"Dune" ... um...

[libnnc]

I'm guessing the novel is better than the movie, right?

Great cast but I'm having a hard time following this flick. :crazy:

[jobycom]

1. Original movie or Sci-Fi channel remake?

I didn't like the original movie, but liked the Sci-Fi remake, which didn't try as hard to be bizarre for the sake of being bizarre.

Somehow I never read the novels, but all my friends were addicted to them.

[libnnc]

2. this is the original movie

airing on one of the HBOs right now. Kind of like the bizarro factor but the dialogue is pretty weak.

[jobycom]

3. It's been a couple of decades, but I remember thinking they tried to hard.

I like a movie to have a story. It can be a weird story, a complicated story, an abstract story, or even a non-story existentialist story, as long as the story is the primary aspect of the movie. I remember thinking "Dune" tried too hard to make the high school kids go "COOL!" and not hard enough to maintain a narrative thread that worked on an emotional and/or intellectual level.

But it was a long time ago.

[DarkTirade]

4. The narration at the beginning really sets the tone.

... for the bad dialogue, I mean. :)

[sarge43]

9. Well, the biggest problem with Lynch's attempt was

trying to force the narrative into a feature film time format. Herbert created a whole universe; no way it could be explained or understood in that amount of time. It would be the same as trying to tell the LOTR or the Ring of Nibelungen in two hours. You wind up with a desecrated husk.

The dialog in the books isn't exactly snappy either.

[LeftyMom]

5. The movie barely even makes sense if you've read the book.

The Sci-fi channel miniseries was better. Not fantastic, but much easier to follow.

The book is an epic. Trying to squeeze it into two hours doesn't work. The Dune movie is usually Exhibit A for how not to adapt a sci-fi/fantasy epic to the screen.

[fNord]

6. originally the David Fincher version was 4 1/2 hours long......

they cut it down to two hours when it was released, but if you watch the unedited version, it's more linear. It also seems allot less campy. some of the scenes were cut in the middle of important dialog.

shit.
I think my nerd is showing :freak:

[LeftyMom]

7. I'll have to try to track down the original cut.

Thanks!

[pokerfan]

8. There are many alternate versions

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/alternateversions

None of them very http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(film)#Departures_from_the_novel">faithful to the novel.

I recommend the novel, the Cliff's notes version or at the very least the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)">wiki entry.

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. Yes. Unless you've read the book, the Lynch version is non-understandable.

The longer Lynch version is better - some critical scenes that actually explain what's happening are put back in.

Lynch also added more shit to the story that wasn't in the book, and wasn't necessary at all, and so took even more time away from telling the story that Herbert wrote.

The sci-fi channel's version is quite good.




But, for God's sake man, you HAVE to read the book! One of the greatest books of the 20th century.

[billyoc]

11. I remember the ushers handing out cheat sheets in the theater to explain things.

Bad sign, man.

[alarimer]

12. I didn't even like the books.

I have tried a number of times to read the original series and just couldn't get into it. So I passed on the movie as well.