In December 2000, Science Fiction Channel (since renamed Syfy) released Frank Herbert’s Sand Dunes, an ambitious three-part miniseries. Science fiction author Rajan Khanna was a recent college graduate when he first watched the show.
“I remember it came out and to be honest, I remember the Science Fiction Channel being a big deal back in the day,” Khanna said in Episode 515 of Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy audio file. “This was before there was all this wacky stuff everywhere. In a way, it’s like “This is for us”. “
With a budget of 20 million dollars, Frank Herbert’s Sand Dunes is an ambitious project for the fledgling network. The series won an Emmy for special effects and is one of the channel’s highest-rated shows. But the TV writer Andrea Kail warns that modern audiences won’t exactly be swayed by the show’s production values. “I have a very clear memory of a particular scene where Jessica and Paul were running away from the chapters, and they were running on the spot in front of a bad green screen,” she said. “It was like watching a play being filmed. It’s not a movie, it’s a play that someone has pointed a camera at. “
Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy host David Barr Kirtley agreed that the show had its problems, but he liked a side episode involving Princess Irulan, a minor character from the novel that was completely removed from the show. recent movie. “Sand dunes is a combination of ‘space opera court conspiracy’ and ‘hippie Lawrence of Arabia,'” he said. “It’s two factors. I like the space opera court plot stuff significantly more. [Irulan’s] the plot continues the space opera court intrigue throughout the entire story, so I really enjoyed that. ”
Science fiction author Matthew Kressel indicates the quality of the underlying material that shines despite any rough edges. In particular, he liked how the series captured the texture of the novel. “Of course, I loved the movie Villeneuve, but it was a very crazy movie,” he said. “I feel like there’s something about this series that took 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 of Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy (above). And check out some highlights from the discussion below.
Andrea Kail on Frank Herbert’s Sand Dunes compare to Sand dunes (1984):
Here [miniseries] make the Lynch version look like Denis Villeneuves version, and the Lynch version makes the Villeneuve version feel like a God-given movie. That’s how this lifts everything else… [Lynch version] It’s a horrible movie, but I would never fail to see it if it were to be shown. It’s a bad movie, but it’s compellingly bad. I always sit and watch it because it’s a spectacle. Here? I love Sand dunes, but I’m not going to sit back and watch this. Do you see the difference? The [Lynch version] visually interesting and there’s a lot going on. This is not something I would gladly revisit, and I am Sand dunes fanatic.
Matthew Kressel on special effects:
There are some places where they don’t even paint the blur, they just have a background where they roll behind the actors. It’s an odd choice, because maybe they don’t have the money for a blurry picture, but they definitely have a green screen at this point. So I’m curious about that… We were spoiled by special effects today. They are very good, everything looks real. It’s perfect. But we forget that it’s really, really hard to achieve. Even Star Wars, at this huge budget, you watch the original — not the remake — and be like, “Yeah, the Death Star is a model.” You can only tell on close-up photos.
David Barr Kirtley on Frank Herbert’s Sand Dunes compare to Sand dunes (In 2021):
The movie Villeneuve basically explains nothing. “Mentats? Don’t worry about it. Guild Navigators? Don’t worry about it, it doesn’t matter”. It just focuses on telling a compelling, emotional character story. The [miniseries] trying to explain more about the world building process, and that’s really bad in many ways — amazingly — but I feel that if you watch this movie, you actually know more about the world and What happens in the book is more than you see the movie Villeneuve — a million times better, but it’s a trade-off between impressive performance versus world-building implementation.
Rajan Khanna on Adaptation:
i think this [miniseries] is one of those examples where staying loyal to a book can be a trap, because what you get in the end is a box-testing exercise rather than a whole lot of lives. All great adaptations condense everything, mix everything together, cut everything out. Lord of the Rings considered by many to be an incredible adaptation, and they cut everything off. There’s always someone like, “Tom Bombadil!” But Tom Bombadil needs to go… You have to make those choices. I think this is a faithful example but also fair and doesn’t have much heart and energy. So I wouldn’t recommend this to anyone except the hardcore Sand dunes historians.
Stories with WIRED are more amazing
