MovieChat Forums > Dune (1984) Discussion > Half good

Half good

posted 10 years ago by redxherring
6 replies | jump to latest

The first part of the movie is promising, but it really suffers from bad pacing, especially in the second half.

If I'd written the script I'd have kept a lot of the political context of the first 35 minutes or so out (much less of the Emperor and no time spent on Caladan). I'd have focused more on fleshing out the time Paul spends learning about the Fremen and his rise among them. The Fremen in the movie are boring, and Paul and Jessica become boring too as soon as they end up with them.

[–] Fluke_Skywalker 10 years ago

Honestly it needed to be split in two films. If lightweight fluff like Twilight or The Hunger Games series can justify splitting single books into two films, surely something as rich and complex as Dune could be.

----
A journey into the realm of the obscure: http://saturdayshowcase.blogspot.com/

[–] pope_duke 10 years ago

Definitely.

The problem is that back when Dune was made there was no Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones or Twilight or Hunger Games. That philosophy to film making came along later. Dune suffered from being made before its time, so to speak, and now it is considered poison in film making circles.

[–] Fluke_Skywalker 10 years ago

Yeah, there really wasn't a blueprint (or perhaps even a precedent. I can't recall any off the top of my head) for that sort of thing in 1984.

The ironic thing is that it might've been the wiser financial call as well as an artistic one. According to Wikipedia, the budget was $40 mill (an astounding and risky budget for a film of that era actually), and it only grossed $30 mill. You figure maybe an additional $10 mill to have fleshed this out to around a 4 hour story, which you then divide in two. Average budget: $25 mill apiece. So right there after one film you're technically up $5 mill (I know that's gross and not net, but for simplicity's sake). Even if you lose a 1/3 of your audience with part 2, that still puts you at a $50 mill gross against $50 mill spent. And with the burgeoning home video and pay cable markets, this would also allow you to sell two films rather than one.

I know, I know. That's all the equivalent of fantasy football, but still, that's what these boards are for !

----
A journey into the realm of the obscure: http://saturdayshowcase.blogspot.com/

[–] captkirk_4 9 years ago

The problem is that back when Dune was made there was no Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones or Twilight or Hunger Games. That philosophy to film making came along later. Dune suffered from being made before its time, so to speak, and now it is considered poison in film making circles.

Exactly, they didn't have cable networks doing adult dramas, Sci-Fi at the time was chasing Star Wars and for some reason they put Lynch in charge of this and we got this spectacular failure. Had they had the audacity to do it as a 3 part trilogy, it would have ended like that awful "Golden Compass" fiasco did, at the end of the first movie one third the way through the book, you'd have an unfinished film that went nowhere, with no ending, and wouldn't even be the cult movie we have today.

[–] Herreken 8 years ago

Good point. Two movies or at least a mini-series. I know they made one already but it was hampered by crappy TV movie effects. That stuff didn't even look good back then.

DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia!

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 8 years ago

Yeah, it's right around the time Paul and Jessica meet Stilgar and the Fremen that the story starts to get all rushed and incoherent. And even the good half is kind of marred by those goofy/disgusting scenes with the Harkonnens. The Lynchian weirdness just didn't blend in well.