MovieChat Forums > Dune (2000) Discussion > Harder to adapt than LOTR or ASOIAF

Harder to adapt than LOTR or ASOIAF


I think the essential reason why no one has been able to really do Dune justice is because it may be the hardest work of SF/fantasy to adapt to the big or small screen, more difficult for instance than Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire, the first of which of course succeeded amazingly and the second of which is (so far) doing the same.

Dune is so thematically complex and deep, the plotting so labyrinthine, the characters and setting so unusual, it surpasses both of the previous works, IMO. It would be best suited to a miniseries format - as it would require several movies to properly flesh out the story and characters, and the story is not structured for separate feature films.

The miniseries was an improvement on the 1984 film, but that's not saying much (hey, it's Sting in blue plastic underwear!). I hope they try again. It is possible, Children of Dune was quite good and shows that the story has potential for greatness onscreen.

reply

I think George Lucas did a fine job with the original star wars movie ^^

reply

Kind of a late response, but I thought I'd add my two cents.

The sets (most of them, not all) and worm effects were quite good. To this day I'm very impressed with the effect of a giant worm coming out of the sand as if it were a sea.

The dialog really (REALLY) sucked in places. Too many of the actors were way over the top. I've rarely seen a film that was so good at some things and sucked so horribly at others.

As to telling this story on film. If they'd made it a ten hour long film it still would not have been long enough to really tell the story. This is the problem with a book as long and richly detailed as Frank Herbert's "Dune."


Watta ya lookn here for?

reply

The biggest obstacle in adapting Dune to the screen - so far as I see it - is that so much of the narrative in the novel is told through the inner dialogue of the characters.

Herbert uses this device constantly. The basic outline of a scene is sketched, then the subtle details are filled in with Paul or Jessica or Thufir Hawat or whomever using their superior mental faculties to interpret what is really going on. As the reader, we share in this information by essentially being privy to a transcript of the inner dialogues of the characters.

I mean, that's the substance of the novel. Pretty much the entire story is told in this fashion. As a narrative device, it works fine on the page. But how the hell you get that on the screen is anybody's guess. Lynch tried to reproduce Herbert's style like for like by having his actors doing voiceover narrations of their inner dialogue during the scenes. But this simply doesn't work in a movie. It's too much of a case of telling not showing, which is not how film narrative works, or at least not good film narrative.

Adapting Dune for the screen, then, really requires a reconceptualization of the entire narrative. The problem being, though, that you risk losing much of what makes Dune a multi-layered and fascinating work. The shadings of meaning, the layers of intrigue inside intrigue which drive the plot, would be difficult to convey without those inner dialogues.

The other issue that Dune faces is that none of the characters are particularly relatable for a general audience. That's not really a problem for me or for the numerous other fans of the novel, but for a general movie audience, it might well be.

The essence of Dune is that we are dealing chiefly with characters who have managed to develop their mental and physical capabilities to well beyond "normal" human capacity or comprehension. The future of Dune is not necessarily a future of advanced technology (although it is in some respects) but rather a future of advanced human mental and physical potential. The characters of Dune, then, are distant, lordly and superior beings, completely alien in outlook and ability to ourselves. There are no cuddly little Hobbits to provide an entry point for the audience or provide comic relief. Interestingly enough, this would also be an issue in adapting some of the more esoteric Tolkien material, such as the Silmarillion.

Note that the "alienness" of the characters extends also into the moral sphere. The Atreides are ostensibly the "good guys" when contrasted with the diabolical Harkonnens, but it's only a relative matter. They are still ruthless and devious in protecting their own interests. Paul Atreides himself was never intended by Herbert to be taken as a hero in the conventional sense, in that he saves the Universe from evil in the same sense that Luke Skywalker or Frodo Baggins do. He is rather ultimately an interplanetary military dictator who ruthlessly overthrows the existing order by means of a fanatical religious war that devastates planets and results in the deaths of billions.

The Universe of Dune is one of moral relativity in which there are no fixed absolutes of good and evil. Unfortunately, that's just not something that traditionally sits very well with a casual movie going audience accustomed to easily relatable characters, broad comic relief and clear delineations as to who the good guys are.


THE INQUISITOR
Movies, Culture, Opinion and more...

http://robertod.wordpress.com/

reply

Excellent analysis. Thank you.

reply

"The miniseries was an improvement on the 1984 film"

No it wasn't. The movie needed like 30 more minutes but was great, costumes and designs were awesome and acting was good. The miniseries had poor acting and overly cheap designs, costumes and overall lacked rythm...felt like watching cosmos 99 tbh.
So, while Lynch's movie was far from perfect, it's still the best attempt so far.

reply

The 1984 film was more a David Lynch movie than a adaptation of the Dune novel. He used elements of the novel but made it his own. Its like what Kubrick did with The Shining. I think they are great movies on their own but I consider them different. Which is not a bad thing at all. If an artist wants to paint "The Last Supper" are they going to do it exactly like Leonardo Da Vinci? Of course not that would be too boring. They need to paint it in their own way.

I would love to see the whole "Dune Saga" adapted as a prestige Television Drama Series like "Game of Thrones".

reply

I don't think it's hard to adapt. I think the wrong people keep trying.
The production company behind the 1984 movie hired David Lynch based on his movie The Elephant Man. The Elephant Man. I don't even know what the hell they were thinking, but the results are nothing short of infamous.

Then we got John Harrison. A man so far removed from 'grand sci-fi epic' qualifications as you could possibly get. Prior to Dune, all he had directed was some TV show episodes of some rather unremarkable shows (when compared to something in vein of Dune) and Tales from the Darkside: The Movie.

So no, i don't think it would be hard to adapt if you got the right team in place.
They just keep letting the wrong damn people handle it.

reply

[deleted]

I don't think it's hard to adapt. I think the wrong people keep trying.

Completely agree.

reply

John Harrison loves the book. His dream was to adapt the book. He managed to get 20 m$ and did it. And the result is correct. I say: bravo!

reply

The result is horribly incorrect. The movie/miniseries seems like it was made by someone who tolerated the book- at best.
Case in point- the dinner scene where Paul has to carry the conversation in his father's absence. Absolutely one of my favorite scenes from the book because it's dynamic and gripping, and reveals a lot about Paul. But here... he throws a friggin tantrum, practically embarrasses himself, and then runs away to hide or play with Gurney.
This is emblematic of just about every other scene in the movie. Harrison gets it all wrong. It was annoying as hell.

The casting was abysmal, the tone was all wrong, and the special effects were atrocious.

reply