PDA

View Full Version : Dune Remake


SFFWorld.com
Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum


Pages : [1] 2

thefalcon
March 27th, 2008, 08:42 AM
Hey. (If there's allready a thread for this, just zap this one out of existance.)

Frank Herbert's classic sci-fi series "DUNE" is being remade by Director Peter Berg (The Rundown, The Kingdom)

Opinions?

Should he leave it alone or is this the best thing that could happen for the books?
Will it be awesome or worse than the first attempt at bringing the book to the screen?
Who'll be going to opening night dressed in a Fremen stillsuit/carrying an Atreides flag??
Or anything else you can think of...

saintjon
March 27th, 2008, 11:23 AM
I thought the sci-fi network mini-series was pretty good, seems a bit pointless to me.

sojourner753
March 27th, 2008, 03:07 PM
I agree. The mini-series was far superior to the original motion picture. And I can't see a movie capturing all of the nuances of the Dune book.

Of course some may through Lord of the Rings in my face, but that would be a heck of an investment for a story that is doomed to have limited appeal due to its complexity.

It will probably make the same mistake that the Golden Compass did. They removed all of the substance. Then marketed it horribly I doubt seriously that movie will get a sequel.

Btw... I loved the original Dune books.

Evil Agent
April 1st, 2008, 09:43 PM
I find this one strange, as well. There is already a movie, and a mini-series remake. The only reason to try again is if they are 100% sure that they can deliver the most superior version yet. I would be thrilled if we got a high quality, faithful, movie version of Dune... but I'm a little skeptical at the moment. I'll wait for further developments...

His Darkness
April 2nd, 2008, 06:59 AM
I'm reading the original books now, is the movie/mini-series any good?

James Carmack
April 2nd, 2008, 07:23 AM
Perhaps if Lynch's version didn't call itself Dune, I'd think much more highly of it. To be fair, there was no way to reasonably cram the content of the novel into such a short timeframe. Add the technological limitations of the time and it's not much of a surprise it turned out like it did.

The mini-series fared much better, given far more time to develop the story and characters. Despite being made-for-TV, the production values were rather high.

In short, I would only recommend the movie as an item of curiosity (or if you're a Sting fan), but if you want what will probably be the best stab at the material, go with the mini-series. The sequel's worth seeing, too, even though they smash Dune Messiah and Children of Dune into the same runtime as the original.

I also share everyone's doubts about this new go at it. Even if we stretched it to a Jacksonian length, we're going to get short-changed. I might give it a chance as a Dune fan, but I won't have very high expectations going in.

The one thing I'd like to see fixed is the casting of Paul. In both the move and the mini-series, he was far too old. If memory serves, he was fifteen when the book started out. One of the things that made Paul so interesting was his precociousness. However, lines that sound preternaturally mature coming from a fifteen-year-old have the opposite effect when delivered by someone ten years older. It was particularly noticeable in the movie. Rather than this budding adult in a youthful body, you've got a man-child with a bad case of arrested development.

Well, as long as this new flick doesn't have sonic weapons and heart plugs, it'll be a start. ^_^;

FremenWarrior
April 4th, 2008, 10:43 AM
the books and mini series were both excellent. just finished "sandworms of dune". the Lynch film was not bad as a film but was total crap compared to the books. they should leave it alone. it is too big a story to compact into 2 hours viewing your looking a something like "cleopatra" style length if you have to be totally faithful to the original plot otherwise you can't possibly please the people who have read the books.

saintjon
April 5th, 2008, 11:44 AM
I heard Lynch had filmed like 8 hours of Dune Movie and then had to chop it down to like 2 hours or whatever. No wonder the damn thing made no sense.

redhead
April 6th, 2008, 11:14 AM
last i heard, Brian Herbert & Kevin J Anderson were going to be executive producers (or something like that) on this new Dune movie.

does that mean so long to the "old" canon?

as an fyi, i enjoyed the Lynch version as entertainment. the scifi channel version of Dune was OK, and i thought their version of Children of Dune was very well done.

Takoren
April 6th, 2008, 05:05 PM
I've been wanting them to bring Dune back to the bigscreen for a while now, but I always thought the man to do it would be Ridley Scott, or perhaps James Cameron.

Peter Berg's first film sucked the farts out of dead cats, but his subsequent work has improved immensely. I think he can do a good job, but they're gonna have to give him a budget. And if he's going to try writing the screenplay himself, he's gonna need a co-writer. I'd suggest Steven Zaillian or someone like that.

It needs to be three hours, at least. Since the LOTR films, I think the studio might balk a little less at the idea of a three hour+ film.

As for those who thought the mini-series was sufficient, I have to disagree. First of all, they cast it stupidly (William Hurt and Saskia Reeves SUCKED, plus it was all too obvious that they ran out of money and had to cast a bunch of Czech actors who could barely speak English) and second I cannot understand why they cut out certain story elements (and reduced the role of important characters) so that they could increase Irulan's role.

Plus I have not once been satisfied by the man playing Paul. Kyle McLachlan was the Wesley Crusher of the Atreides family. Alec Newman was better but was wooden, and seemed like a pouty rich kid. Add to that the fact that there was simply no menace to Ian McNiece's performance as Baron Harkonnen.

I'm looking forward to seeing this really done right.