David Lynch's Dune 1984 - that beautiful glorious diasaster

[MRC01]

... I've been reading science fiction since I was 7. I started with Heinlein juveniles and was reading the stuff in the adult section of the library by the time I was 10. I still read it nearly 70 years later. By high school I had become reasonably selective although earlier I read everything I could get my hands on. I still enjoy it and am always looking for new authors. ...

I resemble that! Also the Princess of Mars series and several other old goodies I really enjoyed back in the day but if I went back and read them again today I would probably be disappointed.

 

[Shiva]

Read all the books as a teen, and saw Lynch’s Dune on it’s opening day. Except for a few scenes that weren’t in the books at all, was wholly absorbed and loved seeing the books characters brought to life. A bit harder to watch now, but have seen it quite a few times over the years.

 

[DMill]

Screenplay adaptions of epic books are forced to have to overcome nerds like me picking them apart. Some things just don’t work in a movie like they can in a book. Even the best of them, like The Shining have missing content. Where was Tom Bombadil in Lord of the Rings? To me, Dunes legacy is already written. It’s probably worth the watch and is an enjoyable movie for what it is.

 

[Ian Wendt]

Screenplay adaptions of epic books are forced to have to overcome nerds like me picking them apart. Some things just don’t work in a movie like they can in a book. Even the best of them, like The Shining have missing content. Where was Tom Bombadil in Lord of the Rings? To me, Dunes legacy is already written. It’s probably worth the watch and is an enjoyable movie for what it is.

I'll throw out a controversial opinion, but as someone who has read the books countless times, and love them, I'm comfortable saying it. Peter Jackson's LOTR is better story-telling than Tolkien's original work, and far more accessible.

 

[Ron Texas]

Maybe I'm a barbarian, but I thought that the 1984 Dune was OK.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The Sci-Fi channel Dune was not bad either.

 

[JSmith]

Maybe I'm a barbarian, but I thought that the 1984 Dune was OK.

Yeah, just ok, never really loved it though... however the newer Dune is really good and shows off the complex story line properly I feel. Looking forward to the 2nd part.


JSmith

 

[cEbNVDyfMy]

Dune 1984 is one of my fav movies of all time. It is fantastic. I agree however, it is poorly edited and the story arc is very hard to follow as a result unless you have read the books. The set design, costumes, acting, soundtrack, special effects (especially considering the time) are amazing in my opinion. If only Salvador Dali was the emperor like Jodorosky had planned!

 

[Ian Wendt]

Dune 1984 is one of my fav movies of all time. It is fantastic. I agree however, it is poorly edited and the story arc is very hard to follow as a result unless you have read the books. The set design, costumes, acting, soundtrack, special effects (especially considering the time) are amazing in my opinion. If only Salvador Dali was the emperor like Jodorosky had planned!

The Jodorowsky "Dune" would have been utterly insane, and I would have LOVED to have seen it. You can find quite a lot of the same concepts that would have shown up in his Dune adaptation if you read his Metabaron graphic novels.

 

[jsilvela]

Another fan vote for Dune 1984.
Yes it's a somewhat "failed" movie, it has uneven pacing, it's at parts obscure.
But there is so much wonder and weirdness in it, far more than most "perfect" movies.

Speaking of Blade Runner 1982, I don't get how the consensus is that *that* one is a classic.
The pacing is as uneven as Dune 1984, and it does not have a fraction of the inspiration. Ah well

 

[Andysu]

dune , THX/TAP six track Dolby Stereo , lucasfilm ltd THX sound system



after the , laserdisc Dolby AC-3 as those sand worms will be theatrical low end mixed here in THX sound system

 

[Andysu]

I found this quite amusing…

the colour on dune '84 better , colour on these new woke movies is plainly dreadful , '84 only , i skipped though remake dune rental it bored me , the low end and lack of major hyped atmos with no directional dialog it was 2hrs boring , nope will not even watch part 2 or or even consider it for , dog cat charity recuse shelter , the day of rubbish colour is over for me

 

[Ron Texas]

Yeah, just ok, never really loved it though... however the newer Dune is really good and shows off the complex story line properly I feel. Looking forward to the 2nd part.


JSmith

I meant something better than "just OK". Maybe not a science fiction classic but not the awful thing some around here are making it out to be.

 

[MRC01]

I'll throw out a controversial opinion, but as someone who has read the books countless times, and love them, I'm comfortable saying it. Peter Jackson's LOTR is better story-telling than Tolkien's original work, and far more accessible.

Interesting. In terms of storytelling I feel the opposite, and the difference is big enough they aren't even in the same league. In terms of accessibility, perhaps the movie is better, if only because of the sad fact that more people will watch moves than read big long books.

 

[Ian Wendt]

Interesting. In terms of storytelling I feel the opposite, and the difference is big enough they aren't even in the same league. In terms of accessibility, perhaps the movie is better, if only because of the sad fact that more people will watch moves than read big long books.

Tolkien was obsessed with minutia, and can be incredibly dry. There's a TON of detail that really doesn't contribute that much to moving the story along. Which is totally fine for myself but I know quite a few people who just couldn't get into the books precisely because of those characteristics of Tolkien's style. But the movie version is MUCH leaner, while still conveying the important parts of the story. Yeah, Jackson made some relatively minor changes to characters and events, but nothing that substantially detracts from the overall story. It is, IMO, by far the best adaptation of a major literary work ever done.

 

[MRC01]

... Jackson made some relatively minor changes to characters and events, but nothing that substantially detracts from the overall story.

OK in response I am going to let my nerd flag fly high and proud. This deserves a multi-beer disucussion at the local pub so I'll keep it short and mention only 1 negative and 1 positive.

Jackson changed the Ents from wise guardians who needed only to be wakened and quickly went to war to defend Middle Earth, bringing the Hobbits with them, into indecisive procrastinators who needed to be cajoled by the Hobbits into defending Middle Earth. That was a major and very disappointing change. I nearly walked out of the theater when I saw it the first time.

One change I did like was that Jackson gave Aragorn more depth and complexity than he has in the novel.

 

[Andysu]

 

[krabapple]

Dune 1984 is one of my fav movies of all time. It is fantastic. I agree however, it is poorly edited and the story arc is very hard to follow as a result unless you have read the books. The set design, costumes, acting, soundtrack, special effects (especially considering the time) are amazing in my opinion. If only Salvador Dali was the emperor like Jodorosky had planned!

blue eyes sloppily 'drawn' onto the Mexican extras playing the Fremen? That wowed you?

And the extremely 80s and instantly dated 'punk/mad max' costuming for the extremely miscast and mis-conceived Baron Harkonnen and his thugs -- that too?

I loathed/laughed at them back in 1984 and still do. Plus Kyle McLachlan's amateurish performance, Patrick Stewart's shouty hamming, Sting being Sting.... Just terrible.

The one thing that did hold up was Lynch's amusingly grotesque body-horror conception of the Guild navigators. And props to Brad Dourf's Piter, just perfect in the few scenes he had.

 

[cEbNVDyfMy]

blue eyes sloppily 'drawn' onto the Mexican extras playing the Fremen? That wowed you?

And the extremely 80s and instantly dated 'punk/mad max' costuming for the extremely miscast and mis-conceived Baron Harkonnen and his thugs -- that too?

I loathed/laughed at them back in 1984 and still do. Plus Kyle McLachlan's amateurish performance, Patrick Stewart's shouty hamming, Sting being Sting.... Just terrible.

The one thing that did hold up was Lynch's amusingly grotesque body-horror conception of the Guild navigators. And props to Brad Dourf's Piter, just perfect in the few scenes he had.

Baron Harkonnen was played amazingly well in my opinion!

I do agree with you on Brad Dourf's Piter...he stole the show in the limited screen time he had. Fantastic performance!

 

[krabapple]

Baron Harkonnen is supposed to be crafty, calculating, cruel aristocrat with, um, 'refined' tastes.

Not a raving lunatic slob.