Talk:Frank Herbert's Dune

Please Note

When editing this article, please only compare it's "accuracy", or lack thereof, to the original source material: Namely - the 1965 Hugo award winning novel written by Frank Herbert. Do not use material from the video games, the 1985 movie, or any of the various other things that have called themselves "Dune". If we keep it clean, the issues we run across will be a lot fewer and far less complicated. Rapier1 (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Deleted the following sentence for obvious reasons: "The mini-series is short on special effects, but the acting is superb. The mini-series also has a number of excruciatingly beautiful actresses." Zainker 18:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

While the sentence shouldn't have been in as is, something about the special effects and acting should probably go back in. One of the main interesting points of the miniseries is that it's widely considered a lot better than one would expect given its budget, since the special effects are fairly minimal (often using painted backdrops, for example). --Delirium 11:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, added Info about the emmy awards which should cover the sfx-issue. Not sure about the acting though, while I personally agree that the actors did a good job, I haven't found much to elevate that claim from simple personal opinion to a supported fact.Zainker 16:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Blue Eyes

"...in the miniseries, you can still see the iris and whites of the eyes, but in the book heavy spice addiction makes the eye look like a solid blue ball.."

This sentence seems strange to me. As far as I can tell, it's actually the opposite. Herbert described the eyes as having "no whites in them," which would imply that the iris and pupil can still be seen. But in the miniseries the eyes are almost completely blue and almost glowing. Where is it written in the books that the eyes are completely blue with no iris or pupil? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.216.192 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. That's why I'm deleting that part.

Devil Master, 09 Jul 2006, 11:00 (MET)

'Fedaykin' Comment

I'm yet to watch the miniseries, so I cannot clarify this paragraph myself, but the comment about the pronunciation of 'Fedaykin' is confusing and seemingly contradictory (and possibly a bit POV). It explains that there is contention between fans on which is the correct pronunciation, explains that the TV series uses a Western pronunciation compared with the film's Arabic-derived pronunciation (which I don't remember), then says in parentheses that the 'correct' pronunciation is (what reads to me as) an almost phonetical Western approach, while 'the characters' (it's not specified whether the movie or TV series is being referred to) say it as 'Fed-die-kin.' No matter how many times I read it, I get lost about halfway through.

It also opens with "Contentions about the correct pronunciation of 'Fedaykin' aside," immediately before launching into a treatise on the correct pronunciation of 'Fedaykin.' Which is strange.

It just reads badly. I'll take care of this myself once I've seen the series, but I can't say when this will be, so it'd be nice if somebody else could do it.

And I realise the hypocrisy within my first sentence, since it's possibly the most nightmarish thing I've ever written. :)

-Gwilym (202.36.174.66 02:41, 15 June 2006)

(That was me, on a public computer - I didn't want to put my password in.) --Gwilym 04:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at what that section looked like before my last edit (May 20). For one thing, it asserted that the pronunciation was changed because it sounded too similar to "fedayeen." However, I wondered whether this was a known fact, or just someone's personal surmise. The miniseries also changed the Lynch-film pronunciations of words like Harkonnen and Chani, even though the new pronunciation sounds like "Cheney." I did a Google search, and I didn't turn up anything about the pronunciation being changed to avoid association with the fedayeen, just pages wondering why the heck the miniseries pronounced it the way it did. So I deleted that sentence.

If you take a look at http://www.usul.net/books/sounds.htm, it becomes clear that the pronunciation used in this version was taken directly from Herbert's pronunciations. So the idea about separating the pronunciation from the Lynch film was, likely, just supposition. Herbert, as noted in the entry for Chakobsa, changed definitions of arabic words slightly to suggest the passage of time. He likely did the same thing with pronunciation, but of course we can't put that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnstonMR (talk • contribs) 01:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I also added the part about Paul and Irulan. This section (and the article, too, apparently) was started by someone who considered Lynch's movie a faithless abomination, and the miniseries a true adaptation. It had the bizarre tunnel vision common among the Lynch-loathers, nitpicking about the color of Fremen eyes and the pronunciation of fedaykin, rather than pointing to any substantive issue. I really think that the main reason that there are people who think the miniseries is "more faithful" is that it doesn't have those weirding modules.

When you do see the miniseries, there is a Sci-Fi cut and an extended version. I've only seen it on Sci-Fi. For instance, in the Sci-Fi version, the traitor doesn't appear until he jumps out and tells Leto he is betraying him. (I remember him in a crowd shot, but this is his first speaking role.) The extended cut adds at least one scene with him in it. --Groggy Dice 20:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just about to watch the last episode now - unfortunately, it's the edited version. Personally, I do not like the adaptation (or basically anything about it), and it strenghtens my view that the book is unadaptable* - but that's not what's being discussed here. I'll give your paragraph a bit of a rewrite once I'm done, though. --Gwilym 03:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• that said, I do greatly enjoy the Lynch film and several of the computer games on their own merits - but only when viewed in a fan-fiction light.

Irulan

Now, in this article, it states that Irulan was only involved in one scene of the book. I don't have the book with me (it's about 1500 miles away at the moment), but I can recall several scenes with her present. She was present during the dinner celebration of House Atreides's coming to Arrakis, she traveled to Geidi Prime during the middle of the book, and she was with the Imperial entourage at the end. If I'm wrong, then I guess the article should remain as it is, but if I'm right, I think this should be modified. --Sidhebolg 00:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Irulan was in those scenes (and more) in the miniseries, but not in the book (just the end, where Paul negotiates to marry her). It feels like she's everywhere because of the epigraphs, but she's not. TAnthony 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Move this page?

Perhaps this page should be moved to "Frank Herbert's Dune (TV miniseries)". That's what it was officially called, and this article even refers to it as that! Maxdave2010 17:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The DVD set I have has "Dune" as the title on the box, with "William Hurt in Frank Herbert's" in small print above the title. The actual disks themselves say "Frank Herbert's" (in tiny plain font) "Dune" (in big stylized font). Avt tor 11:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also a "POV push" name intended to convey the message that the miniseries was a faithful adaptation (and the movie wasn't). It would be ridiculous to add "Frank Herbert's" to the entry name of a miniseries made after his death, when it's not on the novel that he wrote, or even the film he participated in making and publicly praised and defended. It's marketing, just like mentioning William Hurt most prominently, even though he didn't have the biggest role. Also, every other reference I know catalogs it under Dune. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the "Frank Herbert's" in the title is a technicality, no move for now. TAnthony 15:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The swords/knives issue

Come on, that's enough editing and re-editing. Discuss it here before you waste each other's time. And for goodness' sake, leave the paragraph saying one thing or the other, or neither - but not both. Right now we've got one of those classic Wikipedia schizoid paragraphs that argues with itself. It's surreal to read. --Gwilym 07:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Other departures from the novel

I think another departure from the novel is the use of red costumes for the harkonnen, who originally had blue costumes. While it may be to make is "easier" for people to distinguish who the "bad guys" are by making them red, I still think it was unnecessary and worth mention. They were also very "psuedo-japanese," with samurai face masks and such. Just take a look at these concept drawings, http://www.duneinfo.com/miniseries/costumes/ . Lol, click on Duke Leto sure am glad it was not taken that far! However, in these drawings the harkonnen suit again shows that "japanese" influence along with several other costumes but it is blue at least. I kind of thought that the "noble houses feudalism" concept seemed far more European influenced to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.44.100 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 March 2007

Minor creative/conceptual choices such as these are notable/infuriating to fans like us, but really not notable enough to mention in the article. Any adaptation will make (and has made) these types of "innacuracies." TAnthony 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks I am glad someone can relate! Okie dokie then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.44.100 (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Bold text

The Eyes, and other issues with this mini-series

I personally never really liked this mini-series, though I suppose I like it alot more than that god-awful "Children of Dune" mini-series, which is so horrible in so many ways that if I were to list all of the inaccuracies and severe departures from true "Dune" canon I would fill up this entire page.

Although the 1999 "Dune mini-series" is admirable, it is does not in any way come close to the grandeur and opulence of the book, and there are a few things I would like to point out that are just inforgivable with regard to departure from Dune canon.

One thing that I have problem with was the scene in which Paul asks Dr. Huey about the eyes of the native peoples of Arrakis - the movie essentially informs the audience that only the natives of Arrakis (or those who live there for an extended period of time) have the "blue within blue" eyes, evidence of addiction to the spice melange. In the books, any person addicted to melange has such eyes, regardless of the planet they inhabit. Many of the Bene Gesserit, including the Reverened Mother Mohiam, among others, had them (eyes like glittering jewels), as well as Mentats, and royalty. There is a passage in the novel where the Baron comments on Piter's "melange eyes". The Emperor Shaddam IV is even addicted to it, so would he not have the eyes?

The woman who playes the Reverened Mother Mohiam was badly cast. I always thought that Sian Phillip's performance in the 1984 film was excellent, particularly in her first scenes.

Another is Thufir Hawat's comments on his issue with the Bene Gesserit. In the mini-series, Thufir says "I am a mentat, I trust logic and statistics, not myticism and prophecy". Any person intimately familiar with Dune canon who does not allow the mini-series to violate thier knowledge knows that there are many things wrong with this comment.

Another is that ridiculous looking navigator, who looks more like a giant bat than a morphed human (though not as ridiculous as the navigator in the 1984 Dune movie). The way the navigator is designed on the "Hunters of Dune" novel cover is dead on on how they should look - [1], and I must say, that they NEVER leave thier tanks!!!!

I am not sure if anyone else noticed this, but the fremen in the mini-series have many different accents - some have British, some Russian, some Scottish.....

I dont recall if it was ever discussed in any of the original Dune novels if it was a mystery, or something recently discovered, as to how the spice melagne is produced. The new Dune novels devote alot of time to the planetologists very recent (within the time scale of the original Dune novel) discovery of how the worms create melange. The mini-series has a scene in which Paul is getting a "hologram lesson" which says that there is no known relationship between the worms and the spice melange. I always found this to be a little ridiculous - considering teh amount of time it took to evolve the process of harvesting the spice from the desert grounds, and the incredible technology of the time, how could this be such a mystery? --Mrlopez2681 14:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually wondering what all these severe departures from the novels are that you speak of; I am as picky as any Dune fan but most differences seem minor to me, and expected in an adaptation. Regarding the eyes, it is stated in the novels that off-Arrakis people use contact lenses to hide their addictions (see the Melange article), and as nice as it would be to make this clear to the audience, it's a minor detail that just eats up more screen time. And at the point when Paul gets the "hologram lesson" no one realizes the connection between the worms and the spice; they just seem to be an annoyance. Kynes does know, however, and Paul later guesses. TAnthony 15:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with TAnthony, above. This was an adaptation, which means that it is one person's vision of the book. No two people will have identical visions, and translating a noveel to a visual medium is always challanging, necessitating some minor changes for various reasons. However, with the possible exception of casting (Francessca Annis as Lady Jessica comes to mind immediately) in no way does the 1984 film trump this adaptation in any way whatsoever. Two words: Wierding Modules! Rapier1 (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Making Spice

Re: Mrlopez2681 asking about novels "....how the spice melange is produced" I recall (memory only) that the production of spice as part of the life cycle of the 'Maker' was discussed in great detail in the original Dune novel. I should say that this level of detail, rather common in novels (particularly Sci Fi novels), would likely NEVER be included in a movie media. It would take far too long and probably be incredibly boring. And expensive. In Dune (novel) it is made clear that Arrakis is not closely monitored/scanned by satellite because the Fremen are 'bribing' the spacers Guild to stop satellites. It is also stated that there was the anti-technology/computer Butlerian Jihad at some point. So perhaps the 'technology' needed actually doesn't exist(anymore).

Movie Adaptation

I find the main story is usually intact in a movie adaptation, but sub-plots that add a lot to a novel, providing explanation and 'back-story', are/have to, be dropped simply because you need a mini series to really tell a story the size of Dune. Rapier, I wouldn't call these minor changes. But people love their novels. Remove their favourite minor character/scene/subplot and you are in for a shit fight. I recall noticing (Lynchs' 1984 Dune movie) that the fight with Jamis/Body Water recovery/Taking over Jamis' family repsonsibilities, (where Paul really learned how precious the Fremen considered water to be) was missing. I thought that was an important scene. I think this was restored to later movie versions? Certainly it's in the TV mini-series.

Eyes

COST is determining factor in most decisions. In Dune (series) I think they may have been fluorescent contact lenses, as I recall they had an odd 'glowing' look. Also seemed to dissapear if looking away from the camera. I recall that the TV mini-series after Dune dropped the blue eyes due to cost(?). Or were they actually CGI (computer generated) Still costly.

I don't think any of the versions had the Emperor as a Spice Addict, so blue eyes weren't needed. However, it would have added to the reasons the Emperor colluded to destroy the Artreides Clan.

Not just the:

• Political (Leto too popular)
• Profit (Emperor has large spice company (CHOAM) stocks)
• Shorter life span (and what is spice withdrawal like?)

And later on

• Political? Revelation of the truth about the Sardaukars origins
• Access to the Fremen as an army superior to the Sardaukar (When they realise what good warriors the Fremen are)

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Page move (revisited)

The official title of this series is "Frank Herbert's Dune". I don't see any good reason in the old discussion above to keep it at "Dune". It is not POV to include the "Frank Herbert's"- it's part of the title. It is at best inaccurate, and at worst POV, to exclude the "Frank Herbert's", since it's part of the title. I defy you to find a single mention of this production as simply "Dune" from any official source (e.g. Sci-Fi channel)- it's always called "Frank Herbert's Dune", because that's it's name.

This business about including the author's name is, I believe, both a marketing stunt, and a copyright two-step that's common in the film business (though I couldn't find a reference specific to this production). This way they didn't have to acquire the rights for a film named "Dune", which I assume are still owned by DeLaurentiis et al (or somebody involved with the new proposed project). See also Bram Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelly's Frankenstein for the same trick (and note their article titles).

Children of Dune (TV miniseries) also needs to be moved to Frank Herbert's Children of Dune, but I'll save that for another day. Staecker (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK then- it's moved. Staecker (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I ran across a page linking to Dune (TV Mini-Series), I thought I'd add a redirect here, since that's the way I would have gone looking for it, rather than the current title. There's only one page that uses that link, currently, but it's still there. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 10:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed the link on [Lex Lang]] to avoid the redirect altogether. — TAnthony^Talk 21:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Critics?

Despite what's written in the article, Entertainment Weekly wasn't nice to the mini-series, writing, in the print issue, "What did Frank Herbert do to deserve this?"

I wish I had on-line citations to find, but alas things disappear on the Internet after so long, but I know in person, amongst my sci-fi friends, especially the Dune freaks, they hate this film. Finding some criticism about this mini-series would be helpful to the article. Coffee5binky (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see that citation as well. As a lifelong "Dune freak" and active member of several convention-running science fiction organizations, I thought the miniseries was excellent. There were flaws, but nothing that made me want to turn it off (Barbora Kodetová is a lovely woman and a talented actress, but that body type did NOT grow up on water-starved Arrakis, for example). Now, if you want to talk about lousy filmmaking, just go watch the 1985 film. THAT was a piss-poor adaptation, hands-down.Rapier1 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also on comingsoon.com under the Dune page a lot of fans sayed they hated the TV series and that the 1984 addaption was the best (seems strange to me). If you go to comingsoon.net you'll find plenty of critism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.211.160 (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Category clarrification

I put put the newly created Category:Dune films on this page because no such categories existed. This film is still divided into three series so I am trying to clarify weather it's appropriate or not--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've replaced this category with Category:Dune series adaptations, which allows for film and television and would also include Frank Herbert's Children of Dune. Otherwise I would say a specific category is not necessary for the two works based on the 1965 novel.— TAnthony^Talk 22:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Should I just redirect it then?--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I already redirected and tagged it for speedy delete ;) — TAnthony^Talk 00:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)