David Lynch's Dune: Better Than Villeneuve's?
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 03. 2024
- After reviewing Villeneuve's Dune Part Two last week, I take a look at David Lynch's version of the same story from 1984, and try to assess how it compares to the newest version.
My review of Dune Part Two: • Dune Part Two: Sandwor...
Follow me on Twitter: / lythrichard
#dune #moviereview - Zábava
Thanks to everyone who watched this video, making it my most viewed of all time! And check out my new video in which I respond to some of the below comments: czcams.com/video/jKcPLbt9z-U/video.html
The main problem with Lynch’s Dune adaptation is that he actually never edited it to his satisfaction. There is no Lynch’s director’s cut.
There are some fan edits on YT, which cobble together the theatrical version with deleted scenes and the far better introduction from the TV version. The 3 hour Sand Driver edit is particularly good and it absolutely blows the Villeneuve version out of the water (or sand as it were)
google Dune Director's cut 1984. click on shopping. it's there.
And he was stuck with 2 hour and 17 mins. That said he managed to fit in so much and the Characters were strong. Denis had 6 hours? and still didn't fit in as much as he should. He likes his vistas. Denis is good at that. Not so good with people.
1984 Dune had some badass quotes: "You''ll end your life in a pain amplifier". "The Bene gesserit witch must leave". I like how the guild guys basically kick everybody's ass.
Yes. And the litany against fear is inarticulately mumbled in panic, quite horrible.
Lynch's Dune will always be in my heart for it opened up Frank Herbert's World to me. The Prophecy Theme of Brian Eno is a timeless piece of musical beauty. And as good as Villeneuve's version is, a giant orange brian with eyes and arms, speaking with a creepy voice and floating in a black tank - that's visually untoppable, Sting's metal speedos coming in second.
Sting wanted to emerge from the shower naked, but the producers vetoed that for classification reasons. So flamboyant speedos it was then.
@@DavidGreen_au
I think between Lynch and the actors they would have made an incredible film.
Even then, if Lynch would stop being a child about how some stupid producers acted 30 years ago we could finally have the Dune that truly tells the story of the book - and not the compressed version released in cinemas.
@@mnomadvfx I would have liked Lynch to "repair" Dune.
But I can understand his perspective. It must have really hit hard to be denied creative control of your film, especially when you consider his body of works. They are an art-form in themselves.
David Lynch's Dune had some imagery that I found so disturbing when I watched it as a kid, so it's forever etched in my brain.
Indeed.
By comparison Villeneuve's films seem somewhat visually stale and sanitized.
The Baron molesting a young man while he murders him... so, yes.
And very, very boring
I think the screenplay and storytelling is better in the new one, actors can be up to preference, but aesthetically Lynch nailed it. His version felt truly exotic and alien
Yeah, his version is better and aside from The Thing (1982) and maybe 2 other movies, a movie made after an original is almost never better because the movie being good is usually what causes justification for a remake.
The new movies aren't a remake of this movie. Lol
@@dthorne4602 Nobody said it was?
@@dthorne4602 To its detriment, Villeneuve's departure from canon esp. in the case of Alia and Thufir Hawat's palpable absence in Dune 2 are annoying.
@@shishkebaba yes he did. Otherwise I wouldn't have made the comment. Go read before you act like a hotshot. LOL.
Anyone else notice how Lynch's film FEELS very creepy and disturbing. I don't feel disturbed watching the current version.
Yes and that's why it works. Things would be odd to us 10 thousand years from now. Lynch nailed the weird of the Dune universe. Denis made it more familiar to people of now which has helped it be a success. When Lynch's Dune came out the movie gowers were spoilt for choice in creative and fun movies. The movie goers now are not. So Denis Dune blew a contemporary audiance mind. Not so much the older generations.
@@lapineee Yep. If third act isn't good, Lynch wins.
@@ClarkeIllmaticalDo you think he will dare leave out the Guild again?
@@lapineee He better not. He really dropped core essence of WHY the spice was needed and as you mentioned, the film looks good and he's appealing to modern audience. One thing they nailed was the Emperor's Saurdarkar troops. They are bad ass. They took out the importance of the mentats as well. LYNCH's film is ac ACTOR's film. Ironically, the modern worms and the worm ride scenes aren't much better... again, if the third movie isn't GREAT, and I don't see how it will be, LYNCH WINS!
@@ClarkeIllmatical Fully agree 👍
Lynch's version contains many of the best lines from the book, the new film doesn't seem to as much. The studios were woefully underfunding Bakshi's Lord of the Rings and Lynch's Dune at that time, seeing them as niche stories with no mass appeal that could either be made in one 2 hour picture or not at all. Even then fans knew these stories to be the cornerstones of their respective genres.
Underfunding? Lynch's Dune did cost 40M $, more than RotJ.
@@sigurdkaputnik7022 Time is money. They wanted the entire book in 2 hours or less.
I saw the 1984 film first. This made me read the books. Doing it this way round means I didn't have a dislike of the divergences from the book in the film.
With the 2020s Dune films coming, I didn't want to completely refresh my memory of the story by reading the book again, so that the film could be fresh for me at points where I might have forgotten a few things. Now, I've come away knowing that I will be picking up the book fairly soon to double check a few things. My memory of reading Dune a couple of times over 3 decades ago differs from the newer films in certain places.
As a film delivering a great story, with amazing visuals, emotional acting, exciting action, and an epic score, I prefer Lynch's version. Yes is got a few things wrong, but the core plot was there.
I do like Villeneuve's newer version, but it feels a bit too polished, flat, and even preachy in places. A bit like a docudrama. The preachiness is ironic really, as it wades in fully with an anti-religion theme throughout. It partly does this by hugely changing Stilgar. In the book, he's a revered leader of a sietch within the Fremen patriarchy. A pillar of society that his people respected. In the film he becomes a fawning zealot, openly ridiculed by half his tribe. I wasn't overly keen on Paul's constant virtue signalling either. "I'm not the messiah" works well in a Monty Python comedy, but not so well here. Especially when his very life depends on him convincing the Fremen that he might be.
A few additional side notes:
- I absolutely love Christopher Walken as an actor, but he really didn't carry off the role of Emperor well at all.
- The books are full of strong female characters. Villeneuve did not need to gender swap Liet Kynes. That served no purpose and just annoyed people who had read the book, again damaging the patriarchal Fremen society. Why do that and not switch the Bene Gesserit from being matriarchal for the same reason?
- The untravelled Fremen all jumping into spaceships at end was more than a tad jarring.
- The Guild should not have been omitted completely from the newer films. That was bad.
- My namesake's death was also waaaaaay too Hollywood/Marvel/corny. Duncan gets a sword thrust right through his chest and gets knocked to the ground, either unconscious or dead. Jessica then says "He's gone". He then gets up, pulls the sword out of his chest and kills 3 or 4 more of them before remembering that he's supposed to be dead. I cringed and sighed at the same time.
- The Harkonnen are not bald. They are predominantly, if not all, redheads. It's a little nod to Jessica's parenthood reveal.
TLDR
I prefered Lynch's film as a piece of cinema.
Villeneuve's probably contained more facts from the books.
Same here, the visuals where amazing in the new movies, but the heart was not really there. For characters nothing beats Lynch's version.
Lynch's Dune while a bit flawed, the actors still felt genuine & believable while the visuals in the new one are better do to modern tech, the acting especially the leads come off generic & not very convincing.
Lynch's version has a texture and a feel to that is intangible but real. Obviously the special effects during Lynch's time left a lot to be desired. I still love Dune 84'.
Lynch's version was a flawed film that would've been better as a TV miniseries (also, he didn't really capture what the novel was all about, which is *_not_* what's said in the dialogue at the end by Irulan.)
Lynch's version brings an otherworldly, strange and dark universe to the screen. the new version seems too familiar almost banal. Dune 2 although well crafted, lacked any emotional connection. it seemed like an indifferent docudrama
I disagree completely. Lynch's film the quintessential movie for those who read the book before the movie. It has become a cult classic and I love it. It is a masterpiece of artwork, and Lynch is a MF cinematic genius yo.
I know it's not a popular opinion but I like David Lynch's original 1000 times more! I feel like if he'd been given full creative control he could have done it better than the new version but they didn't give it to Lynch. If they let him split in two parts like he wanted Lynch could have done it way better! So it's an unfair comparison in my opinion.
It feels like Lynch covered more in 2 hours than Villeneuve did in 5+. I don't know how Villeneuve managed to cover so little of the story, given the time he had. Interesting that the guy in the video criticizes every departure from the book by Lynch but doesn't mention Villeneuve completely altering Chani and Dr Liet, and basically ignoring the Spacing Guild.
@@adrianmizen5070 Yeah yo that's totally what I'm saying thank you! Imagine what he could have done if he had full creative control like Villeneuve had!
all the actors of 84 dune are ones of the best of all time cinema...the clothing the makeups the sets are all amazing ....i prefere this one not villeneuves
100% agree
the 1984 version is mostly way more good than the new ones
The Lynch version is better. I enjoyed the new movies, but they only seem more modern, not better.
you're a definite cretin
I felt like the new Dune left out many of the reasons for the Spice, specifically the Navigators. It was nice to see more of the bene gessurit's plans being fleshed out. However like Blade Runner 2049, while visually great and a good story, it felt like most of the time was spent brooding and have lots of slow shots. However, with Dune I never was bored where as with Blade Runner 2049 I did get bored among most of the scenes.
Villenueve Dune is visually stunning, but simply not enough
I wish I could go back in time and give David Lynch the same equipment DV used.
@@Attmay Y E S
And remove De Laurentis from the production
You should compare the spicediver version of 1984 dune, much better and longer edit.
The new version of Dune is all visual spectacle dependent on the audience being overwhelmed by the IMAX experience. Emotionally, however, it's as dry as the planet itself. One great colorless void. Chalemont comes off as less than totally masculine emo kid. And the Z in Zendaya stands for zzzzzzz. It's success is in no small part due to the vast desert of quality entertainment which is modern Hollywood. Just right for 'Modern audiences'.
Agree and also Brian Eno is so much more than Hans Zimmer. Hans is so overrated. Ugh
I could not agree more
I don't know about better but certainly closer to the book. The biggest problem I have with Villeneuve's version is he seems to have no idea what the story is about. Its a feudal power struggle between dynasties. The Fremen know the empire isn't going away and so seek the best deal possible so long as no one is going to be killing them every 10 seconds. That's why they join paul. Its not because they are obsessed with Jihad. The end of part two is even worse with chani stomping off into the desert in a me, me, me huff when in the book she, Paul, and the princess knew and understood what they were doing going into and resolving the final confrontation and accepted their sacrifices for the good of the empire.
Considering Villeneuve wanted to make Dune "since he was 12" he really left out a ton of the source material and made unnecessary changes
My greatest critique of the new films (compared to a special cut of the 1984 version that included the Jamus fight scene), was its use of powerful dialogue. Villeneuve is one of the best directors to convey messages without dialogue, but the words he did include had less impact than the ones that were excluded. Case in point, never mentioning the epiphany that the spice is produced by the sand worms, or that the Guild uses it to _predict_ the future before the folding of space. Not keeping the means vague enough to be misunderstood as mere fuel.
I hate the role cast of the new version...
A total lack of charisma from the actors...
Lynch version is better in every way apart from the ornithopters and the Sand worm effect. But even then, the DV worms had zero character as the Lynch worms did.
The new sandworms were a joke of a design. There's no way they could move 100mph through the sand with their big tube mouths open, they would fill up into a big sand balloon. Lynch got the worms 100% perfect... the only thing you can criticize is 1984 special effects, but even so they seem more real because they have physics and design that make sense.
Yeah the Lynch sand worms are so much better.
But the ornithopters? Hard no... expecially the Atriedes 'thopters, literally a bunch of boxes with little wings. But Lynch Atreides frigates are much better
I think the '84 version had better pageantry at the end. I watched the new one and I had a brief shock at how few people were in the throne room at the end. It felt...empty. Paul stabs the Baron and that's it. Now cowing the Bene Gesserit and the Guild/no grand & memorable lines. The other Houses are all off-screen. I love Christopher Walken, but he wasn't a good choice to play Emperor Shaddam, or maybe he would have played him better ten years ago. (I couldn't tell if he was just phoning in the role or simply old/tired)
The old movie is better. Too many major changes
Not sure what box office numbers have to do with anything, those are completely divorced from quality or artistic merit
I personally love the Lynch version for many reasons. I prefer Kyle MacLachlans portrayal to Chalamets. Sean Young to Zendaya by far. I adore the vivid cinematography. Fremen had much less screen time, yet I feel like their spirit was better represented here imo. The appearance of Guild navigators you criticized, that scene is ingrained in my brain since I was a child.
What I prefer about the new Dune are the Harkonnens. They were too grotesque in the 1984, instead of the highly intelligent and powerful opponents they should have been.
According to the book, Paul is a mere teenager during those events. Kyle Mac looks at least 25-ish while Timmy fits ok. The rest of the cast (except the traitor doctor) are also more fitting (frim this perspective) in the new version. When it comes to artistic qualities, i dont see any advantages in favour of Kyle Mac.
Not saying Kyle Mac acting was too bad, though. His Paul was ok, especially for a viewer with no prior book knowledge.
@@alexdodd5175 I do have book knowledge. It is a personal preference, I find his chemistry with Chani and Stilgar much more convincing. I also prefer these two portrayals in 1984 version. Stilgar should be a mentor, not worshipper. Chani should have been the one believing in Paul the most. Their relationship felt way off to me in the 2024 version. As I told, I like both, but both are flawed.
@@Raymoiful makes sense. I have not seen the second film yet. Judging only by the impressions from film1. Still, your points sound more like scenario issues rather than issues with cast or artistic flaws. Also I did not imply the film by David Lynch being bad. It is amazing, and even more so for its time.
@@Raymoiful i did not make any "prior film knowledge" assumptions about you. It just was the way i experienced the film by David Lynch for the first time. So i've shared that remembrance of my. Sorry for misleading wording.
Villeneuve Chiani always has this “broom stick up the wazoo” expression on her face. 😮😮😮
Zendaya is way too overrated in anything she appears in
Yes but only for keeping the greatist line in all of Dune, 'Stilgar: Usul, we have wormsign the likes of which even God has never seen.'
Dune 1984 was what got me into Dune in the first place. I think David Lynch's Dune gets the weird vibes of the universe correct and the music is very good, but it's a hilarious mess of a movie. The only issue I really have with Villeneuve's version of Dune was that it wasn't long enough; even with nearly 6hrs of content, there's a lot they had to cut from the book.
I love Lynch and his Dune is redeemable, but it is a total mess especially after the halfway point. I would rather throw on his version than Part One on about 50% of all days, but I prefer Villenueve's version in totality and especially part two by a country mile.
I do think the new version is better overall regarding this. 1984 version is even shorter and cuts much more. However for the time I taught it was really impressive. I do like Patrick Stewart. It is a movie I never remembered for the plot really, but much more for the visuals. It was "that weird" sci fi movie. That said, looking at it back now, it did not age well - it is clearly a product of the 80's, and the characters look like they are on a pride parade. I liked the old version, but it was not something I ever took serious.
The new version made me look at Dune in a new light. It feels way more epic and grand. Like a proper space opera. But the first book is elementary. I wish Villeneuve will have the balls to adapt second and 3'rd book. Because things get really weird really fast. I have no idea how that would look - but I like weird movies. There's too many predictable and run of the mill plots. Don't get me wrong - a standard hero's journey works well, but I think it's healthy to see something more unique and out there from time to time.
anyone making a film version of Dune has to cut. Lynch cut. DV cut. that's not the issue. the issue is WHAT was cut. DV radically flipped at least five major character arcs on their heads. Why? so he could make Chani the protagonist of part 2 and to ignore part 3. For those of you who have not read the source material, Dune was EXPLICITLY created as a trilogy. DV's Dune is simply a dumbed down version of the books for a Marvel audience. Looked cool for a couple hours. I'll never remember any of the imagery from the movie because it wasn't really that amazing. Yet i am still haunted by images from Lynch's version decades later. Dune is a psychedelic, psychological story and DV just excised all of that.
There were about 50 minutes of outtakes in the TV version, yet David Lynch disowned it for reasons I still cannot comprehend.
The 1984 music was epic. I remember the way it made young me hyped when it was played over the credits as a two parter shown on tv back in the day.
David Lynch - did a great job! I have seen that movie 17 times
Who would have thought an effects-heavy science fiction film would look better when made with the technology available today compared to 40 years ago.
Yeah, go figure!
In Lynch'es Dune worldbuilding was better explained. In newer version they didn't make Paul seem like hero which is what Herbert wanted. All in all it is good to watch Lynch'es Dune and then you can watch newer version for better visuals
A fair assessment, but the original Dune was superior in every way. The actors were much better and they looked like the characters as they were described in the books. The music, costumes, and sets were better. They didn’t change lines from the book or the gender of characters. The new movies were more epic in the battle scenes and left out some of the excesses and horror film features that you correctly described, but I didn’t like the casting and was unconvinced by the actors. The Harkonnen’s looked all wrong and didn’t even pronounce their name correctly. The emperor was lackluster and tired looking. Jessica was supposed be a stunning redhead and she was quite ordinary looking.
I remember watching the movie in the theaters in 1984 and thinking that this was the best book to movie adaptation that I had ever seen out of Hollywood. The most impressive thing that I had seen since the first Star Wars. I also remember seeing Paul and Jessica on screen for the first time and thinking, my gosh, that is exactly how I pictured them while reading. The acting was so good. It really felt like Dune. The voice modules were not in the book and that bothered me, but it was a forgivable time saving plot device for film. The only thing I didn’t like about the Lynch movie was it went way too overboard on making the Harkonnens gross and sadistic, but they are way more convincing than the bald oily poorly acted villains in the new movies. They don’t even explain why the Baron is forced to float around or is ill. The new movies basically ignored the spacing guild and gave the emperor and his planet short shrift. You don’t really get a good explanation of the political factions or ducal family rivalries at all. Even the Bene Gesserit are insufficiently explained. The Telaxu and Ixians are not mentioned at all, nor is the Butlerian jihad. The Lynch film did a better job of setting the story. My brother saw the film having never read the books and had no trouble following it.
Ok boomer
Why are all the net comparisons between Lynch and Villeneuve???! Doesn't Harrison's miniseries for SciFi channel get any love?
Hold on, don't turn everything into your assumptions about misogyny and how hard women supposedly had it in the most prosperous first-world country on Earth. Sean Young encountered a lot of sexism in Hollywood, but that didn't happen in Dune. It was one of her favorite experiences, and she petitioned hard for the movie.
This is a valid criticism. I was just assuming she would have been annoyed her part was cut down to the bare minimum, but it's great to hear I was wrong. I guess working on a David Lynch movie would be a highlight of anyone's career, however it turned out.
Both the Lynch movie and the new Villneuve movies miss a LOT of content, but at different points and the new versions, dispite being twice as long, miss far more key moments which is frustrating. Honestly I much prefer the Lynch version especially with it's truely alien future vibe.
Yes, and it doesn't takes much: Lynch understands the timing of a film while Villenevue has no idea
Lynch was also working under much greater challenges where timing was concerned, because he had to cram the entire story into one film. It feels rushed at several points, but you can't blame it given its constraints.
@@LCTesla I can blame the studio, tho. They had five hours of footage, enough to fill two entire movies and cover the book, but the studio was desperate to make Dune into the two-hours blockbuster, so Lynch had to work with what he was given, and minimum of creative control (they didn't even let him do the final editing of the movie).
Hold up, Paul does move to marry Irulan in the Lynch film.
Dune 1984 was great for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the amazing cast and soundtrack. Did they get everything right? Not by a longshot. But the FEELING was there. But above everything else, it got me interested in Dune as a kid, and made me want to read the books, which I did... ever since, I couldn't get enough of Dune. Yes, even the Brian Herbert books, the SciFi miniseries, etc.
Is it better than the new Dune? No... absolutely not. But the Lynch version still has one thing that no other movie will EVER have.... Captain Picard charging into battle with a pug in his arms.
Lynch nailed the Guild Navigators. I missed them in Villeneuve's Dune. Also MIA in Villeneuve's Dune was Alia. Those were two omissions I can't forgive
I can do without Zendaya. Although her "always in the mullygrubs" acting style fits well with this character.
What was all this nonsense about Southern Fremen being “fundamentalist” in Dune 2? I don’t remember that distinction being made in the books or even seeing that word ever used. Sounds like an anachronistic modernism to me.
The Lynch version has its merits, if you consider the limitations in screentime, budget and technical knowledge.
The Villeneuve version has the better music&ouund, show us pictures of magnificent beauty which could be exhibited in any painting gallery, gave us a better Stilgar (at least in Dune I), a better Lady Jessica, fascinating sardaukar fights and the best ----- the very best of Villeneuves version ---- he spared the audience the toddler Alia.
Screenplay is better, but everything else is far worse. I prefer 84 version.
it a lot of ways it's not a fair comparison, because it's like comparing two gifted students where one peeked at the answers of the other.
A film that shows Paul making it rain at the end and has Halleck holding pugs going into battle? LOL! I admit that I laughed out loud when I saw the cow and Rabban kicking a midget on Giedi Prime. And Lynch is one of my favorite directors but when he himself pulled an Alan Smithee and disassociated himself from his own film tells you all you need to know. Some nice visuals but the perfect party film to have on with no sound.
If you have to ask this question, you're clueless.
but you were cool with DV just omitting the Spacing Guild from the ending, the group who literally started the whole story? you were cool with Fremen just immeditaely hopping onto spaceships to go conquer the galaxy?
EXACTLY, people shit on Lynch for making changes & omissions yet DVs are arguably way more egregious and yet he gets a pass@@notmyproblem88
@@notmyproblem88 There's maybe one page devoted to the Guild in Dune book 1. They're hardly in it and hardly anything is explained about them. It's already made clear that Paul controls the spice and can destroy it rendering the Guild utterly impotent so the 1min dialogue between Paul and the Guild from the book is hardly critical. They're featured more prominently in Dune Messiah.
The Guild started the story? Based on what? Brian Herbert & Kevin Anderson's crappy, juvenile prequel books?
By God Emperor of Dune, the Guild become a laughing stock and once Ix develop No-ships that can fold space, the Guild cease to exist.
Dune book 1 ends abruptly. Ships of the major Houses are in orbit around around Arrakis and they don't all acknowledge the transfer of power from House Corrino to House Atreides and the Fremen. Also, holding melange hostage doesn't sit well with them. It's plausible that the Jihad starts immediately above Arrakis. This is a minor issue. The Jihad starts. Whether it starts immediately or a month after, etc is pointless.
Nothing like Paul making it rain at the end of Lynch's version. Ridiculous. Gurney Halleck going into battle holding a pug in his arms? What a bad joke. Badly written over-expository inner monologues. Important secondary characters like Duncan Idaho, Gurney Halleck, Stilgar are hardly even in it. Rabban and Feyd were comical characters.
Did you even read Dune book1?
@@bernbsy I love DV fanboy rage. How did the Great Houses get to Arrakis? How did the Atreides get to Arrakis? How did the Harkonnens get to Arrakis? How did the Emperor's Saradaukaur get to Arrakis? How did nobody notice all of the Fremen on Dune? If you believe DV, it' because these advanced technological societies are just dumb. If you read the book it talks about Kynes bribing the Guild. So there they are again. This line comes from my copy of Dune (maybe you skipped it because it's boring exposition): "When my father, the Padishah Emperor , heard of Duke Leto's Death and the manner of it...He blamed my mother and the compact forced on him to place a Bene Gesserit on the throne. HE BLAMED THE GUILD and the evil old Baron." Weird how my copy of Dune has the Spacing Guild peppered throughtout and yours only has one page. Maybe you mistakenly purchased the novelization of DV's film.Why does Frank Herbert, in my copy of Dune, literally put SPACE TRAVEL in all caps in the appendix on Religion of Dune and talk about the Guild's monopoly and its role in the creation of Dune's religion? Oh look, there's the Guild again in the Appendix of the Ecology of Dune. So the Spacing Guild had ABSOLUTE control over what players were present. And if an author puts characters in the very last chapter of their book, that tends to mean they think they're important. (Sidenote: the very final line of Dune is about Jessica and Chani's relationship as concubines and their importance. Also not important to DV) Why is my copy of Dune LOADED with interior monologues and why does EVERY chapter begin with quotations from texts? You seriously think IGNORING all of this information is good filmmaking? Because that's all DV did was simply IGNORE the complexity of the story so that he could make it into a pretty, palatable pill for the modern Marvel fanboy to swallow and hopefully drop a nice chunk of money on some Dune bobbleheads at the next comicon. You're complaining that the characters in Lynch's Dune which had a runtime of 137 min are shown less than the characters in DV's Dune 1 and 2 which had a runtime of 322 minutes? And it's weird that you're concerned with character's screentime when DV just cut Alia out of the movie almost entirely, cut the Guild Navigators out and yet invented a character (Chani's nameless friend) who gets many scenes and many lines of dialogue. Is Lynch's Dune perfect? Nope. Does it get closer to making a film version of a complex psychological, psychedelic story which is largely told through interior monologues, which is about plots within plots and wheels within wheels? yes. much closer.
@@notmyproblem88 Humankind colonized space and were capable of interstellar travel way before the Guild. It wasn't until after the Butlerian Jihad when AI was outlawed that tech could no longer be developed coupled with the discovery of melange led to the Guild's monopoly on space travel.
So your premise that the 'Guild literally started the whole story.' is childish, doesn't make sense, and is utter stupidity.
Further, without melange, they're impotent. Without it they're nothing. The navigators even require it to transform their bodies as well as navigate space. They're just a transport company that is completely dependent on one substance for all their abilities and operations. Paul was able to render them useless just by controlling melange and its distribution. Hence why they disappear as an organization by the time of the God Emperor.
Peppered about? LOL! Yeah take those peppered about sequences and put them together and you'll have less than a page devoted to the Guild in the whole book, Even in the appendix, the section on space travel talks more about CET, OCB, and religion than about the Guild. They're hardly mentioned even in this section.
Herbert wrote, "They have a narrow vision of time. They can see ahead to a blank wall marking the consequences of disobedience. The Guild is like a village by a river. They need the water but can only dip out what they require." He himself explained in detail why the Guild have a false sense of self-importance.
The Guild, Ix, Bene Tleilax, and Bene Gesserit are essentially utility companies, powerful but still controlled by the Emperor, CHOAM, and the Landsraad. The emperor with his Sardaukar could wipe out the Guild, keep some navigators alive and make them do whatever he wanted by denying them melange. Hence why in later books the Bene Gesseit, Ix, and Bene Tleilax are still relevant but the Guild no longer exist.
Oooh he put space travel in all caps!! OMG! Every listing in the glossary are in all caps. The only person who thinks all caps means something would be a child and judging by your verbosity and repetition, you clearly are a child.
When Blade Runner 2049, by the same director, premiered someone described it as the "iPhone" sequel -- sleek and polished production quality, but very little essence and purpose. That's pretty much fits with this Dune revival on the big screen. For all of its faults and limitations, the David Lynch's direction feels more creative and memorable. Villeneuve's vision of magnitude and grandiose seems to be much more compensatory than fulfilling -- a competently crafted boredom with few memorable moments worth remembering.
Lynch's adaptation invokes unease and almost horror, and is a milestone of cinema. It is timeless and therefore, has more legs and longevity than the new adaptation.
In 50 years, we'll still be watching Lynch's... while Villenueve's adaptation will be ignored.
Leto’s dog is a bloody Face Dancer.
Better? I feel like you can compare them. They are so different.
The sheilds are hand drawn animation over many layers.
I love both and am so glad they both are in this world. And the books. These are beautiful gifts from amazing artists. What Frank gave to us gave so much more than I think even he could have expected. It's inspiration reaches very far.
the only thing i can say that was better in lynch's was that they showed a spacing guild navigator and i thought they cast the emperor better.
an important fact about the 1984 movie is that David Lynch (idiotically) wasn't given full creative freedom, so the version he would have stood behind would have looked very, very different
It’s definitely closer to the source material than the newer films I think everyone will admit that
No I would say that the newer dune reflects more accurately the source material.
Lynch is vision shows Paul to be a real hero which is not what Herbert envisioned.
@@carlossawyer5424True. Yet at the same time Lynch'es film had that intro like in Star Wars which neatly introduced us to what universe is going to be about a world in which people made great war against AI. Sometimes telling instead of showing works.
I kind of laughed how Channi was basically pouting at the end for a good five minutes in several different scenes, like her date split the bill on her (in Villeneuve version).
Even something as simple as the “thumpers” in Dune 1984 are more believable!
Only concessions I'll make to the 1984 version are a few of the sets (the Imperial throne room is _way_ too Ikea basic) and some of the desert color. Almost everything else is either way better in Villeneuve or at least a legitimate style difference. Both have some odd casting choices.
I didn't know Peter Hitchens did movie reviews.
lol. The resemblance is uncanny.
If you’ve read the books, I recommend the 1984 adaptation. If you haven’t read the books, I recommend the new adaption. But personally I enjoy both.
I would love to throw both movies and the book into a blender for the perfect version.
Lynche's Dune is superior. Too bad its a bit short.
Check out the Spicedriver cut..3hrs.
From what I have seen of new Dune from the trailers, it lacks in many areas which diminishes the incentive to see it.
Comparing is an obvious thing to do, but one can only wonder what Lynch's version would have been like if he had been allowed to edit his film. For that reason, the Spicediver edit is my favourite. And comparing special effects would be unfair at best given the disparity of time.
But without a doubt, Lynch's version has better casting, sets, creature effects, music. I'll admit that it does fall down in some aspects, but also excels in others. I thought the "whispered thoughts" were a great plot device.
And when I heard that Alia had been written out of the story, that seemed like a strange aspect to change from the source. And the change to Chani, I have no idea what was going on there…
I agree with you.
The new Dune movies are not bad just bland.
The Lynch version feels epic. You get a weird alien exotic vibe from it.
The casting, sets, music , costumes were amazing.
I loved the way the Atreides were portraited in it. Their sense of duty, honor, courage, pride.
Jürgen Prochnow's Duke Leto is ten times better than Oscar Isaac's in the new movies.
I respect Christopher Walken but he was miscast as the emperor in the new movies.
Also, the Spacing Guild is basically missing from the new Dune movies. In the Lynch's version the Guild is grandiosely introduced and they put them in cahoots with the Emperor to take down the Atreides.
The only gripes I have about Lynch's Dune is the portrait of the Harkonnens. They are just over the top caricatures, the ending feels rushed and I did not like the rain.
Lynch version is not perfect but I had a much better cinematic experience watching it than the new ones.
@@CarClav In Lynch's version we feel the full weight of politics from the Spacing Guild. Telling the Emperor of the known Universe to shut up and listen, that if he doesn't fix the problem (that he didn't even know about) he would be tortured for the rest of his life. The new movie had beautiful desert scenes, but gutted the Spacing Guild.
@@CarClav The rain at the end was indeed a mistake. Water is fatal to the worms, and rain like that would destroy the ecology. No worms, no spice… I wonder if he rain was a studio decision, like Bladerunner's sunny car drive epilogue.
The Spicediver edit deleted the rain, which is not surprising…
I hadn't really thought much about the Harkonnen behaviour. I guess it was a "little" overplayed, but it does paint them as the villains effectively, even if there is some furniture chewing.
In between was the mini series which was much more to the books, which I like. The new films are good, but omit a bit much. The old film has a nice look but is just too short for the book. I read it afterwards and was a bit surprised of all the changes.
There are some elements in the first Dune movie that are better then the latest version. I actually loved the first versions soundtrack better and I thought that the newest version (though awesome)
Was a bit rushed and changed the story in some fundamental ways
For 1984 the original Dune was awesome.
Also FWIW, let's compare the amount of runtime each director/film had to work with.
Dune 1984 - 2 hrs 17 mins.
Dune pt 1 / pt 2 2020s - 5hrs 21 minutes.
Can't have one without the other
"Villeneuve's version started with the characters......"
Except it didn't.
I wouldn't call the fleshy cardboard cut outs in Dune Part One "characters" at all.
Most of them have precisely zero character development.
Including at least one key character - Dr Yueh - killed in the first film, whose betrayal looks like an insanely obvious possibility without properly defining his character first to explain to the audience why the Atreides never would have suspected him to be a traitor.
Villeneuve didn't just cut some lore out of the first film - he cut basically all the characters out of it, leaving just names that occasionally speak something.
For example - why even bother to include the 2 different family mentats at all if you don't want to bother defining how a mentat is different from all their other servants?
Sooooo much screen time is wasted on Paul just pouting and staring off into the distance while Villeneuve wanks behind the camera in a manner that frankly confuses me when compared to his much more compact storytelling format in other films he has made.
All of this could MAYBE be forgiven, if only Part One wasn't 2.5 hours long.
That's 2.5 hours with less character development than Lynch's entire film which also conveys a significant amount of the story in Villeneuve's Dune Part Two.
To call Part One anaemic is to grossly understate the issue - there is playing it softly softly, and then there is just obvious studio cutting his balls off politics.
They wanted an MCU style brainless, flashy action flick for the first film - which at best makes the 2nd part ludicrously unbalanced because it's basically holding the storytelling and character development weight of 2 films instead of 1.
To say I'm incredibly frustrated is a massive understatement - I loved Arrival, and while Blade Runner 2049 has its issues to me (mainly Harrison Ford phoning it in while taking the final victory dance 😒) it is still a very good sequel to the original Blade Runner film, and more than I would have expected given the last major 80s sequel before it was TRON Legacy which was terrible beyond its great soundtrack.
I thought that in the Lynch version Paul did declare he would take the Princess as his wife, but bare no children with her. As for the galactic Jihad, Dune 2 did make that clearer, but the Fremen jumping on transport ships and taking off, presumably to fight the houses of the Landstraad who were in orbit, was a bit strange. I mean from desert warfare to space battle? To be fair Herbert was incredibly light on the detail of battle in space, saying only that House Corrino came to power by winning such an engagement.
Whether it's the David Lynch version or the current version, one thing remains the same: Stilgar is still the coolest character.
Yup, my favorite version is Lynch's. Then Villenueve's & Harrison's next. This is not the end of course, there will be more re-adaptations of Dune in the future, decades from now & decades in between them.
04/21/24
The Sci Fi channel series did it better than either as far as story line goes. Both movies missed on so many levels. There are so many things left so poorly explained, if touched on at all. In both the old and new. And critical parts of the story are twisted in such a way to completely change the dynamic of the film vs the book. Just really disappointed.
It was too dark to be popular at the time but grew a following after home release...
I like them both.
You know that old adage about how there’s no such thing as a stupid question? Way to prove that adage wrong.
Bullshit, this is a perfectly valid question and one I'd wholeheartedly answer YES to, Lynch by far made the superior film and managed to adapt the story and include more important elements in 2 and a half hours than DV could manage across 2 films and 6 hours.
So the question is stupid because it's obvious that the older, Lynch version is better?
😂😂😂 I can’t add enough laughing emoji’s! Lynch’s Dune was hilariously bad! How did that rain on Arrakis at the end there work out for all those sand worms and spice production for the new emperor’s imperium?😂😂
Lynch has the far better version . Untainted by politics. There is no comparison.
Have you read the books? Once you get past all the sci-fi stuff, which is very interesting, you'll notice politics is at the core of each one of them.
Yes.
the old one is superior. intro, score, acting, actors, delivery, it showed the navigators, and a better boss fight. this new garbage has actors who don't want to be there. the old one had issues but was just more FUN TO WATCH.
The casting is very good in the both films (for instance for the couple Paul-Chani)..but i prefer from afar the Villeneuve 's film for many reasons : movie staging music,photo,..
Moreover, it's too difficult for me to review the "baroque" film of David lynch: too horrific !(too stupid?).
I dont like it.
I didn'read the books.
Lynch's Dune should be considered worse just for the fact that he made Paul a positive savior figure, full tilt, which is exactly the *opposite* of what Herbert intended. I don't think movies should be perfect copies of the books they are based on, they can certainly deviate, but I don't want the movie to be the thematic polar opposite of what the author intended. Dune 2024 is in tune with the thematic message that Herbert intended: that messiah figures are a danger and should be viewed with extreme caution and skepticism.
No.
Lynch's ver is much better imo
If you watched the 1984 version before you've read the book(s), IF you were still interested, you'd then read the book and watch the film once again.
In my opinion the Dune universe is the best sci fi story of all time. But Im a little weird.
At this point in my life, reading is practically a 'no brainer'.
Too bad humanity has been devolving, and for some time.
Villeneuve's version is much better, you dont need to read the book and thats a good thing due to the de evolution I just mentioned.
But I highly recommend the first few books. Theyre a 'no brainer' compared to other books Ive read.
Have you read H. Beam Piper's 'Null-ABC'? Most of society becomes Illiterate (for which Piper blames the whole word teaching method, film-books & books on magnetic tape ( or audio books). & two additional world wars.
I can get the impressive parts of the Villeneuve out of the way: it’s visually impressive, and certainly long. The acting between the two efforts is a wash, for my money. What interests me in science fiction, and always has, is universe building. I was fascinated by people like Asimov and Heinlein when I was introduced to the genre in the 1950’s. This has continued in writers like Smith, Miller, Vance, Niven, and Banks. If I am to appreciate a movie interpretation of Dune, it has to somehow evoke a universe 250 centuries hence. I can only report that Lynch achieves this, and Villeneuve doesn’t. To some reporters, Villeneuve may accomplish something by making his series “relevant.” However important that may be to some people, it is not to me.
No
1984 is more sci fi, more dreamworld like, current version is more realistic in how religion starts/works. part 2 is better than part 1. For me personally 1984 version is the best. + Javier Bardem kicks ASS!!!!! Lisan Al Gaib
Many times better
Much better
the costumes in lynch's movie were just lame
All I can hear is this dude's lips smacking when he closes/opens his mouth 🤢
Yes it's better
To answer this question, directly...um, no.
Lynch’s movie is terrible - even he says so. The idiotic shouting weirding module, Paul being a hero, the rain at the end, the wooden performances…the only good thing was the battle pug.
Lynch's Dune was competing with peak Star Wars and Star Trek. Beyond that, when you look at it now, it is a stronger ACTOR's film. Honestly DUNE 2 was a huge disappointment. If the third film is a not brilliant, it doesn't do anything other than compare to the SCI FI channel version.
It’s better
I found the new version dry and boring just like desert on Arakis.
If you think Lynch is better, lol ?