That's Villeneuve's overall plan, should fate allow it anyhow. The first three books as a trilogy. After that he'd prefer to move on and let someone else sit in the director's chair.Perhaps more importantly, will it leave a way open to a movie version of Dune Messiah?
A short, interesting review of David Lynch's version, written in 2014:
The Messy, Misunderstood Glory of David Lynch's Dune
The deeply flawed film version of Frank Herbert's novel was universally hated when it premiered 30 years ago, but it still successfully brought much of the classic sci-fi novel to life.www.theatlantic.com
Im so glad this film has become such a big hit.A fair enough comment by both Baylor and the article.
But looked at the other way round, Villeneuve's version makes a better film but a worse representation of the book.
Gone is any meaning to the Gom Jabbar, and thus any feeling ing for who the Bene Gesserit are. Gone is any really impression of the utter vileness of the Baron or the thoughtless evil of Beast Rabban.
All of which are pretty central to the story.
But better ornithopters, and a fancier vision of a sandworm's mouth. So the film critics are happy.
Terrific film. Still love it.I have a huge soft spot for David Lynch's movie. I adore the aesthetic. It was the movie of Dune that inspired me to read the book. An underrated gem and a guilty pleasure at the same time.
Its visual aesthetic was just about matched by the recent film.A short, interesting review of David Lynch's version, written in 2014:
The Messy, Misunderstood Glory of David Lynch's Dune
The deeply flawed film version of Frank Herbert's novel was universally hated when it premiered 30 years ago, but it still successfully brought much of the classic sci-fi novel to life.www.theatlantic.com
Its visual aesthetic was just about matched by the recent film.
Lynch got the look and mood of Dune right.
If only he could have done his film in 4 or 6 hour miniseries format. The result would have been spectacular.