4 ms·

Another TV adaptation worth mentioning is SyFy's miniseries "Frank Herbert's Dune" and "Frank Herbert's Children of Dune". They are much more faithful to books

Another TV adaptation worth mentioning is SyFy's miniseries "Frank Herbert's Dune" and "Frank Herbert's Children of Dune". They are much more faithful to books than Lynch's movie and better show the epic universe that Herbert imagined.

anotherevan 11y ago
I really disliked the that Dune miniseries[1]. There was some really awful acting and very cheap looking sets through a lot of it. I also thought they got the tone of Paul's character completely wrong. To me he came across starting off as an arrogant thug whereas my perception of him from the books was a very thoughtful if not perhaps demonstratively emotive young man. (Obviously subjective viewpoint, but it put me off right from the start.) OTOH, the audiobook produced by Audible I thought was very good. I've probably read the book four or five times, the last time well over a decade ago. I listened to the audiobook recently and really enjoyed it and reminded me how much I liked the first book[2]. [1] Have not seen the Children of Dune miniseries. [2] I'm in the "first book was good, the rest was crap" camp. I read through 'til about halfway through Heretics of Dune before asking myself why I was still reading and stopped.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  > my perception of him from the books was a very thoughtful if not perhaps demonstratively emotive young man. I would say that Paul was throughtful, but very emotive - remember the lecture about mood being a thing for cattle? - and not keen enough on acting initially.
- aikah 11y ago
  I took it as "filmed theater" rather than a movie. Aside from William Hurt, all actors are playing their roles, not "acting". So if you see it that way it's enjoyable. Everything is theatric, from the costumes to the dialogs, it doesn't really feel like a movie at all. I prefer this to Lynch's film which has great costumes and design but you can't tell Dune in less than 2 hours, like one cannot tell lord of the rings in one movie. However,there is certainly room for a real trilogy movie. I'm sure it will happen in the next 10 years.
anotherevan 11y ago
OTOH, the David Lynch movie was both good and original. However the bits that were good where not original, and the bits that were original were not good.
- michaelfeathers 11y ago
  Some website a few years ago said that Lynch's Dune is great if you cut out all of the speaking parts. I'd like to see an edit like that.
brandonmenc 11y ago
Absolutely disagree. From the get, Paul is depicted as a petulant, unthoughtful child with no desire to move off-planet - which is the exact opposite of who he is in the books. The fact that Paul is mature for his age is precisely why he takes the courses of action he does in the books. David Lynch nailed that aspect.

anotherevan 11y ago

I really disliked the that Dune miniseries[1]. There was some really awful acting and very cheap looking sets through a lot of it. I also thought they got the tone of Paul's character completely wrong. To me he came across starting off as an arrogant thug whereas my perception of him from the books was a very thoughtful if not perhaps demonstratively emotive young man. (Obviously subjective viewpoint, but it put me off right from the start.) OTOH, the audiobook produced by Audible I thought was very good. I've probably read the book four or five times, the last time well over a decade ago. I listened to the audiobook recently and really enjoyed it and reminded me how much I liked the first book[2]. [1] Have not seen the Children of Dune miniseries. [2] I'm in the "first book was good, the rest was crap" camp. I read through 'til about halfway through Heretics of Dune before asking myself why I was still reading and stopped.

rodgerd 11y ago
> my perception of him from the books was a very thoughtful if not perhaps demonstratively emotive young man. I would say that Paul was throughtful, but very emotive - remember the lecture about mood being a thing for cattle? - and not keen enough on acting initially.
aikah 11y ago
I took it as "filmed theater" rather than a movie. Aside from William Hurt, all actors are playing their roles, not "acting". So if you see it that way it's enjoyable. Everything is theatric, from the costumes to the dialogs, it doesn't really feel like a movie at all. I prefer this to Lynch's film which has great costumes and design but you can't tell Dune in less than 2 hours, like one cannot tell lord of the rings in one movie. However,there is certainly room for a real trilogy movie. I'm sure it will happen in the next 10 years.

anotherevan 11y ago

OTOH, the David Lynch movie was both good and original. However the bits that were good where not original, and the bits that were original were not good.

michaelfeathers 11y ago
Some website a few years ago said that Lynch's Dune is great if you cut out all of the speaking parts. I'd like to see an edit like that.

brandonmenc 11y ago

Absolutely disagree. From the get, Paul is depicted as a petulant, unthoughtful child with no desire to move off-planet - which is the exact opposite of who he is in the books. The fact that Paul is mature for his age is precisely why he takes the courses of action he does in the books. David Lynch nailed that aspect.