MovieChat Forums > Dune (2000) Discussion > An utter travesty

An utter travesty

posted 18 years ago by kkevinberger
81 replies | jump to latest

I do not know where to begin with this debacle....I know the Lynch version has its drawbacks but this is an utter joke.

Why must they try and modernize everything with cliched characters-the angry, sullen Paul-who is this version magically becomes the kwisatz haderach-there is no back story. Nor to any other characters-they are dressed in high school drama clothes....Gurney is randomly introduced and leaves for most of the movie, and there is no motive behind Yueh....

Jessica, when it was Leto, says no more water selling but in the book and in real life that would cause issues...

the whole thing with Irulan....why do all new sci-fi shows have to do this with characters, try and make them hip and cool...maybe that is why I will not watch the new Battlestar Galactica-(though I hear it is good) but all the characters in these shows are exactly the same

I know books/movie are never the same, and I love the Lynch version, but this just plain awful...it jumps from scene to scene with no direction, everything is flat and lifeless....you just do not care about the characters and kept hoping Paul would die

This after only two discs, I do not think I can finish it; I could continue on how truly bad this is but I do need to sleep

[–] ohmyhead 16 years ago

I agree with much of your original post. Curious though if you gave in and tuned in to BSG or not. If you didn't, WOW did you miss out!

[–] The_Real_Celsus 16 years ago

I found the mini series much better than the movie (I own both)and I hope they do a third mini...

spoiler alert.......

It rains at the end of the movie...yep that pretty much sums it up for me.

[–] jw-psimon 16 years ago

Yes, I find I must agree.. this new miniseries was indeed a travesty! It seems now that more and more often, directors are only concerned with getting their own interpretation out there, to make a "name" for themselves, rather than being concerned with being faithful to the source material.

Before I go further, I will concede that a lot of dialogue was faithful to Herbert's written word. The stillsuits represented were much more accurate than in Lynch's Dune.. the Weirding Way was shown very effectively! (thank you modern effects!) And there have always been elements in Lynch's version that didn't sit well with me.. rain at the end? Sound-based weapons for the weirding way.. crappy stillsuits.. LOL! HOWEVER... I found myself floored at the fact that the miniseries just seemed to make stuff up! Things that never ever happened anywhere in the book are just thrown in! For example, I don't care how beautiful or amazing the actress who played Irulan was, the simple fact is SHE DIDN'T SHOW UP UNTIL THE END OF THE BOOK! But now, we have her going to dinner on Dune?!? Dancing with Paul?!? Flirting with Feyd on Geidi Prime?!? I mean, seriously? Is the need to give her screentime and flaunt her all over the place really that necessary to the plot or story? Or are they just trying to sell their version with increased sex appeal? I could name other glaring wrongnesses... Chani working in the dukal residence? Her being present in Paul's bedroom with the hunter-seeker? Paul acting like a little sh*t to Gurney while practising? (ok.. honestly.. Paul's whole whiny persona, truth be told)

It's perfectly alright to expand on an author's vision, especially if a "scene" he wrote was actually only a few sentences, and some of that was done beautifully, but to just outright change whole pages of written source just to make your mark in TV? No. I'm sorry, but NO! I don't care that these things could have occurred, the simple fact is, Herbert did not write them, let alone even hint at them, and to change that is to change the story itself. The last time I saw butchery this bad, I was in the theatre watching the abortion that was Eragon! *shudders* Herbert wrote a wonderful, complex, thought provoking and marvelous set of books.. he created a fantastic universe!

This miniseries shamed him and what he wrote in the name of the almighty dollar!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ghost_hat 16 years ago

I find it amusing that people will say this is more faithful to the
book in one sentence, then try to rationalize the changes in another.
In a 4 hour miniseries, there should be no need to condense characterization,
especially while adding stuff invented just for the series.
Yeah, they were able to fit more of the books little dialogues and
subplots in a 4 hour miniseries than a feature length movie. But they
also added a lot of unecessary crap.
The discussion between Irulan and Paul after the dinner was ridiculous...

And anyone who says that Lynch's version is one of the worst book-to-film
adaptions ever obviously hasn't seen many adaptions. Ever watch a
Stephen King movie? Any of them? No, seriously. I'm not even a big King
fan and I know his work gets ass-raped.
If you think the Lynch movie is on the poor end of
adaptions you're a moron who hasn't watched nearly enough
film adaptions to even post on it. Sorry..
I don't usually flame in my posts, but these people have their heads
up their asses.

Coming soon: a post where someone attacks me by quoting what I said and
using it back at me. Here's a helpful hint: if you want to hurt my feelings
try using insulting words that I didn't.
Creativity adds a bit of weight to your argument...

I'm a poor speller and have bad grammar. Go on, have a go!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ContinentalOp 13 years ago

''A four hour miniseries doesn't even come close to sufficient time for the entirety of Dune. There are three books in Dune. If you just look at the total number of chapters you'd be left with somewhere around four minutes PER SCENE, and many chapters would require multiple scenes.

The huge number of chapters in Dune isn't something one could miss even in a casual read. I find it difficult to believe that you could possibly miss that if you actually read the book.

Either you have the reading comprehension of a child or you haven't even read the book at all. Now if you really have read it, but before the age of, say 12, then don't sweat it. I'd suggest you read it again (or after you turn 12 if you're not). It's not the easiest read around.''

I am sorry, but you are ridiculous condescending. I am reading it at the moment, and I acknowledge that you could depict most of 'Dune' in about four hours, cutting out minor subplots, without changing or adding much. 'Dune' is indeed made up of three books, however, it is only slightly longer than JRR Tolkien's 'The Fellowship of The Ring' which was adapted twice, into films shorter than three hours. Like the film of 'Dune' and the miniseries, many changes were made in the most recent film version by Peter Jackson, however, theoretically he did not have to make those changes at all, and he didn't need to add anything certainly. But filmmakers add things whether they need to or not. There is no excuse for it, other than they add things that they find more sell-able.

''I'm correcting you using the length of the novel and number of chapters in the actual novel.''

Which you over-exaggerate. 'Dune' does have a lot of chapters, but it is hardly the length of the combined 'Lord of The Rings' or 'War and Peace'. Of course, some chapters have to be cut, but we really cannot defend adding anything, which is the point of the poster you are criticizing.

If you are sick of the ''I love Jesus 100% signature'', copy and paste this into your profile!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] distant-skies 15 years ago

Indeed, the haters of the movie are usually closed minded and childish. The miniseries was a good 1 time watch, not that bad, but that's about it. The impact was weak.

The Lynch movie, otoh, is a cult classic. I'm not saying it was perfection, but it was iconic, with the visuals and sound, especially the musical theme. When I was a kid, the Baron, the worms, the darkness, and the fact that you hardly manage to actually see the spice, it creeped the hell out of me. I guess it worked for me. I didn't read the book at that point, of course, but I did later. When I did read the book, I imagined certain parts around the vision of the movie; the more intense and strange parts in particular. In the miniseries, I found them completely absent. So I guess I just agreed with Lynch's vision of the book, or probably the parts which the studio allowed him to control.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rkoredux 15 years ago

Just a humble thought from someone who has never read the books, and probably never will.

I hear the books are fantastic, unfortunately, I am forced to do so much reading for my job that I often don't read leisurely.

That said, I have seen Dune (1984), The Alternate Extended Edition of the 1984 version, and Dune (2000).

I saw the extended 1984 edition first, then Dune 2000 and finally Dune 1984. Don't ask, it was just the order I saw them.

Anyway, in terms of telling the story for someone who had no clue what was going on, I thought that the extended Lynch version was the best, despite the fact that Lynch disowned this version. This one told me so much back story that I just wanted to turn it off at times, BUT, it filled me in on the plot so I understood everything else.

When I saw Dune 2000, most of this back story was missing. While I was able to understand it and enjoy it because I knew the basics, my wife had trouble following it and some things needed to be explained, such as the plot line with Dr. Yueh.

Finally, I saw the original Lynch version of Dune. I thought this version was dark, odd and confusing. But that's David Lynch for you. Again, knowing the story, I enjoyed the movie.

I can understand that if a movie is far off from the source material then it can be frustrating for fans of the books. However, just because something is an interpretation of a work, doesn't mean it's bad. Just look at how "Taming of the Shrew" turned in to "10 Things I Hate About You" (Yes, I know that's an odd reference here, but it was still a VERY popular movie and was extremely different than Shakespeare's version).

All that said, I liked all 3 versions. I liked the sequel. If they remake it, I'll see it then, too. The point of movies is to be entertained. If you want a movie that is EXACTLY like a book, then get writing and hope Hollywood picks up your script. Good luck!

[–] omisan771 15 years ago

Frank Herbert liked David Lynch's adaptation of Dune.

That says everything.

[–] remildragos 15 years ago

Actually, he didn't exactly liked it. He said he does not approve to portrayal of Paul as a god-figure, but he appreciates that so many plot points were introduced in a movie (which is way shorter than it should be). Anyone who read Dune Messiah would know that Frank Herbert opposed the idea of Paul as god of a new religion. I seriously doubt that he thought it was good to portray Paul as some magician who can bring rain at his whim.

[–] melsed_009 15 years ago

I think this mini-series had potential and remembered being super excited when it was coming out. The mini-series had some excellent moments. It was closer to the orignal story more consistently than the Lynch film. I have a weakness for villians so, I particularly liked that the Baron's character was more intelligent and dignified. My praise ends there.

My first problem was with the way Jessica was portrayed. She was just awful. Period. I'd dearly love to see a Paul who was an actual teenager but (that would never happen) just being more petulant doesn't fool anyone into believing a thirty year-old man is one. And, how could they have gutted Yeuh, Thufir and Duncan like that and slept at night? HOW? Not to mention an utterly flacid version of Duke Leto. It was as if Hurt was giving them a justification to kill him; like he was begging for it. I know was wishing for it long before it happened.

The effects were not on par with the people who brought us Taken or the Battlestar Galatica mini-series. If I wanted weird costumes, I could watch the Lynch films. In fact, both the movies and the mini-series are visually over the top. Its just that movie has more of a late 80s-art-fantasy feel to it and the mini-series is just distracting. At least the film stylish and gave a sense of the scale of things.

I don't think I liked extended version of the film better but that ain't saying much. Lynch's movie wrecked the story all to hell and they butchered my poor Baron beyond all recognition. I did like the Bene Gesserit woman better in the movie and use of the Voice. It was an odd little flick but over years I grown to tolerated it. Maybe I will with the mini-series as well.

I'm not nice, I'm just polite.

[–] fanglekai 15 years ago

One thing to keep in mind is that the 2000 miniseries had half the budget of the 1984 Dune movie, and they had to make it 4.5 hours for TV, way longer than the movie. Of course it's going to look cheap. If Sci-fi had tried to find some outside investors or spent more money, it would have looked a lot better. Even another $5 million for CGI and costumes would have gone a long way. Take Avatar as an example, you're not going to get CGI that looks that good without blowing tons of money on it. Sci-fi didn't want to or couldn't afford to spend more than $20 mil so the movie ended up being a low-budget miniseries that looked like it was a low budget miniseries. To put $20 million into perspective, "Signs" had a $70 million budget. Most Hollywood movies have budgets at least 3x what the Dune miniseries had, and they are 90 minutes as opposed to 265. It was a made for TV production, so they weren't going to generate a ton of revenue. Their decision to not spend 3x what they did makes sense in this context. I really wish someone in Hollywood would get a $100 million budget to really make a good Dune movie. It would be great to see it done as two separate movies of ~2.5 hours each.

[–] stage-577-735504 14 years ago

Stop talking about money you materialist. If you want to discuss, tell me then if you knew that Hollywood or the Company or God or whatever you want to call them (men is suits) cut Lynch movie from over 4h to 2h... It can explain you a lot. So it is very funny reading the first comments where you hear "Lynch version" where its " "Lynch version" " or even " " "Lynch version" " ".

[–] ContinentalOp 13 years ago

''Actually, he didn't exactly liked it. He said he does not approve to portrayal of Paul as a god-figure, but he appreciates that so many plot points were introduced in a movie (which is way shorter than it should be).''

Actually you are wrong (sincerely or you want to be), he liked it, but disliked elements from it. He didn't approve of the changes made at the end:

"I enjoyed the film even as a cut and I told it as I saw it: What reached the screen is a visual feast that begins as Dune begins and you hear my dialogue all through it...I have my quibbles about the film, of course. Paul was a man playing god, not a god who could make it rain."

In fact some aspects of the film inspired the sequels made after it was released. ''Folding space'' was an invention of the film which he used.

Many haters of Lynch's (close for an adaptation) film are just deluding themselves because they hate the film whereas Frank Herbert didn't and that reeks of dishonesty.

And I do not hate the series either, I just find some changes unnecessary and the excision of characters a bit needles... and the 'Dune' film fits my vision of 'Dune', of any sci-fi better, because most of the uniforms look quite 1880s-1910s which I find more appealing for future settings and my own visions of the future conform to that look. When I read 'Dune' much of the costuming, in my mind, looks quite late 19th Century or early 20th Century it looks that way so I am glad that the 80s film looked that way too.

That said, I like the look of the Sardaukar soldiers (even with the pastry chef berets) in this film more than the Sardaukar in Lynch's film (though they were disguised as Harkonnen, and thus they might never be seen in their uniforms)... other than the ''Prussian'' looking officers that surround the emperor, which I thought looked great for the reasons stated above. The Sardaukar in the miniseries do conform to their description in the DE (which is pretty much part of the in-universe canon).

If you are sick of the ''I love Jesus 100% signature'', copy and paste this into your profile!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kaptain_Bluddflagg 13 years ago

I tried to like it; it followed the books a little better than the Lynch version, but the characters were VERY poorly cast, as if whoever did the casting hadn't read the books at all; the guy who played Stilgar was the worst, followed closely by the girl with huge hamster cheeks they found to play Chani; both her and Stilgar were a little too chunky to pass for Fremen...all that water fat. The pronunciation was way off for a few things (like Harkonnen, Chani...), the added-in bits with Princess Irulan were kind of stupid (especially considering what they left out in order to put them in), not enough Gurney...I could go on and on and on.

As a fan of the books (I've read all of the ones by Frank Herbert, a few by his son, read the first Dune about 20+ times) I was excited to see this, even owned it for awhile, but it was such a huge letdown that I never bothered with the Children of Dune movie/series/whatever. One can only stomach so much disappointment.

I've got me git-finder set to pansy...

[–] dani101 13 years ago

'I never bothered with the Children of Dune movie/series/whatever. One can only stomach so much disappointment. '
_________________________________

You should give 'Children of Dune' a try- this movie is way better than 'Dune'. Many of my friends, who liked Lynch's version and were totally disapointed with this version of 'Dune' , told me they really enjoyed 'Children of Dune'.

___
Kate:Except finding a decent barber, Gibbs can do pretty much anything he says he can.

[–] DanneJojanson 12 years ago

The pronunciation was way off for a few things (like Harkonnen, Chani...)

Actually, the mini-series got the pronunciation of 'Harkonnen' right, the movie did not.

And to add my two cents to the debate - I grew up on the film - long before I even knew of the books. My only connection to Dune as a child was the Lynch film and Iron Maiden's song To Tame a Land.
However, as nostalgic as I get about the movie - it's just not very good. The visuals vary from great to ridiculous, the acting is clunky (with exceptions - Mohiam is fantastic, Leto is alright, Gurney is good), and the story is just distorted. And the voice-overs...

The mini-series is not very good either. The cinematography is god-awful, the acting is subpar (though I think Ian McNiece was born to play the Baron) and the design choices are just head-scratchingly weird. Who the f thought of all those hats? Mohiam's Mickey Mouse ears? Irulan's butterfly-thing? Ugh.
However, the story is there, and quite accurately following the novel. The depiction of Paul is quite bad though (though that's not the actor's fault).

So I would really like a third option - here's hoping a decent adaptation will be made. Preferably as a TV-show, covering all the books.

The best Dune adaptation is without a doubt in my mind the first episode of Children of Dune - it was a very good adaptation of Dune Messiah. Paul was great, the visuals were amazing considering the budget, and the acting was much improved from it's predecessor. And the hats are gone.
I do quite like the rest of the Children of Dune series as well - the depiction of the Preacher was very nice. Some changes from the books were quite welcome in my mind (for a film adaptation that is - I wouldn't have the book any other way - but that book wouldn't really work as a film were it too faithfully adapted).

[–] FloridaBoy24 12 years ago

I've seen both. That being said, its like comparing two different kinds of wine. They are different adaptions. Some like Lynch's, some like the mini-series. I like Lynch's because its fun, but I feel the mini-series has more depth in it due to more than double the time.

[–] jnericsonx 12 years ago

I grew up in the 80s watching the extended version of Dune, spread out over 2 nights, making it, after commercials, a full 3 hour movie. I loved it, and I understood I'd say 80-90% of it, and this was a 8 year old, maybe I was 10, tops. I read the book some years later, and of course thought it was very good, and while I give them credit for being able to put more of the book's material in the 2000 miniseries, as I told Brad Dourif once at a convention...."Your version had more heart and soul in it."

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]