Dune (2009)

[mack]

apparently they are rebooting this one as well. since I like Peter Berg, AND Dune, it can only be a good thing! nice to have more Dune - wonder if this take will include information/background from the Brian Herbert novels?

Peter Berg is attached to direct a bigscreen adaptation of Frank Herbert's classic sci-fi novel

"Dune" for Paramount Pictures. New Amsterdam's Richard Rubenstein, who produced Sci Fi's "Dune" and sequel

"Children of Dune," is also producing alongside Sarah Aubrey of Film 44, Berg's production banner. John

Harrison and Mike Messina exec produce.

you get the sense that this one isnt going to make a 2009 release, because there's so little info out

there. in fact, in some quarters its considered a 2010 release.

[Optimus Prime]

What was wrong with the Sci-Fi channel's version of Dune? Honestly? Anyone. It did a far better job of channeling Herbert's vision than that Lynch version, and it had more of the story, since it was so much longer. Though I hated the Children of Dune sequel

[DarthJohn]

Yup it was better then that Lynch dud.

[mack]

i thought the miniseries was very true to the letter of the book, in that it got a lot more of the story into the films - but you know what? Lynch had far less to work with than the miniseries director, from a time and money perspective, and I STILL think Lynch did a better job of capturing the atmosphere and spirit of the book.

i mean god - the miniseries had Muadib as a BLONDE. Save us all.

[DarthJohn]

God i hate that Lynch weirdo.

[Camfan]

Ah yes but it wasn't Lynch who directed it was it.... It was Alan Smithee, the famously most hated and worst director of all time, so that tells you everything.

But honestly.... they should just leave Dune on the page, it's never going to work truly as a film, it just wont. Nor should it.

[HighWiredSith]

Well, it really depends on how you look at it. The version that reached theaters was more David Lynch than Alan Smithee and I've seen (and own) just about every version of the film and I don't care how you cut, slice, edit, or alter it, it was still a deeply strange and disturbingly dull bore of a film that suffered, ultimately, from David Lynch's surrealist tendencies. I suppose prior to that point Lynch made a few somewhat coherent films but I still can't imagine why they chose him (or why George Lucas considered him to direct Return of the Jedi).

As for the SciFi mini-series - first, it was NOT entirely true to the book. A number of things were omitted. It was also poorly cast and completely failed to capture the mood of the book. It's difficult to put my finger on it other to say it just didn't feel like Dune - a book that I have read at least six times and still hold as the greatest SciFi novel ever.

[Camfan]

I agree with you Sith, but as you say, neither the sci-fi miniseries nor Lynch's/Smithee's film captures Dune as one would read it. Therein lies the problem, I don't think it can be captured, there are far too many nuances inherent in the writing that truly capturing it on film I believe would be an impossible task. I love the book and I also consider it to be the greatest science fiction novel ever. Simply put, I don't want them to make another film, because ultimately I know I'll go and see it to find out if something good has finally been made, and I know I'll most likely be disappointed.

I will say this though, Ridley Scott was all set to direct this before Lean took over because Scott wanted something that was ready to go straight away, Blase Runner was, Dune wasn't, so we ended up with one amazing ground-breaking film and Dune. However, Ridley Scott directing Dune.... that I'd like to see. Though David Lynch directing Blade Runner, that I wouldn't want to see.

[HighWiredSith]

And yet, for all it's weirdness, I think the Lynch film captured the tone far better than did the mini-series. The book has an almost epic/despair feel to it, difficult to describe. From the Fremen, who were intended to be futuristic Arabic nomads (no one has gotten this right yet) to the Harkonnens to the entire spice culture - nothing has even come close. And yet, I thin in the right hands, it can be done.

[Camfan]

I'd certainly say Lynch's version is superior to the miniseries, what I would've liked is an amalgamation of the two, the length and ability to delve into the narrative of the miniseries, combined with the better production values and cast of Lynch's movie. We shall see what happens.......

[Lt_Johnny_Rico]

Originally Posted by HighWiredSith

As for the SciFi mini-series - first, it was NOT entirely true to the book. A number of things were omitted. It was also poorly cast and completely failed to capture the mood of the book. It's difficult to put my finger on it other to say it just didn't feel like Dune - a book that I have read at least six times and still hold as the greatest SciFi novel ever.

The miniseries felt like generic sci-fi fare featuring rebels who find their leader/messiah vs. oppressive imperial aristocracy set on a desert planet. It lacks atmosphere, and in the end, it's just not Dune, but rather present-day George Lucas remaking the original Star Wars but directing it like he is doing the prequels, in other words, formulaic and completely devoid of soul, and having it set on a single planet.

[SF_not_Sci-Fi]

Originally Posted by Optimus Prime

What was wrong with the Sci-Fi channel's version of Dune? Honestly?

It was a better straight narrative adaptation than the Lynch version, but it was not as good a film.