In December 2000, the Science Fiction Channel (later renamed Syfy) was launched Frank Herbert’s Dunes, an ambitious three-part miniseries.science fiction writer Raj Khanna He was a recent college graduate when he first watched the show.
“I remember it coming out, and I honestly remember that the sci-fi channel was big at the time,” Khanna said in episode 515 Geek Guide to the Galaxy podcast. “It was before this geek stuff was all over the place. In a way, it was kind of like, ‘This is for us’.”
The budget is $20 million, Frank Herbert’s Dunes It’s an ambitious project for the fledgling network. The series won an Emmy for special effects and was one of the channel’s most-watched shows.But TV writers Andrea Kyle Modern audiences won’t be completely blown away by the show’s production value, warns. “I have a very clear memory of one particular shot of Jessica and Paul escaping the flapper, running in place in front of a bad green screen,” she said. “It’s like watching a play that’s being filmed. It’s not a movie, it’s a play that someone is pointing a camera at.”
Geek Guide to the Galaxy host David Barr Kirtley Agreed that the show has issues, but he likes a subplot involving Princess Irulan, a secondary character in the novel that was omitted entirely recent movies. “dune It’s a combination of “Space Opera Court Intrigue” and “Hippie” Lawrence of Arabia,'” he said. “It’s two elements. I prefer the conspiracy of the Space Opera Court. [Irulan’s] The storyline continues the plot of the space opera court throughout the story, so I really like it. “
science fiction writer Matthew Cressel Indicates that the quality of the underlying material will shine regardless of any rough edges. He especially likes how the series captures the texture of the novel. “Of course I like Villeneuve’s film, but it’s a very cult film,” he said. “I feel like there’s something in the series that takes the time to tell the story, and I respect that.”
Listen to the full interview with Rajan Khanna, Andrea Kail and Matthew Kressel in Episode 515 Geek Guide to the Galaxy (above). And check out some highlights from the discussion below.
Andrea Kyle Frank Herbert’s Dunes Compared dune (1984):
this [miniseries] Make the Lynch version look like the Denis Villeneuve version, and the Lynch version make the Villeneuve version look like a movie delivered by the hand of God. That’s how it holds up everything else… [Lynch version] It’s a terrible movie, but if it ever comes out, I’ll never stop watching it. It’s a bad movie, but it’s very bad. I always sit and watch because it’s a spectacle. this?I love dune, but I won’t sit down and watch this again. Can you see the difference?This [Lynch version] It’s visually interesting, and there’s a lot to do.It’s not something I’d like to see again, and I’m dune Fanatic.
Matthew Kressel on special effects:
There are places where they don’t even do matte painting, they just have a background and they unfold behind the actors. It’s an odd choice because maybe they don’t have the money for a matte painting, but at this point they definitely have a green screen. So I’m super curious about that… we’re spoiled with special effects today. They are fine and everything looks real. It’s flawless. But we kind of forget that’s true, it’s really hard to pull off.even star warswith such a big budget, you look at the original — not the remake — and it’s like, “Yeah, the Death Star is a model.” You can tell by the close-up.
David Barr Kirtley Frank Herbert’s Dunes Compared dune (2021):
The Villeneuve films basically don’t explain anything. “Mentas? Don’t worry. Guild navigator? Don’t worry, it doesn’t matter.” It just focuses on telling a compelling emotional character story.This [miniseries] Trying to explain more of the world building, which is pretty bad in many ways – dramatic – but I feel like if you watch this, you actually know more about the world and what’s going on in the book than you do in Villeneuve’s The movie – a million times better, but it’s a trade-off between dramatic effect and world-building interpretation.
Rajan Khanna on adaptation:
I think this [miniseries] Being faithful to a book can be one example of a pitfall, because what you end up with is a box-checking exercise, not a lot of life. All great adaptations condense things, mix things together, cut things out. Lord of the Rings Widely regarded as an amazing adaptation, they cut all kinds of things. There’s always someone saying, “Tom Bombadil!” But Tom Bombadil needs to go…you have to make those choices. I think it’s an example of loyalty, but also bland, without much heart or energy.So I wouldn’t recommend this to anyone but hardcore dune historian.
More great Wired stories