Is the DUNE world for you?
- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 1 day ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Currently listening to Toto’s brilliant score for the David Lynch film.
What’s your relationship to the DUNE universe? The books, films, music etc.?
Is the DUNE world for you?
No, far too hot for my taste! 😉
But seriously: I like the Lynch film and don’t find it that bad as many others. But I didn’t read any of the books. I like the Toto score although it is a bit simplistic at times. I also saw those TV series that also have their issues and the newer ones.
Take My Hand by Toto is a great track.
The Zimmer score for D2 is decent. Haven’t heard D1.
The films are not really my cup of tea.
I read several of the books in the 80s, haven’t revisited them and don’t expect to. Watched the Lynch once or twice, saw both the recent ones as cinematic spectacles but wouldn’t really be interested in watching them again.
OK, vacation’s over, so here is my take on DUNE:
I have read the novel way back in the 1980s; I read a lot of science fiction back then. I found it an interesting concept (especially all the politics involved) and the setting (and the illustrations) were good. It was not a novel I ever returned to though. While the setting and politics were interesting, somehow, I thought the book did not have much to say. It was wordy, yes, but what was it really about?
I saw the 1984 David Lynch movie and found it a total mess and a waste of many good actors. It was way too short, so the story never had time to breathe. I do not think anyone unfamiliar with the book had much of an idea what was even going on. So it gave me even less of an idea what the novel is supposed to be about.
I like the Villeneuve movies. They look fantastic, they are quite faithful (as far as I remember) to the original novel, and they are impeccably cast. The music by Hans Zimmer is splendid. I really enjoy it. I know some think it is just loud noise, but I hear many finely interwoven sounds. It is certainly a very good sounding album. I am mostly referring to the Sketchbook album here, though I have the others too.
But the movies have the same problem the book already had. Perhaps they are too faithful to the novel, because, even though it’s been a long time I read DUNE, I seem to have the same issue with the movie that I had with the novel. A wonderful world, an intriguing political setup, a vast cast of characters who are, on paper, interesting. And yet I am not sure what the movie (I know there are two films now, but it is essentially one long adaptation of the original DUNE novel by Frank Herbert) is really about. While much is at stake, it is never quite clear why we should care quite as much as the film seems to expect us to.
Compare this to The Lord of the Rings. It is pure fantasy, yet the problems the characters face are recognizably human. Fear, loyalty, corruption, sacrifice. We understand what can be lost, and we feel it. Or take Game of Thrones. Also fantasy, often bordering on the operatic, but we care deeply about the characters. Even when they are flawed, even when they are outright unpleasant, we understand their motivations. Sometimes we root even for characters who did despicable things elsewhere, especially when they showed a shred of decency, that’s why it was such an engaging “world” that was build.
In DUNE, by contrast, much of what happens feels oddly abstract. Sure, I understand what’s going on. Power shifts hands, bloodlines matter, prophecies loom large. But the human core feels muted. Paul Atreides is important. Why? Because the movie treats im so. He is destined, central to everything, yet he often feels more like a concept than a person. I mean, I think this could be interesting, this could be Lawrence of Arabia in space. The conflicts are vast, the consequences enormous, but emotionally the drama remains curiously distant. It is all very serious, very solemn, very important. And somehow, also a bit banal.
This is not a knock against Villeneuve as a filmmaker. On the contrary, he may be the best possible director for this material. He gives it scale, gravity, and a sense of awe. I like that the movie takes its time with the characters, I like that doesn’t hit us over the head with visual spectacle and action. He give the visuals the room to be taken in… the world feels “real”. So that’s good. Villeneuve takes it seriously, which is exactly what the material demands. But perhaps that is also the limit of DUNE itself. It is a universe rich in lore, politics, and atmosphere, but thin when it comes to saying something essential about the human condition.
So yes, I admire the craft. I enjoy the films. I have the movies on 4K (which is where I originally watched them), so I will return to them one day, they look good, sound good… I am glad they exist. But when the credits roll, I find myself thinking less about what I have felt or learned, and more about how impressive it all looked and sounded. That is a fine achievement. It just may not be a profound one.
Great write-up, Nick! I can understand why it’s difficult to be satisfied with an adaptation if you’ve read the book. That usually happens for me too; I think the only time I’ve NOT been disappointed was when I saw THE SHINING after having read the book. The film takes many liberties and eschews the nuances of the book, but the atmosphere was shockingly similar to what I felt while reading.
But if I understood you correctly, you would have had issues with the DUNE films even if you hadn’t read the books? I can see your point — they ARE lacking as far as emotional connection is concerned; or rather, character-bound engrossment. For me, though, that is often less important than the world they inhabit, and I find myself completely absorbed by both of Villeneuve’s films.
I never read the Frank Herbert source material, sadly. My first meeting with the DUNE universe was actually the videogame DUNE II, which I didn’t play, but I watched other people play it in the 90s (I didn’t like strategy games). The Frank Klepacki score for this is a masterpiece, and I don’t use that term lightly. Then I saw the Lynch film, which bored me at first – as the impatient teenager that I was – but that I later came to love, through all its slow movements, typical of the director, and the broad poetic strokes it used, underlined by the fantastic Toto score.
I never saw the television series – FRANK HERBERT’S DUNE and CHILDREN OF DUNE. Although I have the wonderful soundtracks by Graeme Revell and Brian Tyler, respectively.
Paul Atreides is important. Why? Because the movie treats im so. He is destined, central to everything, yet he often feels more like a concept than a person.
The major issue I had with DUNE 2 was that I was not really believe his move from opposing to accepting his “fate”. I found it as unconvincing as Anakin’s turn to the dark side in the Star Wars prequels.
I never saw the television series – FRANK HERBERT’S DUNE and CHILDREN OF DUNE. Although I have the wonderful soundtracks by Graeme Revell and Brian Tyler, respectively.
I did. They have some issue with SFX as a lot of backgrounds were early digital projections and you often see it. I think you can find uploads on youtube if you like to peek. Just looked, English version have muddy image quality but there is a German version of the first series that looks quite good.
I think I would prefer to watch those series on a proper format, wobbly SFX and all. YouTube “downgrades” are usually excruciating to watch.
Great write-up, Nick! I can understand why it’s difficult to be satisfied with an adaptation if you’ve read the book. That usually happens for me too; I think the only time I’ve NOT been disappointed was when I saw THE SHINING after having read the book. The film takes many liberties and eschews the nuances of the book, but the atmosphere was shockingly similar to what I felt while reading.
Yeah, the old book vs movie debate, that’s an interesting one. I usually don’t have issues with movies being different from the books they are based on, I accept that they are different mediums. Sometimes, a more faithful adaptation is better, sometimes it’s better to part.
However, it’s far too long that I have read DUNE to remember in detail how it might differ from the Villeneuve adaptation. As I said, I found it to be quite faithful as far as I remember. I found the movies so faithful even that I have the same issues with the movie than I had with the book. 🙂
When I was coming up in “nerd” circles, the Mt. Rushmore of nerdom, as presented to me, was Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, and Dune. I think three things happened. One, LotR got the greatest genre film adaptation of all time, wildly popularizing the series and fantasy in general. Two, Harry Potter happened, and three, the dum-dums caught on to all the fun we were having and decided to make comic book movies. Dune kind of got lost in the shuffle, and as always, sci-fi, however soft, is more difficult for normies. It’s not a coincidence that the most successful Star Trek movie was that Abrams abomination.
I don’t think Villeneuve’s rather aseptic films will do much to leave a larger legacy for the property, not that that matters to me. I have spoken elsewhere about my disdain for the “fed” mentality film-makers can sometimes have for books, but the books are still there, as thought-provoking and immersive as they ever were.
I think I would prefer to watch those series on a proper format, wobbly SFX and all. YouTube “downgrades” are usually excruciating to watch.
Yeah, I understand what you mean but the German version I recently found has good quality (weird that it has been online for 8 year and didn’t get deleted). But of course German is not really helpful to you 😉
When I was coming up in “nerd” circles, the Mt. Rushmore of nerdom, as presented to me, was Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, and Dune. I think three things happened. One, LotR got the greatest genre film adaptation of all time, wildly popularizing the series and fantasy in general. Two, Harry Potter happened, and three, the dum-dums caught on to all the fun we were having and decided to make comic book movies. Dune kind of got lost in the shuffle, and as always, sci-fi, however soft, is more difficult for normies. It’s not a coincidence that the most successful Star Trek movie was that Abrams abomination.
I don’t think Villeneuve’s rather aseptic films will do much to leave a larger legacy for the property, not that that matters to me. I have spoken elsewhere about my disdain for the “fed” mentality film-makers can sometimes have for books, but the books are still there, as thought-provoking and immersive as they ever were.
Great post, and great to hear from you, Schilkeman! I hope you find it in yourself to partake more. The whole FSM ressurection series of threads was really ignited because of you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.