Saw "DUNE" Last Night

[Billy_Kinetta]

I won't say too much since it's so early, but well worth seeing. For those who haven't read the book, the necessary expository is handled naturally and you'll pick up the glossary as you go.

Acting is quite good. The film closely follows the novel but some sequences are shuffled. Visually stunning at times. The friggin' ornithopters are tres-neato.

The first time Mohiam used the Voice in the Gom Jabbar test made me chuckle. No shuffling around.

Anyway, a different approach from the Lynch version, expected because Lynch after all is Lynch. For all its faults and added weirdness the 1984 version remains a fun and beautiful film to watch.

Villeneuve's is more a straight shot. No dumb weirding modules. Unfortunately, no Francesca Annis either, but it's visually stunning in its own way.

If he can pull off the second half, he'll have the definitive film version of Dune.

​

 

[JoeB131]

I kind of liked the 1984 Lynch Version. (Although the extended cut they took his name off of is better.) If it had a flaw, it tried to jam 600 pages of book into a three hour movie. It sounds like they are breaking this one up into two movies to make it work.

I also thought the 2000 Sci-Fi Channel version (No, no, it's the SyFy channel now) was pretty well done, and it had enough room to let the story breathe.

It seems like you have read the book (as I have) so you can follow what is going on. My question is, if I had never read the book, would I be able to follow this movie?

I'll probably see it this weekend and let you know what I thought.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Hard to say about non-readers. The information is laid out pretty well (though abbreviated) as the early scenes progress, but some people are thick and need to be hand-held through stuff.

I remember a glossary sheet being handed out at the Lynch premiere in 1984. Still have it filed somewhere.

 

[JoeB131]

Hard to say about non-readers. The information is laid out pretty well (though abbreviated) as the early scenes progress, but some people are thick and need to be hand-held through stuff.

I remember a glossary sheet being handed out at the Lynch premiere in 1984.

Some print editions of the novel also had glossaries, or at least the one I read back in the 80's did.

Again, looking forward to the film, hope to discuss it with you at length after seeing it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Some print editions of the novel also had glossaries, or at least the one I read back in the 80's did.

Again, looking forward to the film, hope to discuss it with you at length after seeing it.

Early editions had one, and a few appendices on the political and ecological set up of the novel.

 

[DudleySmith]

Liked the first book or two of the series, especialy the first one. Never made it through the first 10 minutes of the first movie. If this is a more serious attempt at following the first book, I will try and see it. If it tires to throw in a lot of stuff from the sequels I'll probably skip it.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe's Review of Dune

as Endless as a Desert.



There is probably no point in warning about spoilers for this film. You’ve probably read the book or seen either the 1984 Dino DeLaurentis version or the 2000 Sci-Fi mini-series…. If you’ve seen either one of those, you’ve seen this movie. This movie only covers half the story, the sequel we’ll probably never get to see will cover the other half.

So how does it stack up? Not well, in my opinion. It’s a loud, dull action movie, with an ear-splitting soundtrack. It has all the scenes you might have seen if you watched either of those two versions, but didn’t do them nearly as well.

At two and a half hours, it drags on. The Lynch version of the film was 137 minutes, and got the whole story in. This film leaves key aspects out, and only tells half the story, and it just goes on and on and on.

To start, let’s talk about characters. DeLaurentis got a cast of largely unknowns back then, many of whom went on to distinguish themselves. Kyle MacLachlin, Patrick Steward, Dean Stockwell, Sean Young. Heck, even the little girl actress, Alicia Witt, went on to have a career as an adult. This movie uses a cast of people you’ve heard of, and their screen time is often based on “I know who that is.” Other characters, more critical ones, were kind of shuffled to the side.

I’ll give two examples. A key point in the book is that the betrayal by Dr. Yeuh, (played here with no charisma by Cheng Chen) because as a Suk Physician, taking a human life is against his conditioning. No build up, no nothing, he just does it.

On the other hand, because Duncan Idaho is played by Jason Momoa, he gets a lot more screen time than his presence in the book. (Duncan’s clones become a much more important part of later books, but that’s neither here nor there.) His final fight scene goes on interminably here, while they were quickly brushed over in the previous versions.

Similarly, while Peter DeVries is a key player in the book, here they don’t even mention him by name, and he’s just “Henchman who gets poisoned”. Other characters are omitted altogether, including Emperor Shaddam, Princess Irulan and Feyd Ruatha. Concepts such as the Mentats, Guild, Bene Geserit, are kind of glossed over to get to those sweet, sweet action sequences.

Again, trippy as it was, the 1984 version did this better. The Sci-Fi Channel did it better…

Now, this film really LOOKS good. The visuals are immersive. But without strong characters and story to back them up, what’s the point. It’s almost like watching a Transformers movie. The thing is, they HAD strong characters and a story… they just didn’t use them.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Agree on the character stunting and the slow take-off, but it does manage to lay out the basic story up to Jamis. Great production values. I get the feeling Deni had the more dynamic Part 2 on his mind the whole time and is in a hurry to get to it. Still well worth seeing.

As to Lynch's, there is an alternative edit available - "DUNE - The Alternative Edition Redux", by a fan called Spicediver. Not the packed-with filler reedit seen in the 80s-90s. Adds several scenes, cuts out some of the goofy stuff, rearranges the soundtrack a bit. Very well done. Possibly definitive of the Lynch version.

For comparisons, some critics cited DeMille's The Ten Commandments for Lynch's magnified epic approach. Others David Lean's straightforward Laurence of Arabia for the current remake.

Apples and oranges. Both edible. Ornithopters get extra points, however.

 

[petro]

Some print editions of the novel also had glossaries, or at least the one I read back in the 80's did.

Again, looking forward to the film, hope to discuss it with you at length after seeing it.

The novel I have has an extensive glossary of terms, maps of the planet, information regarding the various families and economic systems.
I probably read it a dozen times and saw the original movie about double that.

Was a huge fan of Frank Herbert's writings and have always wished to see the Destination Void series put to film. Although many who have read second book The Jesus Incident will see many parallels to the planet Pandora in the movie Avatar. A planet extremely dangerous to humans with sentient plant life and an apparent world consciousness connecting all life called Avata in the novel.

Produced by Dune Entertainment apparently.
Odd coincidence?

 

[petro]

Joe's Review of Dune

as Endless as a Desert.



There is probably no point in warning about spoilers for this film. You’ve probably read the book or seen either the 1984 Dino DeLaurentis version or the 2000 Sci-Fi mini-series…. If you’ve seen either one of those, you’ve seen this movie. This movie only covers half the story, the sequel we’ll probably never get to see will cover the other half.

So how does it stack up? Not well, in my opinion. It’s a loud, dull action movie, with an ear-splitting soundtrack. It has all the scenes you might have seen if you watched either of those two versions, but didn’t do them nearly as well.

At two and a half hours, it drags on. The Lynch version of the film was 137 minutes, and got the whole story in. This film leaves key aspects out, and only tells half the story, and it just goes on and on and on.

To start, let’s talk about characters. DeLaurentis got a cast of largely unknowns back then, many of whom went on to distinguish themselves. Kyle MacLachlin, Patrick Steward, Dean Stockwell, Sean Young. Heck, even the little girl actress, Alicia Witt, went on to have a career as an adult. This movie uses a cast of people you’ve heard of, and their screen time is often based on “I know who that is.” Other characters, more critical ones, were kind of shuffled to the side.

I’ll give two examples. A key point in the book is that the betrayal by Dr. Yeuh, (played here with no charisma by Cheng Chen) because as a Suk Physician, taking a human life is against his conditioning. No build up, no nothing, he just does it.

On the other hand, because Duncan Idaho is played by Jason Momoa, he gets a lot more screen time than his presence in the book. (Duncan’s clones become a much more important part of later books, but that’s neither here nor there.) His final fight scene goes on interminably here, while they were quickly brushed over in the previous versions.

Similarly, while Peter DeVries is a key player in the book, here they don’t even mention him by name, and he’s just “Henchman who gets poisoned”. Other characters are omitted altogether, including Emperor Shaddam, Princess Irulan and Feyd Ruatha. Concepts such as the Mentats, Guild, Bene Geserit, are kind of glossed over to get to those sweet, sweet action sequences.

Again, trippy as it was, the 1984 version did this better. The Sci-Fi Channel did it better…

Now, this film really LOOKS good. The visuals are immersive. But without strong characters and story to back them up, what’s the point. It’s almost like watching a Transformers movie. The thing is, they HAD strong characters and a story… they just didn’t use them.

Well, that's a buzzkill, but I will still definitely watch it.

 

[fncceo]

Similarly, while Peter DeVries is a key player in the book, here they don’t even mention him by name, and he’s just “Henchman who gets poisoned”. Other characters are omitted altogether, including Emperor Shaddam, Princess Irulan and Feyd Ruatha. Concepts such as the Mentats, Guild, Bene Geserit, are kind of glossed over to get to those sweet, sweet action sequences

...

 

[boedicca]

Joe's Review of Dune

as Endless as a Desert.



There is probably no point in warning about spoilers for this film. You’ve probably read the book or seen either the 1984 Dino DeLaurentis version or the 2000 Sci-Fi mini-series…. If you’ve seen either one of those, you’ve seen this movie. This movie only covers half the story, the sequel we’ll probably never get to see will cover the other half.

So how does it stack up? Not well, in my opinion. It’s a loud, dull action movie, with an ear-splitting soundtrack. It has all the scenes you might have seen if you watched either of those two versions, but didn’t do them nearly as well.

At two and a half hours, it drags on. The Lynch version of the film was 137 minutes, and got the whole story in. This film leaves key aspects out, and only tells half the story, and it just goes on and on and on.

To start, let’s talk about characters. DeLaurentis got a cast of largely unknowns back then, many of whom went on to distinguish themselves. Kyle MacLachlin, Patrick Steward, Dean Stockwell, Sean Young. Heck, even the little girl actress, Alicia Witt, went on to have a career as an adult. This movie uses a cast of people you’ve heard of, and their screen time is often based on “I know who that is.” Other characters, more critical ones, were kind of shuffled to the side.

I’ll give two examples. A key point in the book is that the betrayal by Dr. Yeuh, (played here with no charisma by Cheng Chen) because as a Suk Physician, taking a human life is against his conditioning. No build up, no nothing, he just does it.

On the other hand, because Duncan Idaho is played by Jason Momoa, he gets a lot more screen time than his presence in the book. (Duncan’s clones become a much more important part of later books, but that’s neither here nor there.) His final fight scene goes on interminably here, while they were quickly brushed over in the previous versions.

Similarly, while Peter DeVries is a key player in the book, here they don’t even mention him by name, and he’s just “Henchman who gets poisoned”. Other characters are omitted altogether, including Emperor Shaddam, Princess Irulan and Feyd Ruatha. Concepts such as the Mentats, Guild, Bene Geserit, are kind of glossed over to get to those sweet, sweet action sequences.

Again, trippy as it was, the 1984 version did this better. The Sci-Fi Channel did it better…

Now, this film really LOOKS good. The visuals are immersive. But without strong characters and story to back them up, what’s the point. It’s almost like watching a Transformers movie. The thing is, they HAD strong characters and a story… they just didn’t use them.

Thank you. I won't waste my time on the movie.

How on earth the integrity of the story can be maintained by omitting/minimizing the characters and concepts you identified is beyond me. I saw Aquaman and GOT, that's enough Momoa beefcake pour moi.

The 2000 series will remain my favorite version of Dune.

 

[fncceo]

I saw Aquaman and GOT, that's enough Momoa beefcake

There is NEVER enough Momoa.

 

[boedicca]

There is NEVER enough Momoa.

Au contraire. All action and bulging muscles doesn't compete with a good story, well developed plot lines, excellent dialogue, great casting, and pacing.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Thank you. I won't waste my time on the movie.

Film appreciation is quite subjective. Never accept the word of any critic.

Personally, I hated the miniseries.

 

[boedicca]

Film appreciation is quite subjective. Never accept the word of any critic.

Personally, I hated the miniseries.

Que sera sera. I love the miniseries.

 

[fncceo]

Au contraire. All action and bulging muscles doesn't compete with a good story, well developed plot lines, excellent dialogue, great casting, and pacing.

Momoa and Gadot... either of them could read the phone book for three hours and I'd watch.

 

[JoeB131]

Apples and oranges. Both edible. Ornithopters get extra points, however.

There you are on the Ornithopters. I thought they looked more like Dragonflies than birds, and I always thought an Ornithopter should act more like a bird.

 

[JoeB131]

Film appreciation is quite subjective. Never accept the word of any critic.

Personally, I hated the miniseries.

Que sera sera. I love the miniseries.

I thought the miniseries was okay, although "The SciFi Channel did it better" is not a phrase that gets used often.

I also give them bonus points for doing a followup series for "Children of Dune/Dune Messiah"

 

[fncceo]

Film appreciation is quite subjective. Never accept the word of any critic.

Personally, I hated the miniseries.

The miniseries was closer to the novel ... if only because they had more time. Although, the mini-series was burdened with SciFi Channel special budget effects that didn't match the epic scope of the book.

The other problem with "Dune" in a visual medium is that much of the book consists of character's inner monologue. Something Lynch attempted to work with his annoying voice overs in the Director's Cut.

That's the problem with "Dune" as a movie in general, it doesn't lend itself well to the screen or to modern movie-goers (who demand an explosive car chase in "Jane Eyre"). In that case, you only have two choices... make a weird, awkward film that is visually stunning but need to be explained ... OR ... cut out all the literature and just film the cool bits.

We should just consider ourselves lucky that Jodorosky's "Dune" never got made.