Cymeks were from Frank Herbert, not Brian.

[tobiasthecommie]

Warning, a few spoilers if you haven't read all the books, + prequals, nothing major though.

I've been reading a few old threads, and instead of posting to a 1 year old thread, i thoguht i would just start a new one.

When talking about Legends Of Dune, people often complain about how much Brian and Kevin have destroyed the legacy of the Dune universe. And granted, while i did enjoy the series, it wasn't Dune, not by a long shot.

A complaint i just read, was the idea of Cymeks being an abomination created by Brian and Kevin. And how bringing Omnious and all into Book 7(and 8) was surely not what Frank Herbert had in mind.

Well, while reading this, i was watching the Extended Edition of Dune, Lynch version. Or rather, Alan Smithee.

This version starts with a 10 minute introduction, with art work(pre production sketches) and a voice over.

Since Frank Herbert were still alive when this movie was created, and was on the set, i will consider this introduction cannon(even if the movie has weirding modules).

Lets see what it says.

"In the year 6041. Before the reign of the Padisha Emperors. The universe was ruled by thinking machines, with human minds. Computers and concious robots. The people deteriorated till a state of apathy. Then they became victims of other men with machines. Finally came the great revolt. The religious crusade against the machines. After the great revolt, human beings were forced to develop their minds. Thus mental training schools were established. These schools would change the history of the universe. Only two of these ancient mental training schools remain...."(continues on, but not related)

Now, granted, that isn't exactly what they did with Legends of Dune. But since none of this was written in stone, i can accept a few changes. But the important point here, i fell, is that Frank Herbert most likely wrote this back story for the film, I don't think it was the brain child of David Lynch.

"The universe was ruled by thinking machines, with human minds."

Isn't that exactly what the cymeks are?

"Computers"

Omnious.

"Concious robots"

Erasmus.

"Then they became victims of other men with machines."

Might just mean other men controlling machines, but considering the entire paragraph, it is most likely the "thinking machines, with human minds.", that is, Cymeks.

Now, granted, that isn't exactly what was in Legends of Dune. But i don't feel the blame for Cymeks should be on Brian or Kevin. Maybe the depiction of them, but not the concept of Cymeks.

Omnious wasn't directly mentioned by this preface to the movie, granted, but the seeds were there.

Note: I don't consider any of the prequals completely cannon, and i don't condone everything they have done. But i don't think we can blame them for everything we don't like in the Dune universe. And Cymeks were, in my opinion, clearly a product of Frank Herbert, not Brian.

Omnious and Erasmus may have been too broad extrapolations of what Frank Herbert meant, there is no way to know without looking at his drafts, sketches or notes.

But, considering the almost complete Dune 7 that was found, Omnious and Erasmus may very well have been in there(atleast if they are in it when Brian and Kevin at long last release it). In which case they can't be blamed for the concept of it.

Also, just because they totally destroyed it with Legends of Dune. There is a possiblity, though i'm not having great hopes, that it really does hold water in Dune 7(+8).

Sincerely

Tobias

[TMA_1]

the problem with the intro in Dune uncut is the fact that it really isnt accurate with its timescale, among other things. I peronally love that intro, and the art is wonderful, but again it isnt accurate. Also notce it says that humans are in control of thinking machines,which isnt the case with the prequels. Maybe frank did come up with the cymek concept, but to me personally, I just dont see it. It feels more like star wars than dune.

[tobiasthecommie]

Also notce it says that humans are in control of thinking machines,which isnt the case with the prequels.

Actually, it says. "The universe was ruled by thinking machines, with human minds."

Though the art shows humans with robot servants. Those two don't necesarilly conflict to begin with.

I can't really remember Legends of Dune so well right now. But i believed it also started like that. Humans with robot servants, the humans started doing less and less, and in the end handed it all over to a thinking machine(Omnious), and at some point down the road, humans realized they were, or they became, slaves of the their creation.

Which doens't conflict with either picture or story from the intro. And i actually think it is consistent with both. Especially considering the art and the voice over is a bit contradictory.

Now, i like the idea behind it, the depiction in Legends of Dune was lacking. But the idea is ok.

Maybe frank did come up with the cymek concept, but to me personally, I just dont see it. It feels more like star wars than dune.

From other books he did (Destination: Void) we see something like Cymeks(disconnected brains atleast), so i'm pretty sure(as much as i can be) that the concept was his.

But yes, the depiction(Now that is most likely all Brian and Kevin's fault) is not very good, and like star wars.

Now, granted, that isn't exactly what was in Legends of Dune. But i don't feel the blame for Cymeks should be on Brian or Kevin. Maybe the depiction of them, but not the concept of Cymeks.

[TMA_1]

yeah the OMC's, great book by te way.

but even the OMC's are different. not just with the dialogue either.

the cymeks in the prequels are do-all swiss army knife machines with transformer-like addons...it feels way too conventional for such an unconventional writer.

[tobiasthecommie]

agreed

[NeoDevilbane]

Well, we'll know after we read the two novels of Dune 7. If the thinking machines/Cymeks are indeed a/the villain in the book(s), they'll be coming from a "Detailed, expansive outline" from Frank Herbert himself, one that BH/KJA had already read when they outlined/wrote the Legends books.

[Dante]

I would be more inclined to take 'machines with human minds' simply as AI, rather than a cymek-like concept. The phrase may not be meant to be taken absolutely literally. After all, I imagine that Frank Herbert could have made wonderful writing with the concept of machines with truly human brains. If he had invented cymeks, they would have been far more detailed, and more explicitly mentioned.

Having said that, there is some truth in his previous depiction of disembodied brains (I love that phrase...). However, I would again ascribe this similarity to Brain and Kevin plagurising Frank Herbert's work, rather than any intended similarity.

[MrFlibble]

I would be more inclined to take 'machines with human minds' simply as AI, rather than a cymek-like concept. The phrase may not be meant to be taken absolutely literally.

Can't agree more. The cymeks don't fit into Frank Herbert's concept of thinking machines because they're still human personalities, while thinking machines are not: they're inhuman, inclined to behave by patterns even more that humans are.

[NeoDevilbane]

We don't know what "Frank Herbert's concept of thinking machines" is. Yet.

[Dante]

I doubt that we ever will.

[MrFlibble]

We don't know what "Frank Herbert's concept of thinking machines" is. Yet.

There are certain hints throughout the books. Like this conversation between Leto II and Siona:

"What's the purpose of those journals?"

"An Ixian machine records them. They are to be found on a faraway day. They will make people think."

"An ixian machine? You defy the Jihad!"

"There's reason in that, too. What do such machines really do? They increase the number of things we can do without thinking. Things we do without thinking - there's the real danger..." (GEOD, p. 346)

The machines by themselves are no villains, they're just complicated mechansms. But "addiction" to such machines is dangerous for human survival.

Dependency fosters weakness! (GEOD, p. 345)

[Caid Ivik]

The Butlerian djihad was many times mentioned in Dune saga. And it was also a reaction of humanity on the power of machines. However, it was primarily a mental dependency, apathy of population, not such enslavement (of humans by machines) as in that vulgar picture of KJA cymeks. Vice versa, thinking machines were slaves of humans: but such perfect slaves, that they did anything instead of humans, even thinking. Dune was written in 1964, I think. There were AI theories already then, but based mostly on scripts, thus they were thought as "thinking machines" (in comparation to present evolutionar or adaptive algorithms etc; I'm no expert) and that creates a material vision, while a program would not have. According to Dune Appendix IV, thinking machines were created on image of human mind. What does this resemble more? This or this?

Dune should have been written few years later; after Leary or Gibson defined cyberpunk. Then Brian wouldn't write such joke.

[TMA_1]

I tend to agree with you Caid. The growing apathy and stagnation was a key factor. I am still not sure as to how oppressed humanity was during the butlerian jihad, it really isnt answered. i have a feeling it has to do with a new spiritual awakening. Maybe the greatest since Mohmed III.

[driftingcloud]

Well, while reading this, i was watching the Extended Edition of Dune, Lynch version. Or rather, Alan Smithee.

This version starts with a 10 minute introduction, with art work(pre production sketches) and a voice over.

Since Frank Herbert were still alive when this movie was created, and was on the set, i will consider this introduction cannon(even if the movie has weirding modules).

The real flaw in your logic has to do with when the Alan Smithee version was released. The film that David Lynch released in 84/85 did not have this introduction, and that was the version of the film that Frank Herbert oversaw. I believe the Alan Smithee version came along several years later, and consequently, after Frank herbert's death, as a made for television edit. I don't think we can faithfully attribute the text of that introduction to Frank herbert's pen or vision.

Lets see what it says.

"In the year 6041. Before the reign of the Padisha Emperors. The universe was ruled by thinking machines, with human minds. Computers and concious robots. The people deteriorated till a state of apathy. Then they became victims of other men with machines. Finally came the great revolt. The religious crusade against the machines. After the great revolt, human beings were forced to develop their minds. Thus mental training schools were established. These schools would change the history of the universe. Only two of these ancient mental training schools remain...."(continues on, but not related)

As others have stated, this does not easily translate into anything resembling a Cymek. I think the stronger evidence in all of FH work is for an AI machine, not even as obvious as Omnious, who behaves in a predictably human way, even though he is not human. I believe this text to be more a part of the film owners trying to make the film more accessible to a larger audience, providing the Cliff's Notes version of the backstory, instead of getting anything penned from FH's hand.

[tobiasthecommie]

The real flaw in your logic has to do with when the Alan Smithee version was released. The film that David Lynch released in 84/85 did not have this introduction, and that was the version of the film that Frank Herbert oversaw. I believe the Alan Smithee version came along several years later, and consequently, after Frank herbert's death, as a made for television edit. I don't think we can faithfully attribute the text of that introduction to Frank herbert's pen or vision.

Hmm, agreed, i made the assumption that the intro was by Frank Herbert.

Anyone know if a statement was ever made one way or the other on this subject?

Of course i could say "wha wha, you can't prove i'm wrong", but that is a fallacy, and i won't do that.

As others have stated, this does not easily translate into anything resembling a Cymek. I think the stronger evidence in all of FH work is for an AI machine, not even as obvious as Omnious, who behaves in a predictably human way, even though he is not human. I believe this text to be more a part of the film owners trying to make the film more accessible to a larger audience, providing the Cliff's Notes version of the backstory, instead of getting anything penned from FH's hand.

I was working on the assumption that the intro was saw and heard from the Alan Smithee version was cannon. And in the intro we see drawings that are somewhat similar to Cymeks. Similar enough, especially considering Frank Herbert have made other stories with disembodied brains.

After all, I imagine that Frank Herbert could have made wonderful writing with the concept of machines with truly human brains. If he had invented cymeks, they would have been far more detailed, and more explicitly mentioned.

And he did, in other novels.

However, it was primarily a mental dependency, apathy of population, not such enslavement (of humans by machines) as in that vulgar picture of KJA cymeks. Vice versa, thinking machines were slaves of humans: but such perfect slaves, that they did anything instead of humans, even thinking.

Agreed, that is what he writes in the books. But if we can consider the intro cannon, then he would indeed have created the IDEA of Cymeks. And he would have created the story where we startedd out being slaves of apathy, and then later became real slaves. Which is what the slides tell.

As far as i know, all those drawings were preproduction. That is, it was storyboard. Thus, made with Frank Herberts knowledge, if not his consent.

But, i would like someone to confirm this before i will stand by my claim that the IDEA behind Omnious and the Cymeks came from Frank Herbert.

Please note, i didn't say implementation, i said idea.

When i made the original post i made it on the assumption that the drawings(and the voice over that was with it) was created as part of the storyboard. With concent, and input, from Frank Herbert. If that is NOT the case, then i'll admit that i was wrong.

Anyone who can confirm/deny whether my assumption is correct or not?

Sincerely

Tobias

[NeoDevilbane]

That painting prologoue to the TV edit of Lynch's Dune is most certainly not canon by any stretch of the word.