The only adaptation I've seen is David Lynch's.
Aside from the usual "what's in/what's left out" issues and "who should play which character" arguments, I thought the biggest disappointments were the worms. Now perhaps this was solved in the TC mini-series, but I doubt it. I wonder if it is inevitable. Put simply, the worms are too big for translation to the screen. The difference in scale between a sand worm and the people around it is too much to encompass. Focus too much on the people and the worm becomes a huge wall; focus too much on the worm, and the people become next-to-invisible dots. Even in the cinema, it didn't work.
One cannot really blame the film-makers for this: they are only following the books. One cannot blame Herbert: the worms in the book are fine (if only because, without the obvious scaling problems on the screen, the mind can conceive of something small - a human - interacting with something so monumentally large as a sandworm).
The Fremen didn't look like Fremen (no robes over the stillsuits), the acting was stilted, and the story did not make sense unless you read the book (my friends who came with me who had not read the book were totally lost). And that's just for starters! That movie committed all of the major crimes that Hollywood commits when putting a big imaginative sf/fantasy on the screen.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|B||Adopted language theory in Herbert's Dune||Book Discussion||7|
|Julian May and her novelette Dune Roller - a bit of SF history||Book Discussion||2|
|C||Dune ... Interplanetary combat.||Book Discussion||3|
|H||How to save Luke in the Live Action Series - follow Children of Dune's lead?||Star Wars: Mandalorian||1|
|T||How does the Dune mini- compare with the movie?||Frank Herbert||4|