Re-make of "Dune"

I saw the theatrical cut of Dune back in '84 when it came out on home-video. I was kinda confused, but the production design and acting and story were compelling and captivating and I loved it anyway. Then the Alan Smithee hatchet-job extended cut started being aired as a two-parter TV movie, and that clarified a lot of things. To this day, I would love to see that and the other deleted scenes properly cleaned up, visual effects finished, Frank Herbert's narration retained, and a well-edited version of that put out. And even at ten years old, I had no difficulty understanding that the whispered voice-over was the audience hearing what the characters were thinking. Never got why so many people were confused about that.

A bit later, I read the book. To this day, I tend to prefer to see the movie first. Then I read the book and go "oh, that's what that was about!" Too often, when I read the book first, I get mad at the movie for how much gets changed or left out. Plus, when I read the book now, it's the Lynch costumes and sets and characters' looks I see in my head.

About the only thing worth carrying over from the Sci-Fi miniseries was the Sardaukar uniforms.

As for any new takes...? Given the Middle-Eastern touches in the book, there's a strong risk of either cries of cultural appropriation if, like, the Fremen are too Caucasian, racism if they're too "ethnic", with the White Messiah trope standing out. One important thing that Lynch largely captured without broadcasting it (particularly in the secondary and background characters) is that in Herbert's setting, we were far enough out that races had been largely blurred into each other. Sure, there were exceptions like the Harkonnens, but most people should be "of indeterminate race".
 
I like Zoe Saldana and seems she likes these kind of Sci-Fi roles (Avatar, Marvel films). She doesn't seem old enough to play Paul's mother but I'm optimistic she can act the role.

Something that neither the David Lynch or Sci Fi versions got right was that, at the beginning of the novel, Paul is 15. He's 17 or so by the end of the book.
 
Something that neither the David Lynch or Sci Fi versions got right was that, at the beginning of the novel, Paul is 15. He's 17 or so by the end of the book.
You’re right although it’s probably more difficult to 1. find a good enough child actor 2. sell the idea.
Many characters in GOT are older than their novel counterparts too, Daenerys is supposed to be like 16.
 
*tingles at anticipation of bautista and skarsgard making it to arakis*

What do you guys think? Rabban and Yueh?
Bautista is Rabban, but Skarsgard will be Baron Harkonnen. Which implies that he will be an intelligent and cunning villain instead of a yelling raving maniac as in Lynch's movie.
 
I suppose. Though I know I've seen Skarsgard do some fine acting where he was loosing his **** and barking mad at everyone around him. Will be interesting. I've enjoyed the original dune film, and the sci-fi channel remakes were a lot of fun, but i'm certainly no Dune fanatic (never read any of the books). I'm open to seeing a fun story told a new way, as long as it's told well.
 
I don’t see this as a remake but as another adaptation. God knows, quite a few books had multiple adaptations. Dune is my favourite book and Villeneuve is one of the very few contemporary directors I value so I’m really pumped for this.
I like the Lynch movie for many aspects but fully admit that it’s messy and had some baffling choices.
The Scifi Channel one I couldn’t stand, it felt really cheap on all fronts, script included. It’s a really tough book to film so very curious.
I probably would have hated the Jodorowsky one had it been made btw...:D
 
I maintain that, much like Watchmen, you'll never really capture Dune on the screen -- big or small -- in anything under than, like, 8 hours of runtime. Maybe 10. There's just...too much going on in it and unspooling that for the audience takes time. And Dune -- the first book -- is probably the most easily adapted of all of the original books.

That said, I'm hopeful about this project. I very much enjoy the Lynch version, in spite of its flaws. I mostly like the Sci-Fi version, although its effects have not aged well at all, and once they explained that the thing was shot like a stage play, I couldn't "unsee" the backdrops as backdrops. I appreciate what Sci-Fi tried to do with the miniseries, though, by allowing the story to breathe more. It's just not...quite right. Better in some ways than the Lynch version, and nowhere near as good in others. What I really dig about Sci-Fi, though, is their attempt at adapting Dune Messiah and Children of Dune into a subsequent "hitting the high points" miniseries. Again, still nowhere near as good as the novels, but I appreciate the ambition, even if it was flawed in the execution.
 
My thoughts haven't really changed. So I'll edited-for-clarity-quote myself from two years ago. Regarding the Lynch film, the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries, and the relative successes or failures of each to convey the elements from the book to the big or small screen:

I saw the theatrical cut of Dune back in '84 when it came out on home-video. I was kinda confused, but the production design and acting and story were compelling and captivating and I loved it anyway. Then the Alan Smithee hatchet-job extended cut started being aired as a two-parter TV movie, and that clarified a lot of things. To this day, I would love to see that and the other deleted scenes properly cleaned up, visual effects finished, Frank Herbert's narration retained, and a well-edited version of that put out. And even at ten years old, I had no difficulty understanding that the whispered voice-over was the audience hearing what the characters were thinking. Never got why so many people were confused about that.

A bit later, I read the book. To this day, I tend to prefer to see the movie first. Then I read the book and go "oh, that's what that was about!" Too often, when I read the book first, I get mad at the movie for how much gets changed or left out. Plus, when I read the book now, it's the Lynch costumes and sets and characters' looks I see in my head.

I love the look of the Lynch film. I still wish he'd revisit it to do a proper remastered/finished Director's Cut, rather than the unauthorized version he Alan Smithee'd himself off of. There was stuff in the theatrical release that works better, stuff in the extended cut that works better, not to mention the sloppy unfinished VFX shots (every frame with non-blue-eyed Fremen), the painful placeholder recycled footage, some sloppy cuts, etc. But overall, I love the casting, I love the production values, I love the score...

I like Bob Ringwood's stillsuits, but wish they'd had the facemasks, skullcaps, and cloaks as described in the book. I understand movement and recognizability issues, but still. When I first saw this card from the first Magic: The Gathering expansion, I instantly thought "Oo! Fremen!"

Image.jpg


The SyFy miniseries hurt. The stillsuits the Fremen wore looked like tattered rags held together with spit and hope. Paul's best friend in the household was Gurney, but in this series it felt like they couldn't stand each other when they were in the same room. Doctor Yueh was revealed as the traitor (spoiler alert) in the same scene he was introduced, so there was no emotional impact to it. The Duke was just so blandly performed... And the Fremen's eyes glowed for pity's sake! The hell? No! Bad! It's just a stain, people. *sigh* The only thing I liked better, really, was the Sardukar uniforms. I got that some on here thought they looked too fancy ir impractical or whatever. I'm fine with those as dress uniforms. I like them better than the black hazmat suits they wore in the Lynch version. If the Lynch Harkonnen soldier uniforms had been used for the Sardukar, those'd be perfect, I think. Those uniforms are still intimidating as all get out.

You also have to remember that, while they are still fierce warriors and highly trained, by the time of the original story their heyday of efficacy was in the past. Things were fairly stable at that point, militarily. There was politicking going on, but no outright hot war. The Sardukar had their reputation, but it hadn't been tested publicly in a while. They were mainly coasting on complacency and past achievement.

And regarding any fresh take, and the same issue of capturing the important bits and letting the story take as long as it needs to unfold:

As with Lord of the Rings, there were many attempts before even the versions we do have. Any new take has the potential to do right by the property or utterly drop the ball. We won't know until it happens.

And I agree there's too much for one film in the original book. My biggest criticism of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films is that he went with three films instead of four. It was originally supposed to be one book, but paper shortages after the war caused it to be broken into three volumes. When Peter and Phillipa and Fran addressed Tolkien's shortcomings as a narrative storyteller and reworked the book events into the proper timeline of events, they uncoupled the films from having to directly capture the book volumes, and there's enough that happens after Aragorn is crowned king at the end of the War of the Ring that it deserves another film -- not a dragged out coda.

Similarly, I think Dune would make a good film duology or trilogy. Part one ends with the Harkonnen sneak attack and Paul and Jessica fleeing into the desert (maybe up to when they run into Stilgar's troop). Depending on how much the intervening material before the Fremen take Arrakis back at the end lends itself to the visual medium would determine whether there was enough to justify a third film or just a "part two"...

As for any new takes...? Given the Middle-Eastern touches in the book, there's a strong risk of either cries of cultural appropriation if, like, the Fremen are too Caucasian, racism if they're too "ethnic", with the White Messiah trope standing out. One important thing that Lynch largely captured without broadcasting it (particularly in the secondary and background characters) is that in Herbert's setting, we were far enough out that races had been largely blurred into each other. Sure, there were exceptions like the Harkonnens, but most people should be "of indeterminate race".

And my new thoughts added on. I almost feel like there needs to be a film or duology or trilogy of the Butlerian Jihad/Machine Crusade to establish the setting and great Houses and all of that. Market it as the sort of cerebral fare that sci-fi was in the '60s and '70s, not 'splosions and space battles. One thing I liked about the Alan Smithee version of the '84 film was the twenty-minute prologue that established the setting and broad strokes of the history leading to where the film proper starts. I think it helps to have a sense of who and what we're seeing as we try to parse the rest of the story along the way. Utterly different from a book, which is, in itself, sort of a mystery, in that pieces get revealed along the way and the reader assembles it all in their mind.I mean, the first sentence of the book is:

In the week before their departure to Arrakis, when all the final scurrying about had reached a nearly unbearable frenzy, an old crone came to visit the mother of the boy, Paul.

There was the chapter header above that throws in details like Paul's age, the Bene Gesserit, Arrakis and Caladan, that he was born in the 57th year of Shaddam IV's reign, etc. But that means nothing to us at that point.
 
Last edited:
I'd go with .. Bill Heck for Stilgar..John Noble for the Emperor..Vincent D'onofrio for the Baron and Tilda Swinton for the reverend mother. PAUL & Chani tough cos of his age ..Oh, and Jonathan RhysMayers for Feyd Rautha ..also I think it should be practical effects, prosthetic ..model etc..no CGI ..remember beware thinking machines ..
 
Last edited:
Yes, very good ..better Stilgar than mine ..just hope nobody tries to shoehorn Tom hardy in there somewhere..he's overused & f#$$#ng awful ! !
I actually quite like him, could picture him as Duncan Idaho if I HAD to find a role for him but agree, not sure he’d be a good fit in this. Even though he has experience in a desert-movie...:lol:
For some reason I’m really curious about who will play Piter de Vries. Hope it’s not Jared Leto, he seems to be the “creepy guy” these days, and he worked with Villeneuve in BR2049.
 
I actually quite like him, could picture him as Duncan Idaho if I HAD to find a role for him but agree, not sure he’d be a good fit in this. Even though he has experience in a desert-movie...:lol:
For some reason I’m really curious about who will play Piter de Vries. Hope it’s not Jared Leto, he seems to be the “creepy guy” these days, and he worked with Villeneuve in BR2049.
Leto & hardy are equally dreadful .. hope they don't get anywhere near this film.. I would like to see the 70s Foss designs..I do like Batista but this part is a very evil villain so he'd have to make us hate him ! ! Bill Heck could switch to Duncan..
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top