SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Via the good people at io9, my attention was drawn this morning to news that Dune is coming back to the silver screen. This is probably old news to many of you; we've known for a while that the man at the helm is Denis Villeneuve, fresh off Blade Runner 2049 (a worthy sequel to most everyone's favorite futuristic film noir), and just this week Deadline pegged a certain young Hollywood heartthrob for Atreides.
The latest news, however, is that Brian Herbert—son of Dune author Frank Herbert and an author in his own right—revealed that the first script will only focus on the first half of the novel. This confirms an earlier report that Villeneuve plans to adapt the book across two movies.
Herbert's epic sci-fi novel is set far off in the future—about 20,000 years from now—and it tells the story of an intergalactic power struggle between different noble houses to control a substance called melange, which makes interstellar travel possible. (That's massively underselling things, but you try summarizing a 400-page novel in one sentence.) Published in 1965, it has gone on to have a huge influence in popular culture; here at Ars, our favorite descendants are Fatboy Slim's "Weapon of Choice" and the frequent references to the litany of fear by Peter Puppy in the Earthworm Jim cartoons. (The recreation of Dune using gummy worms gets a notable mention.)
[...] By now you may have decided I am an uncritical viewer of all things Dune, so you may not be surprised to know that I am greatly looking forward to see what Villeneuve does with the story. Again, I think he did a bang-up job with a follow-on to Blade Runner, but it's true there's not much similarity between the two franchises other than the fact that they both take place in the future. Other Dune watchers are less confident—upon the news that Kevin J. Anderson (of Star Wars novels fame) was collaborating with Brian Herbert, Ars editor Lee Hutchinson told me, "I can't believe this is going to end in anything other than a nuclear explosion of human excrement."
[...] Legendary (the company behind The Dark Knight and Interstellar) bought rights to Dune about two years ago, but for now there's no firm timetable for the first film.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 28 2018, @09:00PM (11 children)
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jodorowsky%27s+dune [youtube.com] It would have been epic!
This will probably be some lame crap that's visually spectacular, mostly faithful with some wonderful acting... er, well, at least I trust Hollywood will do visually spectacular.
I'm wondering what they're going to do with the scene where Maud'Dib rapes the female race memory like it's a bathroom. Epic lulz if they don't change it and feminists flip the fuck out over the notion that women can't retrace the male race memory, but some dude is capable of retracing the female race memory without even putting on a dress. Eh, they'll probably skip it. It would also cause conservatives shit fits because the moral of the scene could be "do drugs and get super powers."
(Score: 4, Funny) by theluggage on Saturday July 28 2018, @09:11PM (1 child)
What, it's 2018, its Hollywood, and they're not going to gender-flip Maud'Dib...? :-)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:05AM
No, zhe is gonna be an intersex pansexual PoC who is being opressed by the crtitically white feudalist patriarchat.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:19AM (7 children)
What lame political agenda trolling.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @01:02AM (5 children)
No, I think he pretty much summed up the books. And yes the SJW's will flip their shit. They always do, they are incapable of doing otherwise. That is how they control those around them. With fits and acting like children.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @02:23AM (4 children)
More agenda trolling. There was no quasi rape scene and the the mother of his kids was an athnic strong woman. Troll away, but if you seriously believe your own crap then you're crazier than the most hardcore feminist. As usual it shows your own issues with needing to control the world around you that you see people pushing for equality as some power struggle.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:28AM (3 children)
I don't think OP meant "rape" in the literal sense. There is the scene where Muad'Dib drinks the worm bile or whatever it was and goes tripping balls to "the place where they [the Bene Gesserit, female-only order of mystics] cannot see", learning the Bene Gesserit's secret knowledge. According to narration, only males can do this. So yeah, it's gonna be a shitstorm :)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:08PM (2 children)
No, it is not only males can do this. Females simply cannot do this. Males can attempt it and they die. Only the kwisatz haderach can do this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:28PM (1 child)
And read the other ac post below this thread to find out youre wrong. Aaliyah(?) the abomination also accessed male memories.
I repwat, lame agenda trolling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @01:22PM
Alia, Leto Jr and Ghanima accessed anscestor memories. This is different to what the Bene Gesserit did. In the scene where Jessica drinks the worm juice and becomes a Reverend Mother (RM), she is described as receiving all the other RM memories from the old RM that she was tripping with. " a long chain of sausages, each one containing the memories of another RM, stretching back into history"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @06:22AM
Maybe its more of a barometer on society being up to the gills and beyond with PC-ism and the leftist agenda...
From the general instrument readings, we are not far from having a use for walls and guns to clean up the problem.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @01:44AM
In the original canon, Leto's sister, Ghanima, is capable of accessing past memories from both genders. The reason they selectively breed in such a way that only males can combine all the traits is to avoid placing themselves in the spotlights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Gesserit#Avoiding_direct_power [wikipedia.org]
Going prequels, you can look up the Honored Matres and the Fish Speakers, but the point is that Dune has all sorts of organizations going through different iterations and breaking apart into different factions at varying degrees of success. Case and point: The Harkonnen actually split off House Atreides and were the good guys originally. But the environmental conditions in their planet led to economic problem which led to a corrupt dystopian rule as the millenniums followed.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday July 28 2018, @09:10PM (9 children)
Will probably suck but the last bit there gives some hope. Legendary Pictures at least has a decent hit/miss ratio. And Sci-Fi had better luck doing it as a mini-series so breaking it two parts gives them a chance of getting enough of the story into it to avoid the butchery that would be required to rewrite around the bulk of the story being missing. The problem is it will still require a lot of butchering. Short stories and comics are much better candidates for translating to a movie. Novels should be a season of TV but the budget to do a season of Dune would be hard to recoup.
(Score: 3, Informative) by theluggage on Saturday July 28 2018, @09:39PM (8 children)
Compared to a season of GoT, The Expanse, Altered Carbon, or even Doctor Who...? I wouldn't have thought it was beyond the realms of possibility...
The SciFi Channel version did a pretty good job, years ago, before the current age of high production value cable/streaming shows - OK, there were a few cringe-worthy moments, but mostly because of the common problem of well-respected (and presumably well-paid) actors turning into 2x4s when confronted by Science Fiction. I rather liked the way they approached it as "Macbeth in spaaaace..." which fitted by some of the rather stage-bound filming.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday July 28 2018, @10:23PM
It is amazing how Hollywood keeps missing the point on Science Fiction despite so much evidence. Special effects can improve a good story but are insufficient alone. On the other hand a good story will sell quite well with spartan effects. Look how long ST:TOS and the old Dr. Who have been selling. But Hollywood, and not just with Science Fiction, considers the script an afterthought after they have done the "deals", nailed down the "talent" (and now we know they nailed the talent in more ways than one), found the best cinematographer and director they can get, only then will they hire some second rate screenwriters to hammer out a first cut of a script which everyone involved will rewrite endlessly right up to the day they ship a final print and then keep going for a "Special Edition DVD Release." Look how many movies don't even have an ending in mind until they get to the point where they have to actually film one, then they shoot several and decide on one in the editing bay. .. if they don't spin again and do reshoots.
The best and brightest at work. They have to be right? Hollywood wouldn't just hand a hundred plus million to some second rate hack, right? It couldn't be they are mostly middling talents who get the jobs through nepotism and being willing to blow a producer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 28 2018, @11:42PM (6 children)
You think so? The 1984 David Lynch movie is easily one of my all time favourites, but the ScyFy miniseries I couldn't bear watching and stopped after fiffteen minutes or so. I have not read the novel, so I have no idea if a fan of the novel might have been disappointed with the Lynch film.
Regardless, the film had great acting (I can't remember a single actor in the movie that was less than great in their role), a timeless soundtrack and wonderfully bizarre production design with all its little anachronisms of style or tech. The overall visual style of the movie is quite unique, and special effects are top of the line of pre-CGI practical effects and are not overdone.
Meanwhile the ScyFy series had flat acting, made-for-TV-grade plastic-feel greenscreen sets and seemed to want to showcase every weakness of the CGI special effects of the time. To me, it felt like a cheapo knockoff of the original movie and repulsed me with its mediocrity.
I honestly don't think the original movie needs a remake. It holds up well enough until today, so unless the story differs significantly, it can only get worse than the Lynch version as far as I'm concerned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Sunday July 29 2018, @09:49AM (3 children)
I also couldn't stand the miniseries. Paul was a whiny little brat, they put in some Paul and Irulan backstory that made no sense in terms of the narrative, and no one could act. Apparently their Children of Dune adaptation was better, but I couldn't face watching it after their first abomination.
I was positive about TFS until I got to the bit about Brian Herbert being involved. The sequels he and Kevin J. Anderson wrote make it clear that they only skim-read the original novels and entirely missed the point.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:56PM (2 children)
Actually, I think "Paul" gave a cracking performance - goodby too-good-to-be-true other-worldly moonchild, hello a teenager from a privileged background who gets dragged out of his comfort zone, has the fate of a world dumped on his shoulders and then, after being exposed to mind-altering drugs, turns into a messianic junkie warlord, nicely setting things up for the sequel in which he grows up and tries to rectify his past mistakes.
As to the Paul/Irulan backstory: without that, Irulan parachutes in in the last scene and does what she does without any sort of context (and, her actions in the subsequent books make no sense without some sort of chemistry between her and Paul) - plus, the new "backstory" is used to dramatise a lot of important information from the books. One reason that books have to be changed for the screen is to avoid great wodges of exposition.
Sure, its a lot lower-rent and rougher at the edges than the Lynch film (and has a few laughably bad moments) but look beneath the surface and it delivers a better, deeper story and provides a different interpretation of the book (as I said - "Macbeth in Space").
I bet you preferred Star Trek DS9 to Babylon 5...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:45PM (1 child)
GP here. Maybe I'll give the TV series another shot, but most likely I'd turn it off again after a short while, regardless of the quality of the story. For me, in TV/movie as a medium the quality of visuals is a priority. For just a good story, I'd rather read a book.
If a movie can't be made with the visual quality it deserves, then it must not be made. This has often happened with science fiction stories and only now that quality CGI is affordable are we seing some stories made into films that had been in Hollywood's drawer for decades. In the history of film, science fiction productions have made do with minimal special effects and less extravagant sets - if the story allows it, the lack of a big budget can be worked around while still producing a quality movie.
ScyFy's Dune miniseries is an insult to viewers. These producers thought they could make an epic space opera with a small TV budget, either because they had no idea what the capabilities of the team and equipment they could afford were, or because they thought that viewers would accept shit quality because they were either fanboys of the channel or would embrace anything more faithful to the novel than the Flynch version. Or the most sinister explanation: the producers were fully aware that their production would turn out sub-par, but decided to go ahead anyway for some bullshit IP reasons, so they'd be able to keep squeezing the franchise later, when better quality was achievable.
Now that I have shed some light on my outlook on production values I'll have you know that I thought DS9 was the worst to ever come out of the Trek universe. Fucking soap opera doesn't magically transmute into something remotely matching my standards for good entertainment, even if it's IN SPACE!!111 Babylon 5 was cool though.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Sunday July 29 2018, @09:37PM
...well, to be fair, its about 18 years old now, not only has CGI moved on but the production values & budgets of cable/satellite TV have seen a revolution. I guess I'm more impressed with the imaginative use of a small budget than the so-so use of a Hollywood blockbuster budget.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:15PM
I think the single biggest fuckup in the Lynch movie was that they decided having both Voice (psychological manipulation through voice control) and Weirding Way (basically martial arts) was too complicated and they combined them into some bullshit voice powered blaster attack.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:23PM
That might be the factor - it was somewhat more faithful to the book than the film, and less "way out". Sure, the effects were a bit bargain bucket and there were a few outbreaks of really bad acting (re-takes cost money) but the story made more sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 28 2018, @09:43PM (1 child)
Will someone finally dare to God Emperor of Dune?
A healthy dose of LSD to help move onto the final two books.
Plus they finally need todo Wheel of Time !
(Score: 2) by riT-k0MA on Sunday July 29 2018, @07:03AM
It's coming [ign.com]. Be patient, wetlander.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Entropy on Saturday July 28 2018, @10:05PM (7 children)
Everything these days is being remade into SJW-inspired crap. Hopefully this guy doesn't fall prey to that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 28 2018, @11:03PM (1 child)
It's going to be "Dune Nazis". I kid, I kid. I'm a SJW for the Alt-right!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:54AM
OMG you could have a *lot* fun with that...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @01:42AM (1 child)
The freemason that wrote a metaphor for big oil with a backstory including the butlerian jihad? [wikipedia.org] Predictive programming never looked so lame. Fuck Frank Herbert and fuck this movie!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:32PM
I think you mean "socio political commentary that makes me uncomfortable cause im a greedy troll."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:12AM
Heh, let's see them try do that with the Gor books.
(Not that I'm a fan of the series, I can remember reading one of them back in the mid-70s and being moderately amused by it, I've just discovered that they made a Gor film (in name, at least) back in the late 80's, Jack Palance, Ollie Reed, looks...really bad, so obviously must track down a copy)
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday July 29 2018, @05:49PM (1 child)
What do you people have against fighting for justice? What, you're pissed about being sent to jail for shoplifting? IMO the "SJW" moniker is brain-dead stupid and I'm forced to doubt the intelligence of any lemmings who use it.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:46PM
Special special snowflake then. Better?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 28 2018, @10:15PM (3 children)
Can we please not have "and That’s a Good Thing" headlines here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 28 2018, @11:08PM
You can never have too much of a good thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:56AM (1 child)
Agreed. It should be replaced with "and You Won't Believe What Happens Next!".
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday July 29 2018, @01:51AM
"With this one weird trick"
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Saturday July 28 2018, @11:41PM (2 children)
After reading the book in detail and watching the tv series, what really stood out to me was the the extent of the backstory it implied. The book hints with little description at space travel, an empire, corporations, the ruling houses, and humanity itself as having very long histories, and then drops you in the middle of a small piece of that. It seems like presenting some of that backstory would assist/enable the movie in sensibly delivering the book's narrative -- even a Star Wars-style intro would help a lot. Heck, the book itself could benefit, for people who like to get their story context chronologically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:00AM (1 child)
Actually, the lack of explanations was one of the things I liked about the Lynch movie. Getting thrusted into this bizarre universe leaves the viewer to pay attention to detail and try to infer what is not explicitly said. And the movie offers so many details in visuals and dialogue, it's clear that there is a lot of backstory but it is not necessary to know it.
In fact, I think it would be detrimental to the main story arc to tell all of the backstory. This works in a book, where the reader's imagination must be stimulated to construct a believable world. In a movie, visuals take care of this which leaves the viewer to focus on the story, which the Lynch movie pulls off in perfection.
There might be enough time to tell some backstory in a two-part production, but then - what does it add to the story of Paul and his balls-tripping worm ride to galactic dominion?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:59AM
Having read most of the books that fill in the 'back story'. It really takes away from the main arc. This is a mistake many series make. They fill in the story. You are left underwhelmed as your brain put something much better in its place and now it has been replaced by something not as cool.
The one from the sci-fi channel was probably the best of the two. It strayed a bit here and there but suffered from a poor budget. The 84 movie suffered from the problem that it really is a 4-6 hour movie jammed into 2 hours. Which is why the sci-fi one was a better story.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:07AM (9 children)
I'm sorry, are we all pretending Blade Runner 2049 was a good film now, and not trash?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:21AM (3 children)
It wasn't nearly as good as the original but yes, it was a decent sequel.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @01:32AM (1 child)
Nah, missed completely. The original worked on a sublime and metaphorical level, the sequel was a literalist interpretation. It was shit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:13AM
Blade Runner was a key film in creating the cyber punk genre, it is a rare class of film. That is why the sequel was decent, while it couldn't live up to the original it still was a decent movie. But hey, that's just like, my opinion man.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday July 29 2018, @04:03AM
They wanted to have David Bowie play Mr. Wallace, unfortunately he died (RIP!!!). I would have done a much better job than Jared. But I was too busy.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @03:57AM (4 children)
Blade Runner 2049 was one of the very few movies in recent years that I went to see in a cinema. I deliberately avoided any info about it in media and instead relied on friends' opinions on whether it was worth watching.
After having been let down by too many 2000s remakes of or sequels to timeless classics (or prequels... fuck you Ridley Scott, for adding nothing of value with Prometheus), I went into the film prepared for the worst. Yet after a few minutes, it managed to pull me into the story and I stopped trying to compare it to the original. While it didn't quite capture the visual flair and scenery porn of its predecessor, BR 2049 got it mostly right IMO. Visuals are top notch, the acting is good, the story engaging - it's not as profoundly thought-provoking as the original, but it does put some open questions in the viewer's head, like whether an AI can feel love, or should be allowed to fake it so convincingly as to emotionally bind a real human.
Viewed in isolation, BR 2049 is a good movie. Not on the same level of genre-defining classic as the original, but outstanding among the load of crap coming out of Hollywood in recent years.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by choose another one on Sunday July 29 2018, @12:48PM (1 child)
Agreed. Blade Runner 2049 was one of the many remakes/sequels I avoided in the cinema for fear of wasted time/money, and later caught up on streaming for zero money, when I had time to kill. This strategy worked well for crap-fests like Prometheus (among others), but BR 2049 ? - that was the _only_ one I saw and regretted not seeing on the big screen. Good as the original? - hell no, outstanding among the load of crap coming out of Hollywood in recent years? - absolutely yes.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday July 29 2018, @05:51PM
It's streaming now? Thanks, I'll hunt for it. I doubt it will be better than the original.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday July 29 2018, @11:31PM (1 child)
Same here. It'll never compare to the original which was a sub-culture defining piece of work. However, it is quite a good movie on its own. I think it works because they didn't have Deckard until the 3rd act which kinda make it specifically not a Deckard centric sequel though it does continue from the plot which he was part of and weave into it perfectly by the 3rd act.
The audio-effects of this movie in a surround screen cinema is surreal - watching it again at home even with a decent speaker setup doesn't even come close.
I couldn't stand Ryan Gosling before this movie, now he's tolerable..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @01:30AM
After having been conned into watching many of his later works just for his name on the placard, I'm now somewhat convinced that Ridley Scott either was a lot richer when he was young and his master pieces have actually been directed by ghost directors in his employ... or that fame and riches have corrupted him, made him become complacent to studios' marketing execs screwing with the script or pegging mediocre flavor of the month audience magnet actor for lead roles.
Actually, the most likely theory is that in an inversion of the original theory, Ridley Scott now hires ghost directors because he's forgotten how to direct himself after coking his brains out and he'd much rather sit on his yacht, gold-plated fishing rod in hand, talking shit about the good old times and dissing "liberals".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @07:38PM
So, wait, Brian is a part of this thing? Pass. Then again Blade Runner 2049 wasn't good outside of, maybe, visuals either, so… Next!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday July 30 2018, @10:21PM
Instead of Sting, this time they'll have Bieber.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --