Slashdot Mirror
Dune Remake Could Mean 3D Sandworms
bowman9991 writes "The new Dune remake is becoming as epic as Frank Herbert's Dune series itself. Now that director Peter Berg has been ousted, new director Pierre Morel has decided to throw out Peter Berg's script entirely, starting afresh with his own ideas and vision. 'We're starting from scratch,' said Morel. 'Peter had an approach which was not mine at all, and we're starting over again.' Morel also reveals that 'It's the kind of movie that has the scope to be 3D.' He's also keen on sticking to the original material and recognizes that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness."
I don't thinking remaking the movie in 3D would make the plot any less confusing. (To someone who never read the books, that is.)
Nice! I cant wait for a sci-fi movie that's entirely done in 3D where the main character bonds with an idigenous species who dwell on a planet that has a resource unobtainable anywhere else in the universe! They should get James Cameron to direct it!
Alternatively, they could use Frank Herbert's screenplay that he wrote for the original Dune movie (rejected for length; hardly an issue given the length of recent epics). That would arguably be closest to his own vision.
Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
Unless it is as close as the SciFi one or better we can do without. 3D is a neat effect at first, but just like explosions don't make Michael Bay movies watchable neither will 3D rescue an abortion of a film.
Maybe, because I was never really into 'Dune' in the first place that's why I'm not really excited one way or another except to say that it's pretty lame to do a remake of a movie that was fine enough the way it was just to be able to slap on some new effects and try and milk a few more dollars out of people so that they can get a rehash of a story they already know. This criticism isn't specific to Dune, but to a bunch of other films as well. Just sayin'.
Some of us LIKE that movie. Frankly, no Dune movie can succeed without Brad Dourif.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
"Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel. It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I'm too lazy to google it- but I do remember watching one for nine hours over three dvds without getting up! Can I have trophy?
I guess I'm just a cult member. I happen to like David Lynch's version. I know it's not the most accurate, but I thought it was fairly well done for its time - and how many film adaptations are well done? Some of the Harry Potter movies (Order of the Phoenix being the worst offender) are so off it's funny, and The Lost World (Jurassic Park 2) didn't resemble the book at all. I also really enjoyed the principal actors - Kyle McLachlan, and just enough Patrick Stewart to lend some legitimacy.
This space for rent...
It will always be in the process of being created with the best 3D effects available to film?
The David Lynch interpretation was brilliant. It was artistic, it looked great, had excellent sets and cinematography. The literal stage play, I mean the SciFi production, was flat, dull lacking in emotion and life as it tried to accurately portray the novel. Nerds! Stop it! Movies are cinematic interpretations of a novel or another body of work, for it to work in the movie format, many things must change. The David Lynch version had a great score, had actually emotional scenes, the Baron was excellent, Sting brilliant. Yes you hate it because it wasn't accurate, fine but you don't respect excellent cinema either.
I hope this version pisses you particular nerds off by being cinematic, beautiful and daring in the liberties it takes with Herbert's fine novel. Really now it can't be any worse than what his son has managed to accomplish.
I'll probably watch it as soon as they're able to delete the images of Sting in a speedo from my consciousness.
If the directors aren't allowed a LotR-level timescale, the best they can hope for is remaking the Lynch version. 6 hours, minimum, and yes, you will still have to cut stuff out at that length.
Also, Alec Newman should be run straight out of Hollywood. If his whiny, young Luke Skywalkerish version of Paul didn't convince you, his appearance on Enterprise should have.
Not a typewriter
I thought the SciFi network mini series a few years back was pretty faithful. I'd watch a new 3D big effects version, but it hardly seems necessary.
Wasn't the SciFi network mini-series good enough?
Good enough to do what:
- to ensure no further remakes are made out of shame?
- to strengthen the eye muscles of anyone who'd read the book by either rolling their eyes or attempting to close them after they've already been shut?
- to harvest a few gigawatts of electricity from the wild dynamo of Frank Herbert rolling in his grave?
Before they made that movie they should've considered whether they needed to add any more disgrace to the Herbert estate. Hasn't Brian Herbert done enough damage already?
"Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel. It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.
No. It's a difficult adaptation but not impossible. LOTR was thought to be impossible. I think Peter Jackson did a bang-up job. Your mileage may vary.
The mini-series adaptations were noble in effort if flawed in execution. The problem with something like Dune is that it really demands to be made into a full season. Take the first three novels since they were meant to be the original story. Season 1, season 2, season 3. 13 episodes a piece. That's more than enough time to tell the story. As it stands, the miniseries would probably be incomprehensible to anyone not already familiar with the story. And trying to do it in a single movie? Impossible. Madness.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Mesa think isa great idea.
And, you know what? I know we're trying to be more faithful to the original work, but this whole "butlerian jihad" bit really seems a minor point... How about we add some robots, huh?
Bow-ties are cool.
First off pick up the book again some time and read the dialog aloud and tell me
Herbert's writing doesn't define wooden.
That's OK, maybe the Bible has more in common with this book then say,
the slangy chatty "Avatar".
That Lynch pulled in stuff from a different dimension was well and good. I personally
think "milking a cat", Gurney attacking with one hand on a gun and the other holding
a pug, heart plugs and the tubes going into the brains of the Guild are more poignant
than anything in the book.
Lynch's "Dune" sent me to a different dimension. "Avatar" sent me to bed
with a headache.
" I don't care what's in the books - the Lynch movie is what the Dune universe is to me"
.uk domain. Sorry for being a grammer nazi when I'm far from perfect, but it's kinda a pain to quote the article and have Chrome tell me I'm misspelling words I didn't write.
You, good sir, are probably speaking for about 90% of the population that has seen the original 1984 Dune movie.
My issue is his quote " 'Peter had an approach which was not mine at all, and we're starting over again'...he recognises** that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness."
Probably not a good idea, to remake a movie completely different from the from the popular original. I'm just saying ain't broke, don't fix it. I'd watch the exact 1984 Dune redone with fresh graphics, but I'm not sure about erasing the original from our minds. I think we liked the original and would like to see more of that.
**it's recognizes, with a z, unless the guy's in britian but i don't see a
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
And I don't mean "animate as in Avatar" or "animate as in UP" I mean "animate as in Akira, Paprika, Metropolis, etc. etc. (Pity I can't think of any comparable American productions. The Lion King?) A twelve-hour series would do Dune justice, but I'd settle for a three-hour film.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness
Hell, erase the memories of a fantastic adaptation by a fantastic director and replace it by a freaking 3D toystory?
kind of movie that has the scope to be 3D
Has the scope? Geez, the world is 3D, genius, and everything in it has the scope to be 3D.
I've had my fair share of avatar movies for this decade thankyouverymuch.
Anyway, it seems we just should rest this "movie" thing for a few decades, since it seems they either just make movies that are crap or they think creating new ideas is uncool and just keep remaking worse and worse versions of previous movies.
It is an industry alright. So we should treat it as such: pay, watch, and if it doesn't deliver what was promised take it back and demand the money. Or do you keep a mower if it doesn't cut the freaking grass?
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Do we really need another attempt to re-make 'Dune'? Yes, David Lynch's 1984 film version was really, really bad. Unwatchable, even. But I thought the healing process was complete with SciFi's Dune (2000) miniseries.
I watched the miniseries (but not the followup, Children of Dune (2003)) and thought it was great. They did an amazing job with the story. With a 3-part miniseries, you can take your time with the story, so it doesn't feel so rushed. Sure, it had William Hurt in it (I find him boring) but was good nonetheless! :-)
I'm not convinced we need another re-make of this.
Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson never wrote a single word in the Dune universe.
I've read all of them, just once, I've never dressed up as Paul, I don't know how to pronounce Bene Gesserit, and I still know more about Dune than they do.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness.
The "images" were actually quite well-done. Lynch's Dune suffered from several problems, but the visual effects and costumes weren't one of them. And the Brian Eno score was really good (I even liked the end Toto instrumental).
Why is 3D mentioned? Who cares? I am so sick of people chasing carrots. Just make a fucking good movie and be done with it. Or at least try.
He's referring to the sequels that were written by someone who clearly hasn't read the originals. In Children of Dune, Frank Herbert writes about the attitude of dependency being destructive not the machines themselves. In God Emperor, he writes that humanity has evolved to the point where it is no longer likely to suffer this problem. The dialogs between the Reverend Mother and the God Emperor indicate that fear of computers is irrelevant for modern humans. In Chapter House, he reintroduces this theme, showing that the Archivists lose some of their humanity when they start to think like computers and are, ultimately, a dead end.
In the prequel and sequel series, there is an evil AI with completely inexplicable motives who tortures humans for no obvious reason and is later somehow a threat to humanity.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Is anyone else sick to the back teeth of "IN 3D"!!!!!1!!!!!?
It seems to be that they think no one will go see any film unless it has IN 3D writ large at the end of the trailer and on every poster, and they the film makers think that some 3D element will somehow make their film great whether it is or not without being IN 3D.
I know such singleton action is meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but I for one will make an effort to get through 2010 without seeing any film that shouts the IN 3D gimick in its pitch.
Please tell me I'm not the only one. Please tell me the average cinema goer isn't a Bay fan wanting nothing more than EXPLOSIONS IN 3D who is going to be suckered into thinking this new gimmick is what makes films great...
In Canada, we just accept both spellings and get on with our lives.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
The problem I had with the Lynch movie was simply that it was too compressed and you got jerked from event to event, sweeping past so much of the story. The actual look and feel I really enjoyed. (At the time - I haven't seen it recently, so maybe I would feel differently now.) The mini-series had so much more time to tell the story, so I was hoping for better.
But a huge problem with the miniseries was the size: the portrayals were so small. Dune the book was big, the deserts were vast, the halls were immense. In the miniseries even in the desert there was no sense of scale - the frame was always filled with the characters. There is a banquet scene set in a big hall, but we're treated to a tight shot with a few characters that looks like it could have been filmed on a soundstage the size of a nice office.
Let me fix that:
Rampaging cult overthrows galactic government with the help of hallucinogenic drug everyone eats with breakfast .
There, much better.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
I always preferred the explanation put forward in the Dune Encyclopedia which, although not "canon", still rings more true to the spirit of Dune:
AIs were used to control in vitro fertilization systems. The AIs started to breed more controllable humans, and IIRC even killed off offspring that were likely to be a threat to the AIs.
This quite nicely explains two Dune taboos in one go: AIs and IVF.
The basic problem with "Dune" today is that it predates the Gulf War. We know what "desert power" looks like now - M1A2 Abrams tanks and A10 Warthogs. There were worries back in 1991 that mechanized armies couldn't operate in the desert.
Wrong. You go through more air filters. Some spare parts get used up. The tanks keep rolling.
Remember those Iraqi solders in the first Gulf War who were all dug in, armed, and ready to fight? THe US sent in a line of tanks equipped with bulldozer blades, rolled over them, and buried them alive in sand. Being out in the open desert against a modern army is death. I don't care how good your knife fighters are.
And a giant sandworm with a big open mouth looks like a good RPG target.
There are insurgency tactics that work, but they depend on having a friendly population to hide in. They also require an opposition that doesn't consider extermination of the entire population in the area an option.
Actually if you read the books it isn't an issue. The whole shield technology they developed made even a simple shielded human into a portable nuclear bomb. The shields rendered conventional ballistics useless but energy weapons hitting it made the shield go "giga-boom". Unlike desert storm Arrakis is pure sandy nothingness. Not bed-rock or compressed earth. Even an Abrams tank in that situation could litterally bury itself in the sand (Think sahara not the badlands. Dunes and sandbases that are at least as deep as a sand worm is tall.)
The worms themselves are pretty durable apparently and conventional ballistics had been long abandoned due to shield technology. What is left are energy weapons and the skin of the worms might be able to endure quite a bit of heat energy and with all that silica acting as refractory sufraces radiation may not be an issue.
The political aspect wasn't lost on Herbert. The Fremen were in control of Arrakis in reality with leverage against the Spacing Guild. The Emperor or any would-be house would suddenly find it hard to transport a real full army to Arrakis to wipe out the Fremen. Only after Paul rallied the Fremen did it appear that the Spacing Guild would allow a real full contingent of troops to arrive.
The books were more about politics rather then military or traditional SciFi.
Paul is a fictional icon that the BG held in reserve to "whip out" when needed. Paul was an abberation that fit the messiah template. Paul and his mother exploited it and the BG lost control of that cultural element. With access to the inner oracle (genetic memory) Paul with the messiah template was nearly unstoppable from a political standpoint due to the religious leverage he held.
That is the brilliance of the story is the complexity of the political, social, and religious interplay. Something Lynch completely ignored.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I'd read the book (and the National Lampoon parody Doon, which is EXCELLENT) before the movie and was annoyed that Lynch had cooked up unnecessary things, but I still loved the movie. It's beautiful and moody and the images do stick in your mind in a way that very few movies achieve.
But on the subject of the utterly unwatchable TV version, I'd like to point out a rule of film/TV analysis which is almost always correct and places blame where it should be placed: When one actor delivers a bad performance in a movie, that's a bad actor. When everyone does, that's bad directing.
A good director can get bad actors to deliver excellent performances. A bad director gets crap out of even good actors.