On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:06:35 -0400, hk wrote:


I was working on something late last night and had DVR'd the movie Dune,
which I had not watched in many years.

Which one - the Koop version (1973), the Lynch version (1984) or the
Harrison version (TV-2000)?

I thought the movie was absolutely fascinating. Not as "high tech" as
the Lucas or Spielberg sci-fi, but with some interesting effects, an
actual plot, a beginning, a middle, and an end, and with some really
heavy ideas.

Yet, I recall the movie was panned when it came out.

Ah - must be talking about the Lynch version.

Not really - "Dune" fans panned it as not being "true" to Herbert's
vision, but overall it was well received and resulted in David Lynch's
rise in Hollywood. Lynch's version, for it's day, was very much ahead
of it's time visually.

The problem with "general" acceptance was that it wasn't "Star Wars"
with all the visual gimmicks - it was much too character driven with a
smattering of visual eye candy. Plus Lunch was limited by budget
which crimped his style.

The Harrison version was simply gorgeous visually and it stayed
faithful to the novel (which I managed to slog through - it's tough
reading much like George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" silly
pretentious social commentary drivel thinly disguised as a fantasy
series ever published).

Another more recent sci-fi I like a lot is The Chronicles of Riddick,
for much the same reasons. Yet this one, too, did not get strong
reviews, if memory serves.

That's because it sucked compared to "Pitch Black" which was the first
Riddick movie. The whole concept was muddled in "Chronicles" and the
story/plot holes between the two are glaring.

"Pitch Black" is much better.

You want to see some interesting early scifi, look up "Silent Running"
(1972) with Bruce Dern.

That is early scifi at it's best.