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 think only the original trilogy is potentially suited for a movie franchise, however. The second trilogy gets...trippier. It's not general audience-friendly, IMO. The prequel books are what they are. Some of that might be more like TV miniseries material.

 gorgon wrote:
I think only the original trilogy is potentially suited for a movie franchise, however. The second trilogy gets...trippier. It's not general audience-friendly, IMO. The prequel books are what they are. Some of that might be more like TV miniseries material.

OTOH, it's not like the Hobbit didn't somehow transform into THREE giant movies.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
WRT The Princess Bride, wasn't the book an adaptation of the movie screenplay? That is, there never was a full TPB book that the movie was based on.

I think the book came out half a decade before the movie. Either way, they were both written by the same person, apparently in a different headspace.

Right, but no "full" version exists as alluded to in the introduction. Just the short version that got filmed. It's been a long time since I've read TPB, and just as long since I've read Dune.

uh, what do you mean no full version? The novel within the novel is entirely fictional. The book by S. Morgenstern is as real and complete a text as Lovecraft's Necronomicon: it only exists as collection of "good parts".*

* Not counting the various "Necronomicon" facsimiles that have been written since the 70's. I've got the Simon Necronomicon and the Hays Necronomicon, and while complete books neither of them feels authentic to what Lovecraft intended.

Still, with the way that things are now, Dune is ripe for a remake into a giant media franchise spanning several full-length movies, with all of the licensing and merchandise to follow. And unlike other projects, it's not like there isn't a wealth of material to work with. The Dune series is a HUGE amount of text.

I would love to see a Dune Cinematic Universe that covered the entirety of Frank Herbert's canon.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I think only the original trilogy is potentially suited for a movie franchise, however. The second trilogy gets...trippier. It's not general audience-friendly, IMO. The prequel books are what they are. Some of that might be more like TV miniseries material.

OTOH, it's not like the Hobbit didn't somehow transform into THREE giant movies.

Sure. They could, for instance, use material from Paul of Dune between their treatments of Dune and Dune Messiah. I'm not sure how many movies Chalamet is signed for though, or how long he's interested in doing Dune movies. There's a real world time factor at work with these franchises.

I still think it's likely that at best we get coverage of the first three books on film. A lot depends on the box office for parts 1 and 2 of Dune.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
WRT The Princess Bride, wasn't the book an adaptation of the movie screenplay? That is, there never was a full TPB book that the movie was based on.

I think the book came out half a decade before the movie. Either way, they were both written by the same person, apparently in a different headspace.

Right, but no "full" version exists as alluded to in the introduction. Just the short version that got filmed. It's been a long time since I've read TPB, and just as long since I've read Dune.

uh, what do you mean no full version? The novel within the novel is entirely fictional. The book by S. Morgenstern is as real and complete a text as Lovecraft's Necronomicon: it only exists as collection of "good parts".

Still, with the way that things are now, Dune is ripe for a remake into a giant media franchise spanning several full-length movies, with all of the licensing and merchandise to follow. And unlike other projects, it's not like there isn't a wealth of material to work with. The Dune series is a HUGE amount of text.

I would love to see a Dune Cinematic Universe that covered the entirety of Frank Herbert's canon.

Yeah, the unabridged "S. Morgenstern version" with ALL of the parts - it's mentioned, but doesn't exist.

I hope Dune 1 does well enough to get more of the story told.

Man, it would get seriously adult if they made movies of the Butlerian Jihad. Those books have some pretty intense spots.

Weren't those written by Herbert's son and KJA?

Why make movies of those divisive books?

Good question. Some of Herbert’s own novels are divisive enough!

I only mentioned it in reference to a "Dune cinematic universe", in which they would be the prequels, despite their different tone than the actual Herbert books..

Put me on the list of people that hated the Lynch's version, but adores the two miniseries (I even love the concept of the first miniseries as almost a 'recorded' theatrical production.)

However, I've always had a bit of an unpopular opinion when it comes to Dune.

Dune is ultimately a romance, it's a tale about love. First with Leto and Jessica, then Paul and Chani.

The instigating factor of the series is Jessica and Leto's love for each other. This, I think, is the heart of the book.

Oh sure, and it's those two unions that produce the two most important people of the series. Well, other than maybe Duncan, as it turned out.

It's interesting to hear it's going to be two movies. I think it's a good thing, since a story like this really needs room to breathe. Even in the novel, there are some pacing issues after the timeskip, with a lot of plot-critical events happening in rapid succession and not really getting explored.

So now Oscar Isaac has been cast as Leto Atreides, didn't see that one coming.

 Thargrim wrote:
So now Oscar Isaac has been cast as Leto Atreides, didn't see that one coming.

He's great, though kinda young for the role.

He’ll be 40 by the time they start shooting.

LOL, got it!

Apparently Zendaya tested for Chani.

First (potential) casting that I'm not sure about. I think she has a good look for the role, but I'm not sure about her acting chops. Especially considering some of the talent that will be around her.

Tbh I didn't know who she was until today, not sure how to feel about it.

She is the girl from MCU Spiderman!

She feels a little young for Chani. But then again, the cast does.

It kind of feels like a Romeo and Juliet vibe almost. Which, to be fair, is probably more indicative of the books, than the 20 somethings in the miniseries.

Yeah, I think they're definitely looking at younger characters like in the books, just probably parking them around 18 rather than 15. Both Chalamet and Zendaya can easily play 18 year olds.

I approve of this approach. I think their youth is an important part of the story. I'm not sure about this particular actress, but I'll certainly give her a chance.

If Dune is to spawn a series of sequels like LotR or the Hobbit or Harry Potter, you need young actors & actresses for those roles.

I just want to know how a new Dune movie or series would stand apart from what has been done previously. Lynch's Dune strayed greatly from the source material but kept the spirit and had a good amount of style and grandeur. The mini-series had a less grandeur but the style and most of the story were true to the book.

My main peeve about translating Dune into movie/TV is that in all versions, apparently including this new one, the actor playing Paul is way too old for the part. He's around 14 at the beginning of the book and only ages a few years by the end. Kyle MacLachlan was 25 when he played Paul and Alec Newman was 29. Timothée Chalamet will be 24 when production of the new adaptation begins so he's the youngest of the three but still ten years older than Paul is supposed to be. Still, I suppose Timothée does have the advantage of looking younger than the others, at least.

 Breotan wrote:
I just want to know how a new Dune movie or series would stand apart from what has been done previously. Lynch's Dune strayed greatly from the source material but kept the spirit and had a good amount of style and grandeur. The mini-series had a less grandeur but the style and most of the story were true to the book.

My main peeve about translating Dune into movie/TV is that in all versions, apparently including this new one, the actor playing Paul is way too old for the part. He's around 14 at the beginning of the book and only ages a few years by the end. Kyle MacLachlan was 25 when he played Paul and Alec Newman was 29. Timothée Chalamet will be 24 when production of the new adaptation begins so he's the youngest of the three but still ten years older than Paul is supposed to be. Still, I suppose Timothée does have the advantage of looking younger than the others, at least.

The problem is finding a kid actor to play a part that requires so much would be hard. I wouldn't want it to feel like a stranger things type kid in space, and we all remember how annoying anakin was in TPM. Going for a more mature actor is a smart decision IMO, will save us from being as annoyed by the character.

 Breotan wrote:
I just want to know how a new Dune movie or series would stand apart from what has been done previously. Lynch's Dune strayed greatly from the source material but kept the spirit and had a good amount of style and grandeur. The mini-series had a less grandeur but the style and most of the story were true to the book.

My main peeve about translating Dune into movie/TV is that in all versions, apparently including this new one, the actor playing Paul is way too old for the part. He's around 14 at the beginning of the book and only ages a few years by the end. Kyle MacLachlan was 25 when he played Paul and Alec Newman was 29. Timothée Chalamet will be 24 when production of the new adaptation begins so he's the youngest of the three but still ten years older than Paul is supposed to be. Still, I suppose Timothée does have the advantage of looking younger than the others, at least.

Lynch's Dune *looks* like Dune, feels like Dune. That it's not exactly the same as the book is fine, because a lot of written stuff doesn't work as film. It's actually an improvement over the book.

Paul shouldn't be a 14-year-old. 18 is better. OTOH, consider Ender's Game. In the book, how old is Ender? Yeah. Good luck making child soldiers in space work on screen.

 Breotan wrote:
I just want to know how a new Dune movie or series would stand apart from what has been done previously. Lynch's Dune strayed greatly from the source material but kept the spirit and had a good amount of style and grandeur. The mini-series had a less grandeur but the style and most of the story were true to the book.

My main peeve about translating Dune into movie/TV is that in all versions, apparently including this new one, the actor playing Paul is way too old for the part. He's around 14 at the beginning of the book and only ages a few years by the end. Kyle MacLachlan was 25 when he played Paul and Alec Newman was 29. Timothée Chalamet will be 24 when production of the new adaptation begins so he's the youngest of the three but still ten years older than Paul is supposed to be. Still, I suppose Timothée does have the advantage of looking younger than the others, at least.

Yeah, they're probably going to move the age of Paul and Chani up to about 18 so it's not awkward when they start making babies. And he can easily play a 'movies 18'.



They even look like they could be father and son there.

Lynch's movie ditched almost every important theme from the book -- ecology, religion, etc. -- and added stuff like weirding modules that detracted from the story (the Fremen were formidable because Paul and Jessica trained them and exploited their beliefs to launch a holy war, not because they had a magic technology). The main antagonist of the book -- a highly intelligent, manipulative schemer -- was turned into a buffoon. And Paul being a superhuman that can make it rain quite literally gets the whole story wrong. We could go on and on.

It's not a matter of a medium-to-medium translation losing things...it's that the movie just makes things different or wrong, and it's a poorly-told story with all the cuts. People are certainly allowed to like it. The cast is good and there was a lot of good design work. But there are really good reasons why everyone involved with this keeps saying that it's an adaptation of the book and not a 'remake' of Lynch's film.

The miniseries was a better effort, no doubt. There were certainly things that bugged me (sietches being in the open air?), but that's starting to edge into 'nerd stuff' territory, and it should be given credit for trying to include the right themes. What this film can do is tell the story more accurately like the miniseries, but have the budget like the Lynch film to do everything better.

Lynch's movie has the ecology and religion in there - it's just not spelled out the same way or in the detail as the book, because it can't be done that way. It's the same reason no Moby Dick movie has ever done Cetology, even though it's a full chapter in the book.

There’s a full chapter on the cultural connotations of the color white, as well.

Javier Bardem has apparently been cast as Stilgar.

Wow. It's now a better cast than Lynch's film. Zendaya sticks out in a Katie-Holmes-in-Batman-Begins way, but I'll trust Villeneuve's instincts, since Chani is an important character to get right.