Kevin's Watch

Oh how I wish Emotional Leper was here to see this now.

io9.com/5458417/new-evidence-that-frank-herbert-loved-david-lynchs-version-of-dune

Talk about shock, and awe. This is truly surprising to me because Lynch's film was awful. The Sci-fi channel was able to produce another version, that at least in my opinion far surpassed the original, granted at the time of this interview the new version didnt exist. I wonder which he would prefer? Is Herbert even still alive ?

Mr. Broken wrote: Is Herbert even still alive ?

No, he died shortly after the original movie came out.

How is this new? I recall an interview at the time in which Herbert said he said he wished he had thought of the sound weapons.

I always thought the film was great. It stayed a lot truer (is that a word?) to the books than people credit, and certainly a lot closer to it's source than Lord of the Rings.

For it's time, it was visionary.

I love it, too.

I've always been fond of it too, but I've not seen the remake.

Mr. Broken wrote:Talk about shock, and awe. This is truly surprising to me because Lynch's film was awful. The Sci-fi channel was able to produce another version, that at least in my opinion far surpassed the original, granted at the time of this interview the new version didnt exist. I wonder which he would prefer? Is Herbert even still alive ?

The Sci-fi version is much, much better than the film.

dlbpharmd wrote:

Mr. Broken wrote:Talk about shock, and awe. This is truly surprising to me because Lynch's film was awful. The Sci-fi channel was able to produce another version, that at least in my opinion far surpassed the original, granted at the time of this interview the new version didnt exist. I wonder which he would prefer? Is Herbert even still alive ?

The Sci-fi version is much, much better than the film.

Hella bump.

Update: Just found a copy in the $5 bin at the Walmart, right next to An Inconvenient Truth.

Kalkin wrote:How is this new? I recall an interview at the time in which Herbert said he said he wished he had thought of the sound weapons.

I always thought the film was great. It stayed a lot truer (is that a word?) to the books than people credit, and certainly a lot closer to it's source than Lord of the Rings.

For it's time, it was visionary.

Both versions have their inconsistancies, for example in the Sci-Fi version Thufir Hawat is killed by a Sardokar bomb almost immediately, Lynch's version has the weirding modules, but of the two Ive never met anyone who had seen both , and preferred Lynch's film. IMO Lynch was at a disadvantage from the beginning because he tried to fit an immense telling into a feature length film, Sci -Fi realized that a more accurate telling could only fit into a mini-series.To each his own though , you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I own both , but I only ever watch the more recent.

PS. I only have a little water please dont take it.

Herbert: This movie will sell more of my books? Then I love it.

I didn't care for the look of the TV version at all. To me, it looked cheap and uninspiring.

On the other hand, I've always liked Lynch's version. There are some parts of it I would like to see removed - such as the tiresome internal dialogue, and the opening exposition - but, on the whole, I think it's a very striking film.

Perhaps then the question becomes are you more a fan of Herbert, or Lynch?

wayfriend wrote:Herbert: This movie will sell more of my books? Then I love it.

This has happened so often, it could be true [Anne Rice freaked out cuz tom cruise was cast as Lestat...but by the time the film was actually ready for release she was suddenly very happy].
Doesn't seem to fit Herbert's personality though.
I thought the first a better film, but the sci-fi one a better telling of the story. [didn't always think this, but I've seen both a few more times now]
I didn't mind the modules...a nifty extrapolation because the "wierding" fighting style was just very advanced martial arts, "wierd" has a relationship with "word," and the "mystic" or at least "esoteric," most martial arts include a vocal aspect [the ki-a of most karate forms, but there are others...my style of kung fu has, but I can't effectively phoneticize.] and of course the bene gesserit have "voice."

Mr. Broken wrote:Both versions have their inconsistancies, for example in the Sci-Fi version Thufir Hawat is killed by a Sardokar bomb almost immediately, Lynch's version has the weirding modules, but of the two Ive never met anyone who had seen both , and preferred Lynch's film. IMO Lynch was at a disadvantage from the beginning because he tried to fit an immense telling into a feature length film, Sci -Fi realized that a more accurate telling could only fit into a mini-series.To each his own though , you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I own both , but I only ever watch the more recent.

PS. I only have a little water please dont take it.

I didn't say I preferred it, I just think people are too rough on it, especially considering what Lynch had to work with and the problems he had. The miniseries is much more accurate, but I like the feel of the first one, if you take my meaning. I had never been given a dictionary for a movie at arrival before, or since.

May your knife chip and shatter!

Kalkin your Rasputin avatar rocks!

Mr. Broken wrote:Perhaps then the question becomes are you more a fan of Herbert, or Lynch?

Neither.

Lynch is very hit and miss for me, and he's not a reason I ever watch something. I love some of his stuff, while some of the rest can just make me stare at my watch in boredom. I haven't read any Herbert as of yet, but the little snippets I have impressed me.

Mr. Broken wrote:Kalkin your Rasputin avatar rocks!

That's me in costume.

No, I can't back that up. It's Rasputin.

Montresor wrote:Lynch is very hit and miss for me, and he's not a reason I ever watch something. I love some of his stuff, while some of the rest can just make me stare at my watch in boredom. I haven't read any Herbert as of yet, but the little snippets I have impressed me.

Yeah, Lynch is like that. I watched some of Twin Peaks a while back and I could not, for the life of me, remember what the fuss was all about.

Read Herbert, you'll thank yourself for it. And read his son's sequels. they are quite good. The prequels are okay.[/quote]

I've maintained in past discussions that Lynch's movie captured the book's essence or spirit - whatever you wish to call it - remarkably well. In the interview, Lynch said he was trying to do just that. And he succeeded.
I felt the TV miniseries was missing that essence, despite its ostensibly greater fidelity to the book's details.

Also, IMO the movie had a stronger cast (aside from a less-than-charismatic Paul as played by Kyle MacLachlan).

Montresor wrote:I didn't care for the look of the TV version at all. To me, it looked cheap and uninspiring.

That was more or less my same reaction. It just seemed very conventional.

wayfriend wrote:Herbert: This movie will sell more of my books? Then I love it.

Did he come across as that cynical to you?

matrixman wrote:

wayfriend wrote:Herbert: This movie will sell more of my books? Then I love it.

Did he come across as that cynical to you?

No.

But in Hollywood, everyone always "loves" what they are working on, the director is always "amazing", and the cast is always "great to work with" .... regardless of what they really think.