Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dune Remake Could Mean 3D Sandworms

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the that's-3d-I-can-get-behind dept.

Movies 589

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."

cancel ×

589 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmmm... (4, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#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... (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015480)

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... (5, Interesting)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Hmmm... (1, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015838)

None of this 10-minute introduction crap which establishes everything you need to know to understand the characters' motivations.

So basically you just want a lot of explosions (or whatever the Dune equivalent would be) and no story?

Re:Hmmm... (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015988)

That would be easy, just get George Lucas to do it.

ain't broke, don't fix it (2, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015884)

" I don't care what's in the books - the Lynch movie is what the Dune universe is to me"

You, good sir, are probably speaking for about 90% of the population that has seen the original 1984 Dune movie.

My issue is his quote " 'Peter had an approach which was not mine at all, and we're starting over again'...he recognises** that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness."

Probably not a good idea, to remake a movie completely different from the from the popular original. I'm just saying ain't broke, don't fix it. I'd watch the exact 1984 Dune redone with fresh graphics, but I'm not sure about erasing the original from our minds. I think we liked the original and would like to see more of that.

**it's recognizes, with a z, unless the guy's in britian but i don't see a .uk domain. Sorry for being a grammer nazi when I'm far from perfect, but it's kinda a pain to quote the article and have Chrome tell me I'm misspelling words I didn't write.

Re:ain't broke, don't fix it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015984)

Sorry for being a grammer nazi when I'm far from perfect...

You're right; you are far from perfect. To begin with, it's a (potential) spelling error, and spelling has fuck all to do with grammar. In the same breath, you also misspelled grammar. Way to go.

Here's a tip for the future: Instead of apologizing for being a grammer nazi,

just fucking skip the attempted nazi-ing all together. You'd look less like a jack ass, and save both of us some typing.

Re:ain't broke, don't fix it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31016062)

**it's recognizes, with a z, unless the guy's in britian but i don't see a .uk domain. Sorry for being a grammer nazi when I'm far from perfect, but it's kinda a pain to quote the article and have Chrome tell me I'm misspelling words I didn't write.

You must not quote much here.

Re:ain't broke, don't fix it (2, Interesting)

hardburn (141468) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016068)

"Popular"? Lynch distanced himself from the film, the critics hated it, and it was a box office failure. It was a 6 hour movie compressed into 2 hours, and had "weirding modules" in a clumsy and unnecessary attempt to put technology in the place of the more mystical aspects of the story. It went too deep without explanation for those who didn't read the books, and was too shallow for those who had.

I think you're vastly overstating the popularity of that version. It's completely forgettable.

Re:ain't broke, don't fix it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31016086)

**it's recognizes, with a z, unless the guy's in britian but i don't see a .uk domain. Sorry for being a grammer nazi when I'm far from perfect, but it's kinda a pain to quote the article and have Chrome tell me I'm misspelling words I didn't write.

It's 's' unless it's American English. No, I don't mean it in the Microsoft way of dictation, but rather the international standard.
Honestly, only Americans could bastardize the word bastardise.

Re:ain't broke, don't fix it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31016116)

What are you talking about? Dune (1984) was one of the biggest flops in movie history.

it cost 40,000,000.00 to make and grossed 29,750,00.00 and some change.

That's not 'popular.' Cult classic, sure.

Lynch's Dune -- Like a movie made by aliens (5, Interesting)

Yergle143 (848772) | more than 4 years ago | (#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... (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015986)

The miniseries was a nice journey though. The moment where Alia is in the court with Harkonen before the return of Muad'dib, and she screams out "MY BROTHER COMES!" was just brilliant.

Re:Hmmm... (4, Insightful)

KnownIssues (1612961) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:Hmmm... (5, Funny)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#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... (4, Funny)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015814)

Rampaging cult overthrows galactic government.

Done, now was that so hard? :-)

Re:Hmmm... (1, Troll)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015822)

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

That's because, by the time you get to the last two or three books, it's purely intellectual masturbation on the part of Herbert. The Dune series was the biggest test for my "if I start a series, I finish it" rule. The first book is very good, the next two were okay (I enjoyed them), the fourth book was still interesting on a certain level, if a over the top. The last two books were sewage. The complexity goes through the roof, but it doesn't have a payoff. Summarizing the plot (not the details of the setting) of the first book is relatively simple, but by the last book you're trying to describe a plot involving psychically invisible Jews, nymphomaniac killer nuns, mind-absorbing shapeshifters. And that's on top of the weirdness in the original book (mile long sandworms that produce a chemical that lets you talk to your ancestors, see the future, double your lifespan and press your shirts). It's like he's trying to one-up himself solely by introducing more weirdness as opposed to engaging plot.

Re:Hmmm... (2, Interesting)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015968)

I thought the final book really sealed it off. It was a vision of true panspermia intentionally designed to insure the survival of their civilization.

When I first read it, I thought that just and excellent, but looking back, I think the point may have been to ask what exactly we are trying to preserve when we say we want to insure our survival as a race? Backstabbing and intrigue? The strong overpowering the weak?

I really don't think that it was as incoherent as it's often made out to be. Herbert was not just a hack churning out books.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016052)

Well, it's like this.

There is this guy. He had a family. They've got shipped to this planet. The planet's got desert with the nasty worms and stuff. And then there were these other people who, like, live in the desert.

Ok, and then comes these women ninjas.

Hope that helps.

Nice! (5, Funny)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015440)

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:Nice! (2, Funny)

cohensh (1358679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015466)

They can take blue spice eyes to a whole new level. Blue spice people!

Re:Nice! (5, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015536)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015538)

You're joking? I'd love to see hollywood do a film like that and not make it into a complete pile of shit.
I figure they've only got 12 or 13 more attempts before they have to re-shoot all the current films in 4D.

Re:Nice! (1)

KnownIssues (1612961) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015738)

You know, until you put it that way, it really wasn't so transparent to me. Now, it's like, duh!

Re:Nice! (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016018)

Somewhere in Colorado, Cartman is screaming: "God, DAMNIT!"

Re:Nice! (4, Funny)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016050)

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

Could this mean... (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015458)

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

No more weirding modules? Pretty please?

Why not just use Herbert's screenplay? (5, Interesting)

proslack (797189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015474)

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.

Re:Why not just use Herbert's screenplay? (3, Funny)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015546)

I keep trying to imagine Dune like Lord of the Rings but I keep needing to interrupt myself to go to the bathroom...

Re:Why not just use Herbert's screenplay? (2, Funny)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015960)

you need a fremen suit, duh...

Re:Why not just use Herbert's screenplay? (2, Funny)

Trebawa (1461025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016004)

That's what stillsuits are for.

Re:Why not just use Herbert's screenplay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015890)

It wouldn't necessarily make the best movie, though. Writing a good book and writing a good screenplay are two totally different beasts.

Unless it is as close as the SciFi one or better (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Unless it is as close as the SciFi one or bette (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015914)

neither will 3D rescue an abortion of a film

Oh, so you missed out on fashionable movies lately, or so it seems :)

Meh... (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#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'.

Re:Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015650)

The Dune movie was horrible, so was the mini series.
I have no hopes for this as it sounds like another special effects crapfest, nevertheless I'm glad someone's trying again.

Oh, Hubris! (5, Insightful)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 4 years ago | (#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! (5, Insightful)

realmolo (574068) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Oh, Hubris! (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015828)

Seems to me that the Lynch film was a closer representation than the SyFy version, which could not even get the hair color of lead characters right.

Then again, perhaps because of who was on staff for the film.

I love how all these directors want to fix/do it right/etc... instead of doing the story AS IS.

Yeah, I think the lynch version was the best by far, though I would prefer the following books more than doing the first again. Though I suppose our modern day sensibilities are not ready for Chapterhouse

Re:Oh, Hubris! (1)

pauls2272 (580109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016020)

I love how all these directors want to fix/do it right/etc... instead of doing the story AS IS.

I used to think as you do --- Then I saw WATCHMEN...

Sometimes religiously following the source material doesn't work in a movie.

Re:Oh, Hubris! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015854)

And some of us don't. It can only get better, since you start watching the Lynch film with the feeling that there is a great story to be told, and when it's run it's course, you feel like after watching any other film he bears the responsibility for - cheated by a film putting "being weird" above the story.

Re:Oh, Hubris! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015934)

...not to mention Patrick Stewart...

Re:Oh, Hubris! (1)

Trebawa (1461025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016016)

That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad; just that people should try to forget their preconceived notions of how everything should look.

Still gonna suck. (5, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015522)

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

Re:Still gonna suck. (0)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015588)

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

There are a couple of them like that, the real cerebral types. For instance: Ender's Game. (Not that Mr. Card hasn't been trying to get it filmed since 1992 [google.com] ).

Re:Still gonna suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015664)

Ender's Game is to Dune as the potato crisp is to the baked potato with sour cream and bacon bits.

Re:Still gonna suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015750)

Maybe, but some times you just want a couple of potato chips.

Re:Still gonna suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015774)

Ender's Game is to Dune as the potato crisp is to the baked potato with sour cream and bacon bits.

So... better then, right?

Re:Still gonna suck. (1)

mxpengin (516866) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015602)

I said the same about the lord of the rings. It kinda s#&ks in some aspects but I like it.(/me still prefers the books ).

Re:Still gonna suck. (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015932)

The Lord of the Rings movie isn't the same story as the book. It's fair to say it's broadly the same, in the same way The Hobbit is broadly the same story as The Lord of the Rings.

Re:Still gonna suck. (5, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015670)

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

Yes I think they should at least try to film a different unfilmable novel. How about Neuromancer or Ringworld?

Re:Still gonna suck. (0, Offtopic)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015692)

Once I sell all this Pets.com stock, I'm going to retire to LA and shop around my Illuminatus! Trilogy screenplay.

Re:Still gonna suck. (1)

HonIsCool (720634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016000)

Hmm, in what sense would Neuromancer be unfilmable?

Re:Still gonna suck. (2, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015704)

I used to think that about the Lord of the Rings though, and somehow that managed to become one of the most successful set of movies ever. It's not that I don't agree with you, just that I for one have been proven wrong before. The sheer weight of the massive backstory and unusual technology, combined with the basis in Arabic and other non-western cultures make it hard to make a mainstream version of Dune that is at all true to the books.

Re:Still gonna suck. (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015728)

You haven't read much science fiction.

Re:Still gonna suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015868)

You haven't either.

99% of science fiction books used rehashed plots with novel themes, spread on shallow characters and a one dimensional society.

Re:Still gonna suck. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015780)

I think the advances in CGI plus the example of the LOTR trilogy makes such assertions kind of dangerous.

Re:Still gonna suck. (2, Informative)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015804)

Yeah, right. That's what they said about Watchmen!

Re:Still gonna suck. (1)

Nukenbar (215420) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015994)

I don't know. I think I just watched it, but in a jungle. It was called Avatar.

Re:Still gonna suck. (1)

duanco (958176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016038)

not sure about that myself and believe me, I am a Dune fan ( went to a book signing once...NOT wearing a disguise...), even like the series put forth by his son Brian and Kevin Anderson....can it be filmed, absolutely, enough plot lines to provide 20 films (give or take of course). Is encouraging in that sick twisted way that they at least keep trying to get it off the ground. Here's to hoping.

Re:Still gonna suck. (4, Funny)

PaganRitual (551879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016098)

Battlefield Earth all but proved that great sci-fi books are often unfilmable.

Slam Lynch's version all you want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015528)

And all those 'Lynchian' crazy choices he made, but decades later, it is still the version(besides the book itself) that every future effort will be compared to. It takes unforgivable liberties, but it has a look and sets a mood and still gets people to read the damn books.

I liked the 1984 version! (1)

scotts13 (1371443) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015532)

At least compared to the made-for-TV siffy channel version. While not accurate to the book, the visual design was quite impressive, as were the 1980's vintage special effects.

How many remakes have their been? (2, Funny)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015540)

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?

Re:How many remakes have their been? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015594)

Wikipedia lists only two adaptations. I coulda sworn there were more. I know I'm sick of 'em.

Re:How many remakes have their been? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015878)

no, but you can get atrophy.

Cults (2, Interesting)

uvsc_wolverine (692513) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015552)

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 (4, Interesting)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015626)

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

Re:Cults (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015762)

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

What did you think of that great little dancing number the rival schools did during their entrance at the beginning of "Goblet of Fire"?

Re:Cults (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015842)

It's a kids movie made from a kids book. What did you expect?

Have a couple drinks then watch them, you will see they are fine. They are about as far from thinking man's films as you can get without having Michael Bay direct.

Re:Cults (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016006)

It's a kids movie made from a kids book. What did you expect?

A small measure of dignity?

Dune Nukem Forever? (2, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015556)

It will always be in the process of being created with the best 3D effects available to film?

Re:Dune Nukem Forever? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015744)

I first read the title as Duke Remake.

David Lynch movie was innaccurate but was ART (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#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:David Lynch movie was innaccurate but was ART (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015766)

My biggest problem was Jessica. She should not ever cry. What was great about her emotions was that she was in total control of them because of her training and willpower. Seeing her actually cry was completely contrary to many of her main character traits. And don't give me some bullshit about how it made her "just like the rest of us", that sucks. She wasn't like the rest of us. That was the point. Her outright defiance of her orders to have a daughter and not a son brought more than enough "humanity" to her character, and more than some sappy crying could ever do.

Re:David Lynch movie was innaccurate but was ART (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015768)

It was crap. Just as a movie it was shit, sting sucks, the scenes looked like left overs from mad max, and to add insult to injury it was poorly written.

I do agree, his son should just find a new line of work.

Re:David Lynch movie was innaccurate but was ART (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015926)

I found it entertaining for the most part. I think their depictions of Arrakis were brilliant.

However, I felt that the constant attempts at explaining the deep background of the Dune universe with little blurbs was misguided and awkward.

Re:David Lynch movie was innaccurate but was ART (1)

tzhuge (1031302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015824)

I have some special edition DVD of that movie... it may be all those things you say but it still cuts abruptly between scenes, and ends up a jumbled mess. I don't remember exactly, but it certainly felt like the movie takes 1hr to cover the 1/3 of the book, then 0.5hr to cover the rest.

Public's Consciousness? (4, Funny)

Flubb (1582363) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015578)

I'll probably watch it as soon as they're able to delete the images of Sting in a speedo from my consciousness.

Come on! Ya can't beat the Lynch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015592)

I see watered down action with completely known aesthetics coming our way.

Make it Long (2, Interesting)

hardburn (141468) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Wasn't the SciFi network mini-series good enough? (3, Insightful)

Paul Rose (771894) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:Wasn't the SciFi network mini-series good enoug (2, Funny)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015754)

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?

Re:Wasn't the SciFi network mini-series good enoug (1)

Paul Rose (771894) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016088)

I knew I'd get that -- I hear it quite a bit, so I must just be in the minority.
I read Dune several times before seeing any of the movies.
It was like nothing else I'd ever read -- the "afterglow" of Dune carried me through Dune Messiah, Children of Dune, God Emperor of Dune, each one losing me a little more. I never finished Heretics of Dune, so maybe I'm just not a true fan.
I even tried one of Brian Herbert's books (shudder -- I'll have agree with you there).
I was told the mini-series was bad, and I tried to hate it, but for some reason I just couldn't.
I don't think any film could give you the whole experience, the mini-series adaptation was a bit mechanical, but at least they tried not to leave stuff out.
I never caught the Children of Dune mini-series, so I can't comment on it.

Needs a sidekick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015640)

Mesa think isa great idea.

Re:Needs a sidekick (4, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015800)

Mesa think isa great idea.

And, you know what? I know we're trying to be more faithful to the original work, but this whole "butlerian jihad" bit really seems a minor point... How about we add some robots, huh?

Any hope they'll actually follow the story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31015746)

Like for example the hero of the story was a kid not an adult.

that's a matter of opinion (4, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

maybe i'm in a minority, but... (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015784)

I liked the 1984 version.

Dune 3D (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015830)

Don't sell beverages on movie theater and put the old version. You will have a 2D movie + thirst, a whole new dimension to it (and you won't need spice to know how everyone will feel at the end)

Need a full series, not another movie (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015852)

With all the books that Frank Herbert wrote about Dune, combined with all those written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson, there should be enough material to last for quite a while. As a bonus, all the summarization that would normally happen at the continuation of a series is already built into the Brian Herbert/Kevin J Anderson stuff. Hated it in the books, because I read them straight through. I would appreciate the mid-series summaries if spaced out by a week, though.

Re:Need a full series, not another movie (2, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015996)

Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson never wrote a single word in the Dune universe.

I've read all of them, just once, I've never dressed up as Paul, I don't know how to pronounce Bene Gesserit, and I still know more about Dune than they do.

3D Sandworms? (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015872)

I'd settle for a 3D script and characters...

Animate it!!! (2, Interesting)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

delete the images??? (2, Insightful)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 4 years ago | (#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?

Re:delete the images??? (1)

Pyrus.mg (1152215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016096)

Or do you keep a mower if it doesn't cut the freaking grass?

Yes I would, you insensitive clod! While we're at it, on a related note; Toyota can pry my sticky gas pedal out from under my cold dead foot!

Old Crazy Guy Review.... (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015910)

I cannot wait, not for the release of the film, but for the funny as heck review by the old crazy guy on you tube.

In Treatment (1)

xactuary (746078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015942)

1. Shoot the film from the perspective of the Shaddam's throne and characterize the freemen as your basic extremist/Jihadist types. The neocons will eat it up right up until the "evildoers" win, and then again claim Hollywood is anti-'merican. 2. Shoot the movie from the Bene Gesserit perspective and get funding in Israel. Invite Joe Lieberman to the premier gala. 3. Shoot the movie from the Shai Haluud perspective in an Disney-esque animated children's classic called "Sandworm Come Home". 4. Shoot the movie from the Guild space-folding perspective as a road movie. Any of the above will suck just as much as anything we're likely to see. Unless Frank "Old Blue Eyes" Sinatra sings the soundtrack, of course.

Do we need another (3, Interesting)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31015944)

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.

hmmm (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31016056)

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).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?