Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Media Movies

New Dune Movie Confirmed 482

Posted by kdawson
from the mouse-shadow dept.
bowman9991 writes "Peter Berg will be directing a new big-budget Dune movie from Paramount. SFFMedia reports that 'although there were some doubts that they were going to get it,' the producers have secured the rights to the Dune novel from Frank Herbert's estate and are looking for writers to provide a screenplay that is true to the original text. Can't wait!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Dune Movie Confirmed

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:33AM (#22962808)
    they've already ruined the dune series- lets hope the trend reverses like Batman Begins did for Batman.
    • by Z00L00K (682162) on Friday April 04, 2008 @12:11PM (#22964338) Homepage
      I personally liked the old one directed by David Lynch [imdb.com]. That movie did leave sections out, which unfortunately made it a bit thin compared to the book.

      But I still think that any new movie has to be measured against this. As I have understood it that movie was cut down quite a bit. I heard that there was 8 hours cut out of the original filming. But I suspect that some of it were bad scenes and duplicates and that the remaining parts have been destroyed by now so a "full version" or anything else may be lost to the void.

      But another question is - Why redo that book again? Let us see some other of the well-known authors filmed. Asimov's "Nightfall", Gordon Dickson's "Way of the Pilgrim", Frederick Pohl's "Gateway", Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" (which gave us the word "Grok") or "Citizen of the Galaxy", Keith Laumer's "Galactic Odyssey", Jack Vance's "The Demon Princes", Alfred Bester's "The Stars My Destination", Jack McDevitt's "A Talent for War", Brian Aldiss epic "Helliconia", Christopher Anvil's "Pandora's Planet", Steven Gould's "Helm", Alfred Elton van Vogt's "The Empire of Isher".

      There are also books that are better suited for TV series of course. Gordon Dickson's Dorsai books and the many Sector General stories from James White.

      And there are books/authors that has produced enough material to allow creation of an epic series that sure could take on Star Wars (but sure be very different) like Iain M Banks Culture novels, the "Hope" series of David Feintuch, Asimov's foundation books, Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" and following books.

      But maybe this just indicates that Hollywood needs to play it safe - but I think that they play it too safe in this case. One movie that's available on DVD still and the mini-series that was released a few years ago must surely have blunted the market for a third movie on the same story.

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:34AM (#22962822)
    Why redo the first book in the series when there are many more in the service. The current Dune is a great film anyway.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:36AM (#22962856)
      Why redo the first book in the series when there are many more in the service. The current Dune is a great film anyway.

      The first Dune movie sucked. Maybe you never read the books, but it didn't capture much of anything good from the book. The made for TV mini series was amazing. That's how to do Dune.
      • by JesusPGT (624264) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:43AM (#22962954)
        It may not have been incredibly faithful in terms of storyline, but its visual style is just on a completely higher level of awesomeness compared to the sci-fi miniseries. If they can make the story more like the book, but try to keep at least some of the design elements of the Lynch version, I will be happy.
      • by halivar (535827) <bfelger.gmail@com> on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:49AM (#22963010) Homepage
        The first Dune movie is some of the finest cinema ever made, IMHO. It may miss the book at many significant points, but it does capture the tone and atmosphere of it. The costumes, set design, and dialog were all very true to the book. I also loved the Toto soundtrack. My only real beef is the removal of lasguns and the addition of "wierding modules." This is not enough to make me hate the movie, however.

        I don't need another remake of the first book, anyway. I'd much rather they made a movie on the second or third books.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by MBGMorden (803437)

          I'd much rather they made a movie on the second or third books.
          Actually the "Children of Dune" mini-series is of the second and third books combined. Personally, I'd rather have a proper version of books 4 through 6 :).

          • by eean (177028)
            Don't forget about book 7 and 8 written by his son from notes. They were OK books, and would certainly make for epic movies.
        • by pla (258480) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:03AM (#22963210) Journal
          My only real beef is the removal of lasguns and the addition of "wierding modules." This is not enough to make me hate the movie, however.

          I would agree with you in that I much prefer Lynch's version. However, the addition of the weirding modules (and the complete avoidance of the lasgun/shield interaction problem) almost ceompletely undermined Herbert's intended mockery of religion...

          In the book, Paul (and Jessica) basically exploit the natives' superstitions to use them as pawns in a mostly-political game (although in fairness they do eventually "go native"). Lynch makes it out as more of a tune-in-turn-on-drop-out messianic fairy-tale.

          Both have their merits, but I'd hardly even call them the same story.
        • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:29AM (#22963628)
          Unfortunately its very hip right now to hate this movie, so the film community just focuses on its negative parts and the hard-core sci-fi fans are always pissed about even the slightest deviation from the book.

          That said, its a stunning movie. I've watched it many times and am always noticing something new. The design of the objects, sets, and costumes is extremely original and creative. It builds this dark alien sci-fi mood that no other movie has, perhaps with the exception of bladerunner. Its really an incredible piece of filmmaking and I hope the generation that associates Dune with the sci-fi channel should give it a chance.
        • There were only three things from the movie that "irked" me as a big fan of the books.

          1. The sound weapons. (but wasn't the author there at the time and approved it?)
          2. That STUPID EFFING CAT
          3. Rain at the end.

          Now I like the SCI-FI version too, but I like the movie more because...
          1. The characters actually look like they were described in the book, hair color anyone?
          2. The costumes were good and looked right.
          3. Because I really liked how Paul and his relationship to Gurney, his dad, and his mom, came acros
      • The book is near-impossible to transfer accurately to film; there is waaaay too much internal dialogue and extremely dry politic-ing.

        Any movie that is actually going to be worth watching is going to have to hack out big chunks of that stuff.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by skuzzlebutt (177224)
        It had its moments, but I'm just curious to see if Slimer from Ghostbusters is asked to come back and reprise his role as a Guild Navigator.
    • by Ctrl-Z (28806) <tim.timcoleman@com> on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:37AM (#22962864) Homepage Journal
      I suspect that if the film does well enough at the box office that the studio would be interested in creating sequels. They need to create interest from somewhere, and Dune is a great place to (re)start.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by stevew (4845)
      I tend to agree - the first Dune movie was horrible. The mini-series was GREAT - very much like the book. You understood a pretty complex story line (unlike the first movie which felt like it was on fast forward IF you had read the book.)

      There are so many other good yarns in this story - why go to the first one a third time?
      • Funny enough I liked the David Lynch version more than the miniseries. While it wasn't as true to the story, teh budget had to have been higher. The fact that desert screens were actually in a desert was nice. The Scifi series was way to much sound stage and green screen.

        Overall I liked the actors better from the David Lynch movie. Jürgen Prochnow was a much more convincing Duke Leto than William Hurt. Barron Vladimir Harkonen was also more convincing IMHO oh and you had Sting. Because of that I wa
      • by Rogerborg (306625) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:59AM (#22964162) Homepage
        Please note: a movie can be "a great film" without being a great adaptation of a book.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Warbothong (905464)
          Personally I bought the Lynch film on VHS because I needed a third video to use the store's "3 for £20" offer.

          Watching it made me fall asleep. The first 3 times. However, my brain was so fried by it that I bought the book just to work out what the hell I was watching.

          The book is incredible. The film is awful. The miniseries is better, but at conveying the story. In my opinion it is the overwhelming complexity of the Universe portrayed that makes Dune special, but that can't really be conveyed we
    • by cerelib (903469) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:55AM (#22963110)

      The current Dune is a great film anyway.
      You didn't read the book, did you? Many people liked the Dune movie because it had great visuals, but they look past the fact that there are huge gaps in the story. If you read the book, it at least make sense to you, but if you didn't than the story really doesn't work. For example, in the movie, in no time at all and for no apparent reason Chani falls in love with Paul. There is no explanation, it just needed to happen, so it did. Dune is one of those books that completely transcends the format of a 2-4 hour movie. A mini-series can work, but you can't quite portray the many "feint within a feint" aspects of Dune in such a short time.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Dread_ed (260158)
        What goober rated you offtopic? Very relevant remarks IMHO.

        Breaking the book into 2 or 3 movies might work with the right acting. Adding in Dune Messiah might make a beeter story arc for the screen too, though I might be expecting a bit much from movie audiences there.

        Personally I would welcome a new movie that stayed withing the original boundaries of the book. Anything to overwrite the creative license abominations the first movie seared into my memory.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dslauson (914147)

      Why redo the first book in the series when there are many more in the service. The current Dune is a great film anyway.

      The first movie was pretty cool if viewed as a David Lynch movie (with a hilariously dated Toto soundtrack). I own it on DVD and still bust it out from time to time. My wife hates it because she doesn't know the story, finds it boring and difficult to follow, and hates all the corny internal monologue. All valid criticism, but I still love it in that same weird way I love the rest of L

    • by Plugh (27537)

      I wish someone would pick up on Herbert's other work. The Dosadi Experiment [wikipedia.org], for example, is IMO a much better story than anything in the Dune saga.

    • by Khyber (864651)
      I'm surprised nobody's bothered tagging this 'beatingadeadhorse'
  • by vecctor (935163) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:35AM (#22962832)
    I mean, I like Dune, but how many remakes is enough?

    Ok ok, the first one [wikipedia.org] was a bit off (but it had Patrick Stewart and Sting!).

    But the Sci-fi Channel version [wikipedia.org] was pretty good.

    I just wonder what is to be gained by doing it again.
    • by WarPresident (754535) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:51AM (#22963044) Homepage Journal
      I mean, I like Dune, but how many remakes is enough?

      I don't know, but I hope they find a group of musicians on par with Toto!
    • by eean (177028)
      Really the mini-series is the only way to really adapt a book like Dune and have any chance to do it justice.

      I'm currently half-way through the Dune miniseries, it's looking good indeed. ^.^

      So yea I agree, at the same time I won't turn down more Dune.
    • by dargaud (518470)
      You forget the version of Dune from Jodoroski, Dali, Giger (of Alien fame), Moebius... the greatest movie that never was. Google it up.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bughunter (10093)

      how many remakes is enough?

      Agreed.

      Why not abuse another epic SF classic, like Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land [wikipedia.org]*, Asimov's Foundation [wikipedia.org], or perhaps even Delany's Dhalgren [wikipedia.org]?

      Even Herbert had some other novels that would make awesome movies (Whipping Star [wikipedia.org], Hellstrom's Hive [wikipedia.org], The White Plague [wikipedia.org])...

      (*I hesitate to even mention RAH, due to the inevitable flame war that his name inspires, and SiaSL is not the most cinematic story in his bibliography, but it's arguably his most thought-provoking work.)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:36AM (#22962852)
    Dune is incredibly relevant to our times because it shows how an oppressive power structure exploits a people's resources and make enemies of the natives on Arakkis, it is completely analogous to how we handle oil today. Even more so Dune provides insight into what makes an extremist and their motivations.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by boris111 (837756)
      I see how you correlate the examples you provide for the power struggle for resources, but I don't see how they're specific to Islamic culture. Provide examples that are specific to Islamic culture.
    • by esocid (946821)
      Then how would you explain the concept of the Kwizatz Haderach which unites the masculine and feminine, explicitly with the water of life which is a profoundly feminine symbol in literature. I don't see Islam as having such an instance as that.
      It does have religion rooted into it and religion's subjugation of the Freman, but I wouldn't say that is Islam, more Christianity. The correlation of spice and oil today may seem good, but oil is not a hallucinogen that also allows a greater perception and awareness.
      • While there are elements taken from Islamic culture Dune is more rooted in Arabic culture, elements that pre-date Islam. The GP's post was only partly nonsense.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by imgod2u (812837)
        I don't think Christianity has much in terms of merging of the feminine and the masculine.

        That aside, you're reading into the minor parts that most likely to pad the story with details. The Kwizatz Haderach is simply a profit figure. It unites the Fremen to become the dominant power of the world (and quite violently so). That is very allegorical towards modern day extremist Islam.

        The other theme is that the profit of the Fremen is not complete. The later books show this in that Leto II came and did away
    • by imgod2u (812837) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:20AM (#22963492) Homepage
      I agree that there are huge similarities between the Fremen and modern Islamic groups. What's funny is that Frank Herbert got the idea of the story not from the conflicts in the Middle East but from the exploitation of Africa. Diamond and oil.

      One of the key points of Dune is not necessarily power or oppression but political trappings. It is much more a criticism of how the powers than be (the emperor, the navigator's guild, the bene gesserit, etc.) were all interlocked and trapped by each other in a perpetual cycle of deceit and backstabbing. None of them could accomplish anything and humanity was at a standstill destined for extinction should anything slight thing (such as the sandworms dying) interrupt their routine.

      It's an allegory to the dependence on oil and the globalized politics of today. How even the U.S., being the superpower that it is, is locked into binding treaties and very restricted in terms of what it can do to help itself or the world.
    • by AHumbleOpinion (546848) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:26AM (#22963576) Homepage
      Dune is incredibly relevant to our times because it shows how an oppressive power structure exploits a people's resources and make enemies of the natives ...

      That is not relevant to our times, it is relevant to all of human history.

      ... Dune provides insight into what makes an extremist and their motivations.

      No, *extremists* are usually looking for any excuse or pretext to justify their actions. Legitimate grievances are not required.
  • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:38AM (#22962880)
    I happen to think David Lynch is a genius. Some will not agree. That's fine. However, I think hopefully we can safely agree that Lynch does know how to direct (he's been nominated for several Academy Awards). The problem with the original Dune in my opinion is that the story is vast. It was just impossible to do justice to the story in a 2.5 hour movie. I don't personally consider the differences between the film and novel to be significant and for those who do, well, just wait until you see this film. If you think that in 2.5 to 3 hours that Peter Berg will somehow be able to produce a more faithful version of Dune , well, that's a rather interesting thought that surely will be proven false. Lynch had to leave out large sections of the first book to save time and Berg will operate under the same conditions. That's why the SciFi Channel filmed Dune as a multipart story.
    • by Moraelin (679338) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:12AM (#22963328) Journal
      Well, that was my problem with David Lynch's movie, basically. It's like an abbreviated summary of the book. Actually, probably a better way to explain it, would be Woody Allen quote: "Woody Allen I took a speed-reading course and read War and Peace in twenty minutes. It involves Russia." That's just about it.

      If you had already read the book, I guess it wasn't a bad movie. It had just enough visual clues to let your memory do the rest. So you can look an go, "ooh, I know, this is the Gom Jabbar sequence", and you'd already know what led there, where it goes from there, and why is that important. While the movie would move to the next scene and give you yet another piece, and again, it would be mostly up to your memory to fill in the gap and put the new scene in context too.

      I, however, must have been one of the few who saw the movie before reading the book. In fact, I got the book only because the movie didn't make that much sense at times, and certainly didn't leave me with the awe for Dune that everyone else semed to have. (I know, I know, I'll hand in my nerd card now;) It wasn't a _bad_ movie per se, but in retrospect it just wasn't Dune. It was a mildly SF-themed action movie, where some guys fought for some desert planet, for some resource those guys had. And not only it was just as superficial as any other action movie (it could have been "Rambo Does Iraq" just as well), but the plot seemed a little bit condensed and rushed through even by action movie standards. Everything that made it... well, made it _Dune_, was at best hinted at, and sometimes it came via short scenes that didn't seem to make that much sense or have much relevance for the rest of the movie.

      Again, in retrospect I can see how you'd figure it out if you had read the book already, and only used the movie as a visual summary. Without that background, I wasn't impressed much.

      Can someone else do better? Heck if I know, to be honest. One can only hope. It's certainly impossible to do justice to the whole Dune story, you're right in that aspect. But maybe he can make a movie that at least makes sense on its own.
    • by DrWho520 (655973)
      SciFi's interpretation also spanned multiple books. I think it ended at either Children of Dune or God Emperor of Dune.
  • Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bootle (816136) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:39AM (#22962888)
    The spice is life!
    • Did you actually read Dune? What on earth are you talking about?

      Did you mean 'He who controls the spice controls the universe?'
  • Oooh, oooh! (Score:5, Funny)

    by realmolo (574068) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:40AM (#22962910)
    A new sci-fi movie? Have they checked the availability of the "Official Sci-Fi/Fantasy Actors of the 21st Century": Patrick Stewart Milla Jovovich Wesley Snipes Toby Macguire Christian Bale Liam Neeson Natalie Portman Hugo Weaving Samuel L. Jackson Hugh Jackman and, of course, Ray Park I mean, you can't make a sci-fi movie without *at least* 2 people from that list!

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by totallyarb (889799)

      If they cast Tobey Macguire as Paul, we may all have to kill ourselves. :)

      On a more serious note, I do hope they remember to cast a serious actor as Duncan Idaho... you've got to plan for sequels.

      • by MBGMorden (803437)

        On a more serious note, I do hope they remember to cast a serious actor as Duncan Idaho... you've got to plan for sequels.
        Not really. IIRC, the Duncan that appears in the first movie is pretty old. He doesn't become "young recurring Duncan" until the sequel comes around ;).
        • by halivar (535827)

          IIRC, the Duncan that appears in the first movie is pretty old.
          Actually, he's pretty dead. His name was Richard Jordan [wikipedia.org], and he was a damn fine actor. I am really sorry Duncan didn't have a bigger role in the Lynch film. That said, Duncan didn't have a really huge role in the books until they started resurrecting him. Too bad you can't do the same thing with Jordan. :(
  • Yes but... (Score:2, Funny)

    by EricR86 (1144023)
    Will it have Sting?
  • The only decent recent translation of an adult SciFi/Fantasy novel has been the LotR trilogy. A decent job was done with pre-adult Potter series. Considering how studios have butchered other children books recently (Golden Compass, Earagon, Spiterwick, etc) it will take a strong hand to keep it on the correct path. Maybe they should try to tell an "original" story written to be visually presented in 90 minutes.
    • You forgot The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe...
      Excellent depiction IMO...Tilda Swinton was brilliant as the White Witch.
      • Are you serious? I thought TLTWaTW was a terrible, terrible adaptation. And that book was short, there was no excuse.

        Now, the first and second Harry Potters were shockingly faithful to the books (although they've diverged as they get further and further along).
      • by MBGMorden (803437)

        Excellent depiction IMO...Tilda Swinton was brilliant as the White Witch.
        My friends think it's weird that I find her sexy, but I do :). You can definitely tell that Edmund is pre-puberty though - when she first meets him and gives him the "you can have ANYTHING you want" line I almost expect the "bow chicka bow wow" porno music to cue - then he asks for candy.
    • I was just about to say that Dune doesn't make for good movies because there's just too much back story and narration to have a decent screenplay adaptation. Then you had to go and remind me ove LoTR, a fantasy novel with possibly more background and narration that was made into an awesome movie that even fans of the books enjoy.

      I honestly don't know how they did it. I guess part of it was not trying to explain the background in depth; the fans of the book already know it and the rest don't care. Another
      • Re:Please be LotR (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cerelib (903469) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:11AM (#22963310)

        I honestly don't know how they did it.
        There is an important difference between how Dune was written and how LotR was written. Frank Herbert was spinning a complex plot that required quite a bit of internal dialogue, narration, and back story to let the reader understand the characters and their motivations. LotR on the other hand is a much more straight forward black and white, good vs evil story. Much of the back story parts are almost completely superflous to the story and instead are used to immerse the reader into the world. These things include historical descriptions of places and societies and of course songs/poems. Much of this can be skipped while reading LotR, but makes for a less enjoyable read. The advantage Peter Jackson had is that, with enough good cinematography and special effects, the format of a movie is good enough to provide the immersive experience to the audience. LotR is what is good because of Tolkien's style, and Dune is good because of Herbert's style, but they are quite different especially in regards to their ability to be translated to a feature film.
  • by nweaver (113078) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:48AM (#22963002) Homepage
    It is by fanboys alone that drool is set in motion.

    It is by the news of cool that mobs begin to form, the slash begins to dot, the hype begins to build.

    It is by fanboys alone that drool is set in motion.
  • The sleeper has awakened. Long live the fighters. "Oh-h-h, the Galacian girls Will do it for pearls, And the Arrakeen for water! But if you desire dames Like consuming flames, Try a Caladanin daughter!" I also enjoy the Dune references in Fat Boy Slim's "Weapon of Choice"
  • Nope (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Etrias (1121031) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:55AM (#22963122)
    Sorry, it can't be done. It shouldn't be done. The first book of Dune can hardly be encapsulated by one movie, and I'm not even sure it can be done in three.

    What makes Dune great is it's breadth of subject matter enveloping politics, revenge, society (both tribal and "civilized"), power, religion, hierarchical hegemony and other big words. Plus, it is driven by an inner monologue from all of the main characters. How the hell do you portray inner monologue on the big screen, or any screen for that matter?

    Nope, it promises to be another suckfest, a pissing on Frank Herbert's grave. And if the writer Kevin J. Anderson is involved in any way, it will be more bag-loads of awful than you can stuff into a stadium.
    • by mdm-adph (1030332)
      Not that I have any great, overwhelming love for the original Lynch movie, but I think he did a good job showing the "inner monologue" parts with the narration work.
  • by RichMan (8097) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:56AM (#22963126)
    I wish the studios had the courage to break single books into 2 or more movies. And definitely not try and cram 2-3 books into one movie.

    It would give the movies more chance to cover the details of the book. Sort of like StarWars 4,5,6. Where the different movies can end on up or down notes in the overall story.
  • by daVinci1980 (73174) on Friday April 04, 2008 @10:58AM (#22963164) Homepage
    It seems like all Hollywood does these days is re-cover movies they've already made (which were generally adaptations of books in the first place).

    Seriously, there's only one of two reasons why these are successful:
    1) Nostalgia.
    2) The idea was good the first time around.

    We're rarely improving on the ideas at all. It's just mindless drivel rereleased again and again.

    NBC's fall line up consists of a Jekyll and Hyde remake, followed by Knight Rider, followed by... A movie studio (not sure who) is making another "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", and yet another is making a sequel to Wargames [imdb.com].

    Seriously Hollywood: stop. Just stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.

    There are plenty of other books that you could make into movie that would translate well. For example, the Feist series of books, starting with Magician: Apprentice would translate pretty well to the screen.

  • Epic Anime (Score:5, Interesting)

    by russlar (1122455) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:08AM (#22963268)
    I've thought for a long time that the only way to properly present Dune on the big screen, and be 100% true to the details of the book, was to make it into an epic Anime.
  • I don't know why they want to re-do the first book in the dune series. We have the one lynch came up with, and Peter Berg has all ready done the first dune book for the sci-fi channel.

    Why would Peter Berg want to direct the same book twice? Seems silly to me.

    O and to any hardcore dune fans; if you havn't read sandworms of dune yet do not read it. It will make you angry and comes off like they want to come up with the worst way possible to end the series.
  • Dune, and its descendants, are novels that rely a great deal on narration and inner dialogue to tell their stories. They work great as novels. Not so much as movies.

    and for whoever is saying that the TV version was worth watching - shame on you.

    maybe Hollywood should look to other genres of art to rape for movies: paintings perhaps, or sculpture. "Waterlilies, the Movie" has potential....
  • by Thomasje (709120) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:20AM (#22963490)
    Of course, Dune is a great novel, perhaps the greatest classic of the Sci-Fi genre... But after two disappointing attempts to bring it to the screen, maybe people should rethink the viability of turning an epic with such a convoluted backstory into a movie.

    Now, Ringworld, on the other hand... That's a classic novel that just aches to be made into a movie. A simple, easy to follow adventure story, with interesting characters and plenty of potential for awesome visuals. *crosses fingers*

  • I finally read the Dune series last year. And because of that I decided to watch the David Lynch movie despite being aware of how bad it was. The movie managed to be even worse than my already low expectations.

    The first problem was that they tried to cram every event from the book into the movie. So the entire movie felt like a summary of the book. No scene was sufficiently fleshed out and it was clear that if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have had any idea what the hell was going on. I even read that w
    • by mozkill (58658)
      there are 2 different versions of that movie. one version is at least 1 hour longer. it sounds like you watched the shorter version. in the longer version of the movie, in the "cut" scenes, the natives all have glowing blue eyes because of the spice. do you know which one you watched?
  • by noewun (591275) on Friday April 04, 2008 @11:30AM (#22963656) Journal

    . . .to provide a screenplay that is true to the original text.

    Let's hope it's not too true to the original because, Dune aside, that means hours of characters standing around with hundreds of pages of exposition and half-baked "deep" debates on politics, religion and humanity. I'm still a fan of the series, but Herbert really shot his wad after the first two or three books. After that he was just milking a franchise.

    However, if they finally let H.R. Giger do the art direction, I will definitely go see it.

  • I have been waiting since i read the novels to see how they would pull off a God Emperor of Dune movie. I have always been in doubt they would ever attempt such a feat. The effects needed alone to pull off the first movie only recently hit its stride. In that case, to have the main character of your movie be a 1,000-foot long worm is probably pretty difficult.

    That being said, the Children of Dune mini-series was a remarkably close approximation to how I see God Emperor of Dune. If they took that as a
  • I preferred the Sci-Fi Channel mini-series to the original movie for one simple reason: Lynch had it rain on Arrakis at the end of the movie. Worse, he had Paul make it rain. It was an unforgiveable departure from the Herbert's story.

    That said, the movie was great movie-making with, for the most part, an outstanding cast and perfomances. But I agree that it would really take more than one movie to relate the first book properly. The first three books could (and probably should) be done as a four-movie s

This screen intentionally left blank.

Working...