About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have read mixed stories about David Lynch disowning the extended version and thus granting directing credit to the fictional scapegoat Alan Smithee, who gets credit for all lousy movies that directors disown.  Some say the studio forced him to cut the movie down to a manageable time frame for theatrical release while others claim he wanted it to stay that short and hated the added footage.  Either way, when I saw the long version on television, it credited Alan Smithee as director.

I never got to see the entire Sci Fi Channel original miniseries Dune from start to finish but I did like what parts I saw.  The story seemed easier to follow and closer to the novel than did the Lynch version.  I never really grasped what happened in the Lynch version until I read the novel a few months later.


Post 1

Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The extended version is better than the theartical release, which I saw after reading the book.

The dictator's name is Shaddam not Saddam :-) Actually Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV of House Corrino. I like Jose Ferrar in that role in the Lynch version.

The SciFi channel series was better in that it was closer to the book, but still different.

I often quote these books and films as they have a lot of good lines to use.

Ethan

Edited for sanity

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 3/12, 7:43am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The RoR Editor wrote:
I quote quote these books and films as they have a lot of good buts to use.
Huh?


Post 3

Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 9:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan, yeah, I know it's Shaddam, but had I written that in the come-on it would haved looked like a typo to the uninitiated. In any case, I assume Herbert simply was using a variant. And Vladimir was still Vlad.

When even the original was released, it was under Alan Smithee in the theaters. I am not sure of Lynch's opinions. All I can say is that as someone whose only objections to the original were the casting of Sting and McLachlan and that the movie was too damn short I really enjoyed the longer version with the Giger sets not cut out. God, the money they wasted on that original release!

If you haven't read the book, don't watch the movie. If you've seen the '84 release and liked it, see this extended panorama release, it's great.

Oh, and the made for TV series wasn't too bad either. It too had its flaws and strengths, but I do prefer Lynch's movie.

I can also strongly recommend ALL of Herbert's works except the Lazarus Effect/Jesus Incident novels which were a bit tedious. The posthumous Dune franchise not written by him is horrible, however.

Ted

Post 4

Monday, March 12, 2007 - 7:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

I don't know what I meant :-)

I'll fix it though :-)

I guess as "RoR Editor" I'll have to remember to edit all my forum posts to MLA standards. No more quick sloppy posts for me!

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 3/12, 7:48am)


Post 5

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 1:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I never did live the movies all that much, or Frank Herbert’s novels (and I’ve read them all). But I loved his son’s prequels with Kevin Anderson (whose “Saga of the Seven Suns” is great). I guess it’s because his son actually does a good job of explaining why they do the things they do in the future.

Post 6

Friday, March 16, 2007 - 9:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Herbert's novels are amazing because he takes the longest view of human history I have ever seen in a writer. He explores such matters as jihad, environmentalism, feudalism, religious orders, drug use, terrorism, political assassination, eugenics, cross-cultural misunderstandings, sexuality and so forth, and integrates them with intricate plots, and extremely well developed characters. His characters are brilliant but flawed, rather than Randian ideals. His politics is realpolitik rather than eutopian. In this sense his work is more naturalistic than Romantic, yet one still roots for his heroes and loves to despise his villains. While Rand and Tolkien each exceed him in their way, his backstories are textured and layered in the manner of Tolkien, and his plots have Rand-like intricacies.

Consider that Dune was originally published 40 years ago, but it seems ripped from the headlines. How many other sci-fi books of its day would compare?

His White Plague, criticized by some for a plot digression in the middle which allows him to explore the Irish national character, tells another story which might be ripped from the headlines, a biologist who sees his family killed by ethnic terrorists designs a plague meant to destroy the feuding countries, but which inevitably spreads, with world-shattering results.

None of his novels are simple fun or Grisham-like page turners. Some investment is required. But the investment is repaid with dividends.

Ted Keer

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.