Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!preston From: preston@ut-sally.UUCP (Randal Preston) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: DUNE: judge for yourself Message-ID: <503@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Dec-84 13:53:30 EST Article-I.D.: ut-sally.503 Posted: Mon Dec 17 13:53:30 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 18-Dec-84 07:09:41 EST Distribution: net Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 75 This is in defense of Dune, the movie, after seeing Brad Templeton's TWO flames about how bad the film was. To all net-landers who enjoy movies (i.e., readers of this newgroup): Go see DUNE, and *judge for yourself* !! Several responses to this film have been posted: Some readers of the book liked the film (myself included); some didn't. Some sci-fi lovers liked it (myself included); some didn't. Some movie-goers/critics liked it (myself included); some didn't. I have all the previously-posted articles/reviews on Dune, if you want them by e-mail. (from Steve Dyer, Steve Upstill, D. Mitchell, Dwight Ernest, Brad Templeton) ++++++++++++ MY DEFENSE OF "DUNE", the movie (spoiler/review) As Elaine C. Dimpelfeld (while criticizing 2010) nicely put: > To me there are three kinds of art: > EPIC - A tale larger than life and individual persons, > trying to make some sense of it all. > DRAMA - A tale about life and characters. > MELODRAMA - A tale emphasizing plot and action, sacrificing characterization. DUNE (the book, the movie) IS AN EPIC. To try to condense the entire book into a 2-1/2 hr. movie is a major task, especially considering the depth of character development, and intricacies of plot and subterfuge ("feint within feint within feint"). But as Frank Herbert himself said in an interview: > "It's as close to the book as a movie can get." (quoted from wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP) First, let me state that I re-read the book for the 2nd time (1st time was 5 years ago), preparing myself for the film. I liked the books, but I am *not* a Dune-freak. The movie *is* an honest attempt to simply change the *medium* from novel to screenplay, as accurately as possible, and yet provide a good movie. With respect to this: 1) "DUNE"'s BIG-BUDGET WAS WELL-SPENT, on realistic sets,costumes,and effects. A couple of viewers didn't like/understand the sandworms. I was not *awed* by them, but *this* special effect was at least adequate (how *do* you capture (on film) the magnificence of a GIANT mouth swallowing up 1/4 of a square mile of sand?) I was pleased by the film's interpretation of "the Baron strapped suspensor-globes to himself to hold up his layers of *fat* [preston-paraphrase from book]". I was also *very* pleased with the film's depiction of "body-shields", which deflect fast knife-thrusts, but allow slow knife-penetrations. 2) THE MOVIE SUMMARIZES THE PLOT WELL, in a form which I *think* would be understandable to the non-Dune-reader, if he/she pays attention. I was slightly disappointed by some plot nuances that were left out, and some minor changes to make the *movie* more cohesive/understandable (e.g. Paul *drinking* the Water of Life with an audience, instead of privately). 3) THE MOVIE DOES A DECENT JOB OF CHARACTERIZATION. In the book, the characters have depth/perception, use secret signals/languages, etc. The movie deals with these character nuances by: a) Outright explanation/narration b) Overdubbed thoughts (of the characters) c) Good acting, costumes !! 4) THE MOVIE IS SERIOUS SCI-FI, NOT "STAR WARS" REBORN (little humor). (The book was a serious EPIC also). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I understand that it was planned as a 4-hr. film/saga, and is being released as 4+ hrs. outside the U.S. (??) Any Canadians out there to confirm this?? 2-1/2 hrs. just *can't* do the book full justice. Randal Preston (preston@ut-sally .ARPA, .UUCP)