Dune 1984

Very true. I would disagree with you about Logan's Run and The Omega Man being better than their original source novels although in the latter case beyond the basic story it's an example of the film going its own way.

 

You said on another thread that you had seen David Lynch's original version, was that the workprint you're referring to, and if so, how did you see it, and do you remember roughly how long it lasted? I've heard from a reliable source that from day one, Lynch was under contract to deliver a film no longer than two-and-a-half hours (150 minutes) at most, but during the post-production process, Universal lost their nerve and mandated a maximum running time of 2 hrs 17 mins so they could cram in the maximum number of showings per day during it's theatrical run. So even if the studio hadn't ordered massive cuts, it wouldn't have been substantially longer than it ended up being, for sure those extra 13 minutes would have made it an altogether more satisfying film, but it still would have been a flawed work, albeit still a fascinating one all told of the like we're likely never to see again.

With regards Universal's offer to Lynch in 1987 to supervise and/or approve a director's cut, I heard that he actually seriously considered the offer, but the two sides couldn't agree to terms over financial matters, and that's why it never happened, alas...

 

Can't remember, but I know the work was done around 1987 at Sunset Post in Glendale, about 7-8 miles down the road from Universal. I knew the editor in charge of post on the project, and I asked him about it and he said he had personally called David Lynch's office several times to try to get him to at least see the results, but the liaison told him that Lynch was so beaten down by Universal years earlier, he a) didn't trust them and b) had washed his hands of the whole experience.

The guy I know never said it had anything to do with money, but I'm sure if they threw a million bucks at him that would've been a nice incentive. On the other hand, some things aren't worth going through for either love or money.

 

I was so excited when it came out. I had read the book, and saw it opening day. It wasn't the 'biggest flop ever', or even a terrible film (mediocre is more accurate). But it was SO boring, the FX seemed low budget and obsolete. Some of the plot changes made NO sense, and the only guy in the movie with charisma was STING, (a freakin' bass player). I was so disappointed at the time. I haven't seen the TV mini-series, but a mini-series or (trilogy by peter king) makes more sense that the bloated mess that was DUNE.

 

I hated it the first time I saw it, too long, too slow moving, hardly convincing.

That being said years later and a few more views has me warming up to it.

I actually like it now.

Still too long for what they were trying to present IMO. I'm not sure any careful editing could fix that though. It is what it is I guess.

 

It's a bad, boring film. As a result there's no way I'll ever read the book. Unfair? Probably...

 

I think it's tremendously successful as camp.

 

I went in with no prior knowledge of the troubled production, and to me it felt like a 4 hour movie trimmed down to 2 hours. Too bad the director's cut never materialized.

 

I'll always remain fascinated by the film. I skip over certain scenes, but I like most of it, as it's a one of a kind picture, suffused with a sort of melancholy despite the heroic aspect of it.

 

One of my absolute favorite books and I've read the entire series (more than once) (although not all of the "new" ones written by Frank Herbert's son Brian). Was tough for me to watch. I didn't like much of the casting (Kyle specifically, with Sting a close second). Hated the "Weirding Modules" instead of the Weirding Way. Don't get me started about Baron Harkonnen floating around in the blood.

The list goes on.

Needed to have been a longer movie or better yet, a mini series ala Game of Thrones. (production quality and tone, not length)

On the other hand, at least they tried. I have no problems with other elements that are generally disparaged (such as the scenes where we hear the characters thoughts).

 

A single three-hour film would do it justice but it would need a director of extraordinary vision to pull it off, one who could secure what would be a very substantial budget, AND be allowed by the studio to do it right. I've always believed that should there be another attempt to bring Dune back to the big-screen, Darren Aronofsky would be the perfect person to do it... he's one of the few genuine auteurs right now; he has a visual sensibility that makes his onscreen worlds both alien and familiar (something Dune should be); the novel itself touches on themes that Aronofsky seems to be interested in, judging by his previous films, things like religion, environmentalism, science, dreams, etc; he can work on large-scale fantasy projects, like last year's Noah; he proved with that film he could make a truly unique film that was both artistic and commercial and still be a box-office success; and he was able to make the film he wanted with Noah and get the final cut on it too.

The trouble is, when Paramount were attempting to put together a new Dune adaptation a few years ago, they were talking to the likes of Pierre Morel (Taken) and Peter Berg (um, Battleship) to direct it... not a very encouraging sign, it has to be said, but then again, who would have thought Zack Snyder was capable of delivering an incredible big-screen adaptation of Watchmen, but he did, so you never know... but Aronofsky would be a slam-dunk choice if he accepted the challenge, you just know he would deliver something utterly unique and maybe even extraordinary.

 

Hey, man, good to see you.

My gripe with Dune is that, IMHO, it should have gotten the multi-film treatment; simply too much scope for one feature film, even if it were Cleopatra-scale. That said, I question if such an undertaking would've been to DL's taste.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think that they could've handled it any differently. There are significant portions of the book where the author takes you into the heads of the characters to show you what they're thinking. How can they do that convincinly on film? And those thoughts tell you so much you need to know about the universe of Dune.

Interestingly, I had only read the first 100 pages of Dune when the film came out, and I learned enough to understand what was going on, so I rather enjoyed it. I still love the style of the film, and the cinematography is great, IMO.

 

Watched it today and I think this has some of the best art direction ever put on film. I think it makes most other sci-fi films look cheap. Some of the optical effects obviously have suffered, but sets and costumes are absolutely superlative and I don't think have been bested in Sci-fi.

 

Not my kind of film, I'm afraid. But then again, I don't like the Star Wars stuff either. Too much heroism, and not enough sci-fi.

 

Dune's pretty scifi-y...

 

Not really so much for me, I'm afraid. Yeah there's technology, mutants, and spaceships... but basically they are only used as a vehicle to support a kind of heroic tale. I tend to lean more toward films like The Terminator, Alien, 2001, etc where you have to think about the science a bit more than the character development. These last few nights I've even been on a John Carpenter kick... The Thing, Prince Of Darkness, etc. and even They Live has some interesting sci-fi premises in that. With Dune, not so much.

 

Hmmm. I'm not sure I really understand your argument. Pretty much any scifi tale will involve a heroic protagonist, defeating the odds to triumph in the end. It's basic story telling, regardless of genre.

I also love the films you mention (not seen Prince Of Darkness or They Live), but with the exception of 2001 none of them actually made me think about the science behind them. They were just action/horror flicks set in space.

The most recent films that actually made me think about the science is Ex-Machina and Her.

 

It's okay. Making arguments for things isn't necessarily my strong suit. Guess I'll just say that Dune, or even Star Wars for that matter, didn't seem to require the science to get the story across. It could just as easily been told as a tale from the days of knighthood, etc.. You know, fighting dragons and all that. The Terminator incorporated time travel, AI, etc. into the story, and created a pretty nifty loop. Alien was a gothic horror story to be sure, but the nature of the creature was fascinating to me. I forgot to mention Blade Runner up there too... which is also one of my favorites.

I do like stories of heroism. Don't get me wrong. It's just that sometimes it feels like the science is thrown in just to enhance the setting, not as something to think about in and of itself. Sorry if this isn't making much sense. Let me know if I'm doing better, okay?

 

That's okay, I guess we have different interpretations or triggers when it comes to scifi and plotting (and what we find scientifically interesting). Anyway, thanks for the reply.
P.S.
Blade Runner is also one of my faves.

 

I love the books so I have seen the film a good number of times, but do not love it. I thought the SF mini series was much better, but lost the thread halfway through the follow up Children of Dune mini series.

 

I was only seven when it came out - I became aware of it from a Panini sticker album that was probably bundled with a comic. One of my friends' older sisters wanted the Sting stickers. They tried to sell the film as a fun-for-the-family sci-fi epic, which is ridiculous. It looks wonderful, Brian Eno's music is lovely, and overall I think of it as a companion-piece to the 1980 Flash Gordon. It has the same combination of excellent costumes, odd bouts of sexual fetishism, ropey modelwork, wooden lead actor, excellent character actors in underwritten support roles, top soundtrack, etc. They were both produced by Dino De Laurentiis, they were both attempts to cash in on Star Wars by rebooting another sci-fi franchise, they both took ages to reach the screen.

I read the book after seeing the film. I can see why it might have impressed film producers in the 1960s and early 1970s. Let's imagine that the typical film producer of that period was an older man who enjoyed Ben-Hur or Cleopatra or Spartacus, a man who might be stuck in the past a little bit. Dune is basically a Biblical epic set in the future with a dash of contemporary Middle Eastern politics. From his point of view it's Ben-Hur crossed with one of those hippie films, so what's not to like? Viz the Pink Floyd soundtrack and graphic design by Moebius.

But by the time it came out Biblical epics were dead and gone, and the story doesn't work as an action-adventure. It resembles Star Wars in the sense that the hero is a teenager plucked from obscurity to become saviour of the universe - kids watching the film can identify with that - but the details are wrong, and which kids in 1985 would have identified with Kyle McLachlan? He dresses like a cadet, he's the product of genetic experiments, he comes across as the kind of person who would commit genocide without a second thought - because he's a God, and life is unimportant - and ultimately he's a teenage fascist.

Meanwhile the rest of the film has ugly flying space slugs, boils, heart-plugs, cats being tortured, stabbings with loads of blood, silly-looking giant worms etc. And yet I love it. The visual style is striking - were the force fields CGI? - the weirding modules are an interesting idea, the Eno music etc, the bizarre way that the end titles have little portraits of the characters smiling despite the fact that half of them were bastards and died horribly.

In fact that could be the film's tagline. Dune: A Bunch of Bastards Die in Horrible Ways and Then There's a Little Girl With a Knife and What the Heck Was That All About Five Stars.

 

And there's a Dune review for the ages right there... and yes, the force-fields were indeed CGI, some of the earliest CG shots created for a major feature.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; if David Lynch had been able to shoot and release his original vision of that film, it would have been extraordinary, alas... imagine if Peter Jackson had his preferred 178-minute theatrical cut of Fellowship of the Ring cut down to the two-and-a-half hours he was contracted to deliver, what would we have lost?

'Nuff said.

 

Maybe it's need a "Special Edition" treatment like "Star Wars".

Maybe some added effects and scenes would actually improve it.

 

I've been meaning to watch this again for a while. I'll do that sometime this week.