john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) (12/16/84)
<<<< The book Dune has about 100 pages less than the three Star Wars books put together. There was no way to fit it into 2 1/2 hours with cutting or rushing. It was nice if you had read the book but forget it if you haven't. I got the book "The making of Dune" which could have been titled " The scenes that didn't make Dune". Several shots that never made it into the movie are shown. The fight with Jamis was cut but you can still see his two kids with Paul in several scenes. The girl that played Alia was actually about eight years old and was to tall for the role. They placed her kneeling on a cart and she waddled as it was pulled by a technician. The saddest thing about Dune is that if it bombs then you can forget about any more serious science fiction from Hollywood. Frank Herbert was talking about some of the screen plays that were proposed and what they would have done to the movie. Can you imagine a love affair between Paul and Jessica? John Eaton !hplabs!hp-pcd!john
preston@ut-sally.UUCP (Randal Preston) (12/17/84)
This is in defense of Dune, the movie, after seeing Brad Templeton's TWO
flames about how bad the film was.
To all net-landers who enjoy movies (i.e., readers of this newgroup):
Go see DUNE, and *judge for yourself* !!
Several responses to this film have been posted:
Some readers of the book liked the film (myself included); some didn't.
Some sci-fi lovers liked it (myself included); some didn't.
Some movie-goers/critics liked it (myself included); some didn't.
I have all the previously-posted articles/reviews on Dune, if you want them
by e-mail. (from Steve Dyer, Steve Upstill, D. Mitchell, Dwight Ernest,
Brad Templeton)
++++++++++++ MY DEFENSE OF "DUNE", the movie (spoiler/review)
As Elaine C. Dimpelfeld (while criticizing 2010) nicely put:
> To me there are three kinds of art:
> EPIC - A tale larger than life and individual persons,
> trying to make some sense of it all.
> DRAMA - A tale about life and characters.
> MELODRAMA - A tale emphasizing plot and action, sacrificing characterization.
DUNE (the book, the movie) IS AN EPIC. To try to condense the entire book
into a 2-1/2 hr. movie is a major task, especially considering the depth of
character development, and intricacies of plot and subterfuge ("feint
within feint within feint"). But as Frank Herbert himself said in an
interview:
> "It's as close to the book as a movie can get."
(quoted from wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP)
First, let me state that I re-read the book for the 2nd time (1st time was
5 years ago), preparing myself for the film. I liked the books, but I am
*not* a Dune-freak.
The movie *is* an honest attempt to simply change the *medium* from novel to
screenplay, as accurately as possible, and yet provide a good movie.
With respect to this:
1) "DUNE"'s BIG-BUDGET WAS WELL-SPENT, on realistic sets,costumes,and effects.
A couple of viewers didn't like/understand the sandworms. I was not *awed*
by them, but *this* special effect was at least adequate (how *do* you
capture (on film) the magnificence of a GIANT mouth swallowing up 1/4 of a
square mile of sand?) I was pleased by the film's interpretation of
"the Baron strapped suspensor-globes to himself to hold up his layers of
*fat* [preston-paraphrase from book]". I was also *very* pleased with
the film's depiction of "body-shields", which deflect fast knife-thrusts,
but allow slow knife-penetrations.
2) THE MOVIE SUMMARIZES THE PLOT WELL, in a form which I *think* would be
understandable to the non-Dune-reader, if he/she pays attention. I was
slightly disappointed by some plot nuances that were left out, and some
minor changes to make the *movie* more cohesive/understandable (e.g. Paul
*drinking* the Water of Life with an audience, instead of privately).
3) THE MOVIE DOES A DECENT JOB OF CHARACTERIZATION. In the book, the
characters have depth/perception, use secret signals/languages, etc.
The movie deals with these character nuances by:
a) Outright explanation/narration
b) Overdubbed thoughts (of the characters)
c) Good acting, costumes !!
4) THE MOVIE IS SERIOUS SCI-FI, NOT "STAR WARS" REBORN (little humor).
(The book was a serious EPIC also).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I understand that it was planned as a 4-hr. film/saga, and is being released as
4+ hrs. outside the U.S. (??) Any Canadians out there to confirm this??
2-1/2 hrs. just *can't* do the book full justice.
Randal Preston
(preston@ut-sally .ARPA, .UUCP)chas@ihuxe.UUCP (Charles Lambert) (01/08/85)
After browsing through this newsgroup and becoming ever more astonished at the favourable comments about DUNE, I am finally compelled to a cry of despair after reading the recommendation to go and judge for yourself. PLEASE don't. My one hope, having seen the film, was that the justifiably lousy reviews would keep others from going through the same ordeal, and that the makers would take such a ruinous financial soaking that they'd never attempt a similar venture again. Of course, I jest; I don't expect anyone to take my word for it so my treasured vision of financial disaster is probably not to be. I just wish I'd known in advance what an insult this production would be, so that at least I could have saved my $4. This is a gross, pretentious film. It makes continual use of voice-over narrative as a substitute for articulate screenplay. This "oh, by the way; in case you're not following..." stuff is an admission of crass scriptwriting which destroys credibility. As a cheap substitute for the magnificent malignance of the Harkonnens we are treated to gratuitous blood-spraying and a loving close-up of spittle oozing from the Baron's lips as he spits on Jessica. Even that might have worked, along with the splendid art-deco sets, if they'd played it high-camp. DUNE is so unredeemably bad that it'll probably rate as a masterpiece. *sigh* ... and I suppose people will flock to the box office in dis- belief. Go and see it if you must, but you'll only encourage them to do it again. Charlie @ the Death Star, Ill.