T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
24.1 | | PIXEL::DICKSON | | Fri Feb 10 1984 13:49 | 3 |
| These people havn't heard of colored contact lenses? A common trick
in the movie and spy business. You just get the large kind that cover
the white part of the eyeball.
|
24.2 | | NACHO::LYNCH | | Fri Feb 10 1984 14:12 | 2 |
|
The article says they tried contacts but "irritation" was a problem.
|
24.3 | | EDEN::MAXSON | | Tue Mar 06 1984 21:25 | 3 |
|
All that sand, is likely the problem. I heard this film is in serious
trouble and may not make it.
|
24.4 | Any more critics out there ??? | RDGE00::ALFORD | Garfield rules !! OK ? | Fri Apr 24 1987 12:35 | 31 |
| Well since this topic seems to have died a minor death
and nobody has commented on the film itself - I shall do so ...
First of all I will say that as a film I enjoyed it.
That aside, I read the book(s) just before going to see the
film (to see whether the subject was worth paying money
for !!!) - so with the story fresh in my mind, although
I did see quite a few common images/plots between the
book and the film - ie the overall theme just about matched,
and the characters names were the same, there was an
aweful lot missing, and quite a bit of invention for
convenience (artistic licence I suppose).
The thing I found about the book was the fantastic visual
imagery, one can see quite clearly in the mind what
everything and everyone was supposed to look like - what
I want to know is, why didn't the film makers use these same
impressions rather than create their own - granted they kept
a few of the stronger and more essential images - blue eyes,
large worms etc.
The film also needed to be about 3 hours longer to fit in
all that was left out.
Apart from all that, taken as a film without comparing it
to the book, the special effects were pretty good and the
film eminently watchable, even for non-si-fi buffs !!
CJA
|
24.5 | ex | ARMORY::CHARBONND | | Fri Apr 24 1987 13:39 | 7 |
| Seems to me the book cost almost the same as the ticket. I
read the book after seeing the movie. The book is better,
but the movie was interesting. It undoubtedly sent a lot
of viewers to the bookstore, so it did a lot of good. I
have the soundtrack album - the only TOTO album in my
collection :-) A proper job would have required 6-8 hours
of film. It WOULD have beat Amerika all to hell and gone.
|
24.6 | was niffyt flick | AMULET::FARRINGTON | statistically anomalous | Fri Apr 24 1987 13:46 | 13 |
| My wife, an excellent military mind and an officer, sees no (zip,
zero, none, nada) point to SF. But she has watched DUNE at least
five times. I'm beginning to worry; last night she started chanting
that little ditty of the Harkonan's Mentat at the beginning while
doing his berry juice. She'll be home before me tonight; spice
bread for dinner ?
I did activiley enjoy the movie. Is there any truth to the story
that 3 hours were cut because "the audiance would get bored." ?
If so, burn the sucker with the match he supposedly put to the
clippings !!
Dwight
|
24.7 | | AKOV68::BOYAJIAN | Have a merely acceptable day | Sat Apr 25 1987 04:14 | 18 |
| re:.6
The general consensus is that a movie audience cannot take
a movie that's much longer than 2 hours. Rarely do you find
one that's longer than 2-1/2. Audiences can deal with greater
lengths on tv because it's not tossed at them in one large
gulp.
The other reason movies tend not to be longer than 2 to 2-1/2
hours is because the theaters don't like it. The shorter a
film is, the more times they can show it in a day, and thus
(in theory) the more income they can generate.
It's true that about five hours worth of DUNE was filmed. It's
not true that the excess footage was destroyed. It's still
planned to release a much longer cut of DUNE on videotape.
--- jerry
|
24.8 | | INK::KALLIS | Hallowe'en should be legal holiday | Mon Apr 27 1987 10:16 | 25 |
| Re .7:
This "a movie audience can't take" a move of a given length is an
old and hallowed tradition. When the first rue nickleodeons came
into being, movies ranged from five to fifteen minutes, on the
operational theory that fifteen minutes was all that people could
take.
However, since sometime in the 1950s, we've become conditioned in
the United States to commercial breaks. Once in a while, I'll take
my eyes momentarily off the screen in a theater to see people figit
about the time a commercial would be likely to occur if they'd been
watching the thing on a tube.
A movie can be as long or short as the film-maker can keep the full
attention of the audience. When it first hit the screen, I was
never conscious of anyone going for popcorn, etc. when _Indiana
Jones and the Temple of Doom_ was playing. I think only sheer
hydraulic pressure would motivate people during a real attention-
getter.
On the other hand, I'd be the last persdon to bet a multi million
of dollars that people would sit through my 4.5-hour film epic....
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
24.9 | Butchers | NEBVAX::BELFORTE | Never try to out-stubborn a cat! | Mon Apr 27 1987 13:54 | 7 |
| I saw DUNE before I read the book, and I was totally lost! After
reading the book, I saw the film again. The film was a little clearer,
but boy did they butcher some of the scenes and meanings.
Although, I must agree the special effects were very well done.
M-L
|
24.10 | RE 24.9 | EDEN::KLAES | Patience, and shuffle the cards. | Mon Apr 27 1987 14:19 | 15 |
| I thought the special effects were rather POORLY done, especially
for a 40 million dollar movie! And the Baron's makeup was far too
disgusting! I don't care if it was MEANT to be this way - I want
to be able to watch a film without having to avert my eyes half
the time (and to eat my popcorn).
I also felt that it got downright cornball numerous times,
especially when we were subjected to hear what the characters were
thinking.
And why did they let Dino DeLaurentis produce it? He's made
some of the most big-budget junk I've seen since Irwin Allen!
Larry
|
24.11 | Thematic Problems | PROSE::WAJENBERG | | Mon Apr 27 1987 14:36 | 10 |
| I did not like the Dune movie. I felt all the particular shortcomings
and distortions stemmed from a thematic distortion. The movie was
about great passions; the book was about great passions under great
discipline. In the book, everybody has enromous, ferocious emotions
boiling around inside them, but they all have to discipline them.
Everybody lives in a constant state of tension, knowing a momentary
slip of discipline could ruin them. There's very little like that
in the movie -- just the hullabaloo.
Earl Wajenberg
|
24.12 | | AKOV68::BOYAJIAN | Have a merely acceptable day | Wed Apr 29 1987 02:23 | 9 |
| re:.10
"Why did they let Dino DeLaurentiis produce it?"
Because "they" *was* Dino. He paid for the rights, after all.
Besides, technically, Dino's daughter Rafaella was the producer.
--- jerry
|
24.13 | DUNE on Boston's CH 56 on June 6 at 8 p.m. | MTWAIN::KLAES | Know Future | Thu Jun 02 1988 18:43 | 8 |
| For those in the Boston area, DUNE will be shown in two parts
on Channel 56 (WLVI-TV, Ind.) starting Monday night, June 6, at 8 p.m..
According to the TV GUIDE, this showing will have fifty minutes
of the 1984 film which was originally edited out put back in. I
wonder if it will improve DUNE any?
Larry
|
24.14 | Should have left that dreck on the cutting room floor. | SNDCSL::SMITH | William P.N. (WOOKIE::) Smith | Thu Jun 02 1988 21:12 | 10 |
| They should have left that stuff cut out, some of the voiceovers
helped explain things a little better, but the end result was to
make a fair movie pretty poor. Hey, don't flame me, just one person's
opinion, right? Actually, the movie has had one positive effect,
since I remember the book as being pretty good (I'd give it an 8
on the Willie Scale), I now want to read it again. Don't know if
I could get into the entire series, but Dune was a good read.
Willie
|
24.15 | Now showing on cable. | SNDCSL::SMITH | William P.N. (WOOKIE::) Smith | Thu Jun 02 1988 21:19 | 5 |
| OOPS, should have mentioned that it's showing June 1 and 2 on
Adams/Russell cable TV. I get really confused when 2 separate channels
have "first time ever on TV" movies at different times.
Willie
|
24.16 | since you brought it up. | CSC32::S_LEDOUX | Evolution here I come! | Fri Jun 03 1988 00:53 | 14 |
| I had decided to leave this topic alone, but, since somebody
resurrected it to give us the news...
The whole time I was reading the series I was beatin' my wife over
the head with how good it was...So thorough was I that she rented
the video (as a suprise for me) and suprise -- just hearin the
word 'dune' sends chills up my spine thinking of the beatin *I*
took after that movie ended. :-)
When they make books into movies, don't they involve some of the
more passionate supporters of the particular genre in question ??
More importantly -- would they take the advice offered ?
Scott.
|
24.17 | | REGENT::POWERS | | Fri Jun 03 1988 10:40 | 15 |
| There's not enough room in a two hour movie to do complete justice
to a 200 page novel, how can you expect to fit a 600 page page novel
into the same time? With Dune, ALL the subplots are integral to the whole
story - none can be properly removed without watering down the story
beyond redemption. I watched part of the first part of the expanded
version the other night. Coincidentally, I rented the normal 2� hour
version just a couple of weeks ago. While the voiceovers, paintings,
and extra scenes seemed hokey, they were the only way someone who
hadn't read the book could have any concept of how things fit together.
Even so, it would probably take a 12 to 20 hour mini series (maxi series?)
to do a proper job of the story. At production costs of $10 million
to $30 million dollars per hour (to keep faith with the production quality
of the movie) will we ever see it?
- tom]
|
24.18 | | SPMFG1::CHARBONND | generic personal name | Mon Jun 06 1988 09:13 | 7 |
| Watched the first half of the expanded version the other night,
had to miss the second.
Didn't miss that godawful actress who played Irulan doing the
intro. The storyboards were a bit pulpy. looking forward to
catching the second half. Hope they dig into Feyd-Ruatha a
little deeper, that was a major shortcoming of the movie.
|
24.19 | Does much better | DOOBER::MESSENGER | An Index of Metals | Tue Jun 14 1988 17:16 | 11 |
| I saw "the long version" about 2 weeks ago here in the bay area...
I found it to be a much better _movie_. Bear in mind that it is
not possible to do justice to the novel in 3 hours, *but*... the
longer version of the movie I found to be far less disjointed than
the American version (by the way, I suspect that this "long version"
was the one shown in Europe).
There are a lot of discontinuities in the "short version", and I
found out why -- a couple of lines of dialogue were cut out!
- HBM
|
24.20 | | VIDEO::TEBAY | Natural phenomena invented to order | Wed Jun 15 1988 13:12 | 3 |
| I agree-the longer version hung together better. Also it made more
sense for someone who hadn't read the book.
|
24.21 | DUNE | SCOMAN::JLORE | WARRIOR OF DESTINY | Fri Aug 05 1988 19:48 | 13 |
|
I don't know how I missed it seeing that it was on four times
but I did. I wanted to watch the extended version of Dune.
If anyone hears of it being on again either a local tv station
or one Greater Media Cable in the worcester area supports let me
know PLEASE.
SCOMAN::JLORE
Joe Lore
|
24.22 | Moved by moderator | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | Copyright � 1953 | Wed Aug 10 1988 01:37 | 14 |
| <<< MIVC::USER$150:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SF.NOTE;3 >>>
-< Arcana Caelestia >-
================================================================================
Note 668.0 DUNE No replies
SCOMAN::JLORE "WARRIOR OF DESTINY" 7 lines 9-AUG-1988 22:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there anyone who knows where I can get a copy of the extended
version of Dune?
Joe Lore
|
24.23 | | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | Copyright � 1953 | Wed Aug 10 1988 01:39 | 9 |
| re:.22
If you're asking whether it has been released commercially on tape,
no it hasn't, though I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually is.
So, you're only chance is to find someone who taped it off the tube,
or wait until the next time it's on.
--- jerry
|
24.24 | | AIMHI::ECOOPER | | Thu Jun 15 1989 10:44 | 5 |
| I happened to catch both of these versions and agree that the longer
one did make more sense to the books. The short one needed alot of
explaination to ones who did not read the book......
I just love these books....
|
24.25 | What long version? | HAGGIS::IRVINE | I hate Boomer .008 Guage! | Fri Jun 16 1989 07:22 | 11 |
|
Excuse my ignorance, but I did not know that there was an extended
version of "Dune". How long is the "extended version"? As I remember
the version I rented on tape was close to 2.5 hours long. Having
read the book previously I was quite disappointed with the film,
and my wife couldn't keep track of anything at all!
Living in hope
Bob
|
24.26 | | RUBY::BOYAJIAN | Protect! Serve! Run Away! | Sat Jun 17 1989 01:08 | 7 |
| re:.25
The extended version is, I think, a tad under 3-1/2 hours. It's
not been released on tape/disc or to theaters, but only shown on
television, usually in two 2-hour segments.
--- jerry
|
24.27 | I'm miffed to the extreme! | HAGGIS::IRVINE | I hate Boomer .008 Guage! | Mon Jun 19 1989 07:43 | 14 |
| Channel 4 (UK) screened the short version of the film approx 2 weeks
ago. As I have said previously, the short version made the film
difficult to understand, *if* you have never read the book! Perhaps
the programmers of these television stations have never heard that
there was an extended version, but I find this very hard to believe.
The television station in question is supposed to be a "cultural"
station. Yet they show a 4 hour opera that bored have the country
to tears. (this can be confirmed by veiwing figures - about 4 thousand
people watched the opera, out of a population of approx 55 million,
that ain't alot)
Bob
|
24.28 | Atreides in Worcester | CURIE::CHU | | Thu Jul 20 1989 10:15 | 9 |
|
Hello!
Those of you in Massachusetts may be interested to know that
the young actress playing Paul Atreides' sister was none other than
Alicia Witt of Worcester, MA, whose father teaches in the Worcester
school system.
Julian
|