"Scytale's friends are laughing and wildly rolling marbles under their hands as they watch Scytale sing through eighteen mouths in eighteen heads strung together with flesh that is like a flabby hose. The heads are singing all over the pink room. One man opens his mouth and a swarm of tiny people stream out singing accompaniment to Scytale. Another man releases a floating dog which explodes in mid-air causing everyone to get small and lost in the fibers of the beautiful carpet."
I thought the Giedi Prime scenes were pretty strange, but Lynch was apparently in a "hold my beer" mood.
Is a film only worth making if it stays accurate to the author’s vision?
The books exist and can still be read after films are made. The movie must stand on its own merits. If the filmmakers have their own vision that might make a better film.
Of course, there is no guarantee the film will be good, no matter what…
Most films based on books are made only to cash in on the name and preexisting audience of the book.
Consequently, most films based on a book are worse than the book.
Neither Dune film is an exception to this. I'd rather just read the book again than watch either film. And if you're someone who has never read the book, and indeed has no desire to read the book, then why do you even need a "Dune" film made for you?
What's truly sad about Hollywood is the complete lack of original film ideas.
Agreed. I think some of those films can be enjoyed on its own merits, but having read the book just makes it more difficult. One can't help but watch through the lens of the book.
It's a hard decision for those making a movie, you either push for your own vision and risk alienating book readers, or you are faithful and risk making something soulless and derivative.
Of course there are exceptions. But I think the majority of exceptions lies on directors adapting unknown books (like Hitchcock), or perhaps books with less-rabid fanbases.
It should at least be related. World War Z bears little resemblance to the book, to the point that basically the only thing they have in common use the name and the fact that they both have zombies in them.
Not to derail the thread, but I thought WWZ was such a missed (both artistic and commercial) opportunity, by not following the structure of the book. They could have made a whole anthology of stand-alone films, each detailing a different element of the world / apocalypse. There was more than enough material for an entire franchise, they just needed to aim a little lower with each film.
The movie we got was _blah_, but does have one of the most visceral moments I've seen in any zombie flick: the bit where Brad Pitt stands on the edge of the roof, counting down the seconds until he'll know whether he's been infected or not.
People are replying asking "Why call it Dune then? (If it does not have anything to do with the books)".
That wasn't what I was talking about – some imaginary filmatisation which has nothing to do with the book. I was talking about not staying true to the "author's vision". You can make a Dune movie in many ways. You can have the same characters, ornithopers and main events, while having a completely different vision for it.
Dune is also a book full of ideas. You can play up many different angles – ecological aspects, loyalty to leaders, political drama, religious fanaticism, etc. – while still being very much a Dune filmatisation. And a film maker can put their own spin on any of those, or bring up their own topics which makes sense to treat within the Dune framework.
Sure, for the money people, being a Dune filmatisation means people will see it because they know that Dune is a famous book (irrespective of weather they read it). But only die hards who have read the book (and have a very immature view of film as a medium) would judge it for how true it stays to the author's vision. The rest will be happy if it is a good movie.
Note also that Lynch's Dune influenced the later books!
Verhoeven's Starship Troopers was not Heinlein's vision, but it is a glorious and hilarious satire of Heinlein's vision. "Accuracy" was obviously not the point.
I love Verhoeven’s work (though haven’t seen it all).
Did you know that Robocop was an allegory for an American Christ?
Troopers is a wonderful pastiche. With half an analytical brain you see the anti-propaganda, anti-militarism, anti-jingoism, and general poking of fun at Heinlein’s ideas in what on the surface appears to be yet another brainless action movie.
Heinlein had very diverse ideas that he presented in his various works via very different POV characters. If you reduce his book to propaganda, militarism and jingoism, you likely don't see the bigger picture.
I thought the Giedi Prime scenes were pretty strange, but Lynch was apparently in a "hold my beer" mood.