Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
From what I have heard the recent Dune movie is not a remake, just based on the same source material as the 1984 David Lynch film, similar to how the well regarded 2006 James Bond movie "Casino Royale" is not a remake of the 70's offshoot (generally considered to be terrible), but rather a different adaptation of the book.The problem with that movie is that it is a remake. Does anyone remember New Coke? That was a remake. And it sucked. Remakes are always worse than the originals because remakes are just a copy.
I also disagree with you on remakes being inherently bad, as the director often puts their own spin on it which can make them more interesting. One example of this is "the Fly"; David Cronenberg's 80's version became such a classic that many people don't know it's a remake of a 50's film.
That sounds suspiciously like the film maker taking umbrage at calling his film a remake. If it is not a remake then why does the script of Part one seem so familiar. If you do not want it to be called a remake then you should take steps to depart from the book in some fashion but the filmmakers hued so close to the first film, taking twice as long to get to the same point. So in that sense, maybe it is not a remake but just a badly edited and conceived film.From what I have heard the recent Dune movie is not a remake, just based on the same source material as the 1984 David Lynch film,
I was planning on reading the book. Is it any good?