David Lynch's Dune 1984 - that beautiful glorious diasaster

[Shiva]

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.

Just to add a little to the story of the Ents as written. Once the Entmoot began, it took 3 days until the decision was reached to go to war. Jackson probably wanted to convey that it didn't happen quickly. In the book, the Hobbits just patiently waited until it was finished. In the movie, the Hobbits were shown to be a little "Hasty." Still, it was a great effort by Jackson to capture the Ents on film. I'm sure not an easy undertaking.
Back to the movie Dune, much to find problems with, but still for 1984, a bold attempt to capture some of that book on film as well. Though, if viewed now, I skip most scenes with the diseased scabby Baron. That was not in the book.

 

[Ian Wendt]

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

Not a raving lunatic slob.

"Refined tastes" is an interesting way to describe a pederast with a penchant for torture and rape.

 

[Prana Ferox]

I liked the David Lynch Dune, although I can see why a layperson wouldn't. The books portray a world that is intended to be very foreign (i.e. weird) and Lynch reasonably pulled that off, especially with stuff like the Guild Navigator and the mentats. The new one was dreck, the casting was disastrous, the cinematics poor, etc etc and not remotely near weird enough.

 

[AlexanderM]

I read a number of the books, back in the day, and always thought, one should read the book before watching the film (1984). I still watch it occasionally and see it as a grand disaster that's worth watching, if you're into Dune.

 

[Andysu]

scene where alicia standing in the dune desert holding a knife reminds me of lawrence of arabia

 

[krabapple]

"Refined tastes" is an interesting way to describe a pederast with a penchant for torture and rape.

Isn't it now?

Imagine if I hadn't put it in quotes and preceded by an 'um'.

Horse, water.

 

[krabapple]

I liked the David Lynch Dune, although I can see why a layperson wouldn't. The books portray a world that is intended to be very foreign (i.e. weird) and Lynch reasonably pulled that off, especially with stuff like the Guild Navigator and the mentats. The new one was dreck, the casting was disastrous, the cinematics poor, etc etc and not remotely near weird enough.

Hmm, I'm hardly a 'layperson' and I have my well-worn Science Fiction Book Club hardcover from the early 1970s to prove it.

There's a reason Lynch took his name off the train wreck from 1984; and a reason plenty of Dune aficionados think it's quite bad too; and a reason many of them think Villeneuve's is already spectacularly better at the halfway point.

 

[TonyJZX]

there's a laundry list of issues where the movie diverts from the book but strangely Frank Herbert was ok with it... I think he was very accepting of any film adaptation because perhaps ANY adaptation was unlikely... especially with the clash with Jodorowsky's drama.

There's a few things I dont like about the new Dune and one thing is that they failed to build a believeable world... it feels generic. To me it feels like Disney's "John Carter". Lynch actually built a 'Dune world'.

Ironically its coming to the 40th anniversary of this movie. Maybe they can release a fixed BR?

Alicia Witt is now coming to 49 yrs of age which just about says it all.

 

[jsilvela]

I liked the David Lynch Dune, although I can see why a layperson wouldn't. The books portray a world that is intended to be very foreign (i.e. weird) and Lynch reasonably pulled that off, especially with stuff like the Guild Navigator and the mentats. The new one was dreck, the casting was disastrous, the cinematics poor, etc etc and not remotely near weird enough.

Yes! The books are weird.
The religious undertones are in the Lynch version, but lost in the Villeneuve version.
And unforgivably, little use is made of the messianic mumbo jumbo, Muad'dib, "the one", etc.
I was waiting and hoping to hear:

> Fear is the mind killer

There's a reason Lynch took his name off the train wreck from 1984; and a reason plenty of Dune aficionados think it's quite bad too; and a reason many of them think Villeneuve's is already spectacularly better at the halfway point.

Well, that's not such an indictment.
Tolstoy hated Anna Karenina in his old age...

 

[TonyJZX]

one thing that shows Dune's influence on culture is that many of the phrases in the script ended up being a part of modern media in music etc

eg.

travelling without moving

the spice must flow

jose ferrer is amazing in this

oh yes, the script... is by lynch after reading the book

if you like the music

 

[Pe8er]

I don't believe in comparing how different artists envision a work of art. And I'm a big fan of appreciating more than one take on a story, as long as it's done with respect, talent and without cutting corners.

As a huge Lynch's fan, his Dune to me is a one-of-a-kind opportunity to see how Lynch's beautifully twisted imagination does in hard sci-fi genre. Villeneuve's Dune is a gorgeous, huge and immensely respectful version, empowered by his penchant for grandeur cinematography and humanist storytelling. Very different and just as wonderful. I'm thankful both of these exist. And finally the book is a classic, although I thought it aged a little poorly when I re-read it recently.

The original Blade Runner is a gritty, unique sci-fi film noir with fantastic performances, music, storytelling...everything just clicks in this movie, I could watch it on repeat. 2049 is visually stunning and an extremely compelling continuation of the story, with a very anti-contemporary pacing - slow and deliberate. And then there is the book, which I'm a huge fan of as well.

And Lord of the Rings....oh my, some of the comments in this thread got my heart rate going! I grew up on this book, I have an unhealthy amount of admiration for it and I strongly believe it does not belong in this world as a pop-culture-abiding, overly violent, shallow and devoid of nuance, but most importantly disrespectful "adaptation" by an awful B-class horror film director...in my humble although very intense opinion

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't believe in comparing how different artists envision a work of art. And I'm a big fan of appreciating more than one take on a story, as long as it's done with respect, talent and without cutting corners.

As a huge Lynch's fan, his Dune to me is a one-of-a-kind opportunity to see how Lynch's beautifully twisted imagination does in hard sci-fi genre. Villeneuve's Dune is a gorgeous, huge and immensely respectful version, empowered by his penchant for grandeur cinematography and humanist storytelling. Very different and just as wonderful. I'm thankful both of these exist. And finally the book is a classic, although I thought it aged a little poorly when I re-read it recently.

The original Blade Runner is a gritty, unique sci-fi film noir with fantastic performances, music, storytelling...everything just clicks in this movie, I could watch it on repeat. 2049 is visually stunning and an extremely compelling continuation of the story, with a very anti-contemporary pacing - slow and deliberate. And then there is the book, which I'm a huge fan of as well.

And Lord of the Rings....oh my, some of the comments in this thread got my heart rate going! I grew up on this book, I have an unhealthy amount of admiration for it and I strongly believe it does not belong in this world as a pop-culture-abiding, overly violent, shallow and devoid of nuance, but most importantly disrespectful "adaptation" by an awful B-class horror film director...in my humble although very intense opinion

The original Blade Runner is the first movie I remember where I thought the movie was much better than the book upon which it was based. I hadn't even heard anything about the movie. Some friends said they'd heard it was pretty slick so we went to see it. During the opening it told what book it was from which I had read.

Now everyone has their own idea, I thought 2049 was poor. Way overblown, overwrought plot and didn't go anywhere interesting. Seeming to turn the wrong way at each point it might have become interesting.

As for Dune, always going to be hard to do as a movie(s). I liked Lynch's, I liked the SciFi channel one, and I liked the latest the best. Look forward to part two coming up soon.

 

[solderdude]

The only things that really bugged me in Dune were Sting (weird seeing the well know popstar he is among actors that weren't familiar to me) and the fact that in the copies I saw some of the thumper sounds were clipped.

 

[Shiva]

slowly watching the alternate version, though I believe I’ve seen it before. Still amusing to see David Lynch in the movie, driving the spice harvester before the worm got it. Speaking of worms, I like this older version better than the latest model.

 

[Berwhale]

slowly watching the alternate version, though I believe I’ve seen it before. Still amusing to see David Lynch in the movie, driving the spice harvester before the worm got it. Speaking of worms, I like this older version better than the latest model.

Shai-Halud!

 

[Berwhale]

The original Blade Runner is the first movie I remember where I thought the movie was much better than the book upon which it was based. I hadn't even heard anything about the movie. Some friends said they'd heard it was pretty slick so we went to see it. During the opening it told what book it was from which I had read.

Now everyone has their own idea, I thought 2049 was poor. Way overblown, overwrought plot and didn't go anywhere interesting. Seeming to turn the wrong way at each point it might have become interesting.

As for Dune, always going to be hard to do as a movie(s). I liked Lynch's, I liked the SciFi channel one, and I liked the latest the best. Look forward to part two coming up soon.

Yes, I think Blade Runner diverges from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? in a good way. Given Mr. Dicks propensity for shoving his hand in a cookie jar full of amphetamines and noshing the lot before embarking on an extended writing binge, this is perhaps to be expected. That's not to say that I don't enjoy his oeuvre!

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I saw it in '84. Once was enough. The only way it could have been even more horrible would be if they had somehow cast Bo Derek in it.

 

[DMill]

I saw it in '84. Once was enough. The only way it could have been even more horrible would be if they had somehow cast Bo Derek in it.

I think visually stunning was a fair description for her. Even 40 years later, you could do much worse I think. And 10 was a quite clever movie btw Thanks to Dudley Moore and Julie Andrews.

 

[TonyJZX]

David Lynch’s Dune is returning to theaters in February for 40th anniversary

David Lynch’s Dune will return to movie theaters in February for a two-day 40th anniversary event. Read the details and learn how to purchase tickets.

consequence.net

ummmm yes

dont think there's going to be enhancements

 

[Chrispy]

David Lynch’s Dune is returning to theaters in February for 40th anniversary

David Lynch’s Dune will return to movie theaters in February for a two-day 40th anniversary event. Read the details and learn how to purchase tickets.

consequence.net

ummmm yes

dont think there's going to be enhancements

Wasn't it a made for tv thing in the first place? Or am I misremembering? I do enjoy it, tho not enough for the long drive to/from a theater....