IMDB's "what we know so far" about the Dune remake

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
15,298
5,438
136
Video: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls025720609/videoplayer/vi3851140121?pf_rd_m=A2FGELUUNOQJNL&pf_rd_p=40d7554e-a4b3-4d43-b134-6386359e24e9&pf_rd_r=46953SSJ0WD7CXVXJHA5&pf_rd_s=hero&pf_rd_t=15061&pf_rd_i=homepage&ref_=hm_hp_cap_pri_2

Apparently the initial story is to be a two-parter with possible extra films to come. Denis Villeneuve to direct (I haven't seen BR2049 but what I've heard about it makes me mostly uninterested in it despite loving the first movie). The line-up has piqued my interest, though I'm still harbouring a (IMO) healthy degree of scepticism about whether they can bring something faithful to the books to the screen. For example, I could easily see them skating over the book's obvious message about religion and religious fanaticism while aiming for a watered-down, compatible-for-everyone blockbuster.
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,455
1,445
126
well .. you said it. director of BR 2049.

Not the worst film i've seen, but hardly more than a 5.5/10 and both Dune and BR are among my top, highest ranked, all time favourite films, and just like BR2049 the new Dune is gonna suck, but a whole bunch of people are gonna think it's amazing - because they never watched the original WHEN the original was made, and are judging it today on other merits than it has, like, idk, Acting. Set Design. Costumes.

Also, i *want* to say that i'd be happy if i was proven wrong .. but does Dune really need a reboot? Does it? Is there anything you're unhappy with in the original ?


I even like the rain scene. And i have read the book. (Books, but the other books suck balls and imho aren't even canon)
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
58,835
7,026
126
The original Dune was horrible. I've never understood why people were so ga-ga over it.

I liked the first Dune novel. Herbert had a good way with words. The movie was just poorly done.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
15,298
5,438
136
Ever since I watched Dune 2000 and Children of Dune and then read the books, I can't watch Dune 1984 any more (I really tried, and I did like it once), it sucks so bad.

"Does Dune need a reboot" - sure, if someone can do it right with a big-ass budget. It could be amazing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: destrekor

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
358
126
Ever since I watched Dune 2000 and Children of Dune and then read the books, I can't watch Dune 1984 any more (I really tried, and I did like it once), it sucks so bad.

"Does Dune need a reboot" - sure, if someone can do it right with a big-ass budget. It could be amazing.
Yup, the two Sci-Fi miniseries (Dune, Children of Dune) were excellent movies (I consider them each to be approx 4 hour movies), especially regarding the overall quality of the adaptations.

I didn't read the books until well after I watched those but have yet to re-watch them with the books fresh in memory. I read the entire original series by Frank Herbert and also the two novels that concluded the original series. Really enjoyed them all, but less so the two by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson. Not really a big fan of Anderson in general.

I really want to see how a large budget multi-entry film series adapts the novels, and they have the talent involved.

Also, everyone should remember that BR:2049 is not the director's only film, he also directed the well-received Sicario and also the excellent film Arrival (also an adaptation that I hear did quite well in translating novel to film).

I'm definitely curious if the two part plan is strictly all OG Dune, or if it includes Children of Dune content. If the former then that's already a great start, as there's a lot to digest in the first book to really set the series up. If they plan to then adapt the rest into single film installments I think that'd work beautifully.
 

dasherHampton

Platinum Member
Jan 19, 2018
2,543
491
96
I remember watching it as a kid. I didn't get it.

I read an article a long time ago about the production. An insider claimed that the screenplay was never finished to a usable extent. Everything else was ready to go and was costing a fortune to maintain. The filmmakers eventually had to wing it and shoot on the fly.

The dialogue is a mix of partially completed screenplay scraps and on-the-spot improvisation. They had to get something out to recoup whatever money they could.
 

Muadib

Lifer
May 30, 2000
17,237
560
126
I loved Dune, both books & movie, and syfi channel shows. I say bring it on!!
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,135
1,592
126
I'm sorry but, the original Dune movie was a piece of crap. I saw it when it first came out and thought then that it had little to do with the book. I agree with Roger Ebert's review that it was a hot mess.
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
9,957
2,501
136
IIRC the 1940 film Dune had parts that were not from the first book, but one or more of the following books. That being said, and being a science fiction fan, for something that came out in 1984 and for a context that I had not read any of the books, I loved the film. I must have watched it more than a dozen times. Hell, I watched it last week since it was on Amazon Prime. And I finally got around to reading the first four books around 1994 or so. This is when I realized that some of the movie was from beyond the first book. Still, I finally got to a point I was losing interest and never read the other books.

When the SciFi channel made effort i didn't watch them. I had a hard time believing that the Sci-Fi channel could make anything 'science fiction' considering more than half of their broadcast content had nothing to do with science fiction. It was fantasy and horror. Maybe if I could gain access to them i would reconsidering watching them, but I'm not sure. Of course since then I realize that it isn't the cable channel making the show, but some other entity and just selling the rights to air it. Hence when I started watching The Expanse, I was shocked that it aired on SyFy, or Silly Fantasy.

But haven read the first four books, and being a fan of the SF genre, I find that it would be near impossible to do a great treatise in film on this work. Imagine trying to do the Foundation Trilogy. Ahem, all thirteen books? Dune exists in the year 10xxx, which is about the span of time the Asimov Foundation series spans. How can one wrap that kind of historical time span up in one or two movies? And make everyone happy? There are not enough fans of the SF genre to justify the costs.
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,455
1,445
126
Jesus, that film is just made of pure awesome. There isn't a scene in it .. ok there is ONE scene in it that sucks - when Paul's father is giving him the speech "the sleeper must awaken" - but otherwise, EVERYTHING in that film is amazing.

The intro by Irulan, "the beginning is a delicate time", Paul's study session, the cast reveal during the "i could hear your footsteps" ... you guys sometimes. The more i think of DUne, the more i think EVERY SCENE is amazing, the stillsuit scene with Max Von Sydow "Ming The Merciless", Baron Harkonnen's maniacal rage, the casting is just out of this world ..

You guys. Really, you guys.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
15,298
5,438
136
Jesus, that film is just made of pure awesome. There isn't a scene in it .. ok there is ONE scene in it that sucks - when Paul's father is giving him the speech "the sleeper must awaken" - but otherwise, EVERYTHING in that film is amazing.

The intro by Irulan, "the beginning is a delicate time", Paul's study session, the cast reveal during the "i could hear your footsteps" ... you guys sometimes. The more i think of DUne, the more i think EVERY SCENE is amazing, the stillsuit scene with Max Von Sydow "Ming The Merciless", Baron Harkonnen's maniacal rage, the casting is just out of this world ..

You guys. Really, you guys.
IMDB: 6.6
RT: about the same
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1006364_dune

Yeah, amazing. :rolleyes:

The casting was pretty good, but the screenplay dispensed with most of what made the story good and turned it into its almost direct opposite of the original point being that Paul is not meant to be an all-powerful messiah. He and his mother exploited purposeful loopholes inserted by the Bene Gesserit into Fremen mythology. The Bene Gesserit in the books understood the power of religion and how it can be used to manipulate the masses. The film instead went for a single-serving space opera with Space Superman to save the day, because after Star Wars that was all the rage. The film's villain is utterly cartoonish and desires the Duke's signet ring for ... reasons. The book's main villain is subtle and manipulative.

I applaud David Lynch's artistic vision in this film, but he too disliked the forces that sought control of his work to the point that he almost took his name off it.

Funnily enough though, from what I understand, Frank Herbert actually liked it.

I don't think I would have read the books had the 1984 version been the only screen adaptation, I certainly didn't seek the books out because of it; I might have coincidentally given them a try given that they're regularly at the top of 'must read sci-fi' lists.

Maybe we look for different things in sci-fi. For me, while the base requirement of sci-fi is that it's setting is futuristic, and/or other-worldly etc, the point of sci-fi is to give an alternate setting to allow plot lines and character development that aren't possible in other settings, so if such-and-such were possible, what would be say the moral implications of an action that wouldn't be possible in a more 'present day' setting? Sure, one could write a story about how Space Hero freed all the Space Slaves, where the scenery looks different and swords are replaced with laser rifles or lightsabres, but why bother writing it and just replacing the props? Should every ancient book get a Space Rewrite, what value does this add? What value does Dune '84 add?

The Dune books and the two mini-series IMO do deliver on what I regard (above) to be good sci-fi. Dune '84 does not.
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,455
1,445
126
i respectfully disagree with .. everything.

it's true that the book explains (in the matter of a single sentence) that the BG had sent representatives on fringe planets to disseminate myths that would come to be useful later on - yet paul is regardless of this a superhuman - remember the description of the fight when they first meet the Fremen. Pretty much every power attributed to him in the film also exists in the book. Oh and he is a MUCH better fighter in the book.
The film skims over this aspect, but does not contradict it. Don't confuse the events of the second book with the first film.

The Baron desires the ring for the same reasons as in the book - the film just omits the background. he is only stated to be a cunning politician, but nothing else happens to prove it that doesn't exist in the film.

There are no mentions of heart valves, but the book DOES mention ineffable cruelty as a means to breed superior fighters, as it does other times, for instance with Salusa Secundus and the Sardaukar.

The film portrayal of the baron harkonnen is just amazing. I cannot fathom why you do not like it but to me that will always be one of the greatest villains of all time, because he is just so pure, unescapable evil. And i absolutely love the acting out of McMillian.

Remember that this was 1984 and faithful to-the-letter films were NOT expected.

I'm sorry you guys don't like it. Dune is by far one of the greatest science-fiction films ever made, easily outranks Return of the Jedi, the acting is superb, every scene is memorable. I've watched north of 20 times, and it never bores me, from the sets, the costumes, and how Lynch managed to squeeze a 400 page book into a 2 hour film; there is no mention of the Butlerian Jihad, or the War Of Assassins, but clues in the film can let people extrapolate these information - and other are instead left mysterious.

I see the IMDb ranking, and i can only tell you: those are people who eat at McDonalds.

The TV series is just garbage. The .. i dont even know where to start. The sets are LUDICROUSLY bad, the costumes are worst than a ST TOS fanfilm, there is zero acting ...

Also the IMDb reviews are full of 1. people who say this is the worstest film ever made and 2. fanboys who decry how the book was ruined by the rain scene. ok. So lynch had to make a conclusion that fits a film, and decided to use Paul's space-folding ability to make him teleport the water from Caladan to Arrakis. Both sensible choices given that this is fully plausible within the established lore.

I think the weirding modules are awesome and that the book's Voice is weaker without them. Everything else is gritty and realistic - including the mentat juice and the space folding - but the Voice is literally superpowers that can be taught - no thanks.

David Lynch's 1984 Dune: 9/10
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
15,298
5,438
136
i respectfully disagree with .. everything.

it's true that the book explains (in the matter of a single sentence) that the BG had sent representatives on fringe planets to disseminate myths that would come to be useful later on - yet paul is regardless of this a superhuman - remember the description of the fight when they first meet the Fremen. Pretty much every power attributed to him in the film also exists in the book. Oh and he is a MUCH better fighter in the book.
The film skims over this aspect, but does not contradict it. Don't confuse the events of the second book with the first film.
Incorrect. In the book, Paul has one unique attribute due to the BG breeding program that allows him to look in the place they cannot look in order to see the future better. Apart from that, he's been trained by veterans and he had the standard BG training that allows him to use the weirding way (and their shifting capabilities).

In the film, he may as well be a god, I don't think there's any explanation given for his abilities. He starts bursting ribcages with the sound of his voice and he made it rain.

The Baron desires the ring for the same reasons as in the book - the film just omits the background. he is only stated to be a cunning politician
Except he has no subtlety in the film, there's nothing to mark him as a leader of men either, and omitting the reasons for wanting the ring is just bizarre, why even bother to mention it. Do they not have decent jewellers on Giedi Prime? Why has the Baron sworn to destroy House Atreides? Should the antagonist have a motive that the audience can relate to? Nah.

, but nothing else happens to prove it that doesn't exist in the film.
This is the weirdest justification I've heard as part of an argument that a particular film is good. No, for you to argue that a film is good you need to talk about what's actually in the film that makes it good, not what it omits that you can fill in the blanks with bits from the book.

There are no mentions of heart valves, but the book DOES mention ineffable cruelty as a means to breed superior fighters, as it does other times, for instance with Salusa Secundus and the Sardaukar.
And? I was talking about the utter pointlessness of the film. The book talks about these things for a reason, the film has heart valves for no reason.

The film portrayal of the baron harkonnen is just amazing. I cannot fathom why you do not like it but to me that will always be one of the greatest villains of all time, because he is just so pure, unescapable evil. And i absolutely love the acting out of McMillian.
I was fine with his acting. One of his underlings almost getting into a fap-fest over his face boils was just pointless and weird. His character in the film is an example of when some movies have to go massively over-the-top about how EEEEEVIL the villain has to be. Unfortunately I think they had to go over-the-top with this character because his character is utterly two-dimensional, and if it didn't include all the distracting shit about cats and heart valves and boils, then the audience might start to ask basic questions about his role in the story.

Remember that this was 1984 and faithful to-the-letter films were NOT expected.
It's not really expected by most people these days either. But removing huge swathes of quality story and replacing them with pointless and crude shit IMO is a stupid waste of time.

I'm sorry you guys don't like it. Dune is by far one of the greatest science-fiction films ever made, easily outranks Return of the Jedi,
Why on earth are you talking about Return of the Jedi? 1) It's a very mediocre conclusion to the trilogy and 2) it's terrible sci-fi. It's like saying you think that Avengers: Endgame is the greatest comic book movie ever made because it easily outranks Batman Forever!

The TV series is just garbage. The .. i dont even know where to start. The sets are LUDICROUSLY bad, the costumes are worst than a ST TOS fanfilm, there is zero acting ...
The first Dune series is pretty low budget and it shows, I won't question that. However, it portrays a far more interesting story. Some of the acting isn't good, but to say there is "zero acting" is just plain wrong. For example, Saskia Reeves playing Jessica in the scenes about her children being "freaks" was perfectly competent acting. Alec Newman as Paul is a bit shaky at times, but I think his arguments with his mother and his almost childish moodiness at the start is competently done. Ian McNeice does a perfect job with his portrayal of the Baron Harkonnen.
 
Last edited:

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
46,549
3,562
126
Video: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls025720609/videoplayer/vi3851140121?pf_rd_m=A2FGELUUNOQJNL&pf_rd_p=40d7554e-a4b3-4d43-b134-6386359e24e9&pf_rd_r=46953SSJ0WD7CXVXJHA5&pf_rd_s=hero&pf_rd_t=15061&pf_rd_i=homepage&ref_=hm_hp_cap_pri_2

Apparently the initial story is to be a two-parter with possible extra films to come. Denis Villeneuve to direct (I haven't seen BR2049 but what I've heard about it makes me mostly uninterested in it despite loving the first movie). The line-up has piqued my interest, though I'm still harbouring a (IMO) healthy degree of scepticism about whether they can bring something faithful to the books to the screen. For example, I could easily see them skating over the book's obvious message about religion and religious fanaticism while aiming for a watered-down, compatible-for-everyone blockbuster.
Absolutely loved the original Dune book.

They need someone like Nolan to give it the seriousness & wide scope of epic-ness it deserves. Frank Darabont to write the screenplay, Christopher Nolan to direct.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,539
448
126
The David Lynch Movie at the very least looks excellent... aside from the fact that the movie version of the Stillsuits didnt have hoods (an understandable concession given the fact that it would've been impossible to identify actors in quite a lot of the scenes).

I particularly liked the design of Shai-Hulud.
And the personal Holtzman shields in use were actually imo well conceived even though I felt that they overdid the interferes with the users visual acuity angle in the movie.
I remember that just before Duke Leto is ambushed by the betrayer in his household he considers using his personal shield but decides not to since they do interfere with vision

However, one of my uncles expressed a strong disdain for the movie and after reading the books I understood why. But I consider David Lynch's Dune a serviceable if very flawed adaptation of the source material.

Given the above I am very much looking forward to seeing the new version of Dune in a few years.
I think most of the casting is on point aside from Jason Mamoa portraying super-buffed Duncan Idaho who I've never pictured as more than being a lean cut fighter with no extraneous body weight. but maybe he will surprise me; it's not a deal breaker.

I think Denis Villeneuve's track record is enough reason to be hopeful about the upcoming movie.



_____________
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,364
477
126
My god the dune movie was atrocious. And I am a huge fan of the books. Let Dune go. Its been done to death and does NOT need yet another remake.
 

clamum

Lifer
Feb 13, 2003
26,240
394
126
I know nothing of Dune and never read the books or watched the movies. I dunno why, maybe I'll get around to the book some day because I do enjoy sci-fi and love reading.

But I think Villeneuve did a good job with Arrival, I liked that movie, so I'm interested in this new movie. I suppose I should read the book(s) before watching the movie, at least I'd personally understand more if I did.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
15,298
5,438
136
I know nothing of Dune and never read the books or watched the movies. I dunno why, maybe I'll get around to the book some day because I do enjoy sci-fi and love reading.
The books (Dune, Dune Messiah, Children of Dune, often sold as a trilogy) are excellent sci-fi IMO, they're frequently at the top of 'must read sci-fi books' lists.

For me, it's a toss-up between the Dune trilogy and the two Hyperion books by Dan Simmons for the best sci-fi I've ever read. I wouldn't regard myself as very well-read but I've gone out of my way to try and read decent sci-fi.
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,522
750
126
Im a huge dune fan, loved the books, loved the 1984 movie, loved the video game. the miniseries had horrid acting but if you could get over that, and the low budged sets(reminded me of ST TOS, which while TOS wasnt bad for its time its certainly bad when thats the level of quality you have 40 years later.) it wasnt so bad.

As far as anew movie goes i dont have hope of it being epic or anything, ive seen BR2049..... it may turn out alright and ill watch it for sure.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
107,739
23,801
146
I never watched the Dune film or really know anything about the books. In passing, I'm sorta familiar with the production of the film being a misguided attempt to force David Lynch into not making a real David Lynch film and, instead, making a saccharine and beat-driven Hollywood flick to capitalize on the sci-fi/fantasy revolution of that time.

Somewhere in between, I'm guessing things fell apart and audiences were strongly divided. I think that if Lynch were allowed to make a Lynch film, it would have been great, but likely wouldn't have been Dune...whatever Dune is. Either way, just another one of those experiments of putting a brilliant young auteur at the helm of a major production that pretty much flopped. The good thing is that Lynch went on his way making many, many more brilliant films with nary a studio exec getting in his way.

I keep telling myself that I should watch it, but every time I tell myself this I realize that I don't have any weed on hand. :(
 

RPD

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
4,438
148
106
I've read the first 6 books in the series, after finishing the first 3, I went out and bought the DVD for the movie because I wanted to re-watch it again. I'm a sucker for it and like it.

But the big point everything is missing is the 1984 film has Patrick Stewart with a mullet.
 

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
13,448
2,475
136
121
The original movie is bad, but I don't like David Lynch. The sci fi channel movies are even worse though.

I grew up on Herbert's books and love all of them. Man was an all-time genius writer. If they can do a Peter Jackson's LOTR type movie I'm all for it but it's a really hard series to turn into a movie due to the high concept/cerebral nature of the story. It would be far harder to do than LOTR. I'd say there is like a .1% chance someone can pull it off.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY