10-06-2003, 07:22 AM
Love the books, criticize the movies.
I thought the mini-series was MUCH worse. If you can cheaply rent, or borrow a copy, judge for yourself. The 1984 Dune did many things right, and was approved by Frank Herbert himself. Among them, atmosphere, strong character work, and the both the despair of situation and strength of character, as well as the sensibility of Paul Muad'ib as he comes into his own. I admit the 1984 Dune did not cover all of the 500+ page original (with one typo in my aniversery edition hardcover... ONE). That's impossible to perfectly transmit from book to movie medium. However tersely (how central is the love story? as much as I'd like to see them get it on, that's for a porn rip-off). I think the '84 version (4 versions, cuts of the same really) did well to reduce coverage to move plot. In the 84 case, less was more. Even moreso compared to the mini-seiries. Why? Here are a few of my criticisms on the Sci-Fi Mini-series.
1) They used pup tents in open desert, with They ignored desert culture completely. The Scifi channel miniseries destroys that with the flimsy tatters desert clothing.
2) Unecessary addition of Princess Irulene. Actually the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings did the same with Arwen... she's the addition of a very minor female character in a grab for audience.
3) Slow, unmoved acting. For me, it was watching a dead fish flounder all throughout. It looked like deadwood carrying the motions, but with no spark. Maybe I'm spoiled. It didn't feel like Dune. The "little" details, like costume central to the character and geopgraphic regional culture, everything that makes the atmosphere makes or breaks the movie for me.
Just a few remarks. The central complaint of the 84 version was "not enough, especially the love relationship." My complaint of the mini-series is too much of the unnecessary, so much that it ruins the atmosphere and what makes the shifting desert culture Dune.
I thought the mini-series was MUCH worse. If you can cheaply rent, or borrow a copy, judge for yourself. The 1984 Dune did many things right, and was approved by Frank Herbert himself. Among them, atmosphere, strong character work, and the both the despair of situation and strength of character, as well as the sensibility of Paul Muad'ib as he comes into his own. I admit the 1984 Dune did not cover all of the 500+ page original (with one typo in my aniversery edition hardcover... ONE). That's impossible to perfectly transmit from book to movie medium. However tersely (how central is the love story? as much as I'd like to see them get it on, that's for a porn rip-off). I think the '84 version (4 versions, cuts of the same really) did well to reduce coverage to move plot. In the 84 case, less was more. Even moreso compared to the mini-seiries. Why? Here are a few of my criticisms on the Sci-Fi Mini-series.
1) They used pup tents in open desert, with They ignored desert culture completely. The Scifi channel miniseries destroys that with the flimsy tatters desert clothing.
2) Unecessary addition of Princess Irulene. Actually the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings did the same with Arwen... she's the addition of a very minor female character in a grab for audience.
3) Slow, unmoved acting. For me, it was watching a dead fish flounder all throughout. It looked like deadwood carrying the motions, but with no spark. Maybe I'm spoiled. It didn't feel like Dune. The "little" details, like costume central to the character and geopgraphic regional culture, everything that makes the atmosphere makes or breaks the movie for me.
Just a few remarks. The central complaint of the 84 version was "not enough, especially the love relationship." My complaint of the mini-series is too much of the unnecessary, so much that it ruins the atmosphere and what makes the shifting desert culture Dune.