Miniseries rules
o...@oooo.net
outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people appreciate the miniseries
and the prequels (which I have not read).
Unlike what one would think from reading this NG, it is possible to like
Frank Herbert, and also like the miniseries (which is so close to the book at
times it's almost erie) It's also possible to like Frank Herbert and like
Star Wars and Star Trek. Really it is. Relax. Dune is enjoyable on more
than one level.
Vic
<o...@oooo.net> wrote in message
news:3b01be8a$0$21770$45be...@newscene.com...
so the world is full of retards. so what. doesn't mean I have to be one.
just because some people appreciate Dune on a star trek level doesn't mean
we have to agree with it (BTW, I like star trek a lot, but you have to
admit, star trek is fuckin stupid)
Bastard Toadflax
o...@oooo.net wrote:
Hear we go with the broad paintbrush again. This newsgroup consists of
individual posters with various likes and dislikes. I, for one......
* Love The Chronicles by Frank Herbert
* Love the Lynch Movie (Have it in Alan Smithee, Theatrical Release & Wide
Screen)
* Like aspects of the Mini-Series (and think it worthwhile)
* Abhors The Prequels
Please refrain from pigeonholing this newsgroup. It is impossible and
counterproductive, IMHO. Post and defend/define your likes and dislikes, but how
can a newsgroup have a group consciousness?
Heck, if it trips your trigger, compile your impressions of the elitist
attitudes of each individual poster, You might be surprised by how wrong you are.
However, if your energy is so occupied, perhaps you will have less time for
knocking a group or collection of people for what you see as their collective
views. Don't you feel a little bit silly for splattering people for having
opinions about books that, admittedly, you haven't even read?
Sam (Oh yeah, welcome to the "Elitist" group. By posting you are a member, and,
by your own profiling, an Elitist. How does it feel?) Sands
Steve
and,
> by your own profiling, an Elitist. How does it feel?) Sands
hahahah
Scorpio
newsgroup,
> outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people appreciate the
miniseries
> and the prequels (which I have not read).
Outside of this newsgroup the prequels more closely match the reading level
of most people. This group, by its very nature, attracts skilled readers
who, IMO, are above average in ability to analyze and appreciate the Dune
Chronicles. I don't think this makes the people in here elitists, and the
description I just gave certainly doesn't apply to all who come here. I
just think that this group is perhaps the most knowledgeable place to
discuss FH and Dune.
-gk-
John Kenny
As usual, comments are mingled below.
<o...@oooo.net> wrote in message
news:3b01be8a$0$21770$45be...@newscene.com...
> I know it's fashionable to put down the miniseries in this elite
newsgroup,
Dear Lord, there is *that* word again.
> outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people appreciate the
miniseries
> and the prequels (which I have not read).
Be thankful you've not read them; they really do stink to high heaven.
> Unlike what one would think from reading this NG, it is possible to
like
> Frank Herbert, and also like the miniseries (which is so close to the book
at
> times it's almost erie) It's also possible to like Frank Herbert and like
> Star Wars and Star Trek. Really it is. Relax. Dune is enjoyable on
more
> than one level.
Of the regular posters on this NG I've always been the most tolerant of the
film adaptations of Dune. Lynch screwed things up and so did Harrison. My
point is that Dune is not a novel that lends itself to easy cinematography.
Understanding that, I forgive them for transgressing on one of my favorite
books -- that excludes those dreadful hats in the mini, of course.
--
Cheers!
John
"To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old
falsehoods."
-- Robert Heinlein
John Kenny
Scorpio <gkm...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:9dsm0k$j12$1...@sshuraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Dear Scorpio,
Many thanks for the kind and insightful thoughts. What most of the newer
members of afd don't understand is how we older Dune Buggies have a
knee-jerk reaction to the word elitist. Frankly, given where it started, it
makes our blood boil.
Richard H. Araujo
> I know it's fashionable to put down the miniseries in this elite
newsgroup,
> outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people appreciate the
miniseries
> and the prequels (which I have not read).
True, but there are also a hell of a lot of people out there who think
comic books are high art. Are comic books good? Yes. Can they be fun,
good reads, and have extremely well done artwork in them? Yes. But they
are not great literature, no matter what the masses say. There are these
little things people have called standards, and I for one will most
certainly *not* live my life by the standards of the masses because, from
what I can see, they don't have any.
--
Yrs,
Richard
"It doesn't matter if you win or lose. It's how good you look."
David Lee Roth
Richard H. Araujo
newsgroup who dislike the prequels *do not* dislike the prequels for the
following reasons:
We do not dislike the prequels because we want the series to remain static.
We do not dislike the prequels because they trample on holy ground.
We do not dislike the prequels because we are elitists. We are of
differing opinions with other people but we are all well aware that we will
just as readily squish if hit with a bus, and our crap does stink just like
everyone else's.
We *do* dislike the prequels because they are poorly written books that
contain massive deviations from the original series that reflect the most
common and tepid SciFi cliches. Simple test: do a word count in the
original series comparing them to the prequels. I would be willing to bet
my next paycheck that lasguns and the word plaz are mentioned more in one
chapter in the prequels than in the entire original Dune series. In the
original series there were huge ideas and involving characters. In the
prequels there were no ideas and characters so shallow you couldn't use
them to add significant amounts of sugar to your coffee.
We dislike the prequels for the most simple of reasons, they are not good
books. They are at best fair quality young adult SciFi. Now if I read
Joey the Rocketman Saves the Earth Volume 10: Joey Saves the Earth from the
Evil Forces of Vogminia, suggested age for this book being 7-10, and I
decide it's not as good as the Dune series, I think I'm justified. Why
can't anyone outside this "elite" newsgroup recognize the simple fact that
the prequels are not written well?
--
Yrs,
Richard
"Better to be unborn than untaught, for ignorance is the root of all
misfortune."
-Plato
Daniel
I think almost everyone here likes Star Wars. You should take some time to
read the ng before slamming it.
--
Daniel.
Stenberg
"Vic" <som...@somewhere.con> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5ijM6.6870$_n.8...@weber.videotron.net...
>
> <o...@oooo.net> wrote in message
> news:3b01be8a$0$21770$45be...@newscene.com...
> > I know it's fashionable to put down the miniseries in this elite
> newsgroup,
> > outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people appreciate the
> miniseries
> > and the prequels (which I have not read).
> > Unlike what one would think from reading this NG, it is possible to
> like
> > Frank Herbert, and also like the miniseries (which is so close to the
book
> at
> > times it's almost erie) It's also possible to like Frank Herbert and
like
> > Star Wars and Star Trek. Really it is. Relax. Dune is enjoyable on
> more
> > than one level.
>
> so the world is full of retards. so what. doesn't mean I have to be one.
Yehaa!
Nick Cassimatis
exaggerating a bit. I'll give that I'm sick of plaz about 2/3 through D:HA
(on the reread), but it does get somewhat better in D:HH (or at least my
memory blocked the fact if it doesn't).
--
Nick Cassimatis
There's nothing humble about my opinion.
"Richard H. Araujo" <rar...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message
news:01c0ddc0$af3c5540$8d6c8bd1@magdaara...
<snip>
> I would be willing to bet
> my next paycheck that lasguns and the word plaz are mentioned more in one
> chapter in the prequels than in the entire original Dune series. >
<snip>
> --
> Yrs,
> Richard
Ty Beard
newsgroup,
Anyone can join this group, and can put forth any opinion, however meritless
(yours for instance). So I can't agree that this group is "elite".
> outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people appreciate the
miniseries
> and the prequels (which I have not read).
Since there are more people outside this newsgroup, this is hardly
surprising.
And I suppose that since "Baywatch" is watched by more people than any other
TV series, it's therefore the best series ever?
> Unlike what one would think from reading this NG, it is possible to
like
> Frank Herbert, and also like the miniseries (which is so close to the book
at
> times it's almost erie)
And so far from the book most of the time.
> It's also possible to like Frank Herbert and like
> Star Wars and Star Trek. Really it is. Relax. Dune is enjoyable on
more
> than one level.
Is there any real dispute on this point? I think you're demolishing a
strawman.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
news:b3rM6.193$GO3...@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
Heaven forbid he should actually try to determine if his unsupported opinion
is correct...
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
news:01c0ddc0$af3c5540$8d6c8bd1@magdaara...
> newsgroup who dislike the prequels *do not* dislike the prequels for the
> following reasons:
<snip>
> We *do* dislike the prequels because they are poorly written books that
> contain massive deviations from the original series that reflect the most
> common and tepid SciFi cliches. Simple test: do a word count in the
> original series comparing them to the prequels. I would be willing to bet
> my next paycheck that lasguns and the word plaz are mentioned more in one
> chapter in the prequels than in the entire original Dune series. In the
> original series there were huge ideas and involving characters. In the
> prequels there were no ideas and characters so shallow you couldn't use
> them to add significant amounts of sugar to your coffee.
>
> We dislike the prequels for the most simple of reasons, they are not good
> books.
Yah, what you said.
--Ty Beard
Jaakko J Kiviluoto
> Glad you disclaimed that - "I would be willing...", as I think you were
> exaggerating a bit. I'll give that I'm sick of plaz about 2/3 through D:HA
> (on the reread), but it does get somewhat better in D:HH (or at least my
> memory blocked the fact if it doesn't).
But in D:HH those plaz's were just replaced by "knotting stomachs". Maybe
it just annoys me more since as a non-english-speaking person I'm not that
familiar with different metaphors. But still, ugh.
jjk
daniel patrick duffy
>
<snip>
>
> And I suppose that since "Baywatch" is watched by more people than any other
> TV series, it's therefore the best series ever?
>
You mean it isn't? ;-)
"Best" is IMHO purely a subjective term. Frankly, most times I would
rather watch Bay watch that Masterpiece Theater (though Mystery's
"Brother Cadfael" is a favorite of mine). Personally I liked the
miniseries, taking into account budget limitations and what they did to
production values. The prequels I am less than thrilled about though I
will porbably buy them all just to have a complete hardcover set of Dune
books on my shelf.
Ty Beard
news:3B0320BF...@fuse.net...
> Ty Beard wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > And I suppose that since "Baywatch" is watched by more people than any
other
> > TV series, it's therefore the best series ever?
> >
> <snip>
>
> You mean it isn't? ;-)
I think it probably is the best presentation of attractive females in
television history.
> "Best" is IMHO purely a subjective term.
I think there is some general agreement that there are "good" shows and
"bad" shows, though I'd agree that it breaks down when you get to specifics.
I suspect that there would be a substantial conscensus that (for instance)
Star Trek (with all it's problems) is better than Lost in Space.
> Frankly, most times I would
> rather watch Bay watch that Masterpiece Theater (though Mystery's
> "Brother Cadfael" is a favorite of mine).
And you make my point for me. Nielsen ratings (or their equivalent) do not
mean a series is "good" -- whatever that means. They just mean that a
certain percentage of families watched that show at that time.
And for the record, I'd watch Baywatch almost anytime over Masterpiece
Theatre (or the Dune Miniseries).
> Personally I liked the
> miniseries, taking into account budget limitations and what they did to
> production values. The prequels I am less than thrilled about though I
> will porbably buy them all just to have a complete hardcover set of Dune
> books on my shelf.
As a generic science fiction miniseries, the prequels were fine. Not great
but fine. As a faithful version of Dune, they were horrible. I find that
watching the miniseries is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard.
The pointless changes. The Princess-with-a-cause. The "sorta Dune-like"
dialog. The annoying hats. The really *bad* acting. The Warhammer 40K
weapons. All we were missing were chainswords and Orks. Oh well, at least
there were no wierding modules or heart plugs.
At least the Lynch movie did a good job of capturing the *mood* of Dune. And
at least the actors were competent (the Baron notwithstanding).
--Ty Beard
o...@oooo.net
Well,
I got the type of responses I expected. I'll continue to read and enjoy
this NG and also laugh at the writers who seem to think that they are on a
higher intellectual plane than others.
Dune is written in a more complicated fashion than many pulp type stories,
but it is not that complicated. I read it at age 12 (years before Lynch made
his attempt-which made it hard to admit to people that I liked Dune for many
years). If you fall into the category that seems to prevail in this thread
that you are some kind of intellect because you read Dune then I suggest you
pick up a book on physics or chemistry to see if you are really that smart.
Don't take this as any insult. I just want to put on the platform that
some of the rantings that Dune is such a complicated novel are just not
deserved. It's only slightly, ever so slightly more complicated than the Star
Trek, Star Wars pulps.
John Kenny
Once more into the breach go I.
<o...@oooo.net> wrote in message
news:3b0462bf$0$41651$45be...@newscene.com...
> In article <3b01be8a$0$21770$45be...@newscene.com>, o...@oooo.net wrote:
> >I know it's fashionable to put down the miniseries in this elite
newsgroup,
> >outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people appreciate the
miniseries
> >and the prequels (which I have not read).
> > Unlike what one would think from reading this NG, it is possible to
like
> >Frank Herbert, and also like the miniseries (which is so close to the
book at
> >times it's almost erie) It's also possible to like Frank Herbert and
like
> >Star Wars and Star Trek. Really it is. Relax. Dune is enjoyable on
more
> >than one level.
>
> Well,
> I got the type of responses I expected. I'll continue to read and
enjoy
> this NG and also laugh at the writers who seem to think that they are on a
> higher intellectual plane than others.
Members of this group are guilty of many sins, but intellectual arrogance
isn't one of them.
> Dune is written in a more complicated fashion than many pulp type
stories,
> but it is not that complicated. I read it at age 12 (years before Lynch
made
> his attempt-which made it hard to admit to people that I liked Dune for
many
> years). If you fall into the category that seems to prevail in this
thread
> that you are some kind of intellect because you read Dune then I suggest
you
> pick up a book on physics or chemistry to see if you are really that
smart.
Does my Doctorate in Mathematics count? Does Ty's JD count? Need I mention
that Dr. McNelly was one of the first scholars to treat SF as a legitimate
form of literature?
> Don't take this as any insult. I just want to put on the platform that
> some of the rantings that Dune is such a complicated novel are just not
> deserved. It's only slightly, ever so slightly more complicated than the
Star
> Trek, Star Wars pulps.
If you really think that Dune is "ever so slightly more complicated than...
Star Trek, Star Wars" then you have pulp between your ears.
Gang, sorry. I don't usually respond to such drivel... but enough is enough.
John
Chris Mears
>Members of this group are guilty of many sins, but intellectual arrogance
>isn't one of them.
No, we're much too smart for that.
--
Chris Mears | "Six months go by very quickly when
Melbourne, Australia | you're a genius." -- Robert Plant
Jeff Teunissen
[snip]
> comic books are high art. Are comic books good? Yes. Can they be fun,
> good reads, and have extremely well done artwork in them? Yes. But
> they are not great literature, no matter what the masses say. There are
"Maus"
--
| Jeff Teunissen - Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing - deek at dusknet.dhs.org
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://dusknet.dhs.org/~deek/
Gunnar Harboe
I think it's strange that we should disagree so completely on this
issue. Well, never mind... :-)
On Thu, 17 May 2001 10:15:22 -0500, "Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
<snip>
>As a generic science fiction miniseries, the prequels were fine. Not great
>but fine. As a faithful version of Dune, they were horrible.
I agree that as general television, the miniseries (I assume you didn't
mean to say prequels there) was good, but not great. However, I think it
really stands out as a very good adaptation of Dune.
The sets sometimes look really fake and really cheap (they were not
cheap, but obviously much cheaper than actually filming in a desert),
and I do have issues with some of the acting. And oh yeah, the desert
mouse is absolutely awful.
But I really like the look'n'feel of the miniseries. I think it is very
true to Dune. Paul's visions. The Fremen (with proper stillsuits). The
city of Arrakeen. The hunter-seeker. All so accurate.
> I find that
>watching the miniseries is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard.
>The pointless changes.
Of which there were few, if any. They didn't pull them all off (the
traitor plot in the first episode was handled particularly badly), but
there were obvious reasons for them all. The need to simplify, most
importantly. And that I think they pulled off very well. I know that
before, people were arguing that it was impossible to tell the story of
Dune in any vaguely accurate, comprehensible manner in reasonable time.
They have been proven wrong.
> The Princess-with-a-cause.
It's a basic rule of filmmaking that you introduce all major characters
early in the movie. (Well, western filmmaking, that is. "Crouching
Tiger, Hidden Dragon" decided to introduce a completely new plot halfway
through the film, and pulled it off.) If the ending (which is hardly
ideal for film or television anyway) was to be merely mildly baffling,
the Princess needed to have played a part in the plot. I think it worked
OK, although the banquet scene with their completely awfully awkward
dancing was painful to watch for a Dune fan.
Most importantly, I think it is going to work well for the next series,
based on DM and CoD. (The same can not be said for Duncan's death, which
seems like a distinctly bad idea given that we know they're going to
have to resurrect him for the next series.)
> The "sorta Dune-like"
>dialog.
The dialogue was weak, agreed, but I don't think that taking the lines
straight from the book would have worked either. They depend too much on
the interplay between thoughts and words, and would have come off as
stiff.
> The annoying hats.
I thought they were cool. :-) I really enjoyed the "we walk around with
our genitalia on our heads"-motif becoming so obvious in the BG-Guild
conspiracy scene.
> The really *bad* acting.
But there was good acting as well. Stilgar managed to convince despite
being physically totally unsuited for the part. Kynes. The Baron. Chani.
Paul and Jessica I am less sure about; they were generally good, but
sometimes really messed up.
> The Warhammer 40K
>weapons. All we were missing were chainswords and Orks. Oh well, at least
>there were no wierding modules or heart plugs.
I assume you are referring to Stilgar walking around blasting people
away with a shotgun or whatever. Well, can you see him defeating the
Sardaukar with martial arts? :-) As I said, he didn't look right for the
part, but was a good enough actor to be forgiven for that.
>At least the Lynch movie did a good job of capturing the *mood* of Dune. And
>at least the actors were competent (the Baron notwithstanding).
I can't believe you, of all people, could say this. How does the
Harkonnen industrial modernism capture the low-tech nature of the
Duniverse? How do the oppressive Caladan sets capture that "paradise
world" and the essentially open nature of the Atreides? And the wide
desert vistas of Arrakis were no more in sight in Lynch's movie than
they were in the miniseries (less so, in fact). The appropriateness of
the Imperial sets are arguable (I didn't like them myself, much
preferred the more opulent miniseries design), but what's left of the
"mood" of Dune? Throw in cheesy eighties music and weirding modules, and
the result is hardly recognisable as a Frank Herbert creation.
And the Gurney Hallecks and RM Mohiams could duel in bad acting. They
were awful in both adaptations. The Lynch Hawat, Emperor, Baron and
Stilgar were bad while the miniseries ones were OK or better.
Nah. Lynch's Dune was a bad film, a bad Lynch film, and a bad Dune
adaptation. The miniseries were decent television and a good Dune
adaptation. All just my humble opinion, obviously.
--
Bye!
Gunnar Harboe
gh...@cam.ac.uk
The alt.fan.dune FAQ
<http://jkenny.home.mindspring.com/DuneFAQIndex.html>
___
There should be a word-tension for "fated," conveying
a meaning opposite from a thing destined to be. There
should also be a garnish-tension for "parsley,"
denoting the opposite of the leafy herb. Oh, we speak
in daily discourse of "anti-parsley," but that is
another thing entire. What the word for a thing is
can consequent much.
- from "Mauve'Bib Has Ideas and Speaks Them,"
edited by the Princess Serutan
Ty Beard
> >I know it's fashionable to put down the miniseries in this elite
newsgroup,
> >outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people appreciate the
miniseries
> >and the prequels (which I have not read).
> > Unlike what one would think from reading this NG, it is possible to
like
> >Frank Herbert, and also like the miniseries (which is so close to the
book at
> >times it's almost erie) It's also possible to like Frank Herbert and
like
> >Star Wars and Star Trek. Really it is. Relax. Dune is enjoyable on
more
> >than one level.
>
> Well,
> I got the type of responses I expected. I'll continue to read and
enjoy
> this NG and also laugh at the writers who seem to think that they are on a
> higher intellectual plane than others.
Well, laughing at oneself is good for the soul, I understand.
> Dune is written in a more complicated fashion than many pulp type
stories,
> but it is not that complicated. I read it at age 12 (years before Lynch
made
> his attempt-which made it hard to admit to people that I liked Dune for
many
> years). If you fall into the category that seems to prevail in this
thread
> that you are some kind of intellect because you read Dune then I suggest
you
> pick up a book on physics or chemistry to see if you are really that
smart.
<Yawn>
Ah, another "only intellectual snobs hate the miniseries" argument. You must
be utterly obtuse if you think that you're the first person to come out with
this tired, hackneyed statement.
Please -- come up with something original.
> Don't take this as any insult. I just want to put on the platform that
> some of the rantings that Dune is such a complicated novel are just not
> deserved. It's only slightly, ever so slightly more complicated than the
Star
> Trek, Star Wars pulps.
Have you actually read Dune?
--Ty Beard
cupha...@webtv.net
Re: Miniseries rules
Once more into the breach go I.
<o...@oooo.net> wrote in message
news:3b0462bf$0$41651$45be...@newscene.com...
In article <3b01be8a$0$21770$45be...@newscene.com>, o...@oooo.net wrote:
I know it's fashionable to put down the miniseries in this elite
newsgroup, outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people
appreciate the miniseries and the prequels (which I have not read).
Unlike what one would think from reading this
NG, it is possible to like Frank Herbert, and also like the miniseries
(which is so close to the book at times it's almost erie) It's also
possible to like Frank Herbert and like Star Wars and Star Trek.
Really it is. Relax. Dune is enjoyable on more than one level.
Well,
I got the type of responses I expected. I'll
continue to read and enjoy this NG and also laugh at the writers who
seem to think that they are on a higher intellectual plane than others.
****Members of this group are guilty of many sins, but intellectual
arrogance isn't one of them.
Dune is written in a more complicated fashion than
many pulp type stories, but it is not that complicated. I read it at age
12 (years before Lynch made his attempt-which made it hard to admit to
people that I liked Dune for many years). If you fall into the category
that seems to prevail in this thread that you are some kind of intellect
because you read Dune then I suggest you pick up a book on physics or
chemistry to see if you are really that smart.
****Does my Doctorate in Mathematics count? Does Ty's JD count? Need I
mention that Dr. McNelly was one of the first scholars to treat SF as a
legitimate form of literature?
Don't take this as any insult. I just want to put on
the platform that some of the rantings that Dune is such a complicated
novel are just not deserved. It's only slightly, ever so slightly more
complicated than the Star Trek, Star Wars pulps.
If you really think that Dune is "ever so slightly more
complicated than... Star Trek, Star Wars" then you have pulp between
your ears.
Gang, sorry. I don't usually respond to such drivel... but enough
is enough.
John
~~~~~~
John and all--
It rather sounds as if we are dealing with a reader who is flexing his
Freshman English Comp muscles, such as they are. Let's give him twenty
or twenty-five years...maybe that will help.
We do have to consider the possibility that his statement about DUNE
being only a little deeper than Star Wars/Trek to be a truth for him
-- perhaps he is incapable of perceiving beyond the upper (obvious)
levels of the book.
And perhaps a little intellectual arrogance is appropriate in this
situation -- ?
Nina
o...@oooo.net
>
>Ah, another "only intellectual snobs hate the miniseries" argument. You must
>be utterly obtuse if you think that you're the first person to come out with
>this tired, hackneyed statement.
>
>Please -- come up with something original.
>
>> Don't take this as any insult. I just want to put on the platform that
>> some of the rantings that Dune is such a complicated novel are just not
>> deserved. It's only slightly, ever so slightly more complicated than the
>Star
>> Trek, Star Wars pulps.
>
>Have you actually read Dune?
>
>--Ty Beard
>
>
also read it again a few months back after the miniseries came out. Also when
I was twelve I read half of the rest of the Dune series before losing
interest.
I don't mean to put Dune down by saying it's not that complicated, the
main complication is the new terms one encounters. When I first read the book
I had no idea how to pronounce Muad or Kwisatz (SP?) etc, and it took a while
to get past this and I made up my own pronunciations as I'm sure many did.
However once you get past that I don't see too many complications to the plot.
Yes there are plots within plots, feigns etc.
The main reason I use the term Elitist is the way people nitpic on the
series (fake desert, no Usul, improper sandwalking etc) and then when someone
like me states that it is doing well in the greater populace some dismiss that
by saying well the greater populace is a bunch of idiots.
Ty Beard
news:3b04efa1....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> Hi Ty,
>
> I think it's strange that we should disagree so completely on this
> issue. Well, never mind... :-)
Yes, there's certainly no precedent for it... ;-)
> I agree that as general television, the miniseries (I assume you didn't
> mean to say prequels there) was good, but not great. However, I think it
> really stands out as a very good adaptation of Dune.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't saying
this just to see if my head will explode.
<deep breath>
<deep breath>
<deep breath>
<snip>
> But I really like the look'n'feel of the miniseries. I think it is very
> true to Dune. Paul's visions. The Fremen (with proper stillsuits). The
> city of Arrakeen. The hunter-seeker. All so accurate.
Yes, I liked the hunter-seeker. But I'd always imagined the Dune universe as
a very baroque setting -- what you'd expect from a low tech Imperium that
lasted 10,000 years.
The miniseries sets were right out of Star Trek the Next Generation.
> > I find that
> >watching the miniseries is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard.
> >The pointless changes.
>
> Of which there were few, if any.
<GAK!>
Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
> > The Princess-with-a-cause.
>
> It's a basic rule of filmmaking that you introduce all major characters
> early in the movie. (Well, western filmmaking, that is. "Crouching
> Tiger, Hidden Dragon" decided to introduce a completely new plot halfway
> through the film, and pulled it off.) If the ending (which is hardly
> ideal for film or television anyway) was to be merely mildly baffling,
> the Princess needed to have played a part in the plot. I think it worked
> OK, although the banquet scene with their completely awfully awkward
> dancing was painful to watch for a Dune fan.
And it was a pointless addition to the miniseries. Of all the characters in
Dune, Irulan would have to be classified as minor. Once again, we have some
egomaniacal hack attempting to change FH's story to fit his own "vision" --
"way it should have been written" is a better description IMHO.
> > The "sorta Dune-like"
> >dialog.
>
> The dialogue was weak, agreed, but I don't think that taking the lines
> straight from the book would have worked either. They depend too much on
> the interplay between thoughts and words, and would have come off as
> stiff.
I think that a good portion of the dialog in the book could have been
retained. Failing that, why not at least capture the "feel" of the dialog?
The answer is that the idiot wanted to dumb it down and get the love
interest thingie going.
He succeeded magnificently.
> > The annoying hats.
>
> I thought they were cool. :-) I really enjoyed the "we walk around with
> our genitalia on our heads"-motif becoming so obvious in the BG-Guild
> conspiracy scene.
>
> > The really *bad* acting.
>
> But there was good acting as well. Stilgar managed to convince despite
> being physically totally unsuited for the part. Kynes. The Baron. Chani.
> Paul and Jessica I am less sure about; they were generally good, but
> sometimes really messed up.
I'm sorry, but I found the acting dreadful.
> > The Warhammer 40K
> >weapons. All we were missing were chainswords and Orks. Oh well, at least
> >there were no wierding modules or heart plugs.
>
> I assume you are referring to Stilgar walking around blasting people
> away with a shotgun or whatever. Well, can you see him defeating the
> Sardaukar with martial arts? :-) As I said, he didn't look right for the
> part, but was a good enough actor to be forgiven for that.
Well, the hand gatling cannon as well.
> >At least the Lynch movie did a good job of capturing the *mood* of Dune.
And
> >at least the actors were competent (the Baron notwithstanding).
>
> I can't believe you, of all people, could say this. How does the
> Harkonnen industrial modernism capture the low-tech nature of the
> Duniverse? How do the oppressive Caladan sets capture that "paradise
> world" and the essentially open nature of the Atreides? And the wide
> desert vistas of Arrakis were no more in sight in Lynch's movie than
> they were in the miniseries (less so, in fact).
I was talking more of the intricate detail -- the Duniverse should be a very
baroque setting. Yes, the Harkonnen set was too industrial. But I loved the
palace at Arakeen.
> And the Gurney Hallecks and RM Mohiams could duel in bad acting. They
> were awful in both adaptations. The Lynch Hawat, Emperor, Baron and
> Stilgar were bad while the miniseries ones were OK or better.
I liked Patrick Stewart as Gurney. Far better than the dull witted guy the
miniseries had. I would agree that the miniseries had a better Baron.
> Nah. Lynch's Dune was a bad film, a bad Lynch film, and a bad Dune
> adaptation. The miniseries were decent television and a good Dune
> adaptation. All just my humble opinion, obviously.
And IMHO, you're dead wrong ;-)
But at least you've thought about it. I can respect your opinion even when I
disagree with it.
--Ty Beard
Juho Julkunen
news:Pine.LNX.4.30.01051...@melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI.
..
Well, I think we have the expression "vatsa solmussa" (or is that just
me hallucinating again).
And remember. You are not too familiar with the worst clichés
either, and should therefore be less likely to be annoyed by them.
JTJ
Juho Julkunen
news:3B04AF9D...@dusknet.dhs.org...
> "Richard H. Araujo" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > comic books are high art. Are comic books good? Yes. Can they be
fun,
> > good reads, and have extremely well done artwork in them? Yes. But
> > they are not great literature, no matter what the masses say. There
are
>
> "Maus"
"From Hell"
"Sandman"
JTJ
o...@oooo.net
>"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:3b04efa1....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
>
>And it was a pointless addition to the miniseries. Of all the characters in
>Dune, Irulan would have to be classified as minor. Once again, we have some
>egomaniacal hack attempting to change FH's story to fit his own "vision" --
>"way it should have been written" is a better description IMHO.
Although Irulan was minor in Dune she had a much bigger role in DM. The
Harrison Irulan is very much like the woman you meet in DM, except hair color
of course. (Afterall she plans to help kill Paul since he won't inseminate
her.) So she is quite coniving.
>I was talking more of the intricate detail -- the Duniverse should be a very
>baroque setting. Yes, the Harkonnen set was too industrial. But I loved the
>palace at Arakeen.
I think the low tech idea of Dune is held up too highly here. It is possible
to have industrial/high tech in a society that outlaws computers and machines
that replace the function of man. Afterall there is space travel in Dune,
satellites (remember the fremen had to bribe the guild- this is pretty high
tech stuff)
also FH did not get very descriptive on places, environs, in a way that left
imagery up to the reader so it is possible to have a dark vision of Dune
(Lynch) and a light version of Dune (Harrison) and by analyzing the text
either could be correct.
>
>
Richard H. Araujo
Who said Dune was complicated? It's a step above the usual trash, by far,
but it's not Ulysses. I believe the prequels and the miniseries were at
issue. They are rather crappy for many reasons. Poor writing is the major
problem with the prequels, bad acting and weird plot decisions are the two
major problems with the miniseries. The point is not that the prequels are
poorly written compared to Dune, though they are. The point is that the
prequels are poorly written compared with toilet paper instructions and tax
forms.
As for intellect, I don't think my enjoyment of Dune puts me on some
different, higher level than the rest of the world. However, that the
public received the prequels rather well does indicate a serious lack of
literary acumen on the public's part. But then the public at large also
loves the tabloids and watches sitcoms regularly. Perhaps it's the
defenders of the prequels that need to lift themselves out of the sub
literate trash that is the current state of the publishing world, dominated
by Princess Diana bios and the latest bit of some self aggrandizing self
important trash from some celebrity attorney, and treat themselves to
something a cut above the rest.
I for one will no longer defend the fact that I have standards, and if they
happen to be higher than the rest of the planet's population pegs them for
themselves, that's *good* for me and *bad* for them.
--
Yrs,
Richard
"Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel."
-Horace Walpole
Richard H. Araujo
> The main reason I use the term Elitist is the way people nitpic on
the
> series (fake desert, no Usul, improper sandwalking etc) and then when
someone
> like me states that it is doing well in the greater populace some dismiss
that
> by saying well the greater populace is a bunch of idiots.
Oh, I'd agree those are nitpicking points. It would be nice if they had
gotten it right, but it didn't detract from the series as a whole in any
significant way for me. That being said though, I'd have to say that my
life experience thus far does confirm one point: the greater populace is a
bunch of idiots.
What contact I've had with the populace leaves me surprised that any of
them are actually able to read anything more complex than a Dick and Jane
book.
--
Yrs,
Richard
"The left wants to stop people from smoking tobacco. The right wants to
stop people from smoking marijuana. The left wants to stop so-called hate
speech. The right wants to stop so-called obscene speech. The left wants to
regulate what people can do with their land. The right wants to regulate
what people can do with their persons."
-Sheldon Richman
Richard H. Araujo
<zohN6.345$9z6....@read2.inet.fi>...
> > "Maus"
>
> "From Hell"
>
> "Sandman"
>
> JTJ
between Sandman and Archie comics?
--
Yrs,
Richard
"These is not art to me, all these squares and things. Real art has, you
know, like a madonna in it."
-Unknown (from the guestbook at an exhibition of modern art)
Richard H. Araujo
> also FH did not get very descriptive on places, environs, in a way that
left
> imagery up to the reader so it is possible to have a dark vision of Dune
> (Lynch) and a light version of Dune (Harrison) and by analyzing the text
> either could be correct.
I don't think it's necessarily the high tech look that put people off, but
the fact that the setting of this story in particular is such a ripe
vehicle for getting across the nature of the Dune universe. Harrison
really missed out on a chance to do something different, and perhaps save a
few bucks on FX that could have been used to buy better actors.
--
Yrs,
Richard
"I like life. It's something to do."
-Ronnie Shakes
Met K.
I kind of have to wonder... what do all of you people think of
Michael Crichton's writings?
Ty Beard
news:3b059d0e$0$37325$45be...@newscene.com...
>
> >
> >Ah, another "only intellectual snobs hate the miniseries" argument. You
must
> >be utterly obtuse if you think that you're the first person to come out
with
> >this tired, hackneyed statement.
> >
> >Please -- come up with something original.
> >
> >--Ty Beard
> >
> >
> As stated I read Dune when I was twelve, it ranks with LOTR as my
favorite. I
> also read it again a few months back after the miniseries came out. Also
when
> I was twelve I read half of the rest of the Dune series before losing
> interest.
> I don't mean to put Dune down by saying it's not that complicated, the
> main complication is the new terms one encounters. When I first read the
book
> I had no idea how to pronounce Muad or Kwisatz (SP?) etc, and it took a
while
> to get past this and I made up my own pronunciations as I'm sure many did.
> However once you get past that I don't see too many complications to the
plot.
> Yes there are plots within plots, feigns etc.
And those don't count as complications?
> The main reason I use the term Elitist is the way people nitpic on the
> series (fake desert, no Usul, improper sandwalking etc) and then when
someone
> like me states that it is doing well in the greater populace some dismiss
that
> by saying well the greater populace is a bunch of idiots.
Actually, I think we're dismissing the absurd notion that popular acclaim
establishes the superiority of a TV show.
And I think that (like most miniseries/prequels apologists) you
mischaracterize the objections to the miniseries. You resort to the tedious
"you're nitpicking", rather than addressing our actual complaints. Of
course, this is easier for you, but transparently disengenuous.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
<o...@oooo.net> wrote in message
news:3b05acc9$0$37273$45be...@newscene.com...
> In article <tgb7lto...@corp.supernews.com>, "Ty Beard"
<tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> >"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3b04efa1....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> >> Hi Ty,>> dancing was painful to watch for a Dune fan.
> >
> >And it was a pointless addition to the miniseries. Of all the characters
in
> >Dune, Irulan would have to be classified as minor. Once again, we have
some
> >egomaniacal hack attempting to change FH's story to fit his own
"vision" --
> >"way it should have been written" is a better description IMHO.
>
>
> Although Irulan was minor in Dune she had a much bigger role in DM.
So what? This is hardly a convincing reason to excuse some hack's attempt to
re-write an acknowledged classic.
> >I was talking more of the intricate detail -- the Duniverse should be a
very
> >baroque setting. Yes, the Harkonnen set was too industrial. But I loved
the
> >palace at Arakeen.
>
>
> I think the low tech idea of Dune is held up too highly here. It is
possible
> to have industrial/high tech in a society that outlaws computers and
machines
> that replace the function of man.
Yes -- but sadly for you, the *novel* emphasizes low tech baroque. But
hey -- who cares what the *novel* says.
Certainly not the talentless hack that wrote and directed the miniseries...
--Ty Beard
Jacque Strapp
They are. 'The Mummy Returns' made $43 Million this past weekend.
Jacque Strapp
>In article <3b01be8a$0$21770$45be...@newscene.com>, o...@oooo.net wrote:
>>I know it's fashionable to put down the miniseries in this elite newsgroup,
>>outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people appreciate the miniseries
>>and the prequels (which I have not read).
>> Unlike what one would think from reading this NG, it is possible to like
>>Frank Herbert, and also like the miniseries (which is so close to the book at
>>times it's almost erie) It's also possible to like Frank Herbert and like
>>Star Wars and Star Trek. Really it is. Relax. Dune is enjoyable on more
>>than one level.
>
>Well,
> I got the type of responses I expected.
Yah, trolls usually do.
mist.
wrote:
> I kind of have to wonder... what do all of you people think of
>Michael Crichton's writings?
I've read "Jurassic Park," "The Lost World," and "Timeline" and really
enjoyed reading them. I liked how he took complicated broad topics and
introduced them in the books, such as chaos (JP, TLW) and quantum
physics (T), and made it interesting to learn some basics about them.
Torgeir Aanes
wrote:
>So what? This is hardly a convincing reason to excuse some hack's attempt to
>re-write an acknowledged classic.
He wasn't trying to _rewrite_ Herbert's novel. He was just making his
own version of it. It's not supposed to be the ultimate version of
Dune, it's supposed to be one guy's take on it. Hell, if I was going
to make a Dune movie, I would certainly add some ideas of my own too.
--
Torgeir Aanes
You're the boy with the filthy laugh
You're the boy with the arab strap
Bruce.
> >I'll continue to read and enjoy
> >this NG and also laugh at the writers who seem to think that they are on
a
> >higher intellectual plane than others.
> > Dune is written in a more complicated fashion than many pulp type
stories,
> >but it is not that complicated. I read it at age 12 (years before Lynch
made
> >his attempt-which made it hard to admit to people that I liked Dune for
many
> >years). If you fall into the category that seems to prevail in this
thread
> >that you are some kind of intellect because you read Dune then I suggest
you
> >pick up a book on physics or chemistry to see if you are really that
smart.
> > Don't take this as any insult. I just want to put on the platform
that
> >some of the rantings that Dune is such a complicated novel are just not
> >deserved. It's only slightly, ever so slightly more complicated than the
Star
> >Trek, Star Wars pulps.
>
Hi all,
Ignoring the blatant wind up bullshit "It's only slightly, ever so slightly
more complicated than the Star Trek, Star Wars pulps", I do agree with the
point that there are a few verbose posters in this NG whom I feel openly
harbour a feeling of smug superiority over other (probably
younger/admittedly dumber) posters, spending more time on self
aggrandizement/blowing hot air than actually discussing anything that
actually matters to the Dune topic - you know who you are, you big
show-offs.
This said, I've only been lurking for a week or two - perhaps everything
worth discussing has been exhausted and all that's left is to argue over the
miniseries (which I haven't seen yet, but remain optimistic about) and the
infamous prequels (which I will never read). I'll never read the prequels as
I trust the opinions of the windy old timers who obviously share my respect
and enjoyment of FH's work. There are thousands of good books out there
higher up on my reading list and I'm afraid the prequels do sound like a
complete pile of shite - go and support an original author for god's sake.
As to the above posting - shut up, you might have read the book when you
were 12 but that doesn't mean you understood it (you make yourself sound
like a walking Lobotomy) - I first read Dune 14 yrs ago, but when I go back
to the series there's always something new to find (esp GEoD). I wouldn't
say FH was a great literary writer, but he had the incredible talent to
create a believable future universe, huge in scope and rich in detail, which
is for me probably the best work of SF available today.
(Go and read Gene Wolfe's Book of the new Sun if you haven't already).
Now I'm off to pick up some books on Physics and Chemistry to find out how
smart I am.
Bruce.
Met K.
Very cool... I figured most of the "elitists" in this group would
find Crichton to be too "stupid" for them.
Oops, there I go, I've used the E word again.
Hardy Hestert
I've read many of Crichtons books, some of them were pretty good
entertainment (Great Train Robbery, Adromeda Strain), some others really
s*ck. Especially Lost World, since that I refuse to read any more of his
books. Crichtons "science" is not that convincing.
I'm not sure if I've ever read a book more boring than "The Lost World".
But somehow I must have missed the foreword: "Dear Mr. Spielberg, here I
give you all silly standard inGREEDients you need for yet another
family-compatible dinosaur movie." Somehow Spielberg threw away 50% of
Crichton's plot. It wasn't even good enough for a movie sequel. By the
way, does anybody know what the JP3 movie will be about?
If I had to write it it would be a dinosaur hunt in the city. (Which
city was it again where the T-Rex mated with that bus?) Remember JP2?
The T-rex was in the ship's cargo bay, but something had killed the guy
who had closed the cargo bay doors... here we go. 20 years later. A few
velociraptors had been on ship in JP2, escaped into the city, they
spreaded and multiplied. Old Jeff Goldblum now is the commander of a
military anti-dinosaur special unit. Forget the "we must protect these
wonderful creatures and their island" crap, let's kill them all! It's
them or us. These mean beasts are very adaptive, they hide in the sewers
and eat civilians. Dark sewers, fast monsters, Alien-like stuff, no
movie for kids. Just an idea for another trash movie ;o)
Hardy
Gunnar Harboe
<rar...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>Juho Julkunen <juho.j...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in article
><zohN6.345$9z6....@read2.inet.fi>...
>> > "Maus"
>>
>> "From Hell"
>>
>> "Sandman"
"Mr. Punch"
"Corto Maltese"
Most of Will Eisner's late stuff...
> I stand corrected. However, can we agree that there is a difference
>between Sandman and Archie comics?
Sure. Just like there's a difference between real literature and Star
Trek franchise novels.
90% is crap in any medium. It's just that in comics, it's the crap that
has the highest profile.
I'll happily confess to liking comics, even comics that by no stretch
qualify as "high art", but that are still pretty good entertainment (I
will not admit to ever having read an Archie comic, though). Just like I
enjoy reading books that will never find a mention in the Great Literary
Canon. I'll no more apologise for that than I'll try to convince myself
and others that they are in fact misunderstood masterpieces.
Sometimes, however, the genuine article comes along; in comic books as
well as in novels. It would be a shame to miss it just because of
prejudice against the medium. Like people who dismiss Dune because it's
science fiction...
Gunnar Harboe
>On Fri, 18 May 2001 22:12:23 -0500, "Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net>
>wrote:
>
>>So what? This is hardly a convincing reason to excuse some hack's attempt to
>>re-write an acknowledged classic.
>
>He wasn't trying to _rewrite_ Herbert's novel. He was just making his
>own version of it. It's not supposed to be the ultimate version of
>Dune, it's supposed to be one guy's take on it. Hell, if I was going
>to make a Dune movie, I would certainly add some ideas of my own too.
I hope you'll all forgive me for this, but I've had this idea about
Paul's prescience as represented on film:
The ghosts of people who have died for him show him the future (in a
Dickensian Christmas Carol way). It starts erratically with the
hunter-seeker operator appearing briefly to him in a dream/vision; then
after the Harkonnen attack, his father starts visiting him (shades of
Hamlet, if you'll excuse the pun). Duncan. Kynes. Jamis. At the end,
it's seeing the ghost of his son that pushes him over the edge into the
hysteria of his usurpation. And in the final shot, he stares out over
the hordes of people who will die in his jihad.
I'm not sure I would include this idea if I was making a Dune film (it
would depend on how it fit in with the rest of the film; it's quite a
dark interpretation. Also would have to take care not to make it too 6th
Sense-y), but I would be sorely tempted.
Gunnar Harboe
>"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:3b04efa1....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
>> Hi Ty,
>>
>> I think it's strange that we should disagree so completely on this
>> issue. Well, never mind... :-)
>
>Yes, there's certainly no precedent for it... ;-)
Oh, I've come to expect to disagree with you on IMPORTANT stuff. I
thought we were pretty much in line on everything Dune-related, though.
:-)
>> I agree that as general television, the miniseries (I assume you didn't
>> mean to say prequels there) was good, but not great. However, I think it
>> really stands out as a very good adaptation of Dune.
>
>I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't saying
>this just to see if my head will explode.
>
><deep breath>
><deep breath>
><deep breath>
>
><snip>
>
>> But I really like the look'n'feel of the miniseries. I think it is very
>> true to Dune. Paul's visions. The Fremen (with proper stillsuits). The
>> city of Arrakeen. The hunter-seeker. All so accurate.
>
>Yes, I liked the hunter-seeker. But I'd always imagined the Dune universe as
>a very baroque setting -- what you'd expect from a low tech Imperium that
>lasted 10,000 years.
>
>The miniseries sets were right out of Star Trek the Next Generation.
Sorry, I don't watch Star Trek (in any of its incarnations) so I can't
interpret that comment properly. If you're talking about the spaceship,
I agree that it was too sparse and spaceship-clicheed. Of course, that
whole sequence should ideally have been set on Caladan, and I assume
we're seeing the result of a limited budget here.
I thought the Arrakeen palace was gorgeous; possibly even a bit too
elegant for what it was supposed to portray. In the making-of DVD that
comes with "The Secrets of Dune", you can see the massive amount of work
that went into that set. Not perhaps the way I'd have spent my budget,
but <shrug>.
I'd have liked a little more texture in the Arrakeen city. You know,
that marketplace-in-Cairo exotic feel. OTOH, it was supposed to be a
"dusty little garrison town". But where's the entrance to the Mos Eisly
cantina? :-)
There were one or two instances where the lighting was awful (green
moonlight?!). Must have been difficult to keep a celebrity like Vittorio
Storaro under control. Close your eyes and pretend it's not there.
The rest of the sets come down to whether or not you can accept
backdrops and suspend disbelief. I thought it was a great shame that we
were denied endless panorama shots of sand dunes this time as well; but
in the final analysis I can live with matte screens.
>> > I find that
>> >watching the miniseries is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard.
>> >The pointless changes.
>>
>> Of which there were few, if any.
>
><GAK!>
I meant: the changes that were made were not pointless.
>Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
>
>> > The Princess-with-a-cause.
>>
>> It's a basic rule of filmmaking that you introduce all major characters
>> early in the movie. (Well, western filmmaking, that is. "Crouching
>> Tiger, Hidden Dragon" decided to introduce a completely new plot halfway
>> through the film, and pulled it off.) If the ending (which is hardly
>> ideal for film or television anyway) was to be merely mildly baffling,
>> the Princess needed to have played a part in the plot. I think it worked
>> OK, although the banquet scene with their completely awfully awkward
>> dancing was painful to watch for a Dune fan.
>
>And it was a pointless addition to the miniseries. Of all the characters in
>Dune, Irulan would have to be classified as minor. Once again, we have some
>egomaniacal hack attempting to change FH's story to fit his own "vision" --
>"way it should have been written" is a better description IMHO.
She's minor, but unless you're going to rewrite the ending (and we don't
want to go there again, do we?), you're going to have to explain who she
is. And that means giving her a greater role in the plot. The Irulan
subplot served the single purpose of giving the Imperial faction more
screentime, and I think it did that well without seriously corrupting
the story.
Compare the final line of Lynch's Dune: "How can this be? For he IS the
Kwisatz Haderach!" Great, only that "kwisatz haderach" has been spoken
ONCE before in the film, very near the start. A non-Dune fan viewer
would have no clue what Alia is going on about.
FH was the first to admit that books and film are not the same. You can
do stuff in books that doesn't work on film, and vice versa. Adapting
the book is not a matter of changing it to something "better", but to
something that works better on film.
>> > The "sorta Dune-like"
>> >dialog.
>>
>> The dialogue was weak, agreed, but I don't think that taking the lines
>> straight from the book would have worked either. They depend too much on
>> the interplay between thoughts and words, and would have come off as
>> stiff.
>
>I think that a good portion of the dialog in the book could have been
>retained. Failing that, why not at least capture the "feel" of the dialog?
>The answer is that the idiot wanted to dumb it down and get the love
>interest thingie going.
I think the reason is partly that Harrison is not very good at writing
dialogue. Of course, this doesn't make it any better, but at least it
wasn't intentional.
I think Harrison did a great job on restructuring the book to something
that would work on TV, not at all such a good job on the fine details of
the script. One of these script-doctors who can tighten up scenes (the
whole harvester-sandworm sequence, in particular) and put some snap in
the dialogue would have been very welcome.
>He succeeded magnificently.
>
>> > The annoying hats.
>>
>> I thought they were cool. :-) I really enjoyed the "we walk around with
>> our genitalia on our heads"-motif becoming so obvious in the BG-Guild
>> conspiracy scene.
>>
>> > The really *bad* acting.
>>
>> But there was good acting as well. Stilgar managed to convince despite
>> being physically totally unsuited for the part. Kynes. The Baron. Chani.
>> Paul and Jessica I am less sure about; they were generally good, but
>> sometimes really messed up.
>
>I'm sorry, but I found the acting dreadful.
Come on! Kynes and Stilgar, at least, were good. Considering the number
of actors that were good in other films but put in lackluster
performances here, I suspect Harrison's direction is at fault.
>> > The Warhammer 40K
>> >weapons. All we were missing were chainswords and Orks. Oh well, at least
>> >there were no wierding modules or heart plugs.
>>
>> I assume you are referring to Stilgar walking around blasting people
>> away with a shotgun or whatever. Well, can you see him defeating the
>> Sardaukar with martial arts? :-) As I said, he didn't look right for the
>> part, but was a good enough actor to be forgiven for that.
>
>Well, the hand gatling cannon as well.
Don't recall.
>> >At least the Lynch movie did a good job of capturing the *mood* of Dune.
>And
>> >at least the actors were competent (the Baron notwithstanding).
>>
>> I can't believe you, of all people, could say this. How does the
>> Harkonnen industrial modernism capture the low-tech nature of the
>> Duniverse? How do the oppressive Caladan sets capture that "paradise
>> world" and the essentially open nature of the Atreides? And the wide
>> desert vistas of Arrakis were no more in sight in Lynch's movie than
>> they were in the miniseries (less so, in fact).
>
>I was talking more of the intricate detail -- the Duniverse should be a very
>baroque setting. Yes, the Harkonnen set was too industrial. But I loved the
>palace at Arakeen.
In the Lynch film? I can't even remember it. I recall the entire painful
experience as set against some murky brown background.
>> And the Gurney Hallecks and RM Mohiams could duel in bad acting. They
>> were awful in both adaptations. The Lynch Hawat, Emperor, Baron and
>> Stilgar were bad while the miniseries ones were OK or better.
>
>I liked Patrick Stewart as Gurney. Far better than the dull witted guy the
>miniseries had. I would agree that the miniseries had a better Baron.
Patrick Stewart is a decent actor, but totally miscast as Gurney. Gurney
is the lower-caste warrior who has risen through the ranks by his skill.
Stewart made him seem like an arrogant snob. The miniseries guy may have
been less talented, but at least he gave the right feel to the role.
>> Nah. Lynch's Dune was a bad film, a bad Lynch film, and a bad Dune
>> adaptation. The miniseries were decent television and a good Dune
>> adaptation. All just my humble opinion, obviously.
>
>And IMHO, you're dead wrong ;-)
>
>But at least you've thought about it. I can respect your opinion even when I
>disagree with it.
Well, as one can see from this post, I'm far from uncritical of the
miniseries. But while I find the execution dodgy on many points, I do
like the basic vision of the series; it's interpretation of Dune, so to
speak. It's nowhere as rich and layered as the book, of course, but it
does manage to present a great deal of it on television. And I really
enjoy seeing Dune in that way.
Richard H. Araujo
<Xns90A5D4B07C26814...@24.4.0.74>...
> I kind of have to wonder... what do all of you people think of
> Michael Crichton's writings?
Does the word 'tangent' mean anything to you? (c:
I liked some of his books. I remember reading Sphere and enjoying it, and
the Andromeda Strain kept my attention very well, as did Red Sun Rising, or
Rising Sun, whatever its title was. Jurassic Park and The Lost World had
me riveted, but that's just a holdover from my childhood addiction to
Dinosaurs. I've been to rehab, and am fine now.
When I read Congo though, I'd had enough of his stuff. It seems all the
same, really. A group of people need to go into a certain environment they
weren't really meant for, either physically or culturally. They take along
with them bunches of wonderful high tech equipment, which always seems to
crap out at the slightest mouse fart. The people then proceed to get
killed and mangled.
--
Yrs,
Richard
"I take my pet lion to church every Sunday. He has to eat."
-Marty Pollio
Met K.
>But somehow I must have missed the foreword: "Dear Mr. Spielberg, here I
>give you all silly standard inGREEDients you need for yet another
>family-compatible dinosaur movie." Somehow Spielberg threw away 50% of
>Crichton's plot. It wasn't even good enough for a movie sequel. By the
>way, does anybody know what the JP3 movie will be about?
Haaaaaaaaa.
Sorry bub, but Lost World was out when the Jurassic Park movie was
just now coming out.
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Met K.
Coming from a Dune fan this kinda makes me think that this group
really is full of elitists. =)
Congo was dull, yeah. But read the underlying meaning and science of
the books and I think it's pretty good.
o...@oooo.net
>
>Yes -- but sadly for you, the *novel* emphasizes low tech baroque. But
>hey -- who cares what the *novel* says.
>
>Certainly not the talentless hack that wrote and directed the miniseries...
>
>--Ty Beard
>
>
Where does the novel emphasize this?
o...@oooo.net
>> The main reason I use the term Elitist is the way people nitpic on the
>>series (fake desert, no Usul, improper sandwalking etc) and then when someone
>
>>like me states that it is doing well in the greater populace some dismiss that
>
>>by saying well the greater populace is a bunch of idiots.
>
> They are. 'The Mummy Returns' made $43 Million this past weekend.
I'm sure I'll enjoy it also as I did the first one.
o...@oooo.net
>On 17 May 2001 18:49:03 -0500, o...@oooo.net wrote:
>
>>In article <3b01be8a$0$21770$45be...@newscene.com>, o...@oooo.net wrote:
>>>I know it's fashionable to put down the miniseries in this elite newsgroup,
>>>outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people appreciate the miniseries
>
>>>and the prequels (which I have not read).
>>> Unlike what one would think from reading this NG, it is possible to like
>>>Frank Herbert, and also like the miniseries (which is so close to the book at
>
>>>times it's almost erie) It's also possible to like Frank Herbert and like
>>>Star Wars and Star Trek. Really it is. Relax. Dune is enjoyable on more
>>>than one level.
>>
>>Well,
>> I got the type of responses I expected.
>
>Yah, trolls usually do.
Beause I express a different opinion I guess I'm a troll?
Vic
<o...@oooo.net> wrote in message
news:3b071dee$0$12277$45be...@newscene.com...
> >
> > They are. 'The Mummy Returns' made $43 Million this past weekend.
> I'm sure I'll enjoy it also as I did the first one.
I saw it. it was fun, in a mindless sort of way. but if I think about it,
"the mummy returns" is a lot like the prequels. it completely butchers the
whole idea and adds very unbelievable plot twists
spoiler space
spoiler space
spoiler space
for those of you who saw the first one...
well in this one you have the Egiptian Queen Anck Su Namun or whatever,
well, she's reincarnated in this chick who looks just like her, and this
chick is trying to resuscitate Imhotep.
But here's the catch. The librarian chick (whatever her name is, Rick
Connor's girlfriend) is ALSO the rerincarnation of an egiptian chick and
also looks just like her. she mgically remembers that she's Nefertiti, the
Pharao's daughter (same pharao who got killed bu Anck su Namun in first
mummy)
that's just crazy.
also, they have these mummies of pigmies in an oasis and those pigmies run
around shooting darts out of little tubes (with their mouths)
what the hell is a pigmy mummy doing in an oasis? Only Anubis knows...
Jeff Teunissen
[snip]
> Oops, there I go, I've used the E word again.
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would have a problem with elitism.
--
| Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/
Juho Julkunen
news:01c0dff4$cfe6d640$e56e8bd1@magdaara...
> Juho Julkunen <juho.j...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in article
> <zohN6.345$9z6....@read2.inet.fi>...
> > > "Maus"
> >
> > "From Hell"
> >
> > "Sandman"
> >
> > JTJ
> I stand corrected. However, can we agree that there is a difference
> between Sandman and Archie comics?
By all means. I won't claim all comics can be classified as art, but
then again, the same goes for novels. And movies. And music. And
everything else.
JTJ
Jacque Strapp
>In article <07kbgt4fu702820n3...@4ax.com>, Monty Burns wrote:
>>On 17 May 2001 18:49:03 -0500, o...@oooo.net wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b01be8a$0$21770$45be...@newscene.com>, o...@oooo.net wrote:
>>>>I know it's fashionable to put down the miniseries in this elite newsgroup,
>>>>outside of this newsgroup it seems that more people appreciate the miniseries
>>
>>>>and the prequels (which I have not read).
>>>> Unlike what one would think from reading this NG, it is possible to like
>>>>Frank Herbert, and also like the miniseries (which is so close to the book at
>>
>>>>times it's almost erie) It's also possible to like Frank Herbert and like
>>>>Star Wars and Star Trek. Really it is. Relax. Dune is enjoyable on more
>>>>than one level.
>>>
>>>Well,
>>> I got the type of responses I expected.
>>
>>Yah, trolls usually do.
>
>Beause I express a different opinion I guess I'm a troll?
Haha, no. If you had been here right after the miniseries came out,
you would have seen that your opinion was quite common. What makes you
a troll is that you post a purposefully inflammatory message, knowing
full well that it will get you flamed, then you whine when you get
flamed.
Juho Julkunen
news:Xns90A6B266B6E9814...@24.4.0.74...
Bah. JP the movie was out in the summer of 1993, was it not? Lost World
the book (which I have unfortunately read) is copyrighted 1995.
And Lost World reads like something tailor-made for Spielberg, right
down to including annoying kids, this time with absolutely no
justification. Crichton even resurrected Ian Malcom, presumably because
he didn't die in the movie. And the chameleon-saurs were probably
included for cool visual effects. That's the most opportunistic
"they're-going-to-make-a-sequel-anyway-so-let's-make-sure-it's-based-on-
my-story" book I've ever read.
But I did like some of the guys earlier stuff.
JTJ
Juho Julkunen
news:3b06d60c....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 23:50:50 GMT, "Richard H. Araujo"
> <rar...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>
> >Juho Julkunen <juho.j...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in article
> ><zohN6.345$9z6....@read2.inet.fi>...
> >> > "Maus"
> >>
> >> "From Hell"
> >>
> >> "Sandman"
>
> "Mr. Punch"
> "Corto Maltese"
>
> Most of Will Eisner's late stuff...
I've been meaning to read them, but haven't really got around to doing
it. Good, then?
<snip thoughts that echo my own>
JTJ
Hardy Hestert
I've just seen the JP3 trailer. It's just more of the same. I liked my
idea better. ;o)
Ty Beard
news:3b071cd0$0$12277$45be...@newscene.com...
Everywhere. I'll not do your reading for you, though. Just leaf through the
glossary at the back. Take a highlighter and note any descriptions of the
castle at Caladan, the palace at Arakeen, etc. Note the technology that
appears in the novel. And so on.
--Ty Beard
Gunnar Harboe
Gang, I'm sorry for the OT posting, but the people who think comic books
are all "Archie comics" could do a lot worse than to check out some of
the recommendations below.
Indeed. "Mr. Punch" is probably Neil Gaiman's best work to date (it's
his own personal favourite). The only question is whether it actually
qualifies as a comic, since the art is mostly photocollages and all the
other weird stuff Dave McKean likes to use for illustrations.
Do read "Corto Maltese", if only for Hugo Pratt's wonderful drawings.
You might want to get a colour version (there is some beautiful
watercolouring if you get hold of the right editions:
<http://www.geo.fmi.fi/~tmakinen/cartoons/books/pratt.shtml>), as the
stark black and white in many printings gets to be a strain on the eyes
after a while.
I don't think anyone else has mastered the *medium* as well as Will
Eisner. When he was working in commercial, mainstream stuff this gave us
some of the most innovative takes on the action comic (The Spirit), but
it's only in his later, often autobiographical work that the extent of
his talent is fully realised. Equally respected in Europe and the
States, in underground 'zines and the superhero factories, the grand old
man just opened his own webpage: <http://www.willeisner.com>
M Merced
Vic <som...@somewhere.con> wrote in message
news:tfFN6.15059$z81.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> <o...@oooo.net> wrote in message
> news:3b071dee$0$12277$45be...@newscene.com...
> > >
> > > They are. 'The Mummy Returns' made $43 Million this past weekend.
> > I'm sure I'll enjoy it also as I did the first one.
>
> I saw it. it was fun, in a mindless sort of way. but if I think about it,
> "the mummy returns" is a lot like the prequels. it completely butchers the
> whole idea and adds very unbelievable plot twists
>
>
> spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> for those of you who saw the first one...
>
> well in this one you have the Egiptian Queen Anck Su Namun or whatever,
> well, she's reincarnated in this chick who looks just like her, and this
> chick is trying to resuscitate Imhotep.
> But here's the catch. The librarian chick (whatever her name is, Rick
> Connor's girlfriend) is ALSO the rerincarnation of an egiptian chick and
> also looks just like her. she mgically remembers that she's Nefertiti, the
> Pharao's daughter (same pharao who got killed bu Anck su Namun in first
> mummy)
It's the Seinfeld approach to the "It's a small space/time continuum! ;)
>
> that's just crazy.
>
> also, they have these mummies of pigmies in an oasis and those pigmies run
> around shooting darts out of little tubes (with their mouths)
>
> what the hell is a pigmy mummy doing in an oasis? Only Anubis knows...
They looked like Zuni dolls auditioning for Trilogy of Terror part whatever.
>
>
ELB
opinion.
Is there any Region 2 DVD's of the miniseries available for UK release yet.
Any help would be appreciated
ELB
"Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:tgi4883...@corp.supernews.com...
Gunnar Harboe
On Thu, 24 May 2001 17:56:19 +0100, "ELB" <nosp...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>I see a wealth of mixed opinions on the miniseries, but wish to make my own
>opinion.
>Is there any Region 2 DVD's of the miniseries available for UK release yet.
>Any help would be appreciated
I'm afraid you're out of luck. The DVDs are not available in R2 format
yet, and a UK release date (of rental video) has been pushed back. IIRC,
the German version should be out some time in June, and may have the
English soundtrack.
Of course, you could (should) buy the R1 DVDs that are readily available
and get your DVD player chipped to play them.
Paul Fedorenko
> the book (which I have unfortunately read) is copyrighted 1995.
"The Lost World" is a book written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle sometime in the
19th century, and predates the Crichton/Spielberg vehicle that ripped off
it's name by a good hundred years. It's also a much better story, and has
more in common with a lousy TV series that's loosely based on it than it
does with a lousy movie that bears it's name. It really pisses me off that
someone would rip off the title of a really neat novel and plaster it on a
lousy one. I mean, what was Crichton thinking?
Paul
Juho Julkunen
news:dcuR6.6574$N02.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
$$$?
I must admit that I quite forgot about the ACD book. I haven't read it,
yet.
JTJ
>
> Paul
>