Yes, Dune again.

[wayfriend]

Peter Berg is attached to direct a bigscreen adaptation of Frank Herbert's classic sci-fi novel "Dune" for Paramount Pictures. ... Paramount envisions the project as a tentpole film. link

Does "tentpole film" mean "basis for franchise" ???

[aTOMiC]

Well if they keep remaking the film they will eventually do it well enough to please everyone.
I liked the first film (mostly). I thought the Sci Fi channel treatment was even better though there might be room for a big budget contemporary remake.

[Mr. Broken]

I hope this time they find a way to tell the story without cutting it to pieces. I preferred the sci-fi channels version to Lynch's except for the way they eliminated Thufor Hawats character with an explosion ( if its too easy then it will be cheesey).

[dlbpharmd]

I don't see how the Sci-fi channel version can be improved. It's that good.

[matrixman]

I've never heard of Peter Berg, but wouldn't mind a new adaptation of Dune. Don't know if it's a blessing or a curse that Dune has had a history of attracting filmmakers. At the start of the 80's, Ridley Scott was supposed to make a big screen version for producer Dino de Laurentiis, which ended up under the helm of David Lynch. In the 90's there was John Harrison's TV miniseries. And now in the, uh, 00's, there is Peter Berg.

[Usivius]

actually Lynch's 2 hr+ version of Dune is pretty muddled .. but if you have been fortunate to see a copy of the nearly 4 hr cut (as I once did on a friends VCR tape --- bootleg as I recall), the difference is rather dramatic and quite good.
We all know the FX were pretty amazing, but the story is realy fleshed out in the looong version too, (as I recall with faded recollection... it WAS 20 years ago....)

I haven't done a search of a DVD copy of the 4 hour cut recently .. anyone know if there is an official version out there...?

[wayfriend]

Two words: Heart Plugs.

I think the sci-fi channel did a better job of pleasing fans. I wonder if we would have enjoyed it as much w/o having Lynch's version on our minds.

But neither version conveyed the sense of Paul's messianic destiny, which is the heart of the story, not the worms.

[Mr. Broken]

As a life long fan of Herberts work , I think that in either case it was the attempt to make a film adaptation that awed me. Knowing how immense and yet precise a tale it was, didnt daunt either film maker from the attempt, and now the attempt will be made again. Im sure that this new version will be made with the shortcomings of the first 2 versions in mind

[Cagliostro]

I just think fans are never happy.

[ItisWritten]

I just think fans are never happy.

Well, yeah.

The problem with making a movie from any sci-fi/fantasy classic is that each fan has their own imagination-induced view that they want to see, and where a few get what they want, the rest do not.

Remember the story about the elephant and the 4 blind men? Imagine Dune as the elephant, but with 40 million imaginations, and just one gets to express his vision. The real fallacy is that any 12 people got the same thing out of their first read.

I could only watch the Lynch version once. The Sci-Fi attempt was worthy, except for the inflation of Princess Irulan's part.

[Mr. Broken]

I hope they add the scene where Lady Jessica explains to Mapes that the bull's horns are not to be cleaned, when you read Herberts Dune you get a brief description of the relevance of the bull head, but if you read House Atreides ( I believe his son wrote that ) you get the whole story about how Duke Leto's father died.

[Holsety]

I just think fans are never happy.

Well, yeah.

The problem with making a movie from any sci-fi/fantasy classic is that each fan has their own imagination-induced view that they want to see, and where a few get what they want, the rest do not.

Remember the story about the elephant and the 4 blind men? Imagine Dune as the elephant, but with 40 million imaginations, and just one gets to express his vision. The real fallacy is that any 12 people got the same thing out of their first read.

I could only watch the Lynch version once. The Sci-Fi attempt was worthy, except for the inflation of Princess Irulan's part.

Well, I think sometimes a fanbase can be fairly united in what it wants. The problem is that 1: the fans are not often filmmakers, and while the filmmakers probably appreciate what they're working on they may not be as fanatic as the fans (for instance a super hardcore tolkien fan might be annoyed Jackson's elision of Bombadil and the "evil shire" stuff). And 2: with less popular stuff (obviously not tolkien, probably not dune) the filmmakers are not always writing their film with the fanbase as their main audience (maybe the fanbase isn't big enough to net a profit).

[The Dreaming]

Dune *is* the best selling science fiction novel of all time isn't it? (Unless you count 1984, Slaughterhouse 5, and Fahrenheit 451... which the royal academy of literary snobbery decrees they are are not.)

[Mr. Broken]

You never know a successful remake of this film may reintroduce Herberts writing to a new generation.

[Holsety]

Dune *is* the best selling science fiction novel of all time isn't it? (Unless you count 1984, Slaughterhouse 5, and Fahrenheit 451... which the royal academy of literary snobbery decrees they are are not.)

Well...ok, I'm just going to say right now, I really think 1984 truly does not fit as, primarily, a science fiction work. Ya, pervasive TV brainwashing and such are an important element of the book, but I think it is primarily speculative in regards to politics.

But both Slaughterhouse 5 and Fahrenheit 451 are very, very clearly sci-fi. I think 451 actually does get labeled as sci-fi sometimes.

You never know a successful remake of this film may reintroduce Herberts writing to a new generation.

Oh, no doubt. Personally (not that my personal feelings really matter in this case) I am completely fine with a new Dune film. But while I'm sure it can do nothing but good for the series' popularity, I'm eternally (and perhaps unjustifiably) pessimistic when it comes to film adaptations of books.

I think it's just seeing the recent Seuss movies, which I really don't care for.

[emotional leper]

Someone call me?



My common sense... it was tingling.

[matrixman]

Clever! Well, no one said the Kwisatz Haderach was politically correct.

[thefirst]

I realize that particular version of the movie left out or changed a lot of key points from the book. Personally I'd like to see how they would make the Orange Catholic Bible with all the advances we've made in CGI since it was done. But, overall, I liked it.

[Loredoctor]

I realize that particular version of the movie left out or changed a lot of key points from the book. Personally I'd like to see how they would make the Orange Catholic Bible with all the advance s we've made in CGI since it was done. But, overall, I liked it.

[Wyldewode]

I haven't done a search of a DVD copy of the 4 hour cut recently .. anyone know if there is an official version out there...?

I don't believe the 4 hour one has been released yet. There is an extended version that was done in 1985. I think it has two versions on it--the one adds 14 minutes, and is 2 hours and 17 minutes. The second version on that disc is the television movie release, and comes in at 2 hours 57 minutes.

I have to admit that I have a special fondness for that film, mostly because of the cast. I adore Sting, and I'm fond of Kyle MacLachlan as well.

As far as I am concerned, I will sit on the fence until I've had a chance to watch the new movie. That will be the real test of how it is.

My common sense... it was tingling.

You might want to see a doctor about that.