Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cisden.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!nbires!boulder!cisden!Merlyn From: Merlyn@cisden.UUCP (Merlyn) Newsgroups: net.books,net.sf-lovers Subject: Why the Dune movie was no good Message-ID: <278@cisden.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 13:48:08 EDT Article-I.D.: cisden.278 Posted: Tue Sep 17 13:48:08 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 10:25:22 EDT References: <497@linus.UUCP> <1839@mnetor.UUCP> <527@linus.UUCP> <273@cisden.UUCP> <692@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> Reply-To: phillips@trantor.UUCP (Tom Phillips) Followup-To: net.books,net.sf-lovers Distribution: net Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver Lines: 64 Xref: linus net.books:2224 net.sf-lovers:8945 Summary: I'm right and you're wrong. So there. In article <692@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) writes: >*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MELANGE *** > >> While we're on the subject, I lost all respect for Frank Herbert after he >> told us that the movie they made of _Dune_ was faithful to the book. >> >> Tommy Phillips > >Well, Tommy, perhaps the movie version wasn't faithful to the book you read, >but to lose respect for a man who says a movie was failthful to the book he >wrote seems pretty outlandish. Maybe you weren't reading what he wrote? > >I reread Dune just before seeing the movie, and I was impressed overall by >what a nice job was done. It must be extremely difficult to translate a >novel to the screen, and perhaps this is even more true when the novel has >the kinds of subtleties that Dune had. My only complaint about the movie is >that is seems to have been shot too dark. I agree with the author: the movie >is probably as good a screen translation as can be done. > >It strikes me that to disagree with the person who *wrote* the thing is like >saying, "Well, obviously the author isn't aware of the nuances that occur in >his novel". I ask you, who is a better judge than the author? You? >-- > Gary Benson * John Fluke Mfg. Co. * PO Box C9090 * Everett WA * 98206 Where in the book did you see those silly sound guns? Baron Harkonnen's "heart plugs"? Did you see the "ornithopter" flapping it's wings in the movie? Did the Baron look to you as if he was too fat to walk without suspensor globes? The book specifically mentions that the stillsuits were a slick gray material, not black leather. The Voice was supposed to be a subtle alteration of voice and inflection designed to resemble the subject's idea of unrefusable authority, not the same growling for everyone. What about Paul making it rain on Arrakis? That would kill sandworms. What about what they did to the meaning of being the Kwisatz-Haderach? The place the male could see but the female could not had to do with the giving nature of women and the taking nature of men. I don't completely agree with the concept, but it has nothing to do with teleporting rainclouds across the galaxy. The Guild navigators did not teleport spaceships in the book, they looked at the near future and chose a safe path. I did not expect to see all the subtleties of the book in the movie. I would have liked to have seen the same story. Frank Herbert had a very strong motivation for lying about how good the movie was. Money. I have nothing against authors getting money from people making movies of their books. But I wish he had said something like, "Don't expect too much, but the sandworms are nice, and some of the actors are perfect for their (three-minute) parts." Just to keep us from expecting too much. Tommy Phillips trantor!phillips PS: I really enjoyed the book _Dune_. I've read it a number of times. I did not like any of its sequels. I have enjoyed some of Herbert's other work. He tells a good story (sometimes), and his style enhances the narrative. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com