web
counter
 

Taken for a Quantum

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (15)



JohnSchoenherrDune.jpg

Paramount has announced that it has brought on board Pierre Morel to direct the remake of Dune after Peter Berg dropped out of the director’s chair back in November. Morel directed 2008’s Taken and the John Travolta vehicle From Paris with Love that is slated for a 2010 release. Reportedly, Morel plans to stick close to the original novel and the studio is now bumping around for a writer to re-write the script penned by Josh Zetumer, who also wrote Quantum of Solace.

The early rumors were that two directors were in the running: Neill Blomkamp (District 9) and Neil Marshall (The Descent). The fact that both are out now and that the director/writer combo has little connection to science fiction and a lot of background in action films is fairly concerning for anyone who is a fan of the novel. This isn’t Sting in steel underwear bad, or Robert Pattinson playing Paul bad, but it’s definitely not encouraging, especially in combination with the fact that Kevin Anderson and Brian Herbert are listed as technical advisors. I guess it’s inevitable that Brian Herbert is connected since he controls the property rights, but there should be some sort of agency of art protective services that takes intellectual property away from abusive or negligent heirs. Frank Herbert’s enemies could not have devised a more devious and heinous revenge than the crayon his own son has scribbled all over the legacy of Dune. Potential authors: burn your notes lest less talented offspring go rummaging through your attic.

David Lynch’s take was a financial flop and generally loathed by fans of the book while being incomprehensible to those who hadn’t read it. The SciFi Channel put together a miniseries that held truer to the source material and was one of the network’s highest rated broadcasts, making enough buck to launch a second miniseries based off of Children of Dune. But while it was closer to the mark, the miniseries didn’t quite nail the heart of the book.

There is some question as to whether Dune is even filmable if really faithful to the novel, the same sort of argument that used to be made about The Lord of the Rings. The root of the unfilmability is different in the case of Dune though. The Lord of the Rings was long thought unfilmable chiefly because the visual spectacle was impossible to render until the advent of modern CGI, but whether you cared for Peter Jackson’s trilogy or not, it’s hard to argue that its faults derive from some incapacity to visually transform the words into film. Dune on the other hand is certainly filmable at face value. The great sandworms and assortment of science fiction trappings are certainly within the demonstrated abilities of the CGI artists.

But the deep beauty of the novel is in the nuances that are the first casualty of 120 minute run times and test audiences. While Paramount might claim that they are aiming to be true to the book’s ecological message, which they believe has special importance today, are they really willing to faithfully transcribe from the novel? Paul does not go into the desert and fall in love with its stark beauty and native people in a montage and then return to defend their way of life against the big bad empire. He uses the Fremen as a weapon and uses the knowledge of the planet’s ecology to devise a way to destroy it, the ultimate threat to use as leverage against the empire, to put himself on the throne. Dune is not a science fiction epic in which the good guys beat the impossible odds at the end and ride off into the sunset, it is a meditation on the nature of power and heroes. It forces a reckoning, Paul is indisputably a hero, but is the universe really a better place in the wake of his jihad and its billions of dead across hundreds of worlds?

Ron Moore. $100 million. Twenty hours. That’s the sort of arrangement it would take to make Dune work on screen. The guy who did Taken gets two hours and the script’s already being rewritten? I’ll just reread my dogeared paperback.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



"Doctor Who: Confidential" Clips | Updates on Remakes of "The Thing" and "The Orphanage"









Comments

while being incomprehensible to those who hadn’t read it.

Only if they're also idiots.

Posted by: Jay at January 5, 2010 10:37 AM

Despite sort of enjoying Lynch's interpretation of Dune (I saw it before reading the book), I've always felt that Dune was unfilmable. The beauty of Dune is the plots within plots, the cool characters, the dialogue, the ideas, the details, the concepts. It's the little things that really make it great. I don't think that stuff can really come across well in 120 minutes of screen time.

LOTR, on the other hand, is more about the big, sweeping epic tale and locations. The characters aren't all that complex. The dialogue in the books is, well, what it is. Those books were crying to be made into films once the techonology was there to do it right.

I think I'll pass.

I love Dune. I think I read two of the sequels and started on the third, but, if memory serves, the third took place like 3000 years in the future. While, Herbert did a bang up job of writing a character who had lived for 3000 years, I didn't really enjoy being in the character's presence and never finished it.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at January 5, 2010 10:38 AM

Dune requires HBO miniseries treatment à la A Song of Ice And Fire.

Posted by: Scully at January 5, 2010 10:48 AM

I liked Lynch's Dune, but I've never read the books, so that's probably why. I'm one of the 3 people in the world who actually likes to hear internal monologues and (usually, not always) narration/voiceovers, so that worked for me.

Also, Sting in metal underwear = hot. That part on my VHS tape got worn out from constant rewinding. I think Dune, in that respect, might be the only sci-fi movie in existence to contain scantily-clad hot guys more often than scantily-clad slutty chicks, which in itself is kind of an achievement.

And while Sci-fi's miniseries may've hit closer to the books, which is incredibly important, I thought their casting was horribly mediocre, there was no real "heart" in the production, and that they spent 90% of their budget money on funny hats, so that's STILL no fun. Didn't even bother watching the sequel miniseries, except for a few minutes here and there.

Good luck, Dune fans. The rest of us other-book fans are currently seeing OUR favorites boned, so I suspect you won't end up any better than the rest of us. I'll bring a torch when it comes time to burn down Hollywood and start over.

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at January 5, 2010 10:52 AM

Ignorance, here: who's Ron Moore?

I saw Lynch's Dune before reading the novel. I liked both for their own unique reasons. The heroic rock theme music that plays in Lynch's movie is epic and makes the whole movie worth watching. I'm a sucker for anything Lynch, though.

Posted by: gunnertec at January 5, 2010 11:27 AM

Herbert's words painted a wondrous universe in my mind that no amount of CGI will ever duplicate but more importantly, the complexity of the plot and the subtle nuances you mentioned cannot be captured in a two hour film. Remove those elements and you have an action movie, enjoyable to some but not anything I'd care to see.

Posted by: Spender at January 5, 2010 11:35 AM

Somehow, Dune is completely off my radar. I only know that a movie with Sting exists, and that's since I just read it.
There are big worms too? Like Beetlejuice?

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at January 5, 2010 11:39 AM

The fact that the double-penetrating tandem of Herbert and Anderson is involved guarantees that I will never see this movie. I read their last teabagging of Mr. Herbert's legacy and have sworn off of them forever. I was so pissed I even wrote a review of it pre-cannonball. If you're interested:

http://welcometostabbymart.blogspot.com/2009/10/i-wish-i-knew-how-to-quit-you.html?zx=e83cc2fba79be1c0

I don't know how to make pretty links.

Posted by: admin at January 5, 2010 11:40 AM

ENOUGH! Lynch's was a cult classic in its own merits and the mini series dealt with all the themes. Nobody is asking for yet ANOTHER trip to that universe.

/doomed to fail and rightly so

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at January 5, 2010 11:41 AM

Agreed on the Lynch Dune's awesomeness. The SFX were awesome for the time, and had they the ability to "fix" all the blue screen outline problems from the 80's I'd say it'd be much better than a re-release. No wait, it IS better than a re-release. There is no way they can get as good a cast as then (I thought Sting did a terrific job- "I will kill him!"- awesome line); Kyle Mac might have been a poor fit, but nearly everyone else was superb. That being said, a really well done Dune in IMAX 3-D would kick ass.

Posted by: EJ at January 5, 2010 3:01 PM

For me, the Lord of the Rings proved that some novels are unfilmable, even if you can turn it into a hit, because if you go and film them, you will make us suffer for ten hours of people walking, three years of the worst kind of nerdy hype, years and years of bad movies about people screaming with swords in slow motion with a background chorus, and one generation of kids that were named Aragorn and Frodo by nerdy parents who felt they could go out of the closet because now their weirdness was mainstream.

So, no, just quit, I don't really know what Dune is, but if it's taken so long to film it succesfully it's because it's not supposed to happen, and when it does happen we are all gonna pay.

Posted by: zito at January 5, 2010 5:07 PM

Dune is my favorite book. Others in this thread have done a good job elaborating why. The Lynch movie was not good, nor were the special effects especially good for the time. Paul was woefully miscast. A two hour movie is doomed to fail for book fans, so I am not disappointed with the currently attached writer and director. If you can't make a real sci fi (sorry, science fiction) movie out of it you might as well make an action movie since you have a greater chance of success under those terms. I'll be ignoring it though.

Posted by: ed newman at January 5, 2010 9:25 PM

"He IS the Kwisatz Haderach!"

Little girl + red hair + bloody dagger + knowledge of infinite lifetimes = creepiest thing ever

Posted by: superasente at January 5, 2010 10:33 PM

Each of the Dune movies had their own pros and cons... I'm not sure any sort of rehash will be able to top what has already been dispensed.

Posted by: tsavo at January 6, 2010 12:02 AM

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found Herbert's son's books offensive. His stories are as hamhanded as Eragon or some other tweener novelette.

I like the first Dune movie for the most part. I think the acting was pretty decent, if a little awkward at times. As for unfilmable, I think Lynch's voice-over scenes helped a little with the nuances, but not nearly enough.

Only seen stills of the tv series, but the actors looked miscast and clunky compared to Lynch's cast.

Posted by: protoguy at January 7, 2010 3:35 AM