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!

SCI FI Channel To Produce Dune Sequel

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the water-worms-and-spice dept.

Television 203

Sardaukar writes: "In his first interview since completing the script for Frank Herbert's Children of Dune, Frank Herbert's Dune writer-director John Harrison revealed that the new miniseries will be adapted from both Dune Messiah and Children of Dune, the second and third books in Frank Herbert's best-selling series." I think the first miniseries is pretty impressive, which bodes well for the second.

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

Maybe this time they'll realize they are on TV. (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 13 years ago | (#96902)

Did anyone else notice how the actors in the original miniseries seemed to think they were in some sort of play? Listen to the way the enunciate their lines and completely stilt the dialog. Watch the poses the strike when the bad guys say something evil (right before they cackle evily). Watch the lighting change colors and shift based on the mood of the moment. This is the sort of mellodrama that really hurt the miniseries for me.

Just my 2 grams of spice.

Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.

Re:Too ambitious (1)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 13 years ago | (#96903)

Heh heh.. Er, yeah. Sorry.

Guess I had Stranger in my head from the parent post. This'll learn you never to try and sound intelligent following your run.

----

Re:What made the first so good (2)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 13 years ago | (#96904)

You think so? Personally, I found the way the whole place was interested in killing them rather scary.

I can stand a book that takes it's time to build tension (esp. in reflection of the Overlook's complete isolation), but the movie just confused me until later on when I got around to reading the book -- I didn't get the guy in the dog suit, for instance, until I read about him. Kubrick, regardless of the spelling of his name, would have been better off with just misc. self-explanatory hotel ghosts.

----

Re:Too ambitious (3)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 13 years ago | (#96905)

Reading Niven is like getting drunk on Coors -- it can be interesting and even engaging, but in the end just wasn't as worthwhile as you'd hoped.

Niven's stories are almost always entertaining while you're reading them, but the guy couldn't write an end to a story to save his life; I always felt jipped when I came to the end of a book.

Also, he falls into that Heinlein trap of not being able to bear killing his characters (tell me Lazarus shouldn't have died at the end of Stranger -- tell me that last chapter wasn't the most tacked-on POS you've ever read). Sure, he offed Teela, but I think it was just because he didn't know waht else to do with her -- Louis Wu and friends were always safe. I understand that it's nice to carry over all the really developed characters, but c'mon...

----

Why? (4)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 13 years ago | (#96906)

Oh, God, you've got to be kidding me.

That miniseries was absolutely painful -- I watched the whole thing just waiting for it to improve, and yet somehow the acting managed never to improve. Christ, the guy playing Paul made a certain young Jedi look like academy award material.

I think the real trouble is they tried to be *too* faithful to the book. It should be obvious that certain things work in print that just don't translate (and, actually, vice versa). I think whoever wrote the screenplay was too reverant to the whole Dune mythos to understand that someplace between that terrible movie and this terrible miniseries would lay a good screen interpretation.

I can only hope for major overhauls; I don't think I could watch another miniseries like that last one. They'll have exactly one episode to change my mind.

----

Re:What made the first so good (4)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 13 years ago | (#96907)

Couldn't disagree more with what you're saying.

Look, there are elements which make a great book and elements which make a great movie. Very few of these elements are in common between the two.

The best movie/book combinations are those in which the screenwriter uses the book for inspiration, then feels free to adjust the staging and the story in a way which will play well on film. Take Fight Club, for instance, or High Fidelity: same basic story, same basic themes, but the movie was a good movie because the changes needed for good translation were made.

On the other hand, think of the really close-to-the-book movies you've seen. Tend to suck, don't they? They either run really, really long or shave out a lot of the entertaining bits.

Of course, this isn't to say that all movies reinterpreted from books end up well, either: American Psycho (the movie) missed the raw, revolting, sarcastic nature or the book. The Shining (Kuberick's) was *boring*. Etc.

Still, I maintain that the only way to make these watchible is to roll the dice and take a chance to make them really entertaining on-screen instead of just lifting directly from the book.

----

Dune Miniseries? Yuck! (1)

Aaron M. Renn (539) | more than 13 years ago | (#96908)

I just got done watching the Dune miniseries that I had bought on DVD. Terrible. I mean, it was all I could do to watch the first episode, then I had to take a two week break to psyche myself up to see the next two. I mean, I suppose it is no worse than any other TV sf, but to hype it up as this wonderful reinterpretation of Dune is ridiculous. David Lynch's masterpiece (better than the book, IMO) already did Dune right the first time. There was no need for the first miniseries, much less the sequel. The first series was cheeseball enough.

Re:David Lynch, not well crafted? Huh? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 13 years ago | (#96913)

The new designs simply don't work. They just don't communicate to the viewer the same level of decadence that the film version did. This sort of thing works well enough for camp like Dr. Who or The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

However for Dune, it just doesn't go well with the story or it's themes.

A Dune miniseries really should have been something of a mix between what SciFi did and what the film was. SciFi should have also given a classic like Dune a real budget.

Re:I've been waiting a long time for this (2)

iabervon (1971) | more than 13 years ago | (#96914)

I'm frankly somewhat worried about the titles of the parts: I could sort of see the Messiah one (and it might be interesting to be trying to save someone other than yourself), but the Children of Dune one is just too much. I don't want to know how that guy ends up with children...

Re:Groovy. (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 13 years ago | (#96918)

If they're going to fix it like you fixed an animal (Uh, that was already done, thank you!) they can forget about it... :-)

Re:Nice to see the next Dune Story... (2)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 13 years ago | (#96919)

>why would you adapt TWO stories into one series

Herbert himself did this, by writing
Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune
concurrently. Dune Messiah and Dune have
so many story elements in common that it
must be a challenge to keep a screenplay
interesting. The books keep your attention
on other levels besides plot and local color,
but a movie adaptation has different issues.

Now, if someone wants to produce God Emperor,
I'd just LOVE to see a good, cruel yet benign, Leto II.

Re:sci - fi movies & quality (2)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 13 years ago | (#96920)

>scifi soaps such as Star Wars

If you compare and contrast elements of
Star Wars and Dune, you may find similarities
that will turn your stomach. Parts of the Star Wars universe and some key plot elements are quite obviously inspired by Dune.

Re:Nice to see the next Dune Story... (3)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 13 years ago | (#96921)



>I don't watch TV, so I don't know how the first >mini-series went.

I don't watch TV either, much, and certainly not
enough to be able to catch an entire miniseries.
I bought the Dune release on DVD, and hope that
all these things are released on DVD, as it's
the only way I'll see the whole series.

I love the Dune production because it undoes
some of the damage done by the Lynch debacle.
At least the sci-fi channel screenwriters
seem to have actually read the book first.
It appears they may have a different understanding of certain subtleties (and not-so
subtleties) of the story and the setting, but
it isn't really annoying. A few details of the
miniseries show an outstanding respect for the
novel.

Re:Too ambitious (2)

buffy (8100) | more than 13 years ago | (#96922)

Dune is just too ambitious for TV or even full length feature movies. There's not enough time even in a Roots-length mini-series, let a lone a mere six hours, to cover all the nuances adequately. Big chunks of it must be left out, so I don't know why anyone who has read and admired the series would want to intentionally butcher it for the small screen.

And if you made it as long as you suggest it'd take, only the hard core sci-fi'ers would spend their time watching it. We all seem to be forgetting that these people still have to produce something which would appeal to 75% or more of their target viewing audience. If you made it ungodly long (without making it a full-blown series) it'd be difficult to keep the viewing audience involved. It's hard to get most sobs to invest a lot of time in something that will not last. Sad, but true.

Also, a number of comments have been made about the wardrobe, etc...stuff that I will call the "stylistic" nature of the miniseries' approach to the story telling. I actually quite enjoyed the pomp of the costumes of those in the royal court and the great houses. This contrasted very well with the simplicity of Fremen existance.

Also, the miniseries' overall use of color, light, and darkness was very compelling. The scene that stands out in my mind is the final fight scene between Paul and the Harkonnen Nephew (damn...not Sting! what the hell was his name...grr...) There is a rising platform/dolly shot that shows your the fighters from an offangle overhead. The lighting consisted only of two powerful lights streaming in through the doorway. The contrasting light and dark lines were phenomenal.

All that said, yes, I liked it, but I also recognize a lot of the problems (don't even get me started on some of the "desert" sets.)

It's best to think of the book, the movie, and the mini-series as separate tellings of the same story. Each storyteller brings new details, and covers others. I think we're all just a little too caught up in the absolutivity of the book, because Herbert wrote it. Herbert created a universe that many people have taken and expanded in many directions. I think this is what Frank wanted, and is the best tribute that can ben given to the man.

Re:i hope so... (5)

PD (9577) | more than 13 years ago | (#96924)

I don't know why EVERY single time a book is made into a movie there's a grumpy guy going "the movie sucked ass". Is this part of human nature or something? Is there a gene for this? And if there is, can we breed that out because it's frickin' annoying.

I liked the first miniseries a whole lot. Yes, I've read the books, and I know that things were changed. But big deal! What were you expecting from television? Every medium is different, and I hate to break it to you, a TV show is not a book. You can do things in books that you can't do in television. So when you say that the Dune miniseries "sucked ass" were you thinking to yourself "this Dune isn't nearly as good or artistic as 'Golden Girls'?" I can personally think of only a few things that "sucked ass" less than the Dune miniseries, such as Babylon 5. Actually, that's about the only one I can think of.

This is good news... I hope (2)

RAruler (11862) | more than 13 years ago | (#96926)

The only problem though, is that your making a movie about a very complex and strange subject. Dune isn't your average piece of literature, but when the person who wrote it isn't around for consulting there might be misinterpretations and mistakes. I'm not saying that the author has to be there to make it a good movie, it just helps. I really enjoyed the first miniseries, but even then, it had a book, another movie, and so on to go from.

---

Hal Osment for Leto Jr.? (2)

peter303 (12292) | more than 13 years ago | (#96927)

"I see blue-eyed people"

I think he'd be about the right age.
I recall Leto stops aging after merging with
the sandworms, but grows a big tail.

best way to depict "other memory"? (2)

peter303 (12292) | more than 13 years ago | (#96928)

I recall ancestral memory plays a much bigger role
in the subsequent novels. In the first novel it
is mainly the future visions. It is somewhat
difficult to depict inner mental processes on the screen.

Do you get someone who can morph into different
voices and faces like the commedian Rich Little,
or Steve Martin in "All of Me"?
Do you show possession like in The Exorcist?
Or else little figures of talking ancestors standing on ones shoulder?

Re:Nice to see the next Dune Story... (3)

rillian (12328) | more than 13 years ago | (#96929)

It's great to see this new miniseries, but why would you adapt TWO stories into one series, rather than preserving the second (actually third) story for an additional miniseries...Strange

The second two books really do go together. The stories follow each other closely in time and the conclusion of the arc really is at the end of the third book. They also share a lot of characters and locations, which makes it advantageous to film them together.

I am worried they'll have to cram more to stay at 6 hours, though.

Re:Nice to see the next Dune Story... (1)

Frey (14600) | more than 13 years ago | (#96930)

I always thought that there were two stories in the Silmarillion that could be made into good movies after the LOTR: 1) Beren and Luthien 2) Turin Turambar (though it would be a dark movie seeing how everyone dies unhappily). I think that Beren and Luthien especially could stand on its own with a minimal amount of changes. These are the two stories that Tolkien himself wrote several times as standalone stories in many diferent formats (prose, poetry, elvish, etc)

i hope so... (2)

option8 (16509) | more than 13 years ago | (#96931)

despite the fact that, on a number of points, the scifi "Dune" miniseries really and truly sucked ass, it was impressive that it was done as well as it was, and that it was produced at all.

hopefully the subsequent sequels will at least live up to the first production, and not go down hill as sequels tend to do

tho, even the subsequent books drifted off track a bit from the original...

Re:I've been waiting a long time for this (1)

Osty (16825) | more than 13 years ago | (#96932)

Actually, the games from Westwood were Dune 2 (the birthplace of RTS games), and its refresh, Dune 2000. There was another Dune game before Dune 2, however (thus the name "Dune 2"). It was an adventure/strategy game. I don't remember who the developer was, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were also Westwood. Anyway, the graphics were quite good for the time, and it was a rather fun game to play. There's a new adventure game based on Dune in the works, and hopefully it will follow in the footsteps of that original Dune game.

And no, it wasn't an FPS, and Id didn't develop it. Dune would suck as an FPS, because most fighting was done via knives (steel or crys).

Re:Nice to see the next Dune Story... (2)

Overt Coward (19347) | more than 13 years ago | (#96933)

I've often thought that The Silmarillion would make an interesting series of animated films, intended to be shown as a series, but with each one being independent enough to stand somewhat on its own...

--

Re:Ambitious, but... (1)

cruelworld (21187) | more than 13 years ago | (#96934)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who enjoyed Dune but felt that the rest of the series sucked ass.

now I can die in peace.

Re:Herbert and Lucas (1)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 13 years ago | (#96941)

The director thinks Frank Herbert is comparable to George Lucas. Or at least he's so poorly read that he can't find a better analogy to make. I'm beginning to understand why the first mini-series was so disappointing, seemed so shallow and weak, and captured so little of the spirit of the novel.

Well, at least we can say that Frank Herbert never came up with any characters on the level of Jar-Jar Binks. I'd like to think that Frank Herbert never lowered himself to Episode One crapulence, even if the original movie wasn't anywhere near as good as the book.

Then again, look at the comparison. Frank Herbert writes better books than George Lucas, and George Lucas has produced better movies than Frank Herbert. Apples and oranges, anyone?

---

Re:I've been waiting a long time for this (1)

phaktor (39283) | more than 13 years ago | (#96942)

There was a dune and a dune 2k made by westwood
but they were a RTS game not a FPS. they played a lot like Command and conquer.

I'm happy about this (2)

boarder (41071) | more than 13 years ago | (#96944)

There were a lot of really cheesy things about the first series that I thought could've been done better (the ornithopters for instance), but I think it stayed pretty true to the book and it was a pretty entertaining movie.

For them to make the second and third books will require more interesting visual effects (spoilers: how will they deal with the Bene Tlailaxu (sp?) and those little fishy guys that cover Leto II's body to make him the worm). It will also be more difficult to make a GOOD movie about them because, let's face it, they just don't touch the original in terms of quality.

I am still pretty excited to see this, though, because it has the opportunity to show the general public what good sci-fi can be (whether it does or not is a different story).

Synchronicity (1)

SlydeRule (42852) | more than 13 years ago | (#96945)

My "Fortune" slashbox reads:
A sequel is an admission that you've been reduced to imitating yourself.

-- Don Marquis

Re:Nice to see the next Dune Story... (2)

devphil (51341) | more than 13 years ago | (#96946)

LOTR, however, is a sitcom compared with The Silmarillion, and The Hobbit is a commercial break.

I think that's going in my collection of sigs.

The Silmarillion is one of my all-time favorites. One word: scope.

"Weirding modules"? What the....? (5)

devphil (51341) | more than 13 years ago | (#96947)

and the weirding modules are completely ignored (this was amongst the things that made House Atreides as strong as it was).

There are no such things as weirding modules. Clearly you're thinking the movie (starring Sting) was canonical. Try reading the actual books instead.

You can grep all six books and the phrase "weirding module" will not appear. This was one of the three major departures (read, "made it up out of thin air") that the original Dune movie made from the books. Basically, they didn't have the time to investigate the mystical powers on-screen, so they threw in some technobabble instead.

If the TV miniseries was based on the books rather than the piece of crap movie which was based on the books, then there won't be things like weirding modules. And that's good.

Re:2001 was not an adaptation (1)

ttrafford (62500) | more than 13 years ago | (#96948)

Yeah, one difference was that in the novel, the final destination was a moon of Saturn, instead of of moon of Jupiter like in the movie.

What makes this interesting though, is that the second book (2010) takes off from the movie and places the final scene from 2001 at Jupiter.

Re:Too ambitious (2)

zorgon (66258) | more than 13 years ago | (#96952)

uhhh, looks like vaporfilm to me. Although I think Chow Yun-Fat would be cool for Louis Wu. And how about John Goodman for Speaker???!? Bwahahahahaha. Not.

The miniseries (2)

apierson (69272) | more than 13 years ago | (#96953)

was CRAP! Maybe if it were just a standalone movie it would have been fantastic (yes, the visuals were pretty nice in some places), but since it's based on a _book_, it should hold to it. A movie (or miniseries) is made from a book because the book was impressive enough (in and of ITSELF and its OWN plot and its OWN details) to be chosen in the first place. Why the hell can't the director at least stay _slightly_ within the confines of the book when making the movie? Sorry, there was no big Muad'dib statue in Stilgar's sietch. Sorry, Paul can't make water appear out of nowhere with his "magical Kwisatz Haderach powers". And sorry, but if I'm not mistaken, in the book Paul Atreides wasn't a whiny little bitch.

Re:Why? (1)

Miles (79172) | more than 13 years ago | (#96959)

Actually, I don't think it was a problem of being too faithful, at least in terms of the actor playing Paul (and Irulan for that matter), but that those characters were not at all faithful. Paul wasn't whiney (a la the actor in the miniseries)--he was sometimes playful, and often cold, and usually noble/imperious. Nothing like the character in the miniseries.

Andrew.

What made the first so good (2)

randombit (87792) | more than 13 years ago | (#96966)

I saw the last part of it on Sci-fi a few weeks back, and was really impressed at how well it actually followed the book. The Dune series has always been one of my favorite books, and while some of the effects looked a little cheapo (not bad considering the budget was probably not Hollywood-blockbuster big), the way that entire blocks of dialog and scenes were taken directly from the book was really great. Hopefully these new ones will keep that up. I want to "see" Frank Herbert's book * of Dune, I don't want something that's kind of similiar to what happened in * of Dune.

I never really liked Lynch's Dune movie, because it seemed in many ways totally unrelated to the book.

Too ambitious (2)

kindbud (90044) | more than 13 years ago | (#96970)

Dune is just too ambitious for TV or even full length feature movies. There's not enough time even in a Roots-length mini-series, let a lone a mere six hours, to cover all the nuances adequately. Big chunks of it must be left out, so I don't know why anyone who has read and admired the series would want to intentionally butcher it for the small screen.

I'd like to see some other classic Sci-Fi adapted for TV before another installment in the Dune series. How about Stranger in a Strange Land? Are "we" (US-ian "we") ready for that? I'd guess so, seeing how well QAF is doing on Showtime.

How about Ringworld and its sequels/prequels? There's a hard-core yarn that special effects technology is finally ready to render spectacularly, and the story is as straightforward as any movie-of-the-week. Heck, most of Niven/Pournelle's joint efforts would suit me fine: Footfall, Thor's Hammer, The Mote in God's Eye. These stories are very much more adaptable to TV or motion pictures than anything Herbert has written.

Re:It was a good (for sci-fi) (1)

GreyyGuy (91753) | more than 13 years ago | (#96971)

To be precise, the book was written while filming, but wasn't published till after the film. And the movie was not based on "The Sentinel". That short story was the origin of the idea of 2001 for Clarke. I just finished the 4 books and found the comments by Clarke very interesting.

Re:i hope so... (2)

GreyyGuy (91753) | more than 13 years ago | (#96972)

I don't know why EVERY single time a book is made into a movie there's a grumpy guy going "the movie sucked ass". Is this part of human nature or something? Is there a gene for this? And if there is, can we breed that out because it's frickin' annoying.

It's part of the "Comic Book Guy" syndrome that is excellently portrayed on the Simpson's. The good news is that people suffering from this naturally repel potential mates and reduce their chances to pass on these harmful genes. The bad news is that they will be irritating us until they pass on.

The most ironic part is if they get to pass on their genes, or at least go through the motions, they would not find cause to be this annoying.

Re:Too ambitious (2)

fiziko (97143) | more than 13 years ago | (#96974)

The Ringworld movie is in preproduction. Further details available here [larryniven.org] .

And further novels? (1)

zdzichu (100333) | more than 13 years ago | (#96976)

Man, I'm dying to see God Imperor Leto II.
Will they turn into movie all parts of Dune series?

It's a Joke, son ... (2)

mr_death (106532) | more than 13 years ago | (#96979)

... fix your cranio-rectal inversion.

Re:i hope so... (2)

JesseL (107722) | more than 13 years ago | (#96980)

I don't know why EVERY single time a book is made into a movie there's a grumpy guy going "the movie sucked ass".

This phenomenon is almost certain to be seen simply due to statistical laws and the size of todays movie viewing audience (i.e. anything that can happen, will). I think that it's exacerbated by the fact that when most books are made into movies they suck ass.

If nobody complains when they see somthing that they feel really sucks, what will the movie studios and tv producers do? They will descend in an endless spiral of suckiness that will consume us all!

I just realized I'm complaing about people who complain about too much complaining (complaining^3?).

Good to see progress, but.... (2)

shpoffo (114124) | more than 13 years ago | (#96981)

The first miniseries was really botched, i mean, they don't even delve into the religious importence of the spice, nor it's wei as a narcotic. The point of the worms interaction with them is mispresented and the weirding modules are completely ignored (this was amongst the things that made House Atreides as strong as it was).

The scenery is also poorly presented; there is no show of water conservation in the mini-series, even among the fremen. Frank Herbert was [practically, at min.] an Ecologist - and the mini-series gave absolutely no attention to this spirit.

There's more, but if you care enough by now there's plenty [fremen.org] of sites with more info (or i'm preaching to the converted). The new series will get eaten up - just as the last one did - but that doesn't mean it will be any better. Harrison should do himself a favor and hire an (eclectic) Ecologist [mailto] or at least a well-schooled historian of some religious venue.

Re:Why? (2)

nehril (115874) | more than 13 years ago | (#96982)

Indeed, the miniseries was utterly unintelligible to anyone who hadn't already read the book. I've read the entire series so I was able to follow it, but *all* of the people I know who saw it without having read the book were completely, utterly lost. The series completely failed to deliver the cool concepts and experiences of Dune.

The miniseries was successful only because it invoked nostalgia in the people who loved the book. If you ever watch the series again (I never will, it was painful) try watching it *without* mentally filling in the gaping plot holes and subtle references.

Re:Nice to see the next Dune Story... (5)

legLess (127550) | more than 13 years ago | (#96990)

Well, Dune Messiah is thought by many people to be the weakest of the 6 books. Several people I know flat-out stopped reading the series right there, thinking that the rest would suck just the same. Herbert plotted the first 3 books before he wrote a word of Dune; he knew how it was going to end, and had no plans for a 4th, 5th, or 6th.

The advantage of this method is that he created a complete cycle right up-front (see next P), rather than tacking on book after book like many hack writers do. The disadvantage is that Dune Messiah is pretty obviously just a stepping stone to Children of Dune. I think the series would have been stronger if he'd left it out entirely, but we would have missed Paul's relationship with Channi, which is complex and interesting.

The first 3 are a perfect cycle, almost a tragedy in the classical sense - a man falling from a high position due to hubris (yes, I know, Aristotle defined tragedy more specifically than that, but I'm too lazy to look it up). The last 3 are much better written, with more interesting plots and characters.

I don't watch TV, so I don't know how the first mini-series went. I find it hard to believe that the work can be faithfully reproduced, however, no matter how much time and money is spent on it. This contrasts with Peter Jackson's upcoming LOTR, which actually may not suck. Tolkien was wordy, but LOTR is a fairly simple work - standard mythology. Dune (all 6) are complex commentary on politics, economics, religion, human nature, oil, water - you name it. Very deep. You can get the action to the screen, but I fear the depth being left behind.

And before Tolkien fans get out their flame-throwers, yes, I love Tolkien. I took (and aced) several graduate-level Tolkien courses in school, and have a deep and abiding appreciation for him and his work. LOTR, however, is a sitcom compared with The Silmarillion, and The Hobbit is a commercial break. No one will make a movie of The Silmarillion, anymore than you could make a movie of the entire Bible.

And yet The Silmarillion is still just a small part of Tolkien's work, and his world. Amazing.

"We all say so, so it must be true!"

2001 was not an adaptation (2)

wfaulk (135736) | more than 13 years ago | (#96991)

If anything, the book was a ``novelization'' of the screenplay, not the other way around. The movie was written as a movie by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick, and was later adapted into a novel by Clarke. There were some differences between the story that Clarke wrote as the screenplay and the final filmed version, but that is typical of filmmaking.

Re:I've been waiting a long time for this (1)

typedef (139123) | more than 13 years ago | (#96993)

Commander comedy there was attempting to make a joke by replacing 'Dune' with 'Doom'. He wasn't talking about the old Dune PC games.

Scifi series (1)

jbischof (139557) | more than 13 years ago | (#96994)

Even though everyone bashed the new sci-fi miniseries of dune, I have a couple points that I liked. Although the battle scenes were horrible, I thought that the portrayal of the Baron, paul's mother, and paul's sister (liam??) were particularly good. I really liked paul's sister when she assassinates the Baron. Some of the special effects were low, but the scenery was really good, especially indoors. I could see the effects of low budget everywhere and am really eager to see what would happen with an expanded budget.

Bring on the sequel, if you don't want the sequel to come out, then don't watch it. It's not like we are holding a gom jabbar up to your neck.

Re:Good to see progress, but.... (1)

jlockard (140979) | more than 13 years ago | (#96995)

Maybe the weirding modules are complete ignored is because they weren't in the book. Not at all. If you watched the first mini-series (2000, not to be confused with the crappy movie from the 80's), you'll see the discussion of water conservation, it isn't blatant, smack in your face, but there's a hell of a lot of talk about it. I find it funny that people are basing their complaints about the 2000 mini-series on the contents of the 80s movie and not the contents of the book(s)...

far more believable than Frank Herbert's? (1)

BobTheWonderMonkey (144907) | more than 13 years ago | (#96997)


Let's think about this.

If Frank Herbert wrote the book, and then Frank Herbert was deeply involved in a cinematic retelling, don't you think that that movie is probably pretty true to Frank Herbert's vision? There is only one canonical cinematic interpretation of Dune, and that, at least because of Herbert's involvement, is Lynch's film (for all its weaknesses).

Who cares what's believable or not? In a universe that takes place 10,000 years in the future, you accept the universe for what it is. And frankly, Lynch's interpretation of Herbert's universe was miles better than the dreck perpetrated on Herbert's memory by Sci-Fi.

God that series was bloody awful. What is it with us geeks and the rampant ignorance of the concepts of production values?

Re:Too ambitious (2)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 13 years ago | (#96998)

Footfall had too much copied for Independance Day. Viewers would think it a rip-off of that movie. The whole "big mothership deploys smaller but still giant ships around world" thing, and the asteroid hitting the earth would also bring back just a few too many memories of recent shtty movies.

Good news(?) (1)

chinton (151403) | more than 13 years ago | (#96999)

I have read all of the Dune novels several times and I would have to say that the first one was the easiest one from which to make a movie. I will be interesting to see how the next two are handled.

Re:I've been waiting a long time for this (1)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 13 years ago | (#97000)

And there still isn't.

Re:I've been waiting a long time for this (2)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 13 years ago | (#97002)

Are you smoking crack? This is a television miniseries, not a computer game. Gotta love it when people don't even read the synopsis, let alone the article.

Got to love it when people can't understand humor, let alone how to close their tags.

Josh Sisk

Re:It was a good (for sci-fi) (2)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 13 years ago | (#97003)

AFAIK, the most faithful adaptation from book->movie was probably "2001", which changed some pretty big details (it was a moon of Saturn originally, not Jupiter), but kept the main ideas intact.

AFAIK, this is because the novel was written from the script that Clarke and Kubrick collaborated on. The script/film is based on an earlier Clarke short story "the Sentinel", but the film's storyline is very different, and the book is based on the script, not the original story.

Josh Sisk

Re:I've been waiting a long time for this (1)

pug23 (167080) | more than 13 years ago | (#97006)

I hesitate to even reply to this thread, but I thought I'd point out that the original Dune game was NOT an RTS. It was more of an adventure game, and, frankly, wasn't very interesting. Dune 2 was an RTS which had nothing to do with the original game, and little to do story-wise with the movie either (they even invented another house so they could have three factions in the game). Dune 2K was a windoze-ized version of Dune 2. Dune 2 was a great game for its time but seems primitive by modern RTS standards.

That said, the article that this is attached to has nothing to do with any of those games. I believe (as do the moderators, apparently) that the author of the original comment of this thread realized this and was trying to be funny.

Groovy. (2)

azephrahel (193559) | more than 13 years ago | (#97014)

Its good to see Sci Fi doing this. There doing for modern science fiction what TNT does for modern westerns. Producing their own passible to good series and movies. I for one thought that the director of the Dune Mini-Series really wanted it to be a play, which is why it didn't turn out as well as it could have. It was still very fun, so i'm hopefull for this one too.

Also, has anyone else heard the rumor that Sci Fi might be showing/co producing a NEW Dr. Who series? God I hope so...just as long as they get a budget of 3000$ per episode. It looses that whole Dr Who feel if its to pricey.

Re:I've been waiting a long time for this (1)

tssm0n0 (200200) | more than 13 years ago | (#97018)

Got to love it when people can't understand humor, let alone how to close their tags


I also love it when people can't understand humor. But, as it turns out, humor is defined as:

The quality that makes something laughable or amusing; funniness

Which I guess means that there has been no humor so far in this thread for someone to not understand.

Re:It was a good (for sci-fi) (1)

ColdGrits (204506) | more than 13 years ago | (#97021)

Bollocks.

The book was written at the SAME TIME as the movie.

Don't believe me? Then perhaps you will believe Arthur C Clarke himself - check out his foreword in the latest reprint of 2001.

I agree (1)

delcielo (217760) | more than 13 years ago | (#97023)

The first mini-series was done about as well as could be done with such a broad expanse of a book. It was as faithful as it could be without being unintelligible to people who hadn't read the series. Very few screen adaptations are able to pull that off. Probably "The World According to Garp" is the only one I've seen that so closely mirrored the book's tone, and story.

Re:Sci-fi 'Classics' (1)

Sir Mix A Lot (218711) | more than 13 years ago | (#97024)

Before the Sci-fi miniseries I had not read Dune or any of its sequels. My brother watched all three nights of the miniseries while I found something else to do. I specifically avoided it so that I could read the books _before_ seeing the interpretation of them. I am glad I did too. There is nothing worse than reading a book and not enjoying it as much as the movie version because it appears that the author left something out (which is obviously not the case, but that is how it feels none the less). I know a lot of people are now going to see the Fellowship of the Ring without reading it first. For the people who's interest is sparked enough to pick up the book, they will enjoy the it less for having seen the movie first. There is still time though, hopefully they will grab a copy from somewhere before December, but I doubt it.

% rm * .o
rm: .o: No such file or directory
% ls
%

About your sig (2)

SeraphtheSilver (226793) | more than 13 years ago | (#97031)

It's Arthur C. Clarke's third law of technology, not an Isaac Asimov quote.

Not a flame, just a helpful hint.

Nice to see the next Dune Story... (2)

hillct (230132) | more than 13 years ago | (#97032)

It's great to see this new miniseries, but why would you adapt TWO stories into one series, rather than preserving the second (actually third) story for an additional miniseries...Strange

Is sci-fi actually imune from the television media marketing engine? You can only sell half the ads if you have half the content, so why would they have decided to combine the stories into only one miniseries...

--CTH

--

Re:i hope so... (1)

non3ntity (234200) | more than 13 years ago | (#97036)

I'm sure that this pre-dates The Simpsons, or even comic books. In fact, the phenomenon of pronouncing things sucky is very widespread... right down to the point of pronouncing sucky pronouncements sucky (or "frickin' annoying" if you need me to spell it out for you).

Psst! Learn how to use apostrophes and plurals... they're different, you know.

This was online at scifi.com last month (4)

WillSeattle (239206) | more than 13 years ago | (#97039)

If you'd been watching the telecast, they showed it at http://www.scifi.com/secret/ for a short time.

While it's true that SciFi is making this with a low budget, and it does show, I still find that their adaptation has certain elements I find far more believable than the one Frank Herbert was so deeply involved with, even though that one had far better character actors for the most part.

The SCI FI version seems to get the feel of the culture better, and what the events in the book may have been like, than one found in the original movie, even if it's not as well-crafted.

Plus, the actress who plays Chani is way hotter, and more believable, than Sean was in the same role.

Just another trainspotting opinion.. (2)

syrupMatt (248267) | more than 13 years ago | (#97044)

Personally, I felt the only thing the mini-series had to offer was its adherance to the actual dialog and action of the book itself (which Lynch's obviously did not). With that, the b-movie acting and ungodly costume design could be overlooked, since Dune fans could finally see a somewhat literal interpretation of the book. Both messiah and children of dune are infinately complex in their own right as they expound on the minuate of an Empire and its "holy" leaders. By cutting them down and attempting to push that much intrigue into a single mini-series, they are destroying the best part about having sci-fi produce these in the first place.

It was a good (for sci-fi) (2)

dasunt (249686) | more than 13 years ago | (#97045)

Yes, Dune wasn't 100% accurate, but it was a good adaptation, especially for a sci-fi novel. There are a lot worse books->movie conversions out there, such as "The Postman" (where they removed over 2/3rds of the book, and dammit, I liked AI machines). Then there are the truly horrible written fiction->movies out there, which I can't recall off the top of my head, due to a mental block. I'm sure a few slashdotters out there could reply with a horrifying list.

AFAIK, the most faithful adaptation from book->movie was probably "2001", which changed some pretty big details (it was a moon of Saturn originally, not Jupiter), but kept the main ideas intact.

Every time I read a good novel, and think it would make a spiffy movie, I remember what happened in the past, and am therefore content with imagining what traekis look like, rather then seeing them on the big screen.

*sigh*

Oh well, just my $1.02

Yeah the miniseries is OK (1)

teaserX (252970) | more than 13 years ago | (#97047)

...but I gotta say except for the 15 min narrative to set up the story, the original movie ruled. The miniseries just lacks the style in art direction. Maybe if I sit through another four hours "New Dune" it might grow on me.

Dune Vs. Dune Vs. Dune (1)

Lede Singer (253091) | more than 13 years ago | (#97048)

I watched (and taped) the Scifi Dune, then watched the original Dune (The Directors Cut) and spent that weekend reading the book. It's amazing how different the two movies were, in my opinion.

For instance, the first film has better acting, character portrayel, casting, special effects, and better stillsuits.

The new scifi film was FAR closer to the story line, and yes, Chani was way hotter, but many of the characters were very unlike those in the books...except for LETO, I liked him. Plus the stillsuits were laim. Of course the effects were worse, but I can accept that considering the budget.

The Sciffi version had an "anti-climactic" ending in my opinion, but than again, so did the book, sort of. The old Dune was good in the end, but it involved Pauls newfound telekenetic powers that somehow came from no where.

What worms did you guys like better? I kind of liked the teeth from the sciffi version, especially considering that they're described that way in the book, but the orginal Dune movie had some cool looking worms. Oh yeah, when Paul rode the worm for the first time in the sciffi version, was he using a jump rope? Anyone remember that:)

Don't flame me. I'm very excited for the part two to come out. I think in some ways it will be a better movie, but it will be very difficult to develop the characters of Leto II and his sister. I'm curious to see how they do that.

Re:Groovy. (1)

bellers (254327) | more than 13 years ago | (#97049)

Now, if we can just talk them into fixing Starship Troopers.

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.

one point (two words) (1)

Heywood Yabuzof (255017) | more than 13 years ago | (#97050)

Fat Stilgar

Other than that, nothing really bothered me so much that I groaned out loud (OK, maybe the cheesy painted backgrounds in certain desert scenes...)

Why make a movie? (2)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 13 years ago | (#97052)

I am still wondering as to why people want to make movies out of books. They are two completely different mediums. It's sort of like composer putting Shakespeare's King Lear to music. What's that all about?

Dune is one of the best book series of all times, right up there with LOTR and a few others. But it's not so much the style, or the motion, that makes it great, it's the undercurrent. It's so deep on so many levels that it makes you think, _really_think_, about your own life, your own beliefs, your own preconceptions.

Books are an immersive technology, sort of like coding, going into wizard mode, where the world stops spinning and you're transcended to another place and time. Movies don't achieve this level, ever. This level is what book authors aim for, and when they succeed, they are rewarded with god-like fame.
But movies are about money, and are meant to be understood by the masses (even within a particular genre). Books, however, are a lot more selective, and not too many people have read the last book of Dune and understood why Duncan left in the No-Ship taking the BT couple with him.

Movies are made for money, to make money, to increase viewer share. Really great books, on the other hand, are meant to reflect the deepest thoughts of incredibly talented and imaginative individuals.
I rented the Dune miniseries last fall, and altough I am a great Herbert fan, that movie sucked. It was just barely okay. It went through the motion, but never engaged the viewer into deep mode. I have read the Dune series 6 times (all 2000+ pages) and I will read it at least 10 more times in my life (once every 3 years or so). I guarantee I will not see that miniseries Dune movie ever again.

People should just learn to enjoy books. It's amazing what that does for one's ability to write BTW.

As far as the Dune books to movies, I don't see why they have to be done in order. If it was up to me, and if I was to make movies of these books, I would go: 5, 4, 6, 1, 2, 3.

Oh, and you can just ignore the prequels/sequels written by those other two. They never ever reach the deep levels.

Try Maia, by Richard Adams. He gets pretty close. It's a bit boring at times, but it is immersive, and very well written.

sci - fi movies & quality (2)

TigerBaer (264665) | more than 13 years ago | (#97055)

The NY times had an interesting, somewhat related article [nytimes.com] on Sunday discussing the overall lack of quality of the stories of Science Fiction movies (quality referring to the depth of the characters, theme.. etc). I thought of this article when reading this interview. Dune as a whole, to me, is several rungs higher in depth as a science fiction epic. (right up there with Asimov's Foundation series). Its a real pity that scifi epics like Dune arent given the same budget as scifi soaps such as Star Wars(although the soaps are not bad, jsut not intellectually stimulating).

-its almost 4:30

Re:Good to see progress, but.... (1)

edashofy (265252) | more than 13 years ago | (#97056)

I think the Weirding modules were probably ignored because they were an invention of David Lynch's version, and didn't exist in the book...

The largest problem with both movies (the Lynch and Harrison versions) was their lack of showing how important water is. The Harrison version did cover some elements of it, but the point didn't hit home.

Mixing Dune Messiah and Children of Dune might be kind of a weird idea. Their plots are quite different, although if the miniseries were extended beyond three nights, this might work...

Ugh. (2)

dasmegabyte (267018) | more than 13 years ago | (#97058)

I may be unique in the world for saying this, but I love Dune, the Original movie, before Sci-Fi fucked with it. Yes, maybe it was different from the book, but who the hell cares? They are different texts in different mediums and serve a different purpose from each other. Sci-Fi's remake of Dune only served to make what was a piece with a wonderful feel and effects that were stylistic and beautiful into another crappy Sci-Fi film with B grade acting, C grade digital effects and costumes straight out of Lawrence of Arabia.

The fact is that the Sci-Fi channel is so stuck in its idiom of fiction by the numbers that it can't break out into a truly stylistic piece. Shows like Farscape may be technically well written and full of enough stupid melodrama to put a headlock on anything Vince MacMahon ever thought up, but they're just totally bereft of anything original or even interesting in theme or plot. The original Dune plot took a wonderful little piece of political pulp fiction by a decent writer and turned it into a fantastic adventure that excited me and left me feeling complete. I didn't need any more back story -- I was willing to corral the boring history of the world into some technical addendum a la some of the Star Wars books. Sci Fi managed to ruin a great movie by degrading the acting, enhancing the most boring aspects of the story while losing the ones that had any real cinematic flavour and restricted the camera angles to nothing but interior medium shots. Oh, and while making the movie more boring and not worth watching, they extended what was already a 4 hour film. When they make the sequel, they'll just be extending it furthur -- and since I'm sure they'll preclude it with a replay of their horrendious remake, it'll be a half day worth of boredom I suggest only for masochists, herbert fanatics and college students with nothing better to do.

One can only hope. (1)

xeeno (313431) | more than 13 years ago | (#97063)

The problem with the Dune books and their being cast into a visual media is as follows - Paul Atredies didn't have any spiffy powers and couldn't make things blow up just by looking at them. Apart from some Bene Gesserit teachings from his mother, his only real ability was precognition. By being able to sense the paths that lead to the future, he was able to begin pushing humanity into the direction of his Golden Path. The rest of the books are more or less what happens along that Path.
What does this mean? Well, 99% of the people that watch sci fi movies aren't watching them for an intense storyline filled with plots and subplots. They're watching them to see stuff explode and people get eaten by bug-eyed monsters. So a cerebral series or movie won't get anywhere near the audience that it should get. In the movie, the obvious solution was to add wierding modules and give Paul Atredies all sorts of abilities that people who have read the books cringe at.
At least the miniseries was a little closer to being accurate. They didn't portray the Baron Harkonnen as a pustule-ridden fat man on a flying chair, they portrayed him as a man of excess, which is exactly what he was. Sure, Paul is a whiny bitch in the movie. If you've read the books, you will discover that he ends up being pretty spineless in the end. I only have three gripes with the series:
1. The way Duncan Idaho died. In the books he was fighting off the Sardaukar, in the series he gets hit by a bomb.
2. How whiny Chani is in the series. Come on, guys. She's FREMEN. Crying wastes water.
3. The fremen in the series are nowhere near as dogmatic about water loss as they are in the books.
Other than that, the series was excellent.
Now, my concerns about the next series. The best way I can describe the 6 books in the series is that it's a cosine wave. It starts out on a high note, the middle books lose their momentum a little, and then it ends on a high note. The next two books are going to be rough going. I just hope that they don't sacrifice good story for idiot eye candy.

I've been waiting a long time for this (3)

Dr. Prakash Kothari (314326) | more than 13 years ago | (#97064)

I've been a big fan of Dune ever since the first version came out when I was in high school. I loved Wolfenstein 3D before that, and I can remember playing Dune until the wee hours in the morning some nights. Dune 2 was similar, but didn't have the same eerie atmosphere and feel as the original. Hopefully, in the 10 years that have passed since the original was released, ID Software will be able to take advantage of new technology and increases in processing power to make the new version of Dune live up to it's predecessor.

I wish they showed Sci Fi here (1)

lyberth (319170) | more than 13 years ago | (#97065)

And especially the good old MST3K is missed. But none of them are showed here i Denmark And now ill miss a Dune seq. too...

Re:David Lynch, not well crafted? Huh? (1)

gamgee5273 (410326) | more than 13 years ago | (#97068)

You're joking, right? Even Lynch isn't happy with the movie, and it sealed his fate - he never became a truly big director, which he was well on his way to being. Listen, I like the Lynch movie, but it's just not on target. I mean, Sting? Sting's best acting was seen in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. The miniseries had problems, but it felt like a '60s sci-fi novel being translated to screen. Call me odd, but I really think that it has a strong, purposeful, retro sensibility that just about everyone missed. When you think of it in that way, I think you'll respect the work that was done with the miniseries.

Re:2001 was not an adaptation (1)

gamgee5273 (410326) | more than 13 years ago | (#97069)

The book, 2001, was a novelization of the movie. BUT, the movie was still an adaptation of an earlier, shorter, work of Clarke's - "The Sentinel."

Re:Nice to see the next Dune Story... (1)

gamgee5273 (410326) | more than 13 years ago | (#97070)

Apples and oranges. The Hobbit is a children's story, written for Tolkien's kids. He later decided to use the same world for LOTR in order to create a new mythology. He had a specific goal in mind with LOTR, and Herbert had a different goal in mind with the Dune series. You're comparing two things that shouldn't be compared.

Re:Herbert and Lucas (1)

gamgee5273 (410326) | more than 13 years ago | (#97071)

That's right on the mark, all. Harrison's comparing the feel of ANH and ESB to one another and saying that the level of difference between those two films is akin to the level of difference between Herbert's books. He's not comparing Herbert to Lucas.

Re:Dead Children of Dune? (1)

gamgee5273 (410326) | more than 13 years ago | (#97072)

While I think you're right (did Paul have a son die in the first book...I can't remember), in centuries past it wasn't uncommon to name a child after a sibling who had died young. Harrison could be leading up to that. What's also important is that Leto doesn't become Leto II until he assumes the title of Duke. If he really wanted to, if Herbert was basing the empire on old European empires, he chould have named himself Duke Leto II and Emperor Bobby I at the same time, if so inclined...

Huh? (1)

CaptTrips (410803) | more than 13 years ago | (#97075)

Forget the sequel, when are they going to fix the DVD release?

----
Capt' Trips

Re:It was a good (for sci-fi) (1)

aslagle (441969) | more than 13 years ago | (#97076)

Of course, '2001' the book was written after the movie, by Clarke.

The precursor to '2001' the movie was 'The Sentinel', more a short story than a book.

Still, a pretty good adaptation. I just wish the FX of the 60s had been up to showing Bowman's journey as it was written.

Re:Too ambitious (1)

haruharaharu (443975) | more than 13 years ago | (#97079)

I just want to see a fusion bomb powered pulse rocket!

I hate Hollywood. (1)

poboxbrian (445558) | more than 13 years ago | (#97080)

The Dune series is one of the best selling sci-fi series of all time, and Hollywood is going to rewrite it. Now they want to combine 2 books into one. After leaving as much out of the first movie as they did, and taking into consideration that the second and third books are apx. the same length as the first book, what are these pumpkins going to give us next? I'm not expecting a detailed or quality product.

Re:Herbert and Lucas (1)

diablochicken (445931) | more than 13 years ago | (#97081)

Actually, no. He was comparing the difference in two of Herbert's stories to the difference between two of Lucas' movies, which is much different than comparing the two men.

To clarify (much like the director did, so that the layman would understand after his words had been snipped into soundbytes and misinterpreted by people) in a simplistic fashion:

It's like comparing the difference between 30 and 40 to the difference between 10,000 and 10,010. No one would argue that 10,000 is the same as 30, but the difference between the two numbers in each set is the same. See?
-----------------

Please, not the backgrounds again!!!! (1)

X86Daddy (446356) | more than 13 years ago | (#97082)

Did anyone else notice how truly horrible the backgrounds were on the outdoor sets!? My girlfriend and I were almost nauseated by them. The Wizard of Oz had more convincing outdoor backdrops than the Dune series. I hope they do better next time. (that aside, I did enjoy seeing a true-to-the-book movie of Dune and would like to see more...)

... as long as the villans don't end every sentence with a rhyme!!

Dune Sequal (1)

WhtDaUWant (451060) | more than 13 years ago | (#97083)

I love the books and have read them umpteen times each. One of my favorite series and Authuors. I was extremly disapointed in the quality of the first mini-series, the adaptation was excellent and the acting was pretty good. It did seem to get a good grasp of the culture by not excellent.

I do not want to see the rest of the books mauled this way though. If they have a decent budget and it looks better then I am all for it but if its like the first one the screw it it isnt even worth looking at.

Re:i hope so... (1)

davey23sol (462701) | more than 13 years ago | (#97089)

The thing is though is that the Herbert vision of the Dune story was closer in the Mini Series than it was in the Lynch film.

While I thought some of the technical work in the Mini Series wasn't that good (how easy was it to tell they were in front a blue screen during the fight sequence), I liked the fact that this series took a different approach and tried to at least stay close to Herbert's world. Lynch took it in an entirely different direction, which is fine.

And at least give me this: it didn't suck as bad as the new TV adaptation of "The Shining." Now that was REALLY BAD.


Re:Good to see progress, but.... (1)

davey23sol (462701) | more than 13 years ago | (#97090)

and the weirding modules are completely ignored

That's because there ARE NO weirding modules in the book. The voice was accomplished through training, not a device. The weirding module was something made up for the first film.

Re:I've been waiting a long time for this (1)

Jennifer E. Elaan (463827) | more than 13 years ago | (#97091)

The first Dune game was made by a company named Cryo and distributed by Virgin (if I remember correctly), not by Westwood. Dune 2 was the original realtime strategy, but Dune 1 was a very different, interesting game, albeit a little old.
-- Blore's Razor:

Ambitious, but... (1)

UberOogie (464002) | more than 13 years ago | (#97092)

The problem with over-revertial treatment of the source material will only cause larger problems, especially as they get into the later books.

The original Dune was a classic because Herbert was reigned in by editors. Each successive book gets more and more self-indulgent, until the thud of Chapterhouse.

While impressive visually, I found the first series lacking. A positive light is that they are going to compress the next two books into one series, showing that they are going to, by necessity, truncate the material some.

The question is if it will result in more of a mangled plot mess or a true television presentation of the books. There is a lot of fat that can be trimmed from the next books, and there is the potential for a good adaptation.

I'll at least give it a look.

Sci-fi 'Classics' (1)

Mu*puppy (464254) | more than 13 years ago | (#97094)

It's always interesting to note the attention that works noted as 'classics' get. What I wonder is how much (if any) attention the actual, original -books- get as a result of TV/movie publication? (anyone know of any sites/publications/etc that address this?) Or perhaps to look ever deeper, how much do people actually -read- these days? What I have always found attractive about reading, is picturing the settings, events, characters, etc. in my -own- mind. But in a society where we are getting used to the 'provided content' of TV, movies, the Internet or whatever, how much do we actually -think- for ourselves, still? With the tools of today (especially computers) yes, there is increased potential and oppurtunity for artists to express their ideas. However, I believe this is also a two-edged sword. Artists can express themselves perhaps more clearly and reach a broader audience, but in turn, it's killing the habit of individual thought and interpretation. I mean, who can read something like the Star Wars radio plays and -not- think the voice of James Earl Jones, or the design of Vader's black helmet, if they've seen the movie first? Or in the case of the original Dune movie, think of Feyd-ratha (sp?) and not think Sting? *shudder* Exercise your minds and give your creativity a workout, people, lest they atrophy with a lack of use. If you rely on actors to convey the ideas and imagry of a book, you are cheating yourself of the full experience. Read the book/s, -then- see the movie... "Your mind is like a parechute. If it doesn't work, you're screwed."

Amen is right. (1)

telbij (465356) | more than 13 years ago | (#97097)

Sadly I haven't read the books, so I'm probably not qualified to even comment, but with acting so bad that it's painful to watch, it's hard to get over the low-budgetness it.

Lynch's movie at least was a good movie. I know it doesn't follow the books at all, and it bastardizes the story, etc. I think the horrible acting and complete lack of atmosphere in the mini-series is too much to pay for a slightly better representation of the books... especially considering that a movie can never really measure up to a book anyway.

Of course the real question on my mind is why is Sci-fi taking on all these old projects. I am, of course, referring to The Shining. An even better movie which they could never hope to even come close to. I guess they must believe that any publicity is good publicity, because both those shows stunk.

BTW, Capoeira rules, meu irmao! :P

Herbert and Lucas (1)

bartlett's (465717) | more than 13 years ago | (#97098)

From the interview:

"It's a wonderfully complex and interesting story, in some ways a little darker than the first one," Harrison said. "Whereas the first one had a kind of triumphant quality to it, this second one is a little darker. I guess you can compare it to the difference in tone between Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back."

The director thinks Frank Herbert is comparable to George Lucas. Or at least he's so poorly read that he can't find a better analogy to make. I'm beginning to understand why the first mini-series was so disappointing, seemed so shallow and weak, and captured so little of the spirit of the novel.

Re:Yeah the miniseries is OK (1)

bartlett's (465717) | more than 13 years ago | (#97099)

but I gotta say except for the 15 min narrative to set up the story, the original movie ruled

The original movie had no cheesy 15 minute narrative. That was added later for television, and was one of the reasons David Lynch had his name removed from that version.

Amen. (1)

Tivadaar (466374) | more than 13 years ago | (#97100)

Since the first time I read Dune, it's been my favorite book. Better than the Foundation series, better than Ender's Game, better even than the 1984 Toyota Corolla Repair Manual. When I heard that the scifi channel was making the first Dune miniseries, I was incredibly hyped. Finally, maybe someone will do this masterpiece justice. But oh, was I wrong. What did we get? Fairview Elementary School and Mrs. Peterson's Third Grade Class are proud to present this year's theatrical production : Frank Herbert's Dune. Obscenely stupid hats, bad acting, cheesy battle scenes and the depth of a kiddie pool all characterized this steaming heap of crap. Even the cutscenes from Westwood's new Dune game (which I am firmly convinced added as a private joke by the programmers at the last minute) are better than this 6 hour monstrosity. Please, please, for me and for everyone else out there that reveres Dune the way I do, take the time, spend the money, fire the writers, do whatever you have to do to DO THESE BOOKS JUSTICE! Thanks

Finally some SF on SCIFI (1)

JavaJustSayNo (466382) | more than 13 years ago | (#97101)

There hasn't been a lot of true literary Science Fiction on the SCI FI channel until recently. We have had to contend with mostly 3rd rate horror movies and re-runs of remotely SF stuff (except for B5!). So even though, Dune is not even near my favorite SF novel, I was so glad to see the SCFI channel come out with the original series, given that I find the older movie so lacking. The series had its share of liberties taken from the book too but I felt was still better than the original movie. My hope with things like this announcement is that the channel continues to produce these. Indeed, the annoucement has been made that they will be doing two of LeGuinn's works.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?