This is also what happens when you re-write the core story to match a Political Correctness agenda. The producers should’ve taken a note from Denis Villeneuve’s treatment of Dune, the source book should be the Bible and you don’t mess with it.
There's lots of literary attributes which may make a series easier or harder to adapt, but, just like Dune used to be called unfilmable for the heavy monologue, length, and nonverbal components, a director with a vision can overcome them.
If an experienced film creator made such claims then it’s worth listening. Otherwise these sorts of comments are just noise.
There isn't a lot of imagery described in his books (not that I would see it anyway) but that doesn't mean it couldn't be presented visually while keeping to the spirit, just that Asimov probably couldn't have done it. Good writers and directors could.
If given the Villeneuve or Kubrick treatment it might be very different.
https://archive.org/details/foundationtrilogythe--bbc1973rad...
It's one thing to acknowledge the flexibility required in converting a story from novel to film. It is another to change the entire message, character motives and morals while merely retaining the surface plotlines.
For what it's worth, having read ten chapters of Dune after watching the amazing 2021 film, I can say they did a fantastic job capturing the spirit and the core storyline of the book.
I believe there was a radio show adaptation done by the BBC.
If the portrayal of Kynes was "a forgetabble "generic strong woman"", didn't that apply to (at the very least) both Gurney and Duncan also?
It seems that you wanted to see a different film than the one Villeneuve wanted to make.
Yes, although to a lesser degree for Duncan.
> It seems that you wanted to see a different film than the one Villeneuve wanted to make.
I’m not talking about how the film did or didn’t match what I wanted, I’m simply refuting that “the source book should be the Bible and you don’t mess with it” applies to Villeneuve’s Dune.
Kynes was perhaps a critical but yet very minor character in the novel and arguably was a forgettable character. The reason it may seem otherwise is that Kynes was first portrayed by that notorious show-stealer Max von Sydow.
Casting a Black female actor instead in the role of Kynes is merely license as opposed to and starkly contrasted with the sacrilege of Liv Tyler stealing all of Glorfindel's thunder.
I thought Sharon did a fantastic job as Kynes, one of the more naturalistic performances in the whole movie.
* spoiler alert
I don't think it's very likely there would be some black Fremen and some mediterranean looking ones in the same sietch. Even if the planet was colonized with a diverse population, it would have been blended out by the time the events Dune take place.
But also it's soft sci fi so tons of things already aren't realistic. Ethnicities are a weird one to get hung up on.
They made Jessica into a physical fighter, converted Liet Kynes into a black lady, excised the distinctive word 'jihad' to refer to Paul's vision of war. They removed the Baron's homosexuality and sexual perversion and changed his servant boys into (bald) servant girls, etc.
The damage wasn't too bad all things considered, but in Dune 2021's case the source book was not the Bible and it was definitely messed with.
Probably because at the time Dune was written, people conflated those things in a way that caused a lot of harm to people not interested in harming children. Seems highly reasonable not to feed a trope like that.
It seems to me that that catholic priests abusing choir boys or the "bacha bazi" practice in Afghanistan are still shocking everybody.
However this movie has been made in 2021. People who fail to make the distinction today are few and far between, except maybe in the extreme Christian Right or Fundamentalist Islam. Somehow, I don't think those are the target groups for the movie or book.
IMHO the filmmakers wanted to "protect" (if you allow me such an expression) the "cause" of homosexuality by using preventative narrative censorship. However, a trope cannot be fed if next to nobody understands it in that way, under that specific context. Most of the audience would completely gloss over his homosexuality. Even homophobes are "used to it" now.
This is precisely why I think they did a disservice to the work to pander to modern virtues and little gain. The audience/readers are supposed to find the Baron to be the most execrable human-adjacent being they have ever heard about.
The author wanted to drive us to despise him. In only watching the show, you are robbed of the necessary substrate for that emotion to arise. His evil was abstracted.
Reread chapter 31. Jessica bested Stilgar in a physical fight the same as the movie.
Jessica was demoted in the movie. She was far stronger in the book. I didn't understand why until I read this review. https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/10/dune
Jessica should be a terrific fighter since she is a Bene Gesserit https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Bene_Gesserit#Powers_and_Abilit....
I don't agree with this take that it was modified to satisfy PC morality. There were a lot of criticism that Dune is white mesiah for arabs in space. Imagine a change where black Paula together with her partner Chani and Fremen overthrow the male dominated Landsraad.
The movie is basically in line with the books in terms of story: it's not about a hero saving the world; Paul is not an-Aragorn like figure, he is manipulating and taking advantage of prophecies put in place in the collective mind by the Bene Gesserit, in order to further his own goals.
That's probably for the best, because that term would have quite different baggage for the average viewer in the 2020s than it would have for the average reader in the 1960s.