Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To be honest what I got from the second viewing was the relatively brief nature of the spectacle at the end of the movie was in order to cement in the audiences minds the idea of how utterly and absurdly overwhelming Paul’s assault on the Emperor and his Sardukar, and the Harkonnens, actually was.

They basically had no idea whatsoever of how much force was about to be brought to bear in that situation and were so effectively overrun and surprised that it wasn’t a fight at all; it was a massacre.

The first signs of the brutality of the galactic jihad is also nicely demonstrated in the scenes of the gunships mercilessly gunning down the stragglers as they scramble around like ants..

I just think it all serviced the notion that Paul was indeed an utterly new type of military and strategic mind, and they were doomed before they even started, but couldn’t conceive of it.

 insaniak wrote:
To paraphrase Sam Raimi, if you're just going to tell the exact same story, what's the point? You already have the original story.

Strange quote. The point of a movie adaptation is not to tell a story, but to visualize it.

Tangentially related, Syfy's Dune is on the 'Tubes.

 BertBert wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
To paraphrase Sam Raimi, if you're just going to tell the exact same story, what's the point? You already have the original story.

Strange quote. The point of a movie adaptation is not to tell a story, but to visualize it.

Visualizing a non visual medium will inherently require change(s). If one is going to take the time to adapt from one medium to another it is a fool's errand to try and make it exactly the same. Even this thread shows that a film can adapt while being different. I thought the films were great but they don't replace the book(s) as each fulfills a different desire.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Tangentially related, Syfy's Dune is on the 'Tubes.

The mini-series might not have the big-screen budget, but its the best adaptation by far. It was a great time for sci-fi and fantasy as LOTR was just about to kick-off and we also had the SW Prequels and The Matrix trilogy on the go. To have Dune as well - granted, on the small screen - was a treat, as it worked very well in three episiodes, with minimal changes to the original book.

 Ahtman wrote:

 BertBert wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
To paraphrase Sam Raimi, if you're just going to tell the exact same story, what's the point? You already have the original story.

Strange quote. The point of a movie adaptation is not to tell a story, but to visualize it.

Visualizing a non visual medium will inherently require change(s). If one is going to take the time to adapt from one medium to another it is a fool's errand to try and make it exactly the same. Even this thread shows that a film can adapt while being different. I thought the films were great but they don't replace the book(s) as each fulfills a different desire.

I think it's fascinating that anime can do very accurate adaptations of manga, but for some reason western media magically can't.

Well, Manga shares the same medium as Anime(visual). Books and film do not.

So you can recreate the same scene shot for shot since Manga could just be seen as still-frames.

Books are purely a written word. Films are spoken word+visual. There is little overlap.

Yeah buddy, that totally excuses completely rewriting Chani, dropping Alia, dropping the Spacing Guild, changing the Feyd-Paul duel, etc.
The lengths y'all go to defend having a work of art getting gak on are truly stunning. It's like Dennis has your family held hostage.

Such a bizarre take. The film is a reinterpretation of the original by a different artist. The original is not being gak on because a new artist has done their version differently. Also, totally bizarro how you can't seem to fathom the idea that other people legitimately like something that you dislike.

I think it's fascinating that anime can do very accurate adaptations of manga, but for some reason western media magically can't.

Take a look at Miyazaki's Naussaca and Valley of the Wind some time, Manga and anime by the same person, very different works.

What works on paper may not work on film, film adds voices, music, actors that will be different from what's on paper.

Two different media, even with the same creator.

And again, you can recreate a Manga in an Anime literally shot for shot since they are identical mediums. And usually the author is both alive and maintaining creative control over the anime adaptation. A lot of Western media is based on books whose authors are long since dead.

Books are just words on pages which then interact with the reader's imagination, movies are sound and visual scenes. Add in that its a very dense book from many decades ago and it would be tough to fully bring it in. For even the bare minimum of what you are talking about would probably add another 4-5 hours.

Not saying that wouldn't be amazing. It would, but it would also be extremely difficult given the current environment of film making. We should be glad they came out as they did and weren't a total disgrace like so many recent movies. They were true to the message and feel of the setting.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

I think it's fascinating that anime can do very accurate adaptations of manga, but for some reason western media magically can't.

Take a look at Miyazaki's Naussaca and Valley of the Wind some time, Manga and anime by the same person, very different works.

What works on paper may not work on film, film adds voices, music, actors that will be different from what's on paper.

Two different media, even with the same creator.

Or for that matter, what, three different versions of Evangelion now, by the same creator in the same medium?

Telling a story differently isn't a personal attack. It's just telling a story differently.

Whilst manga and anime are both drawn, the mediums are very very different. The closest you can argue is that the manga can be more directly used as a storyboard and the nature of it means that you can also lift the character designs almost perfect from one to the other if you wish.

Whilst with book to film you've always got a layer of visual interpretation which goes on all the time and you have to create your own storyboard.


That said the ability to adapt the story word for word is still the very same. You can adapt a manga and change everything. Indeed this has oft been done when the anime ends up out-pacing the manga. But as noted sometimes authors do change things entirely - Nausicaa the Anime and the Manga are very different stories.

That said I think that the main difference is that Anime can be either or. Creators can either follow the original word for word or deviate.
Meanwhile a lot of USA productions are often changing everything very readily. Getting an actual faithful adaptation is honestly rare. Heck even when they adapt already created anime for the market they have been known to chop and change entire storylines. The first round of translated Ghibli films are entirely different from the original stories and the translations we have today.

Another issue is there is a lot of very blatant "market research" and "focus group feedback" elements going on with the USA side that people dislike. It's not changing the story to better present it on a different medium; or to follow a tangent storyline or such but because Producers think that they want X things in them because of studies.


Eg it would not surprise me if they'd do a Lord of The Rings and make Sam into a Samantha and then add another one or two women to the Ring Bearers group etc....

trexmeyer wrote:
I think it's fascinating that anime can do very accurate adaptations of manga, but for some reason western media magically can't.

You should see some of the Japanese live action adaptations of manga and anime. Some of them are absolutely cringeworthy.

On the other hand Dune has already been a faithful and successful adaption, over two decades ago. It also led to Dune Messiah and Children of Dune, likewise. And on a far lower budget and schedule I might add...

A Star Is Born has been made four times and each is a good film that encapsulates something about the time they were made. How many times has Macbeth, or any other Shakespeare play. been adapted? The Odyssey?

The problem isn't retelling or re-imagining stories, we've done that since we could tell stories, the problem is doing it half assed or badly.

The SYFY series is twenty four years old and the Lynch film forty years old. A whole new audience is being exposed to Dune in a good way and I think that is a positive thing. Because a sixty year old saw Lynch's film in the theaters when they were twenty isn't a good reason that current twenty year olds shouldn't have a version as well. For those that did watch the older ones they aren't being taken away you still have them you just have another one to consider. If you don't like the newer one fine, you lost nothing, and you still have the one(s) you do like.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
Regarding the Sadukar. I’ve only read the first book, and if I remember rightly the best that can be said of them is that Stilgar says they put up a good fight. But they still all die.

They seem worse than Stormtroopers in the regard of being built up to be dangerous but suffer from getting so easily beaten.

We see the danger of the sardaukar in the first film, when they annihilate the Atreides. The Atreides army was generally more than able to fight off the Harkonnen troops, but the Sardaukar were a different matter altogether

I believe it is also something of a theme brought up in Dune Messiah that the Sardaukar had become a victim of their own success by the events of Dune. Like many "mythic" fighting forces before them, their reputation was pulling a lot of the weight by the time they meet their match in the Fremen. They had grown accustomed to easy victory, and complacent as a result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

I think it's fascinating that anime can do very accurate adaptations of manga, but for some reason western media magically can't.

Take a look at Miyazaki's Naussaca and Valley of the Wind some time, Manga and anime by the same person, very different works.

What works on paper may not work on film, film adds voices, music, actors that will be different from what's on paper.

Two different media, even with the same creator.

Hell, look at adaptations from the stage to film. Just going from a live theatre to film experience requires vast changes to how you approach a project because the engagement of the audience is different when seeing actual people on stage versus a movie.

The stage musical of The Producers is possibly the funniest show I have ever seen. Every single joke lands. The film version of that same musical is worse in every way, even jokes which work impeccably live just fall flat when they are 1 to 1 translated into film.

So even when you go from an audio-visual medium to another audio-visual medium you need to make changes.

 Overread wrote:
Whilst manga and anime are both drawn, the mediums are very very different. The closest you can argue is that the manga can be more directly used as a storyboard and the nature of it means that you can also lift the character designs almost perfect from one to the other if you wish.

Whilst with book to film you've always got a layer of visual interpretation which goes on all the time and you have to create your own storyboard.

Yeah, and a film is a little more than a 'visual interpretation' of a book also. There are enormous length and pacing concerns with moviemaking. Dialogue may need to change drastically -- not just because of what 'works' and doesn't on film but because books capture inner thoughts and descriptions and exposition that may need to be adapted differently. Moviemaking is also a very collaborative exercise. Actors' decisions and performances are a much a bigger factor than a lot of fans realize. The actors may improvise, or the actor and director may try different approaches to a scene...and this process often does improve what's written in the script or book. All of this and much more impacts the storytelling quite a bit. It's a completely different medium, and I don't know how anyone arguing in good faith can really think movies can be shot simply by recreating book scenes in order and word for word.

And sometimes the storytelling in a book can just be improved upon.

SamusDrake wrote:
On the other hand Dune has already been a faithful and successful adaption, over two decades ago. It also led to Dune Messiah and Children of Dune, likewise. And on a far lower budget and schedule I might add...

Two points there. I'd argue that some parts are faithful to a fault, as some scenes drag...and that even that one makes changes. Irulan has a very different story, Paul makes a river appear, and Duncan's death is different, just off the top of my head.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The stage musical of The Producers is possibly the funniest show I have ever seen. Every single joke lands. The film version of that same musical is worse in every way, even jokes which work impeccably live just fall flat when they are 1 to 1 translated into film.

So even when you go from an audio-visual medium to another audio-visual medium you need to make changes.

Off topic, but I had the chance to see it on Broadway with Broderick and Lane. I don't think I've ever been part of a theater audience that laughed that hard.

I got to see it.

I think the trailers made a lot of people think this was going to be an action movie. It isn't. The action is mostly to drive the plot and off-screen. This is not a criticism. The guy a few seats down from me actually fell asleep!

I think the Lynch version did a few things better, but oh my Denis gave us a treat with this. No doubt these are two well-done films that both work. I look forward to watching them back-to-back.

I for one am excited for the supercut of both films which restores Thufir Hawat (and whoever the heck Tim Blake Nelson was supposed to play, my money is either Count Fenring or a spice smuggler) and other relevant material. I was surprised at some of the choices they made in this adaptation but overall enjoyed this version of the story.



A funny moment from a crowded theater: after the film ended, hitting basically all the major plot beats and resolutions from the books and even the 1984 film, I heard the person behind me say to their friend, "that was such a cliffhanger ending! They didn't resolve anything."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Villeneuve said extended cuts won't happen. I think Nelson had to be Fenring. And I completely agree with your take there in the spoiler. In addition to what you said, their relationship is also different...it was very unconditional in the book and it really isn't in the film.

In fairness I suspect most directors will never announce that they will do an extended cut when a film is having its main theatrical release.

It's the same as how every interview and release documentary and so forth on the film will right now be glowing with positivity and praise for everyone involved and so forth.

It's just good marketing.


One the theatrical releases is over and done with and the first wave of DVD/Bluray is sold; then is the time when they might talk about extended editions and so forth.

 gorgon wrote:


Two points there. I'd argue that some parts are faithful to a fault, as some scenes drag...and that even that one makes changes. Irulan has a very different story, Paul makes a river appear, and Duncan's death is different, just off the top of my head.

Of course changes are to be expected; Harrah and Thufir were easily cut altogether or killed off sooner for example. We don't need Gurney upset that Paul denies him Feyd's demise. Even you and I could sit down together and chop things out and we'd do no harm. But this is boasting to be the most faithful adaptation and "no one but Denis could have done better", but yet better has been done. It was a success for the syfi channel and was well received for being a very close adaptation.

Dune is what it is, and it's a masterpiece marvelled as much as Lord of the Rings. I'd much rather they'd gone for three films and did a proper job - like they did with the mini-series and graphic novel adaptations - than rush to get to a sequel story that could easily have waited.

If you love this as an adaptation then it's done it's job and I'm happy for you. If Denis gets awards and his Dune films become as legendary as LOTR then I'm also happy for him and those who appreciate his effort. I don't dislike his take on Dune as they're still good sci-fi movies in their own right, but being honest it felt like a wasted opportunity as an adaptation.

The thing is, 'faithful adaption' doesn't mean '1:1 copy'. It just means that the adaption maintains the message and tone of the original. Villeneuve did that, along with crafting a gorgeous visual spectacle, and the fact that some of the details are different doesn't change that.

It's not perfect, but it's (IMO) miles better than any of the previous adaptions.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, insaniak.

 gorgon wrote:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Villeneuve said extended cuts won't happen. I think Nelson had to be Fenring.

Alas! A true tragedy for Tim.

 Overread wrote:
In fairness I suspect most directors will never announce that they will do an extended cut when a film is having its main theatrical release.

It's the same as how every interview and release documentary and so forth on the film will right now be glowing with positivity and praise for everyone involved and so forth.

It's just good marketing.


One the theatrical releases is over and done with and the first wave of DVD/Bluray is sold; then is the time when they might talk about extended editions and so forth.

So you're saying there's a chance...

I'm saying its not an impossibility, but you will be looking at years before they do them and even then perhaps years before they think of doing them and have to go hunting for bits to make them.

It's not like Lord of the Rings where the Extended versions were almost pre-planned into the design process.

 Overread wrote:
I'm saying its not an impossibility, but you will be looking at years before they do them and even then perhaps years before they think of doing them and have to go hunting for bits to make them.

It's not like Lord of the Rings where the Extended versions were almost pre-planned into the design process.

Lol no worries I figured. A man can dream.

I for one am eagerly awaiting Greta Gerwig's contribution to the cycle, "Dune 2.5: How Chani got her Dune Back"

 Overread wrote:
In fairness I suspect most directors will never announce that they will do an extended cut when a film is having its main theatrical release.

It's the same as how every interview and release documentary and so forth on the film will right now be glowing with positivity and praise for everyone involved and so forth.

It's just good marketing.


One the theatrical releases is over and done with and the first wave of DVD/Bluray is sold; then is the time when they might talk about extended editions and so forth.

And yet... Snyder did just that for Rebel Moon before it even came out.

And look how well that turned out!