ok, well that explains that. thanks.
but wasn't a version of this a smithee film at one point as lynch removed his name from it? i know i didn't dream that.... that was my question. i thought it was the 2h version that was smithee, which is what's on this BR. how is it no longer smithee?
darkness wrote:I really think you have to look at Dune the film as a completely different creature from the book. Which, again, I'd say about any movie based on a book. Herbert was satisfied with the film. He understood the two mediums are different. Honestly TC, I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this one.
oh i get that. while i stand by my criticisms of the film in its own right, that doesn't mean i don't like it. i'm pretty sure we do see eye to eye on it.
i'd be
very interested to see/hear herbert's POV on it, as so much of it differs so greatly from the source material to the point that it might as well be its own creation.
i'm just really annoyed at some of the changes. i get that when you're making a film, you have to decide on which story you're going to tell and remove everything that doesn't help tell that particular story. they picked one, sort of, and went with it. while the book tells a great story of the origins and pitfalls of a religion, the movie ignores that completely with paul being a god upon introduction to the planet. he didn't have to earn a thing. the film completely devalues the fremen in every conceivable way. they were a necessary tool to tell the particular story they chose otherwise it seems like they might as well not be in it. once paul joined the fremen, the movie felt a lot like flash gordon.
the movie also completely ignores any political intricacies and/or motivations on every level. other than the initial voice-over (which, btw, is awful and destroys so much of the story in the initial two minutes of the film that novel enthusiasts probably walked out), irulan is completely ignored. her role in things goes much deeper. the harkonnen nephews are pretty much ignored and are just there as space-filler. gurney's loyalties and suspicions were never explored when paul re-encountered him in the desert, with his mother.
the alia voice over is terrible and hammy. speaking of alia, the casting of duncan idaho is disturbing in this, considering a sequel was ever a thought. duncan and alia get together. given the casting, it would be very hefner-esque and shudder-inducing. also, paul is supposed to be 15 at the onset of the film. yeah, he was 15 like andrea was in high school on the original 90210. but meh, i digress.
i could go on forever nitpicking the film, but the point is that i think many of the book and storyline's strengths were completely ignored or at best totally undermined by making necessary shortcuts to fit the entire thing into a nice, neat 2+ hour format. the film does no justice to the story, and as such, i feel like the dune books have been largely missed by many. consider the sales of the LOTR books after the successful films. a lame argument/point, but it is maddening to see a great story reduced to what appeared on the screen.
darkness wrote:But I do have to ask, how many other films have you read the books of? Because most of them go way further off the path of the original book than Dune does. Pretty much anything adapted from a Richard Matheson or Philip Dick story comes to mind.
yeah, we talked about blade runner a bit previously. i understand. but i feel like blade runner at least kept the essence of the characters intact, even while ignoring many of the points and much of the symbolism in the novel. i think the original novel could have been done easily enough and i don't really understand why they made some of the changes/omissions, but i feel like the film was true to the essence of things in general. it's an example of a film that went kind of off the reservation in its adaptation while still retaining the depth of character and intent of the original, for the most part.
in answer to your first question - silence of the lambs, fight club, the black stallion are some examples off the top that were extremely faithful adaptations. fight club is almost a script. amazing that films that are faithfully based on good books turn out good....
(as an aside and maybe better suited to the watchmen thread, i think zack snyder did a decent job of filming "the unfilmable". he used the source material as essentially a script/storyboard and succeeded. some of the nuances of the story are what didn't work, like all the epilogues that were excerpts from the novel and/or news stories that helped set the tone. you can't put print on screen and there is no way to really convey that without breaking up the story. to me, that's what makes it "unfilmable" as per the legend. also, exclusion of the tales of the black freighter was a tough, but necessary, call. but again, for the most part, i'm one of the few that think it was done pretty well. but all things considered, that may be one example of where being extremely faithful doesn't really work, ultimately...)
alexhead wrote:Speaking of which, as far as the source material goes, I tried to read Dune but my english degree got in the way about 20 pages in and I couldn't stomach the terrible writing anymore.
well, i don't have an english degree, but shoddy writing tends to really stick out and annoy me to the point that, unless it's used as some sort of literary construct, i typically quit reading. i'm on book three right now and haven't yet found anything like that in herbert's writing. i'd be curious to hear some specifics on this point. how long ago was this? were you going through some narcissistic, ego-maniacal phase, or perhaps riding upon a giant horse?