When you watch a movie based off a book,,

chewie wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

The most fascinating transition to me was Dune '84. Lynch had everything right, key points included, until the third act when everything fell to shit. And then to tack on that ludicrous, inane final sequence really did it in. So much potential in that movie, and the book is almost unfilmable if you ask me.

Don't get me started on the miniseries though haha.

I LOVE that book! I'll have to agree with that. If they would have been forward thinking, they could have made it into a trilogy, because there is no way that you can make that book into a single film! Stupid meddling studio.

Arrakis didn't turn green until much later in the book series.

The miniseries had the content correct, but it looked terrible............

Yes and it was horribly miscast, the Baron worst of all. It was also missing the esoteric, unnerving atmosphere of Herbert's mysticism, which I think Lynch almost nailed down. The paranoia and double-crossing "games within games" was watered down.

A film trilogy would be excellent but still a difficult maneuver. Dune is just not meant for a cinematic blockbuster engagement unless it's tinkered with beyond the author's intent. It simply can't be mainstreamed as it is. It's an engaging story mixed with a myriad of complex elements--psychology, sociology, religion, philosophy, environmentalism, politics, fringe science, I could go on. And the story needs all that to really shine.

I really need to tread through the remaining books but from I understand the terraforming of Arrakis was dependent on the synthesis of melange? I've been curious of this for a long time.

S.D. wrote:

I don't even compare them.  Books and film are completely different mediums, you have to make myriad changes to a book to mold it into screenplay form.  Plus, when you read a book your imagination tells you what people look like, what the town looks like, etc.  Once you see the adaptation it's never the same as what you imagine in your head, so no matter how good the film is you're always going to be a little disappointed.  

So I just keep them separate and judge each on its own merits.  

I don't agree. Besides the obvious that books and films are different and that when reading we create visions/pictures in our minds eye of characters and places.

The only reason for making these books into a movie is due to their popularity as a book. IE; the story... So why mess it up and tell a different story? Unnecessary mod's by unimaginative minds looking to quickly cash in on whats popular without putting in the effort to stay faithful to the story that brought them together in the first place...

S.D. wrote:

I don't even compare them. Books and film are completely different mediums, you have to make myriad changes to a book to mold it into screenplay form. Plus, when you read a book your imagination tells you what people look like, what the town looks like, etc. Once you see the adaptation it's never the same as what you imagine in your head, so no matter how good the film is you're always going to be a little disappointed.

So I just keep them separate and judge each on its own merits.

Yup. This is me all the way.

S.D. wrote:

I don't even compare them.  Books and film are completely different mediums, you have to make myriad changes to a book to mold it into screenplay form.  Plus, when you read a book your imagination tells you what people look like, what the town looks like, etc.  Once you see the adaptation it's never the same as what you imagine in your head, so no matter how good the film is you're always going to be a little disappointed.  

So I just keep them separate and judge each on its own merits.  

Yeah. Silence of the Lambs is the only time I thought the movie was better than the book and that is because of Anthony Hopkins and that "I'm having an old friend for dinner" line at the end.