DUNE: The Film You Will Never See

[bklyndv]

*Clickity click*

[adam]

I'll read that later, but my opinion has always been that Dune is just not suited to be a movie. Too much of what makes it special takes place inside the characters' heads. It cannot be translated to film without losing everything that makes it an extraordinary book.

[Animal Boything]

I read most of that, and have come to the conclusion that the man is crazy and would have made a pretty awful adaptation.

The old Dune movie was also pretty awful. They completely ruined the soul of the story by changing a spiritual advantage into a military one, and missed the whole theme of symbiosis and ecological balance with a retarded ending where it magically rains. It was cool to look at, but it was an infuriating adaptation that went for style over substance and robbed the story of all worth.

That dude in the article probably would have done the same thing.

The sci-fi channel miniseries actually did a pretty impressive job of bringing all the complexities of the story to the screen, and the only real flaw was its tiny budget, which led to some lackluster visuals. It was made in a very theatrical style which took a little of the grit out of it. Some of the costumes were absurd. (others, the stillsuits and the Fremen constumes, were perfect.) The cast was mostly good. If they would go back George Lucas style and redo the special effects, that would be pretty close to an ideal Dune movie. At the very lest, it proves that it can be done.

[adam]

And the sci-fi channel one turned Paul from a brilliant genius to a petulant teen.

[b.miller]

if you walk without rhythm, you won't attract the worm!

[Animal Boything]

Originally Posted by adam

And the sci-fi channel one turned Paul from a brilliant genius to a petulant teen.

He was exactly like that in the book.

[adam]

You must have read a different version.

[chuck]

i started reading Dune in my sophomore year of high school - got 2/3rds of the way into it - to find some asshole had ripped out 5 chapters.

never went back to it.

but from what I recall - it was def. a book that would struggle to be turned into a movie that suited and satisfied those who'd be interested enough to go see it.

mind you - they said that about LOTR.

[den]

Let's start a list of reasons why the original movie was awesome:

1. Patrick Stewart
2. Original soundtrack by 'Toto'
....

"Fear is the mind-killer..."

[bklyndv]

I dunno. I haven't read the book, so take that for what you will, but...

I remember having my jaw dropped when I first saw the boxy, square "shields" around people. Must've been very early in the days of CGI, and thinking about it now it may just have been rotoscoped.

The description on the page linked above sounds to me pretty amazing. I'd love to see it, regardless of how "true" it is to the source. I find book-to-movie comparisons generally unfair; though on the flip side, it's rare that anyone converting a book to film does it in a way that makes it inseparable from the medium -- you know, I love Dylan's version of "All Along the Watchtower" but Jimi's, I mean, can you honestly say one is better than the other? It's generally true that you could say "The book of this is a better book than the movie is a movie." Certainly the LOTRmovies seem this way.

Hitchcock used to option books and read only the first and last chapter, and sometimes even less. This way he knew the general "flow" of the story, but made everything in between his own (well, his and the screenwriter's). That gave him the freedom to move in film in a way that people adapting books generally don't.