Jodorowsky's Dune

[jollyork]

I've never heard of this failed film, but this looks awesome:

 

 

 

[WestRider]

Just based on what he did with The Incal, I would really love to see what he could do with Dune. I'm so bummed he didn't get to make that.

[JMGraham]

Would have been outstanding.

 

I know I'm in a minority, but I liked what Lynch did. Sure, the sound-guns were a stupid idea, but he really captured the epic Baroque "otherness" of the books. Visually, it was a feast, and I loved what he did with the internal dialogue. 

[Blustorm]

I know I'm in a minority, but I liked what Lynch did. Sure, the sound-guns were a stupid idea, but he really captured the epic Baroque "otherness" of the books. Visually, it was a feast, and I loved what he did with the internal dialogue. 

I watch the Alan Smithee version of his film every few years, when I get a Dune jones. 

 

The Sci-Fi channel version isn't too bad, but it's very apparent the mini-series was lacking a proper effects budget. 

[WestRider]

I feel like the Lynch version was really hit and miss. Some things, especially the overall visual design, were wonderful, but there was other stuff (like, yeah, the sound guns) that was pretty failtastic, and overall, it just didn't feel like it held together.

 

What I really wish is that Jodorowsky had been able to make his version in addition to Lynch's. I'm pretty sure they would have complemented each other interestingly, been bat$#&^ insane in different ways ;)

[JMGraham]

I watch the Alan Smithee version of his film every few years, when I get a Dune jones. 

 

 

Had to google Alan Smithee. Which version do you mean? I remember seeing one of the extended cuts once, and it was great - longer intro narrative, and plenty of new scenes (without the post-production spice-addiction eyes added in). It was great, but I haven't seen it since. Are the longer versions (there are several, it seems) widely available these days?

[Blustorm]

Had to google Alan Smithee. Which version do you mean? I remember seeing one of the extended cuts once, and it was great - longer intro narrative, and plenty of new scenes (without the post-production spice-addiction eyes added in). It was great, but I haven't seen it since. Are the longer versions (there are several, it seems) widely available these days?

 

Evidently, I can't post text from this site, so I will just link to it:

 

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Dune_(1984_movie)

 

Scroll down to near the bottom where it lists versions of the movie. I'm primarily referring to the Extended Edition (as that is what I have on DVD), though I did have a VHS copy of the original Alan Smithee version at one point. 

[jollyork]

I saw the movie before I read the book (HERESY!!!) and I thought the sound guns were awesome. Then I read the book and was like, WTF? the Weirding is martial arts and no sound guns?? Then I realized the book was brilliant and became a fan of both, but especially the worms. 

[DisruptiveConduct]

Jordorowsky's concept art for dune is amazing. Most of it comes up on a google image search.

[Brick Bungalow]

I knew about the Giger sketches but not the whole story. I'm a die hard dune fan so this is definitely added to my collection. 

 

Has anyone watched the 4 hour uncut reel or any of the fan edits? 

[DisruptiveConduct]

there is a documentary out about what happened.

 

http://jodorowskysdune.com/screenings.html

 

screening at the Fox Tower 10 on 4/11. so in just a few weeks. I highly encourage anyone interested buy tickets when you can!

[dkieft]

there is a documentary out about what happened.

Um... The Clip JO posted in the original post was a trailer for the documentary...

 

But, screening news is great!

[fluger]

Would have been outstanding.

 

I know I'm in a minority, but I liked what Lynch did. Sure, the sound-guns were a stupid idea, but he really captured the epic Baroque "otherness" of the books. Visually, it was a feast, and I loved what he did with the internal dialogue. 

 

I just hated the flying Baron.  Which got continued in all the new movies.  Dude doesn't fly, his fat is suspended!

[JMGraham]

I just hated the flying Baron.  Which got continued in all the new movies.  Dude doesn't fly, his fat is suspended!

Hmmm... My beef with Lynch's Baron was that he seemed much more simple minded than the shrewd, cunning manipulator we know and love. Harkonen was a formidable opponent, not a buffoon. With that said, Sting as Feyd was PERFECT, as was Piter. Heck, Kyle was a great choice for Paul. Captain Picard for Gurney... Damn. They cast the hell out of that movie. Alia was awesome, too.

[Brick Bungalow]

I have a few beefs with the sci fi channel version but they nailed the baron. 

[dkieft]

If you could put the cast of Lynch's into the the Sci Fi channels version, you might just have gold.

[Guest]

Huge dune fan. Personally, I think that first book would be near impossible to get right in film. Of the two movies, you get a semblance to what the book is like only after seeing both. The sci-fi channel one does a better job sticking to the core plot, while the older one has a much more impressive use of costumes and sets. Neither get's it right.

 

I do strongly think that the book has far too many non-dialogue, non-action elements to actually create a movie from it. In any given section of the book, you have layers of unspoken dialog. You read what all the characters are thinking, what they think the other characters are thinking and what the bene-gesserit training says that they are thinking.  The older film tries to do this and it feels like a dubbed movie at times. The older film attempts to simplify the bene-gesserit training as psychic abilities, which probably translates better to those that haven't read the books, but is quite annoying for those that have.

 

In the book, the lack of water and spice are stressed far more than in either film. Much of this takes place in characters' thoughts, rather than dialog, but it is very core the book. In reading that book, you find your self thinking about your water-fat flesh more than normal. The book makes you thirsty, or at least makes you think about your water intake.

 

Neither film does a very good job explaining that "thinking machines" are forbidden, hence the great need for spice to create alternate solutions for a lack of non-human computers. In general, I think neither film does a very good job explaining the spice - they both try, but it boils down to a petrol alternative, rather than the drug it is. I'll admit, much of the issue is related to the target audience, which is Americans, whom can't really talk about a crak-like drug that benefits society....at least, not in film.

 

I also think that the classic Sci-Fi theme of all "white" casts really doesn't fit dune very well.

[JMGraham]

Really nicely stated. The focus on water, noticing moisture in the air, water-fat, etc. are totally not picked up by either of the movies.

 

The extended version of the first one, IIRC, did provide information on the Butlerian Jihad, the forbiddence of thinking machines, and the shift to reliance on human Mentats. It was part of the extended intro narrative by Irulan.

I need to rematch the mini series. I remember not being too impressed by it, as it replaced the baroque splendor with a more fashionable aesthetic, but it sounds like I might have focused too much on the visual impact.

 

Hmmmm... The Lynch film came as close to capturing a 40k vibe as most stuff I've seen. The sense of scale, the ornate richness. Just needed a bit more in the way of skulls, and it would've nailed it.

[Yarbicus]

Man, I remember when Lynch's film came out.  My High School friends and I stayed for two showings the first time and I think we saw it 4 times total.  Just so visually stunning and completely unlike anything else at the time.  I do think it lacks real coherency, though.

[xipetotec]

Huge dune fan. Personally, I think that first book would be near impossible to get right in film. Of the two movies, you get a semblance to what the book is like only after seeing both. The sci-fi channel one does a better job sticking to the core plot, while the older one has a much more impressive use of costumes and sets. Neither get's it right.

 

I do strongly think that the book has far too many non-dialogue, non-action elements to actually create a movie from it. In any given section of the book, you have layers of unspoken dialog. You read what all the characters are thinking, what they think the other characters are thinking and what the bene-gesserit training says that they are thinking.  The older film tries to do this and it feels like a dubbed movie at times. The older film attempts to simplify the bene-gesserit training as psychic abilities, which probably translates better to those that haven't read the books, but is quite annoying for those that have.

 

In the book, the lack of water and spice are stressed far more than in either film. Much of this takes place in characters' thoughts, rather than dialog, but it is very core the book. In reading that book, you find your self thinking about your water-fat flesh more than normal. The book makes you thirsty, or at least makes you think about your water intake.

 

Neither film does a very good job explaining that "thinking machines" are forbidden, hence the great need for spice to create alternate solutions for a lack of non-human computers. In general, I think neither film does a very good job explaining the spice - they both try, but it boils down to a petrol alternative, rather than the drug it is. I'll admit, much of the issue is related to the target audience, which is Americans, whom can't really talk about a crak-like drug that benefits society....at least, not in film.

 

I also think that the classic Sci-Fi theme of all "white" casts really doesn't fit dune very well.

 

 

Just to be argumentative. 

 

I read Dune->Children of Dune last month.  The lack of water on Arrakis  rarely actually matters in the plot of the books.  While important to the setting its mainly important to making the fremen want to have a water rich world.  In movies you can show the fact that its a mutherfkin desert, you don't need the words to let people know that, plus you can only squeeze so much plot into a feature film (see Dune as example what happens when you try and squeeze more in). 

 

As for mentats/computers stuff . . . who cares?  It doesnt matter at all in the core of the plot.  Dune is a medieval fantasy set in the far future.  The mentats instead of computers is mostly just a setting thing.  I was arguing this with friends the other night.  Dune isn't a sci-fi book like say Old Man's War or Red Mars, its a fantasy book set in the future.

[Guest]

Just to be argumentative. 

 

I read Dune->Children of Dune last month.  The lack of water on Arrakis  rarely actually matters in the plot of the books.  While important to the setting its mainly important to making the fremen want to have a water rich world.  In movies you can show the fact that its a mutherfkin desert, you don't need the words to let people know that, plus you can only squeeze so much plot into a feature film (see Dune as example what happens when you try and squeeze more in). 

 

As for mentats/computers stuff . . . who cares?  It doesnt matter at all in the core of the plot.  Dune is a medieval fantasy set in the far future.  The mentats instead of computers is mostly just a setting thing.  I was arguing this with friends the other night.  Dune isn't a sci-fi book like say Old Man's War or Red Mars, its a fantasy book set in the future.

wait....if the water and spice don't matter, what is dune about?

[HeroZero]

@pax

"Cyclic destiny caused by humanities inability to grasp the concepts of impermanence and personal meanings overlaid by high religious allegory in a fantasy setting."

 

...well you asked.

[Guest]

@pax

"Cyclic destiny caused by humanities inability to grasp the concepts of impermanence and personal meanings overlaid by high religious allegory in a fantasy setting."

 

...well you asked.

Your own words?

 

Anyway, not sure I agree. I hear what your saying, but that really seems like one way to look at it. I've also heard the dune series refereed to as a transplanted fantasy, though I personally think it reflects modern reality (when it was written modern) often better than it does a fantasy setting - though it could be equally said that most fantasy are based on modern reality and we're full circle. As for the concepts of impermanence, seems like a very complicated way to say the setting wasn't the same when the book ended as when it started....

 

Still, even if what you say is correct and that is what the book is about, which movie actually portrays this?

[JMGraham]

Just to be argumentative.

 

I read Dune->Children of Dune last month. The lack of water on Arrakis rarely actually matters in the plot of the books. While important to the setting its mainly important to making the fremen want to have a water rich world. In movies you can show the fact that its a mutherfkin desert, you don't need the words to let people know that, plus you can only squeeze so much plot into a feature film (see Dune as example what happens when you try and squeeze more in).

As for mentats/computers stuff . . . who cares? It doesnt matter at all in the core of the plot. Dune is a medieval fantasy set in the far future. The mentats instead of computers is mostly just a setting thing. I was arguing this with friends the other night. Dune isn't a sci-fi book like say Old Man's War or Red Mars, its a fantasy book set in the future.

Where's the epic fail/ dislike button?

 

Aside from the fact that water is the key piece of the ecology of Dune (around which the entire frikken plot of the books revolve), water is central to understanding the culture of the planet. The changes that occur after Paul/Leto II work their wonders are all displayed in how water is treated on the planets. The cheap imitation still suits, the water fat, the plants, are all symbols of the degeneration of the culture that made the overthrow of the Padishaw Emperor possible in the first place. All of that makes Leto II even more of the last remnant of old Arakis than would otherwise be possible. The later books are all about how Leto II saves a humankind that doesn't want to be saved, and can't remember it's past enough to realize that it needs to be saved. The books are all about the importance of understanding ones history to understand ones way forward. The treatment of water is the biggest symbol of that.

 

To say that the Bene Gessitrat breeding program, Ixian technology, and Tleilaxu cloning tanks are not Sci Fi is likewise silly.

 

Hey, you did say it to be argumentative, right? :)

[HeroZero]

Your own words?

 

Anyway, not sure I agree. I hear what your saying, but that really seems like one way to look at it. I've also heard the dune series refereed to as a transplanted fantasy, though I personally think it reflects modern reality (when it was written modern) often better than it does a fantasy setting - though it could be equally said that most fantasy are based on modern reality and we're full circle. As for the concepts of impermanence, seems like a very complicated way to say the setting wasn't the same when the book ended as when it started....

 

Still, even if what you say is correct and that is what the book is about, which movie actually portrays this?

Actually my own words.

The best example is probably the directors cut dune movie. It's heavy on theme.

 

JMGraham- you get it. that the main characters all keep trying to save a universe that doesn't want nor deserve to be saved by holding on to the past (or the ideals of an imagined past)