Topic: Sci Fi Poll 23: Sand and Space.

[Sirgod]

20001: A Space Odyssey   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/

vs

Dune (1984)  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/

Two classic Sci FI goes head to head this time. I'll even have to think about this one.

Stephen

[marstone]

while Dune was a good show, I was disappointed in much of the way it was done.  I probably would have liked it much more if I hadn't read it first.

[762_XC]

If it were the book, Dune would win. But David Lynch (Mr. style over substance himself) and a substantially epic story like Dune just don't mix.

That said, I have never watched the ending of 2001 without falling asleep.

[Andromeda]

2001 may have had some boring moments, but the beginning was a classic.  Dune had nothing redeemable about it. 

[Lono]

While 2001 was an enormous triumph - I chose Dune for it's pure - more interesting - sci fi premise.

I also can't watch 2001 without falling asleep - but I catch parts of Dune all the time - and I'm one of the few contrarians who actually believe it was a good interpretation of the source material (if not the most accurate).

Death to the non-believers!

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

Lessee, that movie with all the cool drug induced sequences at the end (not by Mr Clarke, but the guys who made the movie),

versus Patrick Stewart yelling 'Atomics!'

Yeah, for entertainment factor, I'm going with Dune.  2001 is good hard sci fi (to a point), which showed us what an orbital station, etc. might look like, but Dune has psionics, sandworms, dueling houses...

Something for the detractors to consider.  The movie very likely attracted a lot of interest in Herbert's books, which is good for the Herbert Franchise.  And, as I've said before, David Lynch had a LOT of concepts to cram into a single 2 hour+ movie, and didn't have a sequel in mind, so I think his interpretation hit upon a lot of the finer points all things considering.

The efforts that came afterwords, while more true to the 'script' put forward by the books, did drag on at times...

I enjoyed 2010 more than 2001, simply for the replayability factor.  Roy Scheider and the gang made a very enjoyable movie, with no funky drug induced sequences to pass the time.  Of course, the kaleidoscope effects of 2001 do appeal to some... so while I do enjoy 2001, it's not a movie I feel the need to rewatch over and over.

[TAnimaL]

  !

I'm practically speechless here....

When I voted, I was sure that it was going to show up as one of those one-sided polls, like "Empire Strikes Back"  vs "Attack of the Clones"...

I mean, I like David Lynch... I mean, I really really do.... to me, "Eraserhead" is one of the most unique and interesting films I've ever seen....

but, Dune?? Seriously?? Over 2001????

Man. Kids today... 

[Grand Master of Shadows NCC37385]

For pure entertainment value I went with Dune. I hated the computer in 2001 and the end of the movie left me...bored. I always wanted "Dave" to make some smart-***ed remark to Hal.

Dave. What are you doing, Dave?-Hal

Im playing with......-Dave

Well, you get the idea.

[762_XC]

Personally I think Blue Velvet his magnum opus.

That said Dune is a nice style flick. Lynch has great style if nothing else. Unfortunately it captures little of the substance of Frank Herbert's novel.

The SciFi miniseries did a much better job of that.

[marstone]

Blue Velvet, really.  If it is the one I am thinking of I shudder. 

[Tulwar]

Personally I think Blue Velvet his magnum opus.

That said Dune is a nice style flick. Lynch has great style if nothing else. Unfortunately it captures little of the substance of Frank Herbert's novel.

The SciFi miniseries did a much better job of that.

I couldn't agree more.  SciFi did an excellent interperitation of Dune.  The 1984 film sucked.  I hated it from the Baron's pimples to the lightning bolts comming off Shai-Hulud.  If we were comparing books, Dune would win hands down.  Dispite being a poor story, the special effects in 2001 have yet to be recreated.  The habitat portion of the Discovery was filmed inside a Ferris Wheel.  That still amazes me.  They showed computer before computer animation was possible.  Kubrick did a lot of amazing special effects in that film that flowed like nature.  Except for the worms themselves, there was not one special effect in Dune that didn't look like straight up animation.  If you want a story, read the book.  I've never read anything by Clarke I wish to remember, but the way Kubrick set up the shots in his film was pure genius.  When I see a film, I want eye-candy.  2001 had pleanty.  Dune was an amazing novel, and had a compelling plot.  Any director could work with that, but Lynch threw in a lot of stupid crap that didn't need to be there, and completely missed the themes of the book.

[TAnimaL]

(As an aside, here's a little tidbit that I thought was common knowledge, but over the years I've found that many didn't realize this)

"2001 A Space Odyssey" is neither a "movie based on a book by A.C. Clarke" or a "book based on a movie by Kubrick." The two men worked cooperatively on it; Kubrick initially approached Clarke and asked to corroborate on a "good sci-fi film." They brainstormed and shared ideas, using Clarke's short story "The Sentinel" as a starting point, and then began to work on their indivdual works, continuing to mold the story together. They adjusted as they went, which is why the book sends Dave & Hal to Saturn but the movie uses Jupiter -  Kubrick's FX people found Jupiter easier to build. There are two great books on this - "Lost Worlds of 2001" by Clarke, with stuff lost and/or changed as they went, and "The Making of Kubrick's 2001," which is more of a collection of articles & stories about making the movie.

In the "Making Of" book there was, among many others, a quote from Kubrick that went, "My advice to any young filmmaker is, to get a camera and make a movie, of any sort." When I was 15 I did exactly that, and haven't put it down since

I don't know how hard it is to find those books nowadays but both are worth the search.

[Kreeargh]

Dune i vote, there was some action and a plot that a average human can understand .  2001  more up to the thoughts of one viewing at the times. mushrooms or acid needed for some parts but the  tech and space rgi are spetacular for cgi and others! 

[Nemesis]

!

I'm practically speechless here....

When I voted, I was sure that it was going to show up as one of those one-sided polls, like "Empire Strikes Back"  vs "Attack of the Clones"...

I mean, I like David Lynch... I mean, I really really do.... to me, "Eraserhead" is one of the most unique and interesting films I've ever seen....

but, Dune?? Seriously?? Over 2001????

Man. Kids today... 

I had to vote for Dune as unlike 2001 most people could "get" most of the movie without having read the book. 

[Kreeargh]

Is the poll about the books or the movies?   

[Andromeda]

Movies, but 2001 was done as a movie and a book at the same time.  It is based on an earlier short story by Clarke.
If it was books, I'm sure Dune would win going away.

[Tulwar]

It's strange, I saw nothing in the movie Dune that made it worth my while watching it.  Folks on this forum are saying that it is a better film than 2001, because it had a good story.  I've read the book, and didn't need to see the film.  The film added nothing to what I experienced reading.  It was nothing more than a typical Hollywood hatchet job on classic literature.

2001, on the other hand, did not butcher a classic.  Sure, the plot and story was some kind of pointless psychodelic BS, but it did something that went far beyond that limitation.  It presented a different world.  Imagine if the space program was not cut back in the 1970's, and we continued to build upon what we had started.  Then there are the wonderful visuals of people dealing with zero-G.  There was the stewardess in velco socks, and David Bowman jogging inside a ferris wheel.  These two scenes alone justify looking at the film.

[Bonk]

I remember many scenes from 2001 vividly. All I can remember about Dune was that Sting was in it.

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

For me both movies are brilliant in their own special way. I cant vote for one or the other.
If you read Frank Herberts book its painfully obvious that it is to big to be adequately put into pictures.
But its a nice compressed trip  through the story,and the music is awesome.

Well and 2001 ,what can i say, i was already with twelve a fan of it and lured unsuspecting classmates into the movie,.. the reactions to it were,.. well interesting;).

At that time i also thought we would be eventually be able to make huge parts of that technology a reality.
Which is/was just an extension of Wernher von Brauns future vision for nasa ,I underestimated the unwillingness of the public to grasp how important space exploration is,and consequently fund it.

Today i think its possible that the whole conventional approach is wrong and unnecessary,to shorten it up my thoughts circle around  a Holographic structure of the universe and the nature of time as a function of space.
Dream time of the Aborigines comes into mind..,maybe drives like in Dune are closer then we think.

I would love to become a navigator and fold space.
Maybe we all do that with our daily decisions already by selecting all the time one variation of reality from phase space,why not chose the  vivid,even if its short lived, cat on Mars instead a alive or dead one in a box... etc you proly get my drift:)