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.

I don't buy the Dune is risky logic. It has massive fanbase that has grown considerably since the disastrous Lynch film. The miniseries on SciFi did pretty well.

Frank Herbert's Dune aired in three parts, starting Sunday, December 3, 2000.[14] The first installment achieved a 4.6 rating with 3 million homes, and the miniseries averaged a 4.4/2.9 million households over all three nights.[14] This doubled all viewership records for Sci Fi, placing Dune among the top ten of basic cable's original miniseries in the five years previous.[14] Two of the three installments also rated among the year's top 10 original cable movies.[14] To date, the 2000 Dune miniseries and its 2003 sequel are two of the three highest-rated programs ever to be broadcast on the Sci Fi Channel.[2][15]

It's made $350m so far, despite streaming on HBO Max for "free" the same day. IMO, the real difficulty with a trilogy would be splitting a single novel into three stories. That would be tricky. LOTR came prepackaged in that format.

trexmeyer wrote:
I don't buy the Dune is risky logic. It has massive fanbase that has grown considerably since the disastrous Lynch film. The miniseries on SciFi did pretty well.

Frank Herbert's Dune aired in three parts, starting Sunday, December 3, 2000.[14] The first installment achieved a 4.6 rating with 3 million homes, and the miniseries averaged a 4.4/2.9 million households over all three nights.[14] This doubled all viewership records for Sci Fi, placing Dune among the top ten of basic cable's original miniseries in the five years previous.[14] Two of the three installments also rated among the year's top 10 original cable movies.[14] To date, the 2000 Dune miniseries and its 2003 sequel are two of the three highest-rated programs ever to be broadcast on the Sci Fi Channel.[2][15]

It's made $350m so far, despite streaming on HBO Max for "free" the same day. IMO, the real difficulty with a trilogy would be splitting a single novel into three stories. That would be tricky. LOTR came prepackaged in that format.

Dune itself comes in three parts - something like "Dune", "The Prophet" and "Maud'Dib". The TV series had the right idea and just followed it...

Part One: The assassination of House Atreides, and the escape into the Desert.
Part Two: The unification of the Fremen and the new reign of Rabban.
Part Three: All eyes look to Arrakis and the battle of Arrakeen.

Lord of the Rings isn't actually written as 3 separate stories though. It was one book. It was only split into three by the publishers after he submitted it.

As a result whilst there are story arcs within each part, there's no sense of pausing and restarting the story like you might get with a Harry Potter novel or such; instead its just one long continuation of the same story.


Dune might well require more independent construction of story elements, but that in part is because its latter half of the story contains a lot of overview moments and short scenes that focus on critical moments in an otherwise long story campaign. It covers 3 years of major warfare and uprising and unrest in a very short span of book space.


But it is still risky. Dune is nothing like as powerful nor popular as say Starwars or Lord of the Rings (even before the films). Yes its a major sci-fi work, but its nothing like as instantly known as the others. Mention Dune to many people and they won't have a clue what you're talking about (before the recent film of course). Mention Starwars or Lord of the Rings and the vast majority of people have at least heard of them if not seen/read (attempted to read) them.

No one heard of Star Wars before the movie. Many folks heard of Dune before the movie.

Dune and Lord of the Rings were pretty similar in popularity and niche before their movies. Star Wars is on an entirely different level.

SamusDrake wrote:



Dune itself comes in three parts - something like "Dune", "The Prophet" and "Maud'Dib". The TV series had the right idea and just followed it...

Part One: The assassination of House Atreides, and the escape into the Desert.
Part Two: The unification of the Fremen and the new reign of Rabban.
Part Three: All eyes look to Arrakis and the battle of Arrakeen.

Yeah, but part two and three feel much shorter to me than part one. Part One takes up about half the book by itself. It's a pacing issue to me, but I'm sure a team of writers could figure it out.

Maybe end the first film earlier than the current one. Have Paul and Jessica escaping into the dessert be the final scene.

Separating the movie into 2 parts is a better decision, especially that the 3rd part of the book felt a bit rushed. You would therefore need to either invent some parts or elongate some parts from the book. After disaster that was a Hobbit to me I do not think it would be a good idea. Still I would like to be able to see a full part 1 of the movie first. It is supposed to be like 5h so maybe there are the scenes that most people miss, like a dinner one etc.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Separating the movie into 2 parts is a better decision, especially that the 3rd part of the book felt a bit rushed. You would therefore need to either invent some parts or elongate some parts from the book. After disaster that was a Hobbit to me I do not think it would be a good idea. Still I would like to be able to see a full part 1 of the movie first. It is supposed to be like 5h so maybe there are the scenes that most people miss, like a dinner one etc.

Well, its at least a better decision over just the 2 hour 1984 movie.

I liked it despite the way the ecologist was changed, i thought the death scene was better, more definite and lacked the stupid "I'm sure he can't possibly survive" bit.

The effects were great, and avoided a lot of greenscreening by using massive walls of fabric sand.

The greater emphasis on the value of water, when the guy was watering the trees, was a nice touch. The voice power was much greater in this one, which makes me wonder why people don't use hearing protection.

All in all a vast improvement on the original even tho I was not impressed by the new sandworm, which some people said looked more like a giant butthole and i have to agree.

Yes, I quite liked Dr Kynes' exit this time. That was well played.

trexmeyer wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
.... and the rebels in Star Wars go through Stormtroopers like a hot light saber through butter even though they should not.

A lot of people have spilled a lot of ink on why. Ultimately, it comes down to "The Protagonists and their Allies Win". Trying to go beyond that is an exercise in futility.

Comparing a work of pulp that began as little more than a homage to science fantasy serials and samurai flicks to what is ostensibly a serious, philosophical piece of literature strikes me as disingenuous.

That's also pretty inaccurate. In A New Hope the Imperials board and wipe out the ship easily. They also blow a planet up. In The Empire Strikes Back they crush the rebel forces on Hoth. The rebels are happy just to escape.

Faceless Rebels don't mow down faceless Imperials. If anything, the reverse is true. The lead protagonists are the ones doing the damage and even then Obi-Wan is killed, Luke loses a duel and his hand, Han Solo is captured, etc.

The Fremen don't take meaningful losses. The Atreides do.

I mean, leaving aside the fact that I'm pretty certain that Dune is literal paid-by-the-word pulp fiction (I certainly read it the first few times in yellowed-paper pulp form) Dune is about as concerned with the versimilitude and realism of its military history as Lord of The Rings is. I.e: Not.

you can , as a fan, either bend yourself backwards in triple dipple squintuple knots like those poor desperate star wars fans have to, DESPERATELY trying to explain every detail of the canon as the 5-d chess writings of a master uber-wizard, or you can accept critical analysis of the flaws of a work and choose to focus instead on the good parts, which almost always were the actual focus of the author in the first place.

George Lucas did almost everything because it looked cool or made him feel like a little kid. Frank Herbert had a specific overarching story he wanted to tell, and anything that needed to happen to get that story told, is how it worked in his story.

If i had to guess, the fremen were mega-ultra-badasses because this story was probably told around when it was really in vogue to heavily lionize the taliban fighters in afghanistan fighting against the soviet union.

Whoops!

Hindsight, eh folks?

Good points well made...

 the_scotsman wrote:
If i had to guess, the fremen were mega-ultra-badasses because this story was probably told around when it was really in vogue to heavily lionize the taliban fighters in afghanistan fighting against the soviet union.

Whoops!

Hindsight, eh folks?

If you'd had to guess, take into account that Dune was published 14 years before the USSR invaded Afghanistan.

 Albertorius wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
If i had to guess, the fremen were mega-ultra-badasses because this story was probably told around when it was really in vogue to heavily lionize the taliban fighters in afghanistan fighting against the soviet union.

Whoops!

Hindsight, eh folks?

If you'd had to guess, take into account that Dune was published 14 years before the USSR invaded Afghanistan.

That pesky space time continuum always gets in the way unless you're a god-emperor of any variety or timelord.

 the_scotsman wrote:


If i had to guess, the fremen were mega-ultra-badasses because this story was probably told around when it was really in vogue to heavily lionize the taliban fighters in afghanistan fighting against the soviet union.

Whoops!

Hindsight, eh folks?

This is an awe-inspiring combination of confidence and ignorance.

Edit: Googling the date Dune was written is hard.

 Albertorius wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
If i had to guess, the fremen were mega-ultra-badasses because this story was probably told around when it was really in vogue to heavily lionize the taliban fighters in afghanistan fighting against the soviet union.

Whoops!

Hindsight, eh folks?

If you'd had to guess, take into account that Dune was published 14 years before the USSR invaded Afghanistan.

I always thought it was roughly based on the rise of the Arabic tribes, united by Mohammed, overrunning the Sassanid Persian empire and expanding from there. They were a vigorous desert people who came together under a new religion and embarked on a jihad, reminiscent of the Arabs under Islam. There’s a bit more worked into Dune to keep it from feeling like Mohammed In Space, but that framework seems evident.

Anyway, Dune and the rest of the series seem to have a motif where societies that stagnate must fall, and more …basic types must overrun them and revitalize humanity.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
If i had to guess, the fremen were mega-ultra-badasses because this story was probably told around when it was really in vogue to heavily lionize the taliban fighters in afghanistan fighting against the soviet union.

Whoops!

Hindsight, eh folks?

If you'd had to guess, take into account that Dune was published 14 years before the USSR invaded Afghanistan.

I always thought it was roughly based on the rise of the Arabic tribes, united by Mohammed, overrunning the Sassanid Persian empire and expanding from there. They were a vigorous desert people who came together under a new religion and embarked on a jihad, reminiscent of the Arabs under Islam. There’s a bit more worked into Dune to keep it from feeling like Mohammed In Space, but that framework seems evident.

Dune is more Lawrence of Arabia = man from outside reuniting the tribes to be more effective against their oppressor/s.

trexmeyer wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:



Dune itself comes in three parts - something like "Dune", "The Prophet" and "Maud'Dib". The TV series had the right idea and just followed it...

Part One: The assassination of House Atreides, and the escape into the Desert.
Part Two: The unification of the Fremen and the new reign of Rabban.
Part Three: All eyes look to Arrakis and the battle of Arrakeen.

Yeah, but part two and three feel much shorter to me than part one. Part One takes up about half the book by itself. It's a pacing issue to me, but I'm sure a team of writers could figure it out.

Maybe end the first film earlier than the current one. Have Paul and Jessica escaping into the dessert be the final scene.

The last part of Dune was extremely rushed. I heard it as an audio book a while ago and after listening to hours upon hours of Paul's angsty inner monologue there were like 20-25 minutes left on the track before the final battle beginns. Then it's BOOM atomics, blargh Baron is dead, blargh Feyt dead too Paul marries Irulan end.
It will presumably be much more prolonged in the movie version.
Altough truth be told, I thought that the 2020 movie felt pretty rushed too, when you know the book, probably out of necessity to get the story across in the medium. Four characters in particular, I felt were rather severely under-characterized.

Piter de Vries, who in the book is a talkative Joker-type character who has this typical bad guy who-will-backstab-the-other-first relationship with the Baron, while in the movie his name isn't even mentioned.
The Baron himself, who is much more pompous and aristocratic than the gloomy Apocalypse Now-channeling horror figure in the movie.
Doctor Yueh, who, in the book version, was obviously not so naive as to believe he would somehow get his wife back and make it out of the conspiracy alive but deliberately planned things in such a way to ensure his wife dies (thus being spared more suffering), he dies (as punishment for his betrayal) and the Baron dies.
Thufir Hawat, who in the book is involved in a game of wits against Lady Jessica with both of them wrongly suspecting each other of being the traitor.

And of course the Duke Leto is actually also smarter in the books than in the movies, as he had deduced very early that him being granted lordship over Arrakis was a conspiracy on behalf of the Emperor and the Harkonnens, and even correctly predicted that the anticipated strike would involve Sardaukar posing as Harkonnens (whereas in the movie they're not making any attempt to mask their identity, which kinda dumbs down the politics of the Dune Empire).

What's the difference between FTL travel and making a movie of a major sf novel most of the readers wont' attack?

FTL travel may be possible.

I chewed on the creative decision about Sardaukar operating openly also. I agree that it goes to the politics of the Imperium. The movie makes it seem like the Emperor is all-powerful and can endure no matter what actions he takes against the great Houses. In the books we know that's far from the case.

On the other hand, I also understand the need to simplify things for casual audiences. Villenueve didn't have the funding for Part 2 when he shot Part 1. It had to engage casuals and a lot of the politics had to go or be simplified. A 5-part miniseries would have been a different thing. And I also get that the visual language of having Sardaukar uniformed differently works better than having a bunch of guys in Harkonnen outfit...but some fighting with a different style and efficiency.

So while I like the book's treatment better, I feel like I understand why the movie treatment was what it was. And I think it's really the same kind of thing for most the less developed characters you mention. I wouldn't have invested much in Piter either, given his quick death. And while I would have liked to see Thufir and Jessica at odds, the banquet scene, etc...they weren't essential to moving the story along. You never know about an extended cut, however.

I will say that although Leto doesn't spend a ton of time discussing Arrakis as a trap, he does address it. He tells Paul in the graveyard that they're in great political danger. I also thought his line to Jessica -- "I thought we'd have more time" -- shows that he knew they'd move against him...just not as quickly as it happened. I don't think he's a naive newb for not understanding how difficult the conditions would be on the ground on Arrakis. Isn't that something that's plagued every occupying force since the dawn of time?

It's like with the cost of travel discussion...I think a lot of stuff is actually in there, just done in a shorthand way that the book fans might recognize but doesn't impede the story for casuals.

A movie is not a book that moves. The thing would be 3hrs long if not more and would bore most viewers to tears if they actually included all the plotting the book did. Just like LotR the movie is not 1:1 reenactment of the book, we were spared Tom Bombadil.

trexmeyer wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:


If i had to guess, the fremen were mega-ultra-badasses because this story was probably told around when it was really in vogue to heavily lionize the taliban fighters in afghanistan fighting against the soviet union.

Whoops!

Hindsight, eh folks?

This is an awe-inspiring combination of confidence and ignorance.

Edit: Googling the date Dune was written is hard.

Eh, you've got me. Watched too many 80s movies I guess.

I absolutely understand the necessities of cutting stuff when transitioning a story to another medium. I felt that the story was somewhat rushed, from the perspective of a book reader. A movie goer can enjoy the movie perfectly well without really knowing who Piter or Thufir, or even Mentats in general, are. The 80ies movie decision to include a gigantic infodump in the form of endless inner monologuing was a rather poor one, after all.

(Altough personally I really enjoyed the part in the book where Piter, who was heavily build-up as some sort of important evil vizier type character who at some point would challenge and/or become the main bad guy himself, gets killed completely by chance. Felt refreshingly expectation-averting).

The one element that I think may have come out of left field for a movie only audience, was Doctor Yueh, his reasoning and how crucial his role was in bringing House Atreides down, not helped by how extremely dark-lit the entire betrayal scene plays out. I may be wrong about that though.

 gorgon wrote:


It's like with the cost of travel discussion...I think a lot of stuff is actually in there, just done in a shorthand way that the book fans might recognize but doesn't impede the story for casuals.

Man oh man though, how absolutely awesome would a cut of dune be thats just completely alien. Like an absolute madman would make. All the actors speaking in an entirely or almost entirely unrecognizable language with subtitles, no lines to explain things like visions or things that wouldnt naturally be explained by the cast at all, like 4.5 hours long, everything just utterly alien and unfamiliar.

That's the kind of sci-fi I'd kill to see with any kind of budget behind it.

 Esmer wrote:


The last part of Dune was extremely rushed. I heard it as an audio book a while ago and after listening to hours upon hours of Paul's angsty inner monologue there were like 20-25 minutes left on the track before the final battle beginns. Then it's BOOM atomics, blargh Baron is dead, blargh Feyt dead too Paul marries Irulan end.

It isn't rushed. It simply isn't the point. It isn't a war story, its an ecological/prescience/sociological story. The end is an epilogue to set up Messiah, not to be a detailed battle.
Its like reading a Batman comic and expecting an entire arc covering the trial that sends <insert villain here> to Arkham.

 the_scotsman wrote:


Eh, you've got me. Watched too many 80s movies I guess.

Its perfectly understandable. Many of us would also rather watch Rambo III than read Dune.

edit should've read the whole thread before replying.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


It's like with the cost of travel discussion...I think a lot of stuff is actually in there, just done in a shorthand way that the book fans might recognize but doesn't impede the story for casuals.

Man oh man though, how absolutely awesome would a cut of dune be thats just completely alien. Like an absolute madman would make. All the actors speaking in an entirely or almost entirely unrecognizable language with subtitles, no lines to explain things like visions or things that wouldnt naturally be explained by the cast at all, like 4.5 hours long, everything just utterly alien and unfamiliar.

That's the kind of sci-fi I'd kill to see with any kind of budget behind it.

It's kinda funny that you say that when previous directors to engage with the materials include Lynch and Jodorowsky.

Obviously Lynch tried to make the franchise film that the studio wanted and he's not built for. Left completely to his own devices it probably would have been trippy as heck. Jodorowsky's attempt also...maybe even moreso...although that one always seemed to me like it would have been a colossal mess no matter how much self-promotion the director is still doing to this day.

Saw the movie on the big screen and I was very happy I did so. I think it takes a restrained madness to attempt to direct a movie like Dune. Villeneuve pulled it off. The massive scenes with a fantastic score built the worlds without being too indulgent. He was right to not try to eat the whole elephant in one bite. Having said that, he could have gone for a shorter first movie. The pace didn't drag, but it could have moved a long a little more. Still, I only checked my watch once and that was at the 2 hour mark. The battle scenes were 40K AF. I messed up and the theatre I went to did not have IMAX - I might go a second time to see it in that format which says a lot given ticket prices these days.

As a seven year old kid I was intrigued by my dad's Dune books on the shelf and tried to read them after watching Star Wars. Failed predictably. Watched the 80s movie as a teenager and thought - this is cool but...weird? What's with these heart plug things? Oh - David Lynch. One great thing for me about the 80s Dune was the supporting cast. Filling the shoes of Patrick Stewart (carrying a pug into battle no less - what an ace), Jurgen Prochnow and Max von Sydow was going to be a tall order in 2021. Then read Dune and enjoyed it. Read Dune again during my first tour to Afghanistan up in Kabul (2003). Fancifully wondered if I was an Atreides trooper trying to work with the Fremen, but by 2006 in the south I was feeling a bit like another Sardaukar.

Finally watched it. I thought what the film focused on was really well done.
It didn't focus on the politics and intrigue very much like the mini series, instead focusing more on the personal journey of Paul. For that slice of the book I thought everything was well done.

*I missed anything with the Emperor but really liked the homeworld scenes of the Sardaukar.
*I thought the fighting scenes were really well done. The one scene before Idaho's last stand where there's a momentary glimpse f the Fremen fighting two Sardauker really caught a glimpse to me of how good the Fremen really are, and their fluid fighting style.
*Oh man the Ornithopters were a perfect blend of vehicle and dragonfly!
*I thought the shields were finally done well, with a fair bit of actual shield fighting. The shields on vehicles and flyers were a nice touch.
*Inversely I missed the Baroquelike brilliant colors of the miniseries.
*The absolute scale of the images were again brilliantly done. Its a true director hallmark.

Characters:
*Mamoa being Mamoa worked quite well for Idaho. Quite a bit more focus on him than I remember.
*Brolin always rubs me the wrong way until he starts his lines and then he's good. I thought he was tight for the role.
*Good portrayal of the Duke I thought, much more energetic and human than previous version.
*Paul's mother. Oh my, she stole the show in every scene she was in. Why have I not seen more from this excellent actress?!?
*Paul. He played Henry again, this time with stillsuit except plate armor. Good acting but his acting personality is wooded. I don't see how anyone would follow him.
*Stilgar. I couldn't tell that was Bardem which was good. He played the role well, an almost arrogant predator when not among his people, but a human leader with his tribe. I miss the Sci Fi Stilgar, but its justa different version.
*Chani. I've seen Zendaya display powerful acting in Malcolm and Marie. She did not have much to do here, but she worked well in the role.

Overall I enjoyed it thoroughly, and look forward to the sequel conclusion.