the future.


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 12, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

I've got both the extended version of the film (it's pretty rare, but I would recommend trying to get hold of a copy because there is a lot more in there and some scenes make more sense) and the mini series on DVD and love them both.  I agree that the mini series is more faithful and goes into more detail (it can afford to because it is much longer as a mini series), but the film will remain closer to my heart.


----------



## carrie221 (Sep 12, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

Ok I will admit that the miniseries may have been truer to the book but the movie will always have my heart... it just to me has more of the feeling of the book


----------



## steve12553 (Sep 12, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

Hey, you can't get enough Dune unless it's from a sequel written by someone other than Frank Herbert.


----------



## Tsietisin (Sep 19, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

This movie is in my top 3 list of all time favorite movies and I absolutely adore it. There was a period of a couple of months where I would watch it every single night and loved it just as much as the previous night. 

I have the mini-series but I just did not get on with it as well. It was probably due to the fact that I had gorged myself on the David Lynch version and because of this I was hoping that the min-series was simply going to be more of the same, but with better effects. 

It was probably also down to the fact that up to that point, I had never read the book so this meant that I thought that there would be the wyrding modules like in the movie. I didn't realise that it was never part of the book. 

But yes, I love this film. I have seen the extended version and as the poster above stated, it does change certain things and explain others a little better.


----------



## pixter (Sep 20, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

Years ago the Scifi channel showed a four hour version of the David Lynch Dune. I guess it could be called the director's cut. As you can imagine, it had a lot more from the book than the original movie (which was what, an hour and a half?). I thought it flowed a lot better.


----------



## steve12553 (Sep 21, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*



			
				pixter said:
			
		

> Years ago the Scifi channel showed a four hour version of the David Lynch Dune. I guess it could be called the director's cut. As you can imagine, it had a lot more from the book than the original movie (which was what, an hour and a half?). I thought it flowed a lot better.


The four hour version was kind of an "Un-director's" cut. It listed the director as "Alan Smithee", which usually means the director didn't approve of this version or has decided to space himself from the film. This was somebody trying to explain David Lynch to the world. I preferred to read the book and interpret for myself although I couldn't help but watch the long version. THe original film was about 2 hours and 20 minutes which pretty well violates the Alfred Hitchcock rule for movie length.


----------



## The Lone Stranger (Sep 22, 2006)

*Re: Dune (1984)*

The 84 movie was just on the plus side of crap.  What they did to the weirding way and the fremen was a joke.  Paul was a "pretty boy" who looked like he should be in a boy band.


Sting was good as Fayed, and the worms were cool, otherwise the producters hadn't even read the novel.

The mini-series was Ok; you could tell that at least they were trying to capture the atmosphere of the book.


----------



## Quokka (May 1, 2007)

One of the more derided science fiction films ever made but I watched this a long time ago and back then I didn't think it was _that_ bad, I liked the visuals and feel of the film but I do remember thinking that if you hadn't read the book you didn't even stand a chance with the dialogue and storyline.

Its been re-released a few times now in different versions, with fairly significant amounts of film added in (although David Lynch continues to have nothing to do with it).

I was wondering has anyone seen any of the alternative versions? and do you think they have added much to the movie experience?

They're not likely to be on the shelf of my local video store but I've been half thinking about tracking down a copy online.

With over 4 hours of footage still sitting in a vault somewhwere, it would be great to hear that David Lynch would be going back to release _his_ version of the film one day .... but at this point that's looking about as likely as the film executives letting me into the room with plastic scissors and a gluestick .


----------



## tangaloomababe (May 1, 2007)

I have a feeling that an extended version was released, how much was added I don't know. I was checking out ebay looking for the series, as opposed to the movie and did see something about extended versions (maybe its worth a look.)

The series I enjoyed.    Having not seen the movie,  I cannot compare the two but past negative comments have put me off viewing it. I dont think your comments have made me change my mind either.


----------



## iansales (May 1, 2007)

There are two actual versions of the film - the theatrical release and the "television" release. The latter was cobbled together by ABC (I think) and  is easily recognised as it opens with a voice-over giving an historical run-down of events in the Duniverse while the camera focuses on a poor piece of artwork meant to represent the Butlerian Jihad.

There have also been several DVD releases - a special edition in the UK a couple of years ago, and an extended edition in the US last year. The speical edition included some featurettes and the theatrical release; the US edition had both releases of the film, plus extras. There have also been a few special edition releases in Germany - I know of one with three discs and another with five (plus a plaster model of a sandworm).

I think the film is under-rated. It's not Lynch's best by any means, and it does take a few embarrassing liberties with the source text. But it looks wonderful, and it probably evokes the flavour of FH's novel much better than the miniseries does.


----------



## The Wanderer (May 1, 2007)

iansales said:


> There are two actual versions of the film - the theatrical release and the "television" release. The latter was cobbled together by ABC (I think) and  is easily recognised as it opens with a voice-over giving an historical run-down of events in the Duniverse while the camera focuses on a poor piece of artwork meant to represent the Butlerian Jihad.
> 
> There have also been several DVD releases - a special edition in the UK a couple of years ago, and an extended edition in the US last year. The speical edition included some featurettes and the theatrical release; the US edition had both releases of the film, plus extras. There have also been a few special edition releases in Germany - I know of one with three discs and another with five (plus a plaster model of a sandworm).
> 
> I think the film is under-rated. It's not Lynch's best by any means, and it does take a few embarrassing liberties with the source text. But it looks wonderful, and it probably evokes the flavour of FH's novel much better than the miniseries does.



I agree, it's not entirely successful, but some of the harsh criticism was deeply unfair, there are some wonderful evocative moments, other times alot of the capers seem to be missed out on

Memorbale nevertheless


----------



## Kostmayer (May 1, 2007)

I liked the film. Its by no means perfect but it does have its mertis. It looks wonderful in my opinion, especially the final battle, and the scenes with the worms. Its also got an epic feel to it.

Others will probably disagree, but the musics great too


----------



## williamjm (May 2, 2007)

iansales said:


> There are two actual versions of the film - the theatrical release and the "television" release. The latter was cobbled together by ABC (I think) and  is easily recognised as it opens with a voice-over giving an historical run-down of events in the Duniverse while the camera focuses on a poor piece of artwork meant to represent the Butlerian Jihad.



The prologue Ian describes is possibly one of the worst pieces of film-making I've ever seen - dull repetitive naration over poor paintings of planets is not a good way to start a sci-fi epic. I can quite understand why Lynch refused to let his name be associated with that version of the film. 

Lynch's film does have quite a few memorable moments, I don't think it works particularly well overall but it is an interesting failure, at least.


----------



## Ice fyre (May 10, 2007)

I would hasten to defend this film. I for one find it visually interesting (lets face it they didnt skimp on the budget) and the acting is quite frankly spot on. 

some critics decribed it as too confusing, were they watching the same film as I was? It's all no more confusing than say Shakespere.

This film was not Star Wars and I think it suffered for that at the hands of the critics (no cute robots for the audience to ooo over).

I have one of the extended versions at home and I had to put it off after a few minutes I just didnt like it too busy trying to explain itself in whispered monolouges. Maybe I should try again... Ooops there I go again rant rant!


----------



## iansales (May 10, 2007)

Ice fyre said:


> I would hasten to defend this film. I for one find it visually interesting (lets face it they didnt skimp on the budget) and the acting is quite frankly spot on.



The acting is frequently stiff - but once you relaise Lynch was trying for a mannered style, it sorts of works. It's more obvious in the extended version.



Ice fyre said:


> some critics decribed it as too confusing, were they watching the same film as I was? It's all no more confusing than say Shakespere.



I think the confusion arises from the world-building. Having to get the background across _and_ start the story proved too much for critics not used to science fiction.


----------



## Sathai (May 10, 2007)

It does have some cheesy and weird moments, but I still think it's worth watching if you're a fan of Dune or of David Lynch.


----------



## Quokka (May 11, 2007)

I thought some of the casting was great, Kyle Maclachlan and Sting were both fairly close to my image of Paul and Feyd-Rautha, putting aside the fact that both were a good decade older than in Herbert's Dune.

Dean Stockwell who played Dr Yeah was another one that I remember thinking yep, thats him. Dr Kynes, Stilgar, the emperor so many fit with what I had pictured from the book which is a rare thing. Again I suppose its the visuals where this film really works.

Still it sounds like the general consenus is that the extended versions are nothing to get to excited about, which is pretty much what I read elsewhere.
I think I'll grab it if I see it but I might just hire the original for a late night viewing this weekend


----------



## gully_foyle (May 11, 2007)

There's an interesting website that talks about different releases of the Lynch version, as well as all the cut scenes. And a bonus it has a fair bit of info about failed attempts, like the one by Ridley Scott. The one that would have been way cool was the attempt by Alejandro Jodorowsky that would have brought together the super visionaries Moebius, Giger, Chris Foss and Dan O'Bannon. With Salvador Dali as the Emperor. How cool would that have been?

Here's the link: Dune - Behind The Scenes


----------



## iansales (May 11, 2007)

I'd like to have seen the Jodorowsky one too. If you've read *The Incal* or *Metabarons*, you can get some idea of what he was going to do. There was an article on the film in an issue of *Métal Hurlant*, which included several of Moebius' costume designs. Chris Foss' book, *21st Century Foss*, features some of the production design work he did for the film, too.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]


----------



## Sibeling (Jun 9, 2007)

I liked the fiilm, even though often it was totally different from the book. The visuals were really good, but sometimes the whole thing got too slow.


----------



## steve12553 (Jun 9, 2007)

I still contend that if David Lynch made Dune as a TV mini-series with a budget proportional to his movie with respect to length we might have got the treatment that the books needed. Of Course, he would have not made a single dime because of the relative costs of doing things right. All-in-all you really needed to have read the book before making sense of the movie.


----------



## lin robinson (Jun 22, 2007)

You might be right about that.  Too bad we don't know for sure.   Or if Jodorowski could have handled it.  Lynch was NOT a good choice for this film.

Yeah, it was pretty goofy in so many ways.   But movies are made to be watched and it's a chock full of sheer gorgeousness and mindblow as anything ever done.   The whole retro design of space ships killed me.   And the shields?   Wow!   Way beyond what I had imagined, and just cool.
Another thing I liked was the assorted, inexplicable weirdness lying around the Harkonens.  

Outside of Paul, the casting was very good.   I was smitten by Paul's mother.   Sting was perfect.


----------



## Whitestar (Sep 3, 2007)

*Possible Dune remake*

Don't take my word for it, check out the following article, along with the link:

Dune Film Rumor Emerges

C.H.U.D. reported a rumor that a new movie version of Frank Herbert's classic SF novel Dune may be in the works. The site cites Byron Merritt, who runs the official Dune novel forums and is a member of the Herbert family. 

"We're getting VERY close to a deal. Heard that news today," Merritt reportedly posted on Aug. 24. "Although only rumor, I've heard that 'someone' at the studio wants Dune reallllly bad and has been a fan of the novel for years. They're not saying who this is (and it might just be hype), but I'm holding out hope that whoever this might be is a big enough fan that he/she will do the book justice. Supposedly it's some director." 

Dune was previously adapted as a movie by director David Lynch and again as a miniseries on SCI FI Channel. 

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index...d=43792&type=0

Personally, I thought that Sci-Fi Channel's version was quite decent compared to David Lynch's version. I would very much like to see a sequel to Children of Dune instead. What does everybody else thinks?


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 3, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

I agree with you. I'd rather see something like God Emperor brought to the screen as another miniseries rather than a remake of the film.

I think with Lynch's Dune and then the first miniseries, we don't need yet another Dune. Time to explore new ground as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Sep 4, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

oh god not again. when will the film industy realise that herbert wrote more than dune! i'd love to see dosadi - actually, cancel that. let them think that's the only thing he wrote! i can at least ignore more dune clones...


----------



## Quokka (Sep 4, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

I'm watching the tv release of_ Dune_ (1980) at the moment and it's worse than I remember, I keep thinking through the movie that it is such a great story that it's a shame it was never done properly. I thought the mini series was ok and haven't seen _Children of Dune_ yet but this one needs to be marked down as a missed opportunity for now, it just doesn't need to be done again.


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 4, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

Dune has been adapted for the screen in two very distinct ways - a third try is utterly pointless in my opinion.  Like others have said, there are plenty of other Herbert works that can be brought to the screen - there is no need to re-do Dune again.


----------



## unclejack (Sep 4, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

Is anyone besides me tired of remakes? There has already been a Dune movie, a Dune Miniseries, and another Dune miniseries called Children of Dune. Give it a rest. I think Hollywood is starving for original ideas.


----------



## iansales (Sep 4, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

If you're tired of remakes, then you're tired of Hollywood 

At the moment, Herbert Partnership Limited are in discussion with a Hollywood studio about a new version of *Dune*. That doesn't mean it will necessarily get made. In fact, the odds are against it. Mysefl, I'll hold judgement on any remake until I've seen it - it could be awful, or it could be really good.

Oh, and without "remakes", you probably wouldn't have all those Jane Austen films. Imagine if the only film adaptation of *Pride & Prejudice* was the version with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson...


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 4, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*



iansales said:


> Oh, and without "remakes", you probably wouldn't have all those Jane Austen films. Imagine if the only film adaptation of *Pride & Prejudice* was the version with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson...


 
Oh what a happy land we'd live in!!!  I bloody hate all the flippin remakes of Pride & Prejudice.  How many are there now including TV adaptions?  10???  Give it a damn rest!!!

And yes as you may be able to tell I am really tired of remakes too.  Virtually every film I've ever loved has been remade (Assault on Precinct 13, The Fog, Halloween, Wicker Man, Italian Job, Get Carter, Rollerball etc etc etc).  Some have been a bit better than others but 99% of the time they are totally pointless.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 4, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

As long as we pay to watch rubbish remakes Hollywood will keep churning them out. Sure some remakes are worthwhile but in recent years the quality has been utterly pathetic. 

If the powers that be are still prepared to foist rubbish on us, it must be because some of us are prepared to pay to watch it......let's face it, they ain't doing it for the good of our health.


----------



## unclejack (Sep 4, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

I really don't give a crap about Jane Austin, so that one's kind of a mute point for me. But yes, I am tired of remakes and yes, I am tired of Hollywood. Lately all I wanna watch are foreign films. There are a few very rare occasions where the remake is actually better than the original but the chances of that decrease dramatically the more times they make a remake of the same frickin movie. One example of a remake that was better than the original was Cape Fear, other than that I can't really think of much else.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*



iansales said:


> If you're tired of remakes, then you're tired of Hollywood
> 
> At the moment, Herbert Partnership Limited are in discussion with a Hollywood studio about a new version of *Dune*. That doesn't mean it will necessarily get made. In fact, the odds are against it. Mysefl, I'll hold judgement on any remake until I've seen it - it could be awful, or it could be really good.
> 
> Oh, and without "remakes", you probably wouldn't have all those Jane Austen films. Imagine if the only film adaptation of *Pride & Prejudice* was the version with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson...


yes i am tired of unoriginal hollywood, and i don't think i've ever watched a jane austen movie in my life.
there are so many great writers and great concepts out there, and yet hollywood would rather re-make/revamp or redo an existing work. i think it's sad.

for me remakes are like movie concepts from books - there are very few that are as good as the original, and even less that surpass it.


----------



## Overread (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

Problem is that people who go to cinemas the most - the average american teeager/young adult - don't care about story or plot - all they tend to care about is that they can waste around 1 1/2 to 2 hours of time and watch big bangs. The story is also considered bad if they have to pay attention for the whole film - thus endless remakes with ever simlper stories will continue to be generated because statistics state that they attract the largest audiences

solution - become a stastition and infiltrate the hollywood studios and convince them that original well written scripts are the way forward.


----------



## iansales (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

I picked *Pride & Prejudice* as an example of a book whic has had several adaptations, both film and television, and most of which are good. But Austen is by no means the only author who has had several versions of one of her novels adapted for film.

To be fair, Hollywood does seem overly fond of recycling, but the remakes are outnumbered by original films - at my local cinema, the following films are showing:

*1408 *- original adaptation of short story
*2 Days in Paris* - original French film
*BRATZ *- original film based on range of toys
*Breach *- original film, based on a true story
*Death Sentence* -original adaptation of book
*Evan Almighty* - original film
*Hairspray* - remake
*Hallam Foe* - original adaptation of book
*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix* - original adaptation of book
*Knocked Up* - original film
*No Reservations*  - original film
*Run, Fatboy, Run* - original film
*Rush Hour 3* - sequel (to original film)
*Shrek the Third* - sequel (to original film)
*Surf's Up* - original film
*The Bourne Ultimatum* - sequel (to original adaptation of book)
*The Simpsons Movie* - original adaptation of TV series
*Transformers* - remake
*Year of the Dog* - original film

Only two remakes in the entire lot...


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

Others films that are out now or soon to be released...

Lady Chatterley - remake of a TV adaption of a book
Disturbia - blatant remake of Rear Window (which has had 3 adaptions already)
Resident Evil 3 - a hugely over-exploited game franchise
The Invasion - yet another remake of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers
Nancy Drew - remake of a TV adapation of the book

They're just a few off the top of my head - I'm sure there's plenty of others out there too.  Thank God there are decent original films being made as well, but the point is that they could spend more of their time making original films rather than pawing over old material.


----------



## iansales (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

Over-extending franchises is more of a problem than remaking earlier films (I suppose it's arguable whether a new adaptation of a novel counts as a remake...). Do we really need three *Resident Evil* films (did we really need _one_?), or *Rush Hour*, etc?

Thre versions of *Rear Window*? The original Hitchcock, of course, and the remake starring Christopher Reeves... I didn't know there was a third one.

*Nancy Drew*... It's her first outing in cinemas. There may have been a TV series, but that doesn't really make the new film a remake.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*



iansales said:


> I picked *Pride & Prejudice* as an example of a book whic has had several adaptations, both film and television, and most of which are good. But Austen is by no means the only author who has had several versions of one of her novels adapted for film.
> 
> To be fair, Hollywood does seem overly fond of recycling, but the remakes are outnumbered by original films - at my local cinema, the following films are showing:
> 
> ...


ah, but originality? 13 of those films are sequels (four sequels, which are often just far weaker remakes), remakes, based on tv shows or based on books (note, evan almighty is the sequal to bruce almighty). 
should also note, not one of those films is on my 'to watch' list.


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

The Bedroom Window starring Steve Guttenberg was the third adaption of Rear Window.


----------



## iansales (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

No wonder that one slipped under my radar - Steve Guttenberg! Has he ever made a decent film? 

Yes, I missed that *Evan Almighty* was a sequel. But I don't see anything wrong with film adaptations of books - it's an entirely different format. In some cases, the films are actually better than the original books.

Oh, and while *The Bourne Ultimatum* is a sequel to the earlier two films, it's also an adaptation of a book. And, if a fresh adaptation of a novel isn't really a remake then the first Matt Damon Bourne film isn't a remake, even if there was an earlier adaptation...


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

With the exception of Boys From Brazil (a fairly small part) I think you might be right about Guttenberg!


----------



## iansales (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

According to imdb the Filipino English title of *The Boys from Brazil* was... *Boys from the Brussel*. Did they know something we don't?


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

lol I didn't know that.  Intriguing!


----------



## iansales (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

I suspect it's a Filipino misspelling of "Brazil". Mistakes like that are common in that part of the world...


----------



## steve12553 (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*



iansales said:


> *Nancy Drew*... It's her first outing in cinemas. There may have been a TV series, but that doesn't really make the new film a remake.


 
There were four *Nancy Drew* movies made in the 1930's starring Bonita Granville which were highly rated. I haven't seen them so I can't agree or disagree. I intended to jump into this fray yesterday when it was still about *Dune* but I got distracted. I enjoyed the David Lynch version when it came out but I had read the original trilogy at least twice by them. (Which was a requirement for having a clue what the movie was about.) The story is just too broad for a 2 and a half hour movie. The mini-series on SciFi was a better 
medium for the story but of course it was still not perfect and didn't satify enough people. To me it proved the old Harkonnion adage: "*Dune* is like pizza, when it's good, it's very good and when it's bad, it's still pretty good."


----------



## Sledgeka (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

I tend to agree that it would be better to adapt the other Dune Novels than make another remake? I thought the SCi-Fi Channel Version made more sense and was really good.


----------



## Parson (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

Maybe I can get this back on track. Why not make a movie of "Gateway." That would seem to be a doable thing, and in my opinion Gateway is in many ways superior to Dune. Certainly the sequels are!


----------



## unclejack (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

Hey, I didn't know there were that many remakes of Rear Window. I actually posted a thread on this site talkin about what a huge piece of monkey turd the movie Disturbia is because it so blatantly rips off Rear Window, but I'm not aware of the Christopher Reeves version and the Guttenburg Version. Wouldn't that make Disturbia the third remake? 
  Also, I've notice that even when Hollywood isn't remaking movies, the are constantly regurgitating the same concepts in movies in different wrappers. Perfect example...the movie Next starring Nicholas Cage. Isn't that going to be like the one-millionth movie that deals with the subject of clairevoyance in some way? Let's see, Firestarter touched on that, of course there is The Dead Zone, The Gift, Minority Report, Jeepers Creepers, the Final Destination Trilogy, Fear (not the new one starring Mark Walhberg), the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and many others. Not to mention the large amount of tv shows out there on psychic abilities and clairevoyance. The 4400 (which I love and is actually very original and not all about clairevoyance), the Dead Zone, Medium..that's just a few, I'm sure there are more out there that I'm missin. 
 I'm not sayin Next won't be good, but I just don't know how many other ways there are out there to spin the same concept and keep it interesting. I for one would love to see Hollywood come up with something that hasn't been done before. 
  Even the new movie Invisible is a concept that has already been done, most recently in Just Like Heaven. The first occurance of that concept that I know of was that movie starring Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin that I can't remember the name of. (It was a comedic spin on the whole thing but even still the same)


----------



## iansales (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

*Next* is another butchering of a Philip K Dick story - a novelette titled 'The Golden Man' from 1954.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*



Parson said:


> Maybe I can get this back on track. Why not make a movie of "Gateway." That would seem to be a doable thing, and in my opinion Gateway is in many ways superior to Dune. Certainly the sequels are!


 
I think this would be a good choice but - unfortunately - Gateway just doesn't seem to drum up the same kind of support from the money men that Dune does. Personally, I'd like to see something like Julian May's _Saga of the_ _Exiles_ brought to the silver screen. Just think of all that luscious prehistoric Europe (including the gypsum plains that were to become the Mediterranean) that the FX guys could create with their CGI


----------



## unclejack (Sep 6, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

Well I didn't know Next was another remake too, it seems Hollywood has run out of ideas completely. I really don't mind movies based on books, sometimes I like to see the story put on the big screen. But I am tired of all the remakes. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a movie that was truly stellar. The last one I saw that I was truly impressed with was either A Beautiful Mind or Cast Away. I keep wondering when the next truly excellent movie is gonna come out but it just doesn't look like it's gonna happen. For the time being I will enjoy the pleasures of foreign cinema until Hollywood gets their act together.


----------



## unclejack (Sep 6, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

No, wait, Batman Begins, that was the last truly good movie I saw. That and Superman Returns despite all the people who hated it, I loved it. That is one good thing I can say for Hollywood, for anyone like myself who is a fan of the comic book world, they seem to be focusing alot of attention on that genre and for the most part their doin a pretty good job I think. I know it doesn't really qualify as original because the movies are based on the comics but I think true comic book fans are glad to see the transformation from comic books to the big screen. (Oh yeah, I also loved the latest Fantastic Four movie)


----------



## tangaloomababe (Sep 6, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

Whitestar I have not read Children of Dune, so I cannot comment on whether I would like to see it made into a film.

I have seen the Dune series, which I enjoyed but not the movie, from all accounts it was a pretty messy sort of movie, not able to convey the book in the short time that it had.

On that point alone one would wonder why they think it can be done as a movie again.  Dune is a big book and even the series probably didn't convey the full story and it was a great deal longer than the movie.
Personally  my thoughts are "Leave it alone"


----------



## iansales (Sep 6, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*

*Dune* is a classic film, although a poor adaptation of the book. I found it a lot more interesting than the miniseries. Having said that, the *Children of Dune* miniseries (an adaptation of both the *Dune Messiah* and *Children of Dune* books), I thought was a slightly better. There is also a Spanish fanfilm of *Dune* knocking about on the Web. It's 8 hours long, apparently.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 6, 2007)

*Re: Possible Dune remake*



iansales said:


> *Dune* is a classic film, although a poor adaptation of the book. I found it a lot more interesting than the miniseries. Having said that, the *Children of Dune* miniseries (an adaptation of both the *Dune Messiah* and *Children of Dune* books), I thought was a slightly better. There is also a Spanish fanfilm of *Dune* knocking about on the Web. It's 8 hours long, apparently.


 
I agree that both film an miniseries had their faults. One thing that pleased me was that at least they were very different in their approach and I did not feel that I was watching a carbon copy of the movie when I watched the miniseries.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (May 4, 2020)

Last night I watched David Lynch's _Dune,_ and once again I found myself thinking: why do film critics treat this film so sniffily?
It takes the central thread of the novel's story and does a really good job of presenting it. The philosophising of the novel is taken and offered in summarised form to the viewer in a way that doesn't spoil the film; it's vivid and gothic, with a terrific sense of space and setting; most of the acting is really good; there are very few visual effects which date the piece, and, in fact, if you took those out you'd have a film that (like _2001_) would have a certain timeless quality; it has style and substance.
I wish a few more people could see this film for what it is - a unique, brilliant vision of the future based on a terrific novel.


----------



## Overread (May 4, 2020)

I think Lynch's Dune is a film fans of the book enjoy, but those without it find that there are odd gaps and time jumps that don't feel natural to the films flow. There's a few scenes, like the one where he starts talking to Chani for the first time, which just seem to "appear" from nothing. I think readers of the book add in the missing bits without realising, whilst those who are not fans of the book (or read it so long ago they can't remember ever reading it) don't have that information to patch it over.

That said I think that as a film it captures the feel and visual designs of the Dune world fantastically. It "Feels" like Dune.


----------



## Rodders (May 4, 2020)

I loved Lynch’s Dune And do find it’s treatment very frustrating.

I was 15 when it came out and it really fired up my imagination. I even collected the Panini stickers. The film led to me reading the book. It’s a shame that we’ll never see a Director’s cut.


----------



## Vince W (May 4, 2020)

Lynch did a marvellous job bringing the Dune universe to the screen. I admit there are a couple of things that don't quite mesh for fans, but if you look at them from the point of view that Lynch needed to make a film that the uninitiated could understand, he did an amazing job.

The weirding modules are often cited as the most obvious change that fans hate. However, if you think about it, the weirding modules were an excellent way to demonstrate Maud'Dib's power without having to delve too deeply into his past Bene Gesserit and Mentat training which could have been confusing.

Given the images we've seen from Villeneuve's Dune, I think Lynch's version will always be the best version stylistically even it's not the most accurate portrayal. Critics need to look at this version with fresh eyes and see that Lynch should be congratulated for bringing a difficult book to life with spectacular and awe-inspiring results.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 4, 2020)

Stephen Palmer said:


> Last night I watched David Lynch's _Dune,_ and once again I found myself thinking: why do film critics treat this film so sniffily?
> It takes the central thread of the novel's story and does a really good job of presenting it. The philosophising of the novel is taken and offered in summarised form to the viewer in a way that doesn't spoil the film; it's vivid and gothic, with a terrific sense of space and setting; most of the acting is really good; there are very few visual effects which date the piece, and, in fact, if you took those out you'd have a film that (like _2001_) would have a certain timeless quality; it has style and substance.
> I wish a few more people could see this film for what it is - a unique, brilliant vision of the future based on a terrific novel.



The film looks impressive .I t was valiant attempt , but  it falls short,  not enough time and too much story to cover   The only way it could have worked was if it had  had I been 2 long films part I and 2 instead.  If Lynch had only been able to do that . Imagine what his film might have been.


----------



## Vince W (May 4, 2020)

If Lynch had been given his head and allowed to make the film he wanted to make without time constraints, I think he could have given a near-perfect adaptation.


----------



## Overread (May 5, 2020)

Half (most?) of the time I forget that the weirding modules aren't in the book. 
I think that in itself shows that he captured the essence of Dune phenomenally well for the big screen. A bit like how we accept quite a lot of wholesale changes in the Lord of the Rings films for how they've rendered the saga for the big screen. In both cases we also make allowances that the film(s) had limitations on how much they could squash into their tiny show time in comparison to the book length.


----------



## Elckerlyc (May 5, 2020)

I'll do a review this week. It has been awhile since I last it.
What I remember of it though, was that I was impressed by the first half, felt let down with what followed next, enjoyed the finale.


Vince W said:


> The weirding modules are often cited as the most obvious change that fans hate.


I did hate it. It warped the whole Muab'Dib thing into a 'mere' weapon, an instrument of war.


----------



## Overread (May 5, 2020)

The latter half is somewhat rushed. There's a good few time skips and some major events that are somewhat sped past. You get the feeling that if he'd had a Lord of the Rings deal he'd have been fine, but there was just too much Dune for 1 film trying to cover the whole book. Especially when the book also includes its own time jumps.


----------



## Avelino de Castro (May 8, 2020)

Princess Ivy said:


> *re: Dune (1984)*
> 
> Watching this, without having seen the film, the first thing that leapt to my mind was the environment suit. for years (i first saw this when i was a kid) i refused to watch it because of the suits. I watched this on the recomendation of the board, and found the surealism of his visions coupled with the supurb acting of the cast made a memorable film. Compared with the recent mini series (which did follow the book), it was very well done. the new series is ham fisted. I would like to have seen a mini series made by lynch.


I haven't seen the mini series yet but found the suits pretty fantastic.  Also I found the political intrigue of the book limp in the film.  Still it's a pretty good movie.


----------

