New Dune Movie Confirmed

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!"

Hope it's not like the mini series

[boris111]

I only made it halfway through it. I couldn't believe how pretentious it was. David Lynch's version was good, but I'd like to see a modern adaptation closer to the book.

Re:Why not do another book in the series

[stevew]

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?

Re:Oooh, oooh!

[totallyarb]

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.

Nope

[Etrias]

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.

one book should be many movies

[RichMan]

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.

Re:Why not do another book in the series

[dslauson]

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 Lynch's catalogue.

Still, as a whole, it's totally clear to me that there's room for another movie. One that's more cohesive and sticks to the original source better than the Lynch version, and with a bigger budget, and better acting and effects than the miniseries. If done well, a Dune movie could be epic.

Re:Why not do another book in the series

[SatanicPuppy]

Having actually read the entire series, I can't imagine that any movie studio would be interested in making the whole thing...As you get farther and farther in, things get more and more abstruse.

I can imagine some of the later books made into movies, but I can't imagine actually wanting to watch them.

Epic Anime

[russlar]

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.

Re:Dune is rooted in Islamic Culture

[imgod2u]

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.

Re:The problem is not the director

[Hoi Polloi]

I never understood the strong rejection of Lynch's effort. No movie is ever going to be a perfect reproduction of any book, it would just be a glorified narration if it was. For instance, I found Kubrick's version of Steven King's book "The Shining" to be far superior to the later TV effort to copy the book that King had always wanted. Kubrick's cutting of tangents and unnecessary details from the story made of a well paced film with an extremely strong mood. The TV mini-series just seemed to drag, granted it didn't have Jack Nicholson and it had that AWFUL fish lipped lispy kid.

The look of Lynch's movie was what I really love about it. The quasi-Victorian/WWI look and feel to it (please don't make me say "Steampunk") seemed truer to the spirit of the book than the later mini-series and its elaborate high fashion. Here was a society that had rejected high technology (thinking machines) and so had purposefully restricted itself to the industrial age. The high quality of the actors involved (José Ferrer, Jürgen Prochnow, Dean Stockwell, etc) is also impressive.

. . .true to the original text

[noewun]

. . .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.

Here's my $0.02, from a HARDCORE Dune fan

[r1v3t3d]

I've read all of the novels several times (in some cases more). Yes, even the ones written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson (they're nowhere near as good, but still entertaining). The first film was pretty good, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm a big fan of David Lynch's work. However, there were many major inconsistencies, and were it not for the fantastic cast (namely McLachlan, Sting and Stewart) and incredible set design, I would have surely hated it. Then there was the SciFi miniseries, which lacked some of the starpower of the original, but held to the original story MUCH more accurately. There were a couple of minor revisions, but nothing that really upset me. It worked. Children of Dune was something I'd been waiting for nearly all my life (I started reading these VERY young). While some of the dialog felt contrived and forced, it still held true to the books for the most part. Personally, nothing would make me happier than to see God Emperor of Dune translated to film, either a big-budget movie or another miniseries. It is by far my favorite of the novels, and I think it would be visually engaging if done right. I tend to agree that another remake of the original book is completely unnecessary when there is so much more (and better) material to draw from. I can't tell you how aggravating it is that most people believe there's only the one story (Dune). Visit the library, yo. Yes, they can be challenging to read, much like Tolkien, but totally worth it.

Re:Why not do another book in the series

[yhetti]

You guys are all nuts. The 1984 version of Dune sucked so unbelievably hard. I have read Dune literally dozens of times (and each sequel slightly less thereafter.) I recently finished a complete re-read of the entire original 6 + the KJA/BH 7, AND watched Dune on VHS.

I think people are mistaking "bad" for "nuanced"; I was trying to explain to my girlfriend, who has never read Dune but is by no means stupid, what is going on. It was completely impossible. The only thing that I could get across to her was that Paul was the semi-penultimate step in a breeding program that took thousands of years. And now he's on Desperate Housewives.

I work with a guy who was at Dune on opening night. They handed out vocabulary cards at the theater. That's not "deep and mysterious Sci-Fi", that's bad movie direction.

Dune'84 is a piece of shit. I never would have read the book had I seen the movie first because it was clearly directed by a raving lunatic. The only saving grace is that the Evil Guys were genuinely evil and brilliant actors. GG Sting.

Also, they threw away Duncan's first life without ever explaining why he was even important.

"KWIK, TO THE WEIRD FLYING THING!"
"Duncan dyed, LOL!"

Sci-Fi's version was much more watchable. Sci-Fi's Children of Dune was fantastic (in no small part thanks to Brian Tyler's soundtrack).

I'm not saying they have to explain everything in the movie, but Dune: Sting Edition lost all credibility with me when the Navigator first shows up. He reminds me too much of Mer-Man, Skeletor's fishy sidekick.

Re:Why not do another book in the series

[MsGeek]

My requests for a new Dune movie...

1.) Semitic-looking Fremen speaking perfect Arabic with English subtitles. Remember, the Sayyadinas reconstructed the "Language of the Book" by imbibing the Water of Life and consulting with Ancestral Memory.

2.) Weirding Way of Battle = Sufi Mysticism and Kung Fu. Not stupid sonic guns that can be sold in toy stores.

3.) Vladimir Harkonnen as the evil bastard he truly was, without the flying crap. Those suspensors were attached to him so that he could move around under his flab.

4.) DIRECTED BY DAVID CRONENBERG. Boo. Yah. It would make this Dune a very adult and very brutal movie, but dammit, the books were written for adults, not for the moms little kids who wanted another Star Wars to take their kids to. See A History Of Violence or Eastern Promises to see what Cronenberg is capable of now.

5.) Guild Steersmen who look like mutant humans, not sandworms.

6.) Ornithopters with elegant, sweeping wings that flap and glide like birds of prey.

7.) Viggo Mortensen as Duke Leto. Awesome.

Re:Wish they'd tackle Ringworld instead

[sinebubble]

I'm not so sure about Ringworld. If you think about it, not much really happens in the movie that would hold the audience attention. They would have to punch it up with a lot more action. The Ringworld itself held our attention through the book, but I think someone sitting in the theater would be looking for something beyond it after the first 15 minutes of exposure.

Re:multiple sequels usually don't work too well

[gerrytucker]

Your point about the Fremen I believe is intentional. When reading the novels, there is much talk about how Fremen have been corrupted with power and have lost their desert ways. This is the time frame where this decline starts.

Re:multiple sequels usually don't work too well

[Gilmoure]

Niven's Ringworld would make a great movie. The plot is simple enough for regular folks (and even movie execs) to get (explorers crash land, need to escape), the visuals would be killer (floating buildings, fly cycles, the Ring, Kzinti) and Louis Wu would be a fun character to interpret. While many people may hate this, I see Bruce Willis (with a shave) as a possible candidate.

So, how would ya'll cast Ringworld, the Movie?

Re:Why not do another book in the series

[Warbothong]

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 well in a film.

Plus, I like the way Dune's science works. It essentially can be reduced to 3 non-standard princples:

1) Memory is stored in DNA. This leads to Gholas regaining memory, the Other Memory of Reverand Mothers and the Kwisatz Haderach, etc.

2) The "Holtzmann" field, which is a controllable anti-gravity field. Give it a little power and it will make things float. Give it a little more and it will repel things (shields). Give it even more and it can 'fold' space through higher dimensions to make a journey's destination arrive at the departure point. Finally, cranking up the juice fully will fold space completely around something and thus make it drop out of reality (a No Field).

3) Spice can elevate one's mind to a higher dimension. This allows someone to see the entirety of everything over all time (analogous to looking at Flatland from the third dimension, but including time). Of course this destroys one's mind through information overload if it doesn't have certain abilities (passed on through genes).

Aside from that everything else just seems plausible with our current scientific understanding if we had thousands of years to advance and a vast number of life-supporting planets to explore.

Comparing this to, eg. Star Trek, where the problem of the week can be overcome thanks to some new invention of Mr Spock (or whoever) which relies on some vague scientific dictionary mashup of terms, this gives a more convincing story (issues seem more insurmountable when Mr Spock isn't around to discover something which will save the day) and situation (having few new concepts means that they can be explored more completely and crop up in more places. With too many new ideas there can be a shallow feel to the Universe portrayed, for example if the reader/viewer can think of a novel use for some technology that isn't shown then surely trillions of people thinking over thousands of years would come up with it?)

Re:Does anyone know of a literary criticism of Dun

[XchristX]

Interesting paper. Although I always thought that "Crysknife" was taken from the Sikh "Kirpan" rather than the Malaysian dagger as the paper claims. Plus, the Fremen codes of conduct are definitely closer to the Sikh Khalsa Panth than any martial culture in the mideast that I'm aware of (maybe the Pukhtun in Afghanistan, but they're not Arabs either). Also, "Bene Gesserit" seems closer to Hebrew or Akkadian than Arabic per se ("Bene"/"Venei" the Hebraic phonetic of the Semitic root word "Children"; the Arabic is "Banu" I think). Then again, Semitic languages are so closely interconnected that it's hard for the non-linguist/non-native speaker to tell them apart...