Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Sci-Fi Entertainment

Dune Remake Could Mean 3D Sandworms 589

Posted by timothy
from the that's-3d-I-can-get-behind dept.
bowman9991 writes "The new Dune remake is becoming as epic as Frank Herbert's Dune series itself. Now that director Peter Berg has been ousted, new director Pierre Morel has decided to throw out Peter Berg's script entirely, starting afresh with his own ideas and vision. 'We're starting from scratch,' said Morel. 'Peter had an approach which was not mine at all, and we're starting over again.' Morel also reveals that 'It's the kind of movie that has the scope to be 3D.' He's also keen on sticking to the original material and recognizes that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dune Remake Could Mean 3D Sandworms

Comments Filter:
  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @05:55PM (#31015430)

    I don't thinking remaking the movie in 3D would make the plot any less confusing. (To someone who never read the books, that is.)

    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @05:58PM (#31015480) Journal

      The two attempts thus far have been failures to my mind. Lynch's movie had the "feel" of Dune, but as far as the script goes, it sucked really bad (which is strange, considering Herbert had substantial influence over the final product). The miniseries stuck more closely to the story, but the acting was bloody wooden. If you could have mixed Lynch's visuals and actors with the miniseries script, I think you would have had Dune down pat.

      • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by b4dc0d3r (1268512) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:06PM (#31015610)

        Maybe it was my age when I saw it, but to me I don't care what's in the books - the Lynch movie is what the Dune universe is to me, complete with the TOTO soundtrack, sting, the floating fat man, and all the stuff not in the book.

        He'll never be able to erase that, and might as well not even try.

        Just do the right thing and make it a long movie, anything shorter than 2.5 hours won't even scratch the surface - it will be like "a day in the life of Yoda" vs. the original Star Wars trilogy. And they better over-shoot, planning to cut a lot so we have a balance between character development, setting, and plot. None of this 10-minute introduction crap which establishes everything you need to know to understand the characters' motivations.

        In short, I expect massive fail unless they rely on 3D as a gimmick like Avatar did. Impressive it will be, but forgotten like Dune 2000 it will also be.

        Please prove me wrong, two generations of Dune fans deserve it.

        • 3D, who cares (Score:3, Insightful)

          Why is 3D mentioned? Who cares? I am so sick of people chasing carrots. Just make a fucking good movie and be done with it. Or at least try.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by denzacar (181829)

          In short, I expect massive fail unless they rely on 3D as a gimmick like Avatar did.

          Have you seen Avatar at all? 3D wasn't used as a gimmick there. Avatar used 3D as a TOOL.
          Take a look at Final Destination 3D and My Bloody Valentine 3D or Monsters vs. Aliens - THOSE are movies that use 3D as a gimmick.

          Now... if they are to apply the use of 3D as in Avatar, to "drop" the audience into the Dune world - that would look great.
          For a great movie though... they would also need great actors, director, screenwriter...

          As for "my mind is already set" - I've seen both Lynch and John Harrison versions

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by pjbgravely (751384)
            The problem with Patrick Stewart being in the movie was that he was playing an "ugly lump of a man". P.H. Moriarty fit better but still not ugly enough.

            In the Children of Dune miniseries Jessica, Idaho, and Stilgar were played by different actors. The first miniseries would have been better with the later actors in my opinion.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by imakemusic (1164993)

            Have you seen Avatar at all? 3D wasn't used as a gimmick there. Avatar used 3D as a TOOL.

            Sure, because Avatar was hugely original and would have stood up on the strength of its story alone.

        • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

          by Maudib (223520) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @09:13PM (#31017644)

          Maybe it was my age when I saw it, but to me I don't care what's in the books - the Lynch movie is what the Dune universe is to me

          Good grief, this is like saying Cheeze Whiz is what defines cheese for you. I'm sorry for you.

      • by Yergle143 (848772) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:22PM (#31015856)

        First off pick up the book again some time and read the dialog aloud and tell me
        Herbert's writing doesn't define wooden.

        That's OK, maybe the Bible has more in common with this book then say,
        the slangy chatty "Avatar".

        That Lynch pulled in stuff from a different dimension was well and good. I personally
        think "milking a cat", Gurney attacking with one hand on a gun and the other holding
        a pug, heart plugs and the tubes going into the brains of the Guild are more poignant
        than anything in the book.

        Lynch's "Dune" sent me to a different dimension. "Avatar" sent me to bed
        with a headache.

      • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by KnownIssues (1612961) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:35PM (#31016032)

        Lynch's movie had the "feel" of Dune, but as far as the script goes, it sucked really bad (which is strange, considering Herbert had substantial influence over the final product).

        Ironically, Frank Herbert seems to be one of the movie's biggest fans*. Perhaps he understood that a movie is by nature a different form of story-telling than a book and that a direct translation is not always the best solution. If you judge the 1984 version as poor as a movie, so be it. If you judge it as poor for not being a faithful adaptation of the book then you've missed the point of film.

        *Citation need? Here's one stolen from Wikipedia: Rozen, Leah. "With another best-seller and an upcoming film, Dune is busting out all over for Frank Herbert." People Weekly. (25 Jun 1984) Vol. 21 pp. 129-130.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by aitikin (909209)

          Ironically, Frank Herbert seems to be one of the movie's biggest fans*.

          *Citation need? Here's one stolen from Wikipedia: Rozen, Leah. "With another best-seller and an upcoming film, Dune is busting out all over for Frank Herbert." People Weekly. (25 Jun 1984) Vol. 21 pp. 129-130.

          Excuse me, but I'm calling serious bullshit on that! That statement clearly implies that People Weekly thinks that Herbert was doing well with the Dune series because it's showing up everywhere!

          Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, Herbert really didn't have much of a hand in writing the final script at all. A la Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

          In 1981, the nine-year film rights were set to expire. De Laurentiis re-negotiated the rights from the author, adding to them the rights to the Dune sequels (written and unwritten).

          • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)

            by VincentFreeman (1175087) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @12:33AM (#31018896)

            Excuse me, but I'm calling serious bullshit on that!

            You call bullshit? Alright, I'll raise one interview with Frank Herbert & David Lynch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zw10o48NoE [youtube.com]

            Give it a good listen. Fascinating stuff.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by KnownIssues (1612961)

            That's the article's TITLE, not Herbert's quote! The point of a citation is to tell you how to find the reference, not to reproduce the reference itself. But, so that you might easily see it with your own two eyes, here is the link to the full article: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20088153,00.html [people.com]

            And in case you're too lazy to do that, the actual quote:

            It's rare to find an author who feels that a director hasn't massacred his work, but after seeing a rough cut of Dune, Herbert is pleased. "They've got it. It begins as Dune does. And I hear my dialogue all the way through. There are some interpretations and liberties, but you're gonna come out knowing you've seen Dune." His reaction to the rock singer Sting, who plays the villainous Feyd-Raucha, "Ah, he can act!" As for those infamous sandworms, created by John (Star Wars) Dykstra and Carlo (E.T.) Rambaldi, Herbert was impressed: "They're realistic and scary. These are no Japanese monsters rising out from the deep to eat Kyoto."

            There you go, Herbert's words, in his own words, from the words he used himself. Wish I had thought to take the time to do that to begin

        • Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Angst Badger (8636) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @11:24PM (#31018538)

          Ironically, Frank Herbert seems to be one of the movie's biggest fans*. Perhaps he understood that a movie is by nature a different form of story-telling than a book and that a direct translation is not always the best solution.

          Agreed. Expecting the movie version of a book, especially one as complex as Dune, to be a faithful copy of the original is a bit like expecting the sculpture version of a symphony to be a faithful copy. A novel is not a movie script, much less a novel. And frankly, despite some excesses, Lynch's version is, as the original poster said, pretty faithful to the "feel" of the novel.

          Where Lynch's version goes wrong is that it makes it seem like the story is all about Paul Atreides and that the Bene Gesserit are just some minor detail on the side, which is actually the reverse of the emphasis in the series of novels as a whole: Paul is just one of many tools of the Bene Gesserit in a series of stories that are, in the end, all about the Bene Gesserit. That said, I'm not sure how you could tell that story within the brief confines of a movie. We are, after all, talking about a novel that spends the first hundred and fifty pages just introducing the major characters and themes.

          I will give Lynch's version this much: prior to seeing it, I had tried on three separate occasions to get through the confusing tedium of those first hundred and fifty pages and given up. After I saw the movie, I was motivated to make a fourth attempt and ended up reading the book in its entirety that weekend, and then read the remaining books, one per day, over the next week. (I was a freshman in high school at the time -- I wish I had that kind of time to read now.) And yes, it was immediately obvious how far from the novel the movie was, but considered as a thing in itself, the movie is actually not bad at all. It's visually stunning, has some first rate actors, and has some genuinely stirring moments.

          The people who bitch the loudest about Lynch's adaptation of Dune will be the ones begging for mercy when someone finally does a faithful adaptation of God Emperor of Dune. I'd love to pitch that to the studios: "It's a good six seasons worth of a human-sandworm hybrid sitting in a hole in the ground, thinking to himself, until the climactic final episode when he knowingly allows himself to be lured to the surface by a cute chick and he falls to his death from a bridge. And for a followup, we have easily another ten seasons of the spinoff series, Everyone Kills Duncan Idaho. It's television gold, I tell ya!"

    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:03PM (#31015574)

      Hell, I've read all the original books (written by Frank himself) and I still don't think I could summarize the plot.

      • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

        by MadnessASAP (1052274) <madnessasap@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:20PM (#31015814)

        Rampaging cult overthrows galactic government.

        Done, now was that so hard? :-)

        • Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:55PM (#31016308)

          Yep, that's the gyst of it, but to really understand the details you need to know so much backstory that even after reading it 2 or 3 times I can't relate it. I'm modded funny above but I was only half joking, I understand the plot but would not be able to relate it to someone else. To approach a detailed summary, you need to have an understanding of:

          -The Empire
          -The CHOAM
          -The Guild
          -How the three above fit together
          -The distribution of atomics throughout the empire
          -The Bene Gesserit and all that that implies especially:
              -The Missionaria Protectiva, the story doesn't make sense without it
              -The Genetic Memories
              -Their search for the Kwisatz Haderach and what that is
          -The Fremen, especially difficult given their essentially Arabic culture, not one audiences are familiar with
          -The technology, especially
              -Shields
              -Las Guns
              -Their rather explosive interactions
          -The spice and how the worms fit in with it (which may not have even been related in the first book come to think of it).

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by es330td (964170)

            The spice and how the worms fit in with it (which may not have even been related in the first book come to think of it).

            IIRC, there is an appendix in "Dune" by Pardot Kynes discussing the triangle of worms, little makers and pre-spice mass that explains everything.

        • Let me fix that... (Score:5, Informative)

          by naasking (94116) <naasking&gmail,com> on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @11:52PM (#31018674) Homepage

          Let me fix that:

          Rampaging cult overthrows galactic government with the help of hallucinogenic drug everyone eats with breakfast .

          There, much better.

        • Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by argStyopa (232550) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @10:54AM (#31022284) Journal

          "Rampaging cult overthrows galactic government."

          That's so 1990.
          This is 2010:
          "Drug-funded religious terrorists led by charismatic, evasive leader hiding in desert caves attacks and successfully overthrows hegemonic commercially-based government." ...on that basis, I'm surprised the books haven't been banned.

      • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Blakey Rat (99501) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @07:34PM (#31016726)

        Just wait about a decade, all the details will slip away and your entire memory of it will look something like this:

        Kid goes to a different planet, some fat dude wants to kill him, he runs away and hides with crazy cave-people who drink their own piss, something about a big worm, then he comes back and kills everybody, oh and there's a huge spaceship and some lizard-looking dude who lives in a giant bong, anyway he kills the emperor and becomes the king of everything and then his little sister is creepy for awhile.

        The second book I remember as follows:

        Uh, there's a weapon that's kind of like a nuke except it just melts down instead of exploding and the kid gets hit by it and his eyes melt but he can see anyway, a bunch of other stuff happens too probably?

        So you see, time makes summarizing anything easy!

  • Nice! (Score:5, Funny)

    by pwnies (1034518) * <j@jjcm.org> on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @05:56PM (#31015440) Homepage Journal
    Nice! I cant wait for a sci-fi movie that's entirely done in 3D where the main character bonds with an idigenous species who dwell on a planet that has a resource unobtainable anywhere else in the universe! They should get James Cameron to direct it!
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by cohensh (1358679)
      They can take blue spice eyes to a whole new level. Blue spice people!
    • Re:Nice! (Score:5, Funny)

      by FooAtWFU (699187) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:01PM (#31015536) Homepage
      You forgot "gains the trust of the indigenous populations and rebels against the imperialist ruling establishment exploiting said resource in a holy war."

      The difference in Dune is that only the eyes are blue.

      • Re:Nice! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Grishnakh (216268) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @07:18PM (#31016550)

        Dune was a little more complicated than that. Paul Atreides didn't "rebel" against anyone; he fought against the Harkonnens (a rival clan) and their ally, the Emperor. He never betrayed his own feudal clan, the Atreides; they were betrayed by the Emperor.

        Moreover, in Avatar, there was no "holy war", only a war of self-preservation. The humans wanted to eliminate or displace the natives, the natives didn't want to move or be killed off, so they fought back. The motivations for the Fremen to ally with Paul Atreides were more complicated than that.

    • Re:Nice! (Score:5, Funny)

      by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:37PM (#31016050)

      Pshaw! Who'd ever go to see a movie like that? That's crazy talk!

  • by proslack (797189) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @05:57PM (#31015474) Journal
    Alternatively, they could use Frank Herbert's screenplay that he wrote for the original Dune movie (rejected for length; hardly an issue given the length of recent epics). That would arguably be closest to his own vision.
  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @05:58PM (#31015492)

    Unless it is as close as the SciFi one or better we can do without. 3D is a neat effect at first, but just like explosions don't make Michael Bay movies watchable neither will 3D rescue an abortion of a film.

  • Meh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bsDaemon (87307) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @05:59PM (#31015504)
    Maybe, because I was never really into 'Dune' in the first place that's why I'm not really excited one way or another except to say that it's pretty lame to do a remake of a movie that was fine enough the way it was just to be able to slap on some new effects and try and milk a few more dollars out of people so that they can get a rehash of a story they already know. This criticism isn't specific to Dune, but to a bunch of other films as well. Just sayin'.
  • Oh, Hubris! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mujadaddy (1238164) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @05:59PM (#31015514)

    "recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness."

    Some of us LIKE that movie. Frankly, no Dune movie can succeed without Brad Dourif.

    • Re:Oh, Hubris! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by realmolo (574068) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:21PM (#31015826)

      The Lynch version, as a movie, isn't that great. Though it's definitely worth watching once.

      But the LOOK of it is fucking awesome. It's absolutely perfect. It's going to be hard to beat, purely from a design standpoint. Lynch's vision of decaying/dirty semi-clockwork technology and culture was absolutely spot-on. "Dune" is dirty and creepy and weird (no pun intended). It has to be.

  • Still gonna suck. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iluvcapra (782887) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:00PM (#31015522)
    "Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel. It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.
  • by gblackwo (1087063) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:01PM (#31015540) Homepage
    I'm too lazy to google it- but I do remember watching one for nine hours over three dvds without getting up! Can I have trophy?
  • Cults (Score:2, Interesting)

    I guess I'm just a cult member. I happen to like David Lynch's version. I know it's not the most accurate, but I thought it was fairly well done for its time - and how many film adaptations are well done? Some of the Harry Potter movies (Order of the Phoenix being the worst offender) are so off it's funny, and The Lost World (Jurassic Park 2) didn't resemble the book at all. I also really enjoyed the principal actors - Kyle McLachlan, and just enough Patrick Stewart to lend some legitimacy.
    • Re:Cults (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Knara (9377) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:08PM (#31015626)

      I haven't read any Harry Potter and I have found all the HP films to be very enjoyable, personally.

    • Re:Cults (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @08:30PM (#31017268) Journal

      Some of the Harry Potter movies (Order of the Phoenix being the worst offender) are so off it's funny

      I thought that film was one of the best. The book had about 300 pages that a half-decent editor would have cut. Nothing of interest happened; no plot, not character development. The film only covered the events in the other 400 pages.

      In contrast, The Half Blood Prince felt like they'd pulled all of the pages out of the book, thrown two thirds of them away, and then filmed the rest verbatim in a random order.

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:02PM (#31015556)
    It will always be in the process of being created with the best 3D effects available to film?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:02PM (#31015560)

    The David Lynch interpretation was brilliant. It was artistic, it looked great, had excellent sets and cinematography. The literal stage play, I mean the SciFi production, was flat, dull lacking in emotion and life as it tried to accurately portray the novel. Nerds! Stop it! Movies are cinematic interpretations of a novel or another body of work, for it to work in the movie format, many things must change. The David Lynch version had a great score, had actually emotional scenes, the Baron was excellent, Sting brilliant. Yes you hate it because it wasn't accurate, fine but you don't respect excellent cinema either.

    I hope this version pisses you particular nerds off by being cinematic, beautiful and daring in the liberties it takes with Herbert's fine novel. Really now it can't be any worse than what his son has managed to accomplish.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mex (191941)

      The problem, my dear anonymous coward, is that we want entertainment, not art. If we get art along the entertainment, great!

      But we don't expect to go to a scifi movie and have what might as well be 2 hours of David Lynch jerking off in front of the audience (an opinion that movie snobs might hate but in my mind that's pretty much all he does in his movies).

      I don't claim to enjoy or even understand David Lynch's "art", but I can recognize when a movie based on a very awesome book is "crap".

  • by Flubb (1582363) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:04PM (#31015578)
    I'll probably watch it as soon as they're able to delete the images of Sting in a speedo from my consciousness.
  • Make it Long (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hardburn (141468) <hardburn@@@wumpus-cave...net> on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:05PM (#31015596)

    If the directors aren't allowed a LotR-level timescale, the best they can hope for is remaking the Lynch version. 6 hours, minimum, and yes, you will still have to cut stuff out at that length.

    Also, Alec Newman should be run straight out of Hollywood. If his whiny, young Luke Skywalkerish version of Paul didn't convince you, his appearance on Enterprise should have.

  • by Paul Rose (771894) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:06PM (#31015612)
    I thought the SciFi network mini series a few years back was pretty faithful. I'd watch a new 3D big effects version, but it hardly seems necessary.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by TheMeuge (645043)

      Wasn't the SciFi network mini-series good enough?

      Good enough to do what:

      - to ensure no further remakes are made out of shame?
      - to strengthen the eye muscles of anyone who'd read the book by either rolling their eyes or attempting to close them after they've already been shut?
      - to harvest a few gigawatts of electricity from the wild dynamo of Frank Herbert rolling in his grave?

      Before they made that movie they should've considered whether they needed to add any more disgrace to the Herbert estate. Hasn't Brian Herbert done enough damage already?

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:17PM (#31015756)

    "Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel. It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.

    No. It's a difficult adaptation but not impossible. LOTR was thought to be impossible. I think Peter Jackson did a bang-up job. Your mileage may vary.

    The mini-series adaptations were noble in effort if flawed in execution. The problem with something like Dune is that it really demands to be made into a full season. Take the first three novels since they were meant to be the original story. Season 1, season 2, season 3. 13 episodes a piece. That's more than enough time to tell the story. As it stands, the miniseries would probably be incomprehensible to anyone not already familiar with the story. And trying to do it in a single movie? Impossible. Madness.

  • Animate it!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RevWaldo (1186281) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:24PM (#31015888)
    And I don't mean "animate as in Avatar" or "animate as in UP" I mean "animate as in Akira, Paprika, Metropolis, etc. etc. (Pity I can't think of any comparable American productions. The Lion King?) A twelve-hour series would do Dune justice, but I'd settle for a three-hour film.
  • by l3v1 (787564) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:25PM (#31015892)
    recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness

    Hell, erase the memories of a fantastic adaptation by a fantastic director and replace it by a freaking 3D toystory?

    kind of movie that has the scope to be 3D

    Has the scope? Geez, the world is 3D, genius, and everything in it has the scope to be 3D.

    I've had my fair share of avatar movies for this decade thankyouverymuch.

    Anyway, it seems we just should rest this "movie" thing for a few decades, since it seems they either just make movies that are crap or they think creating new ideas is uncool and just keep remaking worse and worse versions of previous movies.

    It is an industry alright. So we should treat it as such: pay, watch, and if it doesn't deliver what was promised take it back and demand the money. Or do you keep a mower if it doesn't cut the freaking grass?
  • Do we need another (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jim Hall (2985) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:28PM (#31015944) Homepage

    Do we really need another attempt to re-make 'Dune'? Yes, David Lynch's 1984 film version was really, really bad. Unwatchable, even. But I thought the healing process was complete with SciFi's Dune [imdb.com] (2000) miniseries.

    I watched the miniseries (but not the followup, Children of Dune [imdb.com] (2003)) and thought it was great. They did an amazing job with the story. With a 3-part miniseries, you can take your time with the story, so it doesn't feel so rushed. Sure, it had William Hurt in it (I find him boring) but was good nonetheless! :-)

    I'm not convinced we need another re-make of this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by EpsCylonB (307640)

      I thought children was better than the first mini series, I didn't like the way paul was portrayed in the first one, but for some reason he didn't bother me in the second even though its the same actor.

      The second one was a lot less theatrical as well, presumably because they had a bigger budget.

  • hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @06:37PM (#31016056) Homepage
    recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness.

    The "images" were actually quite well-done. Lynch's Dune suffered from several problems, but the visual effects and costumes weren't one of them. And the Brian Eno score was really good (I even liked the end Toto instrumental).
  • by asdf7890 (1518587) on Wednesday February 03, 2010 @08:19PM (#31017178)

    Is anyone else sick to the back teeth of "IN 3D"!!!!!1!!!!!?

    It seems to be that they think no one will go see any film unless it has IN 3D writ large at the end of the trailer and on every poster, and they the film makers think that some 3D element will somehow make their film great whether it is or not without being IN 3D.

    I know such singleton action is meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but I for one will make an effort to get through 2010 without seeing any film that shouts the IN 3D gimick in its pitch.

    Please tell me I'm not the only one. Please tell me the average cinema goer isn't a Bay fan wanting nothing more than EXPLOSIONS IN 3D who is going to be suckered into thinking this new gimmick is what makes films great...

Pause for storage relocation.

Working...