Subject:
|
Re: Dune (was: Which was better? was: Excellent summation of truths and falsehoods about...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:40:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1134 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > > > > He who controls the spice controls the universe? Or no?
>
> > Was the movie with Sting better than the William Hurt 'Made for TV' • mini-series?
> >
> > I liked the mini-series better myself--the 'thopers alone!
> >
> > Though Jean Juc was in the movie--"I thought you were dead" :)
>
> The Lynch movie captured the atmosphere much, much, much better though it
> certainly has it's own array of faults. I couldn't finish the
> miniseries, I hated it so much! Really, the book is too complicated to easily
> convert to motion picture. Just read it. And again. And again. Then read
> the rest of them. And then wait a year read the whole series again.
I liked the miniseries better(1); the length let it cover much much more of
the plot. David Lynch (Baz Luhrman, too) tends to make movies that make me
think "Wow, that was really cool. Didn't make sense, but it was cool." -
and his version of Dune was no different. I also really objected when he
flipped one of the central themes of the book on it's head (weirding
modules? come on...)
I could have lived with someone other than William Hurt as Leto, but thought
the rest of the casting was well done, and it rendered the atmosphere well
enough.
All that being said though: The books are head and shoulders above either.
Follow Chris' advice. :)
James
1: I may be biased, I'll admit it - my brother was involved in the
production of the miniseries, and has a one-line cameo.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
