Subject: Re: DUNE
From: chari@math.utexas.edu (Christopher M. Whatley)
Date: 1990-08-17, 00:10
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

> >In article <107449@tiger.oxy.edu> eclipse@oxy.edu (Lynn Alyn Tanner) writes:
>> >>Come on you guys!  Don't be so harsh on Dune.  It was the movie version
>> >>of the story that was so cheesy!  I didn't know it until someone mentioned

droesch@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Doug Roesch) writes:
> >Agreed.  Dune was one of the longest, dullest, most superficial pieces of
> >visually-overdressed eye garbage ever put on film.  And, believe it or not,
> >I don't mean that as a criticism.  I don't think any film crew could do
> >justice to a story of that scope in less than eight or ten hours.

You are both assuming that when somebody makes a film based on a book
that they intend to do the book justice. It is nearly always the case
that when somebody tries to be a strict as possible about a literal
interpretation of a book they fail miserably. An excellent example is
that of all the directors who tried to make movies from Stephen King
novels. The only decent ones were Stand By Me and The Shining which
were not particularly faithful to the original books.

I do, however, agree that Dune was too short. What I take issue with
is whether or not Dune was "bad" because it wasn't enough like the
book. Face it, books and film are media of vastly different
temperatures and direct translation from one to the other just doesn't
work well. Also, anyone who has read a book before they go to the
movie will surely find a literal translation less than satisfying.

Chris
--
"I've got good news. The gum you like is going to come back in style."
--
Chris Whatley - Research Systems Administrator UT-Austin Mathematics
E-mail: chari@math.utexas.edu (NeXT) Ph: (O):512/471-7711 (H):512/499-0475