bluemonday Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Sandworms of Dune Written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson The final book in the Dune series. Frank Herbert died over 20 years ago and they are still trying to make money out of his work. Dune was the Sci Fi equivalent of Lord of the Rings. The writing was superb, the story gripping. What distinguished it was that the protagonists were so well developed and Herberts writing was so descriptive. ( It goes without saying that the original film was a travesty ) Dune was and remains a classic. The same cannot be said for Sandworms. It is a one dimensional shambles of a book. I've read better in a kids comic. A mish mash of many of the startlingly original concepts that Herbert created so lovingly are squandered left right and centre. One dimensional characters, pointless sub plots, an aimless main plot. Ok anyone who has read the original will know the main characters but Sandworms turns them into cardboard cut outs. I first read the original when I borrowed it from my Dads bookshelves. Given that Brian Herbert is Franks son, I'm stunned that he has made such a total mess of what could have been so good. A waste of paper that should never have been published. It does not deserve to be associated with Frank Herbert and Dune. Absolutely terrible.
monitor Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 James Wood will be looking over his shoulder after reading this. dear me!
Cret Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Never got into the books I must admit, but the film was fantastic IMO despite being a financial disaster.
bluemonday Posted December 29, 2007 Author Posted December 29, 2007 I shouldn't be disgreeing with the Kwisatch Haderach lol but I do feel IMO that the original film was a travesty. At the time it came out, most people who had read and loved the book were very disapointed. Major elements left out and some nonsense put in. I'm told that the American mini series remakes are much more faithful to Frank Herberts work but haven't seen them myself yet. Dune is the sort of film Peter Jackson should have a go at.
Cret Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 Don't disagree with any of that mate. Can't comment about missing bits etc from the book but as I can only look at it as a film in it's own right I think it's absolutely brilliant (and slightly disturbing in places). Only bit I can't stand is where Paul Atreides falls down the rocks while being attacked by a worm and it has the most awful 'falling' effect ever! Love it though. I've seen a bit of that series and I thought it was utterly shameful, but each to their own I guess. Could be closer to the books but I couldn't say. Just seemed to be chronic cheese in a bad way!
bluemonday Posted December 31, 2007 Author Posted December 31, 2007 Thanks Cret. Problem is that if you read a book, you visualize what it would look like if you saw it through your eyes. Now with LOTR, the visualization from Peter Jackson was virtually just as I imagined everything would look like. For Dune, it was totally unlike how I imagined it. OK Arrakis was spot on, but the Baron was crudely depicted for example. The Harkonnens were meant to be totally corrupt and depraved but the book depicts this less graphically but more deeply. None of the heart plug nonsense etc. Dune, although in a Sc Fi genre was to my mind, a book mainly about politics, ecology and people. This is what disappointed me. So many elements discarded or given just a cursory nod - stillsuits etc. Having said that, given that Dune and LOTR are both big books and LOTR split naturally into three parts, I'd suppose it was difficult to depict Dune in a single film. Regarding the mini series, I'll bear your comments in mind. You've clearly got a good appreciation of the original Dune so it seems I might be disappointed with the mini series when I eventually get to see it.
Cret Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 Don't be too hasty to dismiss the series purely on the snippet I saw & disliked. Partly, it's the fact that a vast amount of dosh was chucked into that film and it shows in the lavish sets & cast and so on. It just oozes grandeur to me really and it makes it seem a lot more convincing than what I saw of the series which is most likely technically way in advance but lacking the same soul or passion probably - ie everything is done to a cost these days, whereas when the film was done (I think it was Dino De Laurentis?) that went all out & from what I think I recall it pretty much broke him. Partly, I think I'm a bit stuck in an older age of scifi, and seeing things being re-done differently to what I'm used to (telly wise if nothing else hopefully) rattles me a bit. For instance, having grown up revelling in 80s delights such as Glen Larsen goodies like the original Galactica, and Gil Gerrard as THE Buck Rogers (never mind the older stuff), it's what I'm used to. I've managed to get into the Stargate series' but mainly because the wife has them on seemingly constantly. I've always meant to read the Dune series but never got round to it. If I did, I'm sure I would be left gagging for them to make films of the rest of it but would never quite enjoy them given that the cast would not be the same and I'd know of the gaps you speak of. It's the same with LOTR really - I've read the Hobbit more times than I care to remember and I love it, but never read LOTR. When I heard the LOTR films were being made I was gutted it wasn't the Hobbit instead but I thought they were fantastic films (but then I liked PJ originally from Bad Taste & Brain Dead anyway). Oddly enough, I'm sure I heard a snippet today on the radio that he has sorted out whatever scrap he had going with whoever and is now back on for doing the Hobbit. Yay! I know what you mean about the Harkonnens being so graphically portayed as evil though -making them all gingers a thoroughly evil trick! That heartplug stuff does genuinely disturb me though.....
Mission Posted January 1, 2008 Posted January 1, 2008 You know what, it must have taken me 10 goes over a period of probably around 10 years to actually sit through Dune. I don't know what it was (probably a combination of being too tired, too much beer or simply not in the mood) but I was glad I finally did watch it fully, even if it did leave me feeling somewhat lost. Not read the book, might just have to make the effort. I'd agree that a lot of remakes lose the beauty of the originals but when it comes to Galactica, I'd have to disagree completely. I was around when the original series was on the television and although I might have found it cool at the time, I just can't watch it now whereas the remake is oh so dark and lovely and very watchable.
Cret Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 Don't be a simple heathen sapped in by the fact there's more booty on modern Galactica! You're right though, I'd forgotten what a donging long film Dune is. I've managed to resist watching it a year or so but I still find myself shouting, "YOU, RUNNNN!!!" if I see people in a hurry. Sorry, I digress. Anyway, I'm not saying newer stuff isn't better - why wouldn't it be when someone has taken the original and analysed it and thought "So here's how we can add some depth and a bit more darkness and stuff to keep people guessing, whaddaya think Bob?". But completely aside from the sexism of it etc how can you have a girl Starbuck instead of 'Face in space' and an Adama that hasn't appeared in Westerns? It's just wrong. It'd be like having Ginger Spice as Mr T in an A Team movie or something. Jesus, I think I should edit this in case the idea gets seen......
bluemonday Posted January 2, 2008 Author Posted January 2, 2008 I watched BG Razor but it didn't grab me. Having said that, it was a huge improvement on the 70s Bouffant hair and hammy acting/effects of the original. Certainly darker and more people centered, which to my mind is one of the main requirements of any decent Sci Fi - the character/s depth. Having a story full of special effects and no actual depth doesn't work. That's the strong point of Dune. It's centered on the people and not just ships and technology. IMO Babylon 5 ended up as a good person centered series and it was a shame the plug was pulled and the Shadow war element had to be compressed as a result. If PJ does make the Hobbit, that's bound to be a winner. but I still find myself shouting, "YOU, RUNNNN!!!" I do something similar. If I see a crowd listening to someone, I start chanting Muadib! Muadib!
Cret Posted January 3, 2008 Posted January 3, 2008 His name has become a killing word! "BREAK!!" is another favourite.
Bombay Bad Boy Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 I liked PJ originally from Bad Taste & Brain Dead anyway Yay! Check out 'Meet the Feebles' as well.
steven ! Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 I read Dune when I was at Rushen Primary in 1970 when the book was being passed round the school. Prior to that, other than the books we read sentence by sentence aloud in the classroom, I had only read Dick and Dora type books. Seriously. I was amazed by what I was reading and couldn't put the book down. With this new found experience of reading, my expectations were that every book would be as good. Of course they weren't and after trying so many other science fictions books nothing came up to my expectations and I soon gave up trying. I was spoilt really.
bluemonday Posted February 22, 2008 Author Posted February 22, 2008 The original Dune was a benchmark. I think it was the one that finally got Sci Fi into the main market. The stuff from the 40s onward - Asimov - Philip K Dick - Anderson - Bradbury, etc was to my mind, the golden age of Sci Fi. Not to knock the modern stuff but most of it doesn't grab me as much as the 'golden age' writers although Banks, Dean Foster and a few others aren't that bad. If you look at the original Twilight Zone and Outer Limits TV series, a lot of the classic names are on the credits as story writers.
ai_Droid Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 The original Dune was a benchmark. I think it was the one that finally got Sci Fi into the main market. The stuff from the 40s onward - Asimov - Philip K Dick - Anderson - Bradbury, etc was to my mind, the golden age of Sci Fi. Not to knock the modern stuff but most of it doesn't grab me as much as the 'golden age' writers although Banks, Dean Foster and a few others aren't that bad. If you look at the original Twilight Zone and Outer Limits TV series, a lot of the classic names are on the credits as story writers. It's probably an age thing too. There is some superb sci-fi around though, Dan Simmons's stuff like Hyperion is a bloody amazing series, truly epic. I'm working my way through Peter F Hamiltons Nights Dawn Trilogy, it's big and has imperfections but it's very good too. Stephen Donaldsons Gap series is one of the best space operas around, if a bit bleak. But it's an absolute bugger to get hold of. I had to buy the last few books off ebay. Bit of a Fantasy/sci/fi crossover, but I'm liking Neil Gaiman's books too. Heard some good mutterings about Banks latest too.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.