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.

The TV mini-series of Dune was extremely faithful to the book and that is the main reason I like it better than that aweful Lynch movie.

 Breotan wrote:
The TV mini-series of Dune was extremely faithful to the book and that is the main reason I like it better than that aweful Lynch movie.

I love the Lynch movie. It may not be accurate, but it has spirit. And chutzpah.

As far as the movie LotR versions - a lot of them were fine, but as a whole I just can't watch 'em any more. There were so many parts that were just... nonsensical. The Entmoot, the downsy-hyena wargs, hundred foot tall oliphaunts, the whole battle of Pelennor fields being completely irrelevant, the Eye turning into an evil lighthouse in the second and especially third movies. I mean, the Eye was bad f'ing ass in the Fellowship.

Lord of the Rings, or more specificall Middle Earth, is an incredible creation that is viewed through a fairly flawed novel. The universe he created is complex, multi-layered and full of great stories that build together in to a remarkable whole. It's quite something to realise that unlike other authors who might give a throwaway reference to some ruin or famous battle of the past, when Tolkien mentions such things he's referencing a piece of the history of his world with its own complete story, and often knowing that story enhances the events going on at that very time. Unfortunately to access this you have to read through material that frequently doesn't work too well as novels, for the simple reason that Tolkien was not a writer, nor was his primary interest in writing engaging fiction. He was a world builder. That doesn't mean there isn't great stuff in there, but there's a lot of plodding stuff and a structure that's poor at best.

A Song of Ice and Fire is a much more accessible work. It also complex, multi-layered and full of great stories that look like they're building towards a really incredible whole, but it's written first and foremost as enjoyable read. I'm not sure it has the power of the message that underlines LotR, but that will be hard to know until it ends... and that's really the big thing at this point, A Song of Ice and Fire hasn't ended yet. If it ends very well it will likely be remembered and loved for a very long time, but if it ends poorly, then there is a chance that so much of the stuff that we thought was so cool because it was leading to something might seem far less interesting in the context of a poor ending. So perhaps this conversation should wait until A Song of Ice and Fire is a complete work.

 Breotan wrote:
The TV mini-series of Dune was extremely faithful to the book and that is the main reason I like it better than that aweful Lynch movie.

Heh, that's actually the example I give of why faithfulness to the original medium isn't necessarily a good idea

I mean, Lynch's Dune is a mess, but at least it's a mess with some evocative images and music. For all its faults, it was attempting to evoke the feel of Herbert's novel in film. Whereas the TV mini-series was very faithful to the literal descriptions given in the book, and had everyone say all the right bits at all the right times, but was crafted with all the art and style of a highschool play, and so felt utterly flat.

 sebster wrote:


Heh, that's actually the example I give of why faithfulness to the original medium isn't necessarily a good idea

I mean, Lynch's Dune is a mess, but at least it's a mess with some evocative images and music. For all its faults, it was attempting to evoke the feel of Herbert's novel in film. Whereas the TV mini-series was very faithful to the literal descriptions given in the book, and had everyone say all the right bits at all the right times, but was crafted with all the art and style of a highschool play, and so felt utterly flat.

That's what I was sayin'. Think of all the quotable lines in a movie - generally speaking the more there are the better or at least more memorable (which I think arbitrarily means better) it is. There are a dozen at least in the Lynch movie. I watched the TV one and forgot it immediately.

 Breotan wrote:
The TV mini-series of Dune was extremely faithful to the book and that is the main reason I like it better than that aweful Lynch movie.

AGREED! It was so much better than "sonic gun big hair movie"

The Lynch movie I felt evoked the feeling of Dune - it felt like Dune; it had that feeling of reading the book in a visual nature.

That said I fully admit that its the kind of film where you've had to have read the book to understand half of what is going on because there are many fastward points and scenes with little or no explanation as to what the heck is going on (although the book is a little like that too which is some of its mystery).

Book to film is a hard thing to do because typically you can't just do a straight translation unless you involve a narrator through the whole film in order to present information and viewpoints that occur in the background to action and conversation. Books are often loaded with expanded descriptions; thoughts, ideas and motivations behind characters actions that can otherwise appear to be very odd choices if viewed without that mental backup*


*anyone who has read a book by Robin Hobb has likely felt, more than once, like shouting at the lead character for making the wrong choice; a thing that would make them seem a poor character in a visual movie; but when backed by the thought process of the character - ergo their reasoning, you still want to shout at them but have at least half an understanding of the why.

2001 is an incredibly slow film, but I enjoyed it.

 Overread wrote:
The Lynch movie I felt evoked the feeling of Dune - it felt like Dune; it had that feeling of reading the book in a visual nature.

The only thing that movie evoked was the smell of way too much hairspray being used...

 Frazzled wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The Lynch movie I felt evoked the feeling of Dune - it felt like Dune; it had that feeling of reading the book in a visual nature.

The only thing that movie evoked was the smell of way too much hairspray being used...

Yes but its got Patrick Stward in it too which balances out the outrageous hair

Stewart was good. I'll give you that. But even The Picard could not save that film.

Piccard is the best as jumping DUNE buggies.

I love Tolkien. I love his writing style, and I love the fact that LotR gets better as it progresses.

ASOFAI is an incredible series for the first 3 books and then Martin seems to get lost. That might have something to do with the fact that 4 and 5 were supposed to be one book, but he split it in two because it would've been massive. I have some faith that he will begin moving everything forward in the next book.

Somebody earlier mention Goodkind's "Wizard's First Rule." I will just say that those were probably the best first 3 books in a fantasy series ever and then Goodkind began crapping out preachie turds and utter disappointment.

I love, love, love, "The Chronicles of the Black Company." Definitely more on the low fantasy end of things. Glen Cook starts off great, gets lost towards the end, never quite finds his way back, and nobody cares because his prose is incredible.