Conference noted::sf

These people havn't heard of colored contact lenses?  A common trick
in the movie and spy business.  You just get the large kind that cover
the white part of the eyeball.

The article says they tried contacts but "irritation" was a problem.

	All that sand, is likely the problem. I heard this film is in serious
	trouble and may not make it.

	Well since this topic seems to have died a minor death
	and nobody has commented on the film itself - I shall do so ...

	First of all I will say that as a film I enjoyed it.

	That aside, I read the book(s) just before going to see the
	film (to see whether the subject was worth paying money 
	for !!!) - so with the story fresh in my mind, although
	I did see quite a few common images/plots between the
	book and the film - ie the overall theme just about matched,
	and the characters names were the same, there was an 
	aweful lot missing, and quite a bit of invention for 
	convenience (artistic licence I suppose).

	The thing I found about the book was the fantastic visual
	imagery, one can see quite clearly in the mind what 
	everything and everyone was supposed to look like - what
	I want to know is, why didn't the film makers use these same
	impressions rather than create their own - granted they kept
	a few of the stronger and more essential images - blue eyes,
	large worms etc.

	The film also needed to be about 3 hours longer to fit in
	all that was left out.

	Apart from all that, taken as a film without comparing it 
	to the book, the special effects were pretty good and the
	film eminently watchable, even for non-si-fi buffs !!

	CJA

    Seems to me the book cost almost the same as the ticket. I
    read the book after seeing the movie. The book is better, 
    but the movie was interesting. It undoubtedly sent a lot
    of viewers to the bookstore, so it did a lot of good. I
    have the soundtrack album - the only TOTO album in my 
    collection :-) A proper job would have required 6-8 hours
    of film. It WOULD have beat Amerika all to hell and gone.

    My wife, an excellent military mind and an officer, sees no (zip,
    zero, none, nada) point to SF.  But she has watched DUNE at least
    five times.  I'm beginning to worry; last night she started chanting
    that little ditty of the Harkonan's Mentat at the beginning while
    doing his berry juice.  She'll be home before me tonight; spice
    bread for dinner ?
    
    I did activiley enjoy the movie.  Is there any truth to the story
    that 3 hours were cut because "the audiance would get bored." ?
    If so, burn the sucker with the match he supposedly put to the 
    clippings !!
    
    Dwight

    re:.6
    
    The general consensus is that a movie audience cannot take
    a movie that's much longer than 2 hours. Rarely do you find
    one that's longer than 2-1/2. Audiences can deal with greater
    lengths on tv because it's not tossed at them in one large
    gulp.
    
    The other reason movies tend not to be longer than 2 to 2-1/2
    hours is because the theaters don't like it. The shorter a
    film is, the more times they can show it in a day, and thus
    (in theory) the more income they can generate.
    
    It's true that about five hours worth of DUNE was filmed. It's
    not true that the excess footage was destroyed. It's still
    planned to release a much longer cut of DUNE on videotape.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .7:
    
    This "a movie audience can't take" a move of a given length is an
    old and hallowed tradition.  When the first rue nickleodeons came
    into being, movies ranged from five to fifteen minutes, on the
    operational theory that fifteen minutes was all that people could
    take.
    
    However, since sometime in the 1950s, we've become conditioned in
    the United States to commercial breaks.  Once in a while, I'll take
    my eyes momentarily off the screen in a theater to see people figit
    about the time a commercial would be likely to occur if they'd been
    watching the thing on a tube.
    
    A movie can be as long or short as the film-maker can keep the full
    attention of the audience.  When it first hit the screen, I was
    never conscious of anyone going for popcorn, etc. when _Indiana
    Jones and the Temple of Doom_ was playing.  I think only sheer
    hydraulic pressure would motivate people during a real attention-
    getter.
    
    On the other hand, I'd be the last persdon to bet a multi million
    of dollars that people would sit through my 4.5-hour film epic....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    I saw DUNE before I read the book, and I was totally lost!  After
    reading the book, I saw the film again.  The film was a little clearer,
    but boy did they butcher some of the scenes and meanings.
    
    Although, I must agree the special effects were very well done.
    
    M-L

    	I thought the special effects were rather POORLY done, especially
    for a 40 million dollar movie!  And the Baron's makeup was far too
    disgusting!  I don't care if it was MEANT to be this way - I want
    to be able to watch a film without having to avert my eyes half
    the time (and to eat my popcorn).
    
    	I also felt that it got downright cornball numerous times,
    especially when we were subjected to hear what the characters were
    thinking.
    
    	And why did they let Dino DeLaurentis produce it?  He's made
    some of the most big-budget junk I've seen since Irwin Allen!
                                                            
        Larry
          

    I did not like  the Dune movie.  I felt all the particular shortcomings
    and distortions stemmed from a thematic distortion.  The movie was
    about great passions; the book was about great passions under great
    discipline.  In the book, everybody has enromous, ferocious emotions
    boiling around inside them, but they all have to discipline them.
    Everybody lives in a constant state of tension, knowing a momentary
    slip of discipline could ruin them.  There's very little like that
    in the movie -- just the hullabaloo.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re:.10
    
    "Why did they let Dino DeLaurentiis produce it?"
    
    Because "they" *was* Dino. He paid for the rights, after all.
    
    Besides, technically, Dino's daughter Rafaella was the producer.
    
    --- jerry

    	For those in the Boston area, DUNE will be shown in two parts
    on Channel 56 (WLVI-TV, Ind.) starting Monday night, June 6, at 8 p.m..
    According to the TV GUIDE, this showing will have fifty minutes
    of the 1984 film which was originally edited out put back in.  I
    wonder if it will improve DUNE any?
    
        Larry
             

    They should have left that stuff cut out, some of the voiceovers
    helped explain things a little better, but the end result was to
    make a fair movie pretty poor.  Hey, don't flame me, just one person's
    opinion, right?  Actually, the movie has had one positive effect,
    since I remember the book as being pretty good (I'd give it an 8
    on the Willie Scale), I now want to read it again.  Don't know if
    I could get into the entire series, but Dune was a good read.
    
    Willie
    

    OOPS, should have mentioned that it's showing June 1 and 2 on
    Adams/Russell cable TV.  I get really confused when 2 separate channels
    have "first time ever on TV" movies at different times.
    
    Willie

    I had decided to leave this topic alone, but, since somebody
    resurrected it to give us the news...
    
    The whole time I was reading the series I was beatin' my wife over
    the head with how good it was...So thorough was I that she rented
    the video (as a suprise for me) and suprise -- just hearin the
    word 'dune' sends chills up my spine thinking of the beatin *I*
    took after that movie ended. :-)
    
    When they make books into movies, don't they involve some of the
    more passionate supporters of the particular genre in question ??
    More importantly -- would they take the advice offered ?
    
    Scott.

    Watched the first half of the expanded version the other night,
    had to miss the second. 
    
    Didn't miss that godawful actress who played Irulan doing the 
    intro. The storyboards were a bit pulpy. looking forward to
    catching the second half. Hope they dig into Feyd-Ruatha a
    little deeper, that was a major shortcoming of the movie.

    I saw "the long version" about 2 weeks ago here in the bay area...
    
    I found it to be a much better _movie_. Bear in mind that it is
    not possible to do justice to the novel in 3 hours, *but*... the
    longer version of the movie I found to be far less disjointed than
    the American version (by the way, I suspect that this "long version"
    was the one shown in Europe).
    
    There are a lot of discontinuities in the "short version", and I
    found out why -- a couple of lines of dialogue were cut out!
    				- HBM

    I agree-the longer version hung together better. Also it made more
    sense for someone who hadn't read the book.
    

    
    
    	I don't know how I missed it seeing that it was on four times
    but I did. I wanted to watch the extended version of Dune.
    If anyone hears of it being on again either a local tv station
    or one Greater Media Cable in the worcester area supports let me 
    know PLEASE.
    
    
    		SCOMAN::JLORE

    
    		Joe Lore

                 <<< MIVC::USER$150:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SF.NOTE;3 >>>
                             -< Arcana Caelestia >-
================================================================================
Note 668.0                            DUNE                            No replies
SCOMAN::JLORE "WARRIOR OF DESTINY"                    7 lines   9-AUG-1988 22:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
    	Is there anyone who knows where I can get a copy of the extended
    	version of Dune?
    
    
    				Joe Lore

    re:.22
    
    If you're asking whether it has been released commercially on tape,
    no it hasn't, though I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually is.
    
    So, you're only chance is to find someone who taped it off the tube,
    or wait until the next time it's on.
    
    --- jerry

    I happened to catch both of these versions and agree that the longer
    one did make more sense to the books.  The short one needed alot of
    explaination to ones who did not read the book...... 
    
    I just love these books....

    
    
    Excuse my ignorance, but I did not know that there was an extended
    version of "Dune".  How long is the "extended version"?  As I remember
    the version I rented on tape was close to 2.5 hours long.  Having
    read the book previously I was quite disappointed with the film,
    and my wife couldn't keep track of anything at all!
    
    Living in hope
    
    Bob

    re:.25
    
    The extended version is, I think, a tad under 3-1/2 hours. It's
    not been released on tape/disc or to theaters, but only shown on
    television, usually in two 2-hour segments.
    
    --- jerry

    Channel 4 (UK) screened the short version of the film approx 2 weeks
    ago.  As I have said previously, the short version made the film
    difficult to understand, *if* you have never read the book!  Perhaps
    the programmers of these television stations have never heard that
    there was an extended version, but I find this very hard to believe.
    
    The television station in question is supposed to be a "cultural"
    station. Yet they show a 4 hour opera that bored have the country
    to tears.  (this can be confirmed by veiwing figures - about 4 thousand
    people watched the opera, out of a population of approx 55 million,
    that ain't alot)
    
    
    Bob

    
    Hello!
    
    	Those of you in Massachusetts may be interested to know that
    the young actress playing Paul Atreides' sister was none other than
    Alicia Witt of Worcester, MA, whose father teaches in the Worcester
    school system.
    
    Julian