An utter travesty - Dune (2000) Discussion

[–] brauner 17 years ago

I must agree. I loved Lynch's version and of course I loved the book even more. I had a very hard time getting through this one but managed to. The acting was.. well, let's just say I was more than disapointed.
An abomination...

reply

[–] DrPhoton 17 years ago

When you say "I loved Lynch's version...", you calibrate your opinion for the rest of us. Just so there's no confusion here, Lynch's version of Dune SUCKED BIG TIME. One of the worst movies made in the last thirty years, and probably the WORST book adaptation of all time. You're entitled to your opinion, but when you preface your put-down of the current version with a statement that actually FAVORS Lynch's "abomination," anything you say afterwards will be completely dismissed by the 99 % of Dune fans that HATED Lynch's piece of crap.

Having said that, I thought the series was quite good. The attempt was at least made to be faithful to Herbert's ideas, and I think, all in all, it succeeded. In many places, I was actually able to follow dialog along in the book, especially in scenes where Herbert's terse language was really the ONLY way to say it.

reply

[–] smj274 16 years ago

Having said that, I thought the series was quite good. The attempt was at least made to be faithful to Herbert's ideas, and I think, all in all, it succeeded. In many places, I was actually able to follow dialog along in the book, especially in scenes where Herbert's terse language was really the ONLY way to say it.

i have to totally agree. i just finished reading the first 3 books (and will read the next three by herbert later--i love the books!), after having watched both mini-series (which i bought!), and i have to say that i really liked the mini-series adaption. i like how irulan became a character, although after reading the books, i don't understand why she wasn't blonde and i think she could've been a bit more haughty. i would've liked more duncan idaho (as he is my favorite 'i'm destined to die in all of my incarnations' characters), there are a few more scenes that he's in... i definitely liked how it relied on the dialogue of the book and not on the 'importance' of the actors. i have been warned by others to never watch the 80s version, still haven't been convinced to do so. i am looking forward to the new version in 2010(?).

reply

[–] actorma 16 years ago

I just have to say that you shouldn't be so "warned" off of the Lynch version, because there are certainly some redeeming qualities (no matter what the blind haters may say). The acting, in most cases, was excellent, even if Kyle Maclaughlin was WAYYY over the top at times, the cast was fantastic, and the music, though a bit 80's was great. Yeah, the story was choppy, and the whole movie was a bit trippy, but when you're talking about Dune, what isn't trippy about that book? haha

See the 80's version and decide for yourself. It's really not a waste of time, and you might even enjoy the retro-ness of it.

reply

[–] chrisisstressed 11 years ago

I loved the book and the mini-series...es (cause there were 2) and even found that I could enjoy Lynch's version for, as you say, the music and acting (for the most part). But over the years I've been less and less able to sit through it. It isn't the book's story (notice that I didn't say it "it isn't the book") and sometimes I don't think it's even trying to be.

I always enjoyed the idea of creating the ultimate fighting force, which was pretty much killed in Lynch's version, along with the mythos and plotting underpinning the whole thing. And I get really annoyed every time the Baron makes his initial entrance.

Say what you want about Ian Mcneice's portrayal, it was still far more layered and detailed than Kenneth McMillan's. I know that film has limits, really, but the fact that they had to so obviously make him repugnant to the audience with diseases rather than let that happen through his acting annoys the hell out of me.

To me, it's like Lynch sat down and said, I'm going to waste time with a few pointless new scenes talking about the juice of Sapho and the many machines on Ix, rather than taking the time to make the Baron legitimately menacing. Really, I think McMillan should have at least been allowed to play the part without the diseases angle added on.

Also, couldn't disagree more with the OP, and it amazes me that you can call THIS a travesty and complain about Yueh having no plot -- his wife is wheeled out dead in glass case right in front of us! -- and Jessica doing something that Leto did in the book because it would cause issues... if we're going to talk issues then tell me, the last time you exercised, how much sweat came off your head ALONE? If we're going to talk with issues, I think that's slightly more important on a desert planet than something that a noble's concubine could have discussed with her man later and he could have rescinded or not at that time, jeez.

"What the hell is a Fuzzy! And why do they make such good Druids?!" - Spoony

reply

[–] HHFan 15 years ago

In your opinion.

--
Lets nuke the site from orbit - its the only way to be sure.

reply

[–] hexaae 15 years ago

Dune by Lynch was a great movie instead, even if it doesn't follow exactly the book.
Amazing atmosphere, evocative scenes, excellent cast, clothes and all the rest. It catches perfectly the "almost religious" spirit of the books and drives you in a wonderful universe. Great also the mind-voices idea. Absolutely.

I really can't understand why people says Lynch's adaptation is a flop. Maybe just because critcs said that? The big problem for this movie was that in those years Star Wars saga (much simpler sci-fi story and more understandable by common people with simple good vs bad etc.) came out...

This Dune 2k instead really sucks: it looks like a low budget Hercules or Xena or Deep Space 9 serie with a awful acting, and unadequate (both physically and abaout acting skills) cast (maybe except Giancarlo Giannini for The Emperor Padisha Shaddam IV, but needed a much better make-up in that case...).

Totally plain compared with the depth of Lynch's masterwork (with all its limits).

reply

[–] revan2908 15 years ago

Well, this particular nerd (me) has read all 6 of Herbert's novels. I have the two-disc DVD of Lynch's film. And I have both Dune (2000) and Children of Dune.

Taken alone, if one has never read the novels, David Lynch's film doesn't suck...if you just view it as a science fiction movie (by the way, Star Wars is more along the lines of fantasy, not sci fi). Still, when comparing to the novels, I find the miniseries adaptation of the first book to be superior. People have remarked on the "wooden" performance of the actor portraying Muad'Dib. Come on, it's not like he was hugely expressive in the novel. "Good" acting doesn't mean you have to have this idealized Shakesperean performance.

I do agree the Lynch film had an outstanding cast, though. That's about the only reason I own the film, having been spoiled by the novels.

The only thing I didn't care for in the miniseries was how many of the panoramic views of the desert looked obviously like large-scale paintings.

reply

[–] hexaae 15 years ago

IMHO a movie is not only a follow-exactly-the-book-to-make-fans-happy thing... it's important to create the right atmosphere, choosing good in-the-role actors, good photograph, make up, dresses etc. and under this point of view this one really sucks compared to Lynch's excellent work (even with its faults). That's it...

PS
I'm a nerd too and have read the 6 books, got DVDs etc. but Lynch's version is by far superior "as a movie" to this Xena-like teenager series version! ;) It's cinema art. Just the Toto music is enough to make me laugh comparing this Dune 2k...

reply

[–] DrgnChld5 15 years ago

Well, this particular nerd (me) has read all 6 of Herbert's novels. I have the two-disc DVD of Lynch's film. And I have both Dune (2000) and Children of Dune.

Taken alone, if one has never read the novels, David Lynch's film doesn't suck...if you just view it as a science fiction movie (by the way, Star Wars is more along the lines of fantasy, not sci fi). Still, when comparing to the novels, I find the miniseries adaptation of the first book to be superior. People have remarked on the "wooden" performance of the actor portraying Muad'Dib. Come on, it's not like he was hugely expressive in the novel. "Good" acting doesn't mean you have to have this idealized Shakesperean performance.

I do agree the Lynch film had an outstanding cast, though. That's about the only reason I own the film, having been spoiled by the novels.

The only thing I didn't care for in the miniseries was how many of the panoramic views of the desert looked obviously like large-scale paintings.

Being one who saw the 80's version in the 80's and then again just for kicks sat and watched it when it was on IFC's worst movies ever made i have to agree with IFC even thought so when i first saw it but wrote it off as i was a young child when i first saw it. i only just finised the book just over 6 months ago i like Sci/Fi's version much better.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Vilian 14 years ago

One of the worst movies in the past 30 years? Are you joking? The acting in Lynch's version was top notch. The sets and costumes are amazing. The effects are great for the '80s. The budget being overshot had a lot to do with Lynch losing control of the project halfway through.

The mini-series was just awful. I actually couldn't finish the damn thing because it kept dragging on and on and on and on and on. Having not read the Dune books, it turned into a yawnfest until the eventual boob scene. Some of the fight scenes in the desert were cool, but a majority of the movie seemed really fake because most of it was shot in front of color mattes.

By the way, the blue-ray of Lynch's Dune looks great. The sets and costumes really "pop", and it doesn't look at all like it was shot in front of a green screen the entire time. And, the scenes that were shot in front of a green screen LOOK like they were, which is just fine. This just goes to show that a decent film doesn't need that.

Whereas the mini-series looks cheap, as does the feel of the acting and the music. Lynch's dune was an expensive project, and it failed because of its execution. There are so many things done right with it that overshadow what went wrong at the box office.

reply

[–] DrgnChld5 13 years ago

Having said that, I thought the series was quite good. The attempt was at least made to be faithful to Herbert's ideas, and I think, all in all, it succeeded. In many places, I was actually able to follow dialog along in the book, especially in scenes where Herbert's terse language was really the ONLY way to say it.

I agree I was all of the ripe age of 8 when the Lynch verson came out. I hated it then it didn't make me want to read the book(s) at all. I know people will think that an 8 year old can't possibly know how to understand Dune and i agree. but my upbring was a bit different. Not many 8 year olds knew or know who Dr. Who is but i did. Scince Fiction and Fantasy where the only things my mother and i shared so it was our bonding.

Also IFC has ranked Dune 1984 ver. 4th in the Top 10 Worst Movies ever made it beat Howard The Duck and was behind Attack of The Killer Tomatos.

reply

[–] ContinentalOp 13 years ago

''Not many 8 year olds knew or know who Dr. Who is but i did. Scince Fiction and Fantasy where the only things my mother and i shared so it was our bonding.''

Bizarre, most children I know at six used to watch 'Doctor Who' and the Dalek movies...and this was before they kiddified it. So, I disagree with your view that not many eight year olds know who the Doctor - not Dr. Who, technically - is and my school used to often play mass-games of ''Dr. What and The Garlics'!

If you are sick of the ''I love Jesus 100% signature'', copy and paste this into your profile!

reply

[–] Tsavo 12 years ago

"I know people will think that an 8 year old can't possibly know how to understand Dune and i agree."

Actually, I did, and strangely... I did! For the most part, there where maybe a few minor details I missed, but I understood it fairly well. One of the few things from my Childhood I'm proud of.

reply

[–] tiff82 11 years ago

same here.. my uncle (who lived with us week on week off) used to read me dune as a bed time story from the age of around 3 i read it by myself at 7. I also knew who the doctor was.

reply

[–] ssdexecutor 17 years ago

Although I might not state it exactly that way, I must admit I agree with DrPhoton on this. The attitude of so many of the posters on IMDB towards the film is truly baffling to me. I can certainly understand it if someone dislikes both versions, and prefers that no one ever try to transfer another Frank Herbert novel to the screen, but I cannot even fathom how anyone who read the same book that I did could honestly enjoy the Lynch version. Maybe it's due to some sense of 80s nostalgia. I wasn't alive when the film was released, and I read the book before seeing either version. I saw the miniseries, and had some of the same complaints the OP has. After reading all of the arguments on these boards, it seemed that the film was pretty well preferred by most posters, with the general consensus being that it was some sort of "unpolished gem."

After actually seeing it, I can honestly say I overwhelmingly prefer the miniseries, even with its myriad problems. Yes the acting was pretty bad. The fact that this is stated over and over lead me to believe that the acting in the film would be far superior. I was pretty disappointed in that regard. If this is an utter travesty, then...boy, I dunno, but "love the Lynch version?" Love? Really? I mean...really?

reply

[–] kkevinberger 17 years ago

Why is this "truly baffling?" I feel the 84 version while flawed is quite good-

No movie based on a book is perfect-I have always enjoyed the movie and always will-I regret some of the key scenes omitted from the film

Also, I could care less if 99 percent of Dune fans cannot handle the fact that some people can actually like both....I grew up with the movie, and continue to enjoy it immensely-not an 80s nostalgia-but a movie that stands out and makes you think....not typical sci-fi fare with cardboard characters that fit the generation it was made (like the miniseries and the one with Bruce Willis that I can't remember the name of and so on)

The 2000 version just rushes from scene to scene with no background, back story, nothing-no emotional investment-there is no comparison between the two-the acting in the 84 version is far superior, as is the dialogue, effects, costume, atmosphere, music etc.

The book also stands on its own as it is far superior-this could be argued endlessly as no one will change their position-

reply

[–] Lexx-2 17 years ago

Both are flawed and both are fascinating in my opinion. In the end if you want the full story, you always have the book to go back to. I think Children of Dune was much more successful personally.

"Oh, I did my thesis on life experience." - Anonymous Harvard Guy, The Simpsons.

reply

[–] ssdexecutor 17 years ago

"The 2000 version just rushes from scene to scene with no background, back story, nothing-no emotional investment-there is no comparison between the two-the acting in the 84 version is far superior, as is the dialogue, effects, costume, atmosphere, music etc."

But the thing is, I don't disagree with you on this. My contention is with how you can say that the miniseries has "no emotional investment," but not apply that to a movie where Paul and Chani's entire relationship is reduced to a scene of less than one minute's length (I'm going off of the Extended cut here. Theatrical might be different) of them kissing and Paul saying "I love you, Chani. I've loved you forever." That Paul must be pretty slick, considering they'd just met. I mean, that is significantly more than just omitting a scene from a film. It's attempting to compress something that is quite complicated into something unnecessarily compact to the point that it is completely unbelievable. The film does a great job with Book I (up through Paul and Jessica's escape), but Book II (you know, that's the bit with Paul's character development) is almost nonexistent. The Fremen just spill the beans to him after he (with no sign of the remorse or humanity he displays in the book) kills his first man, and now, all of a sudden, he is Muad'dib. No earning of their trust, no conflict with Stilgar - he's just turned into Luke Skywalker. Now, really - "rushes from scene to scene with no background?"

Dune simply cannot be done as a feature-length film. No matter who you get to direct it, or however many millions you throw at them. I'm sorry, but I can't enjoy - much less love - a film that attempts to compress (not just omit) a story like that into two or three hours. I can't sit through it without constantly thinking "That's not right" or "Why'd they do that?" I recall someone calling the miniseries "lazy." I think this is a fair point. I find that it's a lot easier to get through, despite its problems, because it paces itself better. It can get boring, but it seems that more of the story manages to stay intact that way. In any case, watch Children of Dune to repair your brain after watching either.

reply

[–] brauner 17 years ago

I must agree with ssdexecutor. Dune simply cannot be done as a feature-length film. But still. I do love (though yes, love is a worn out word these days and I've done my share of doing so) the '84 version - at least the extended directors cut.

reply

[–] ContinentalOp 17 years ago

"Also, I could care less if 99 percent of Dune fans cannot handle the fact that some people can actually like both."

I agree. I don't mind the series but I prefer Lynch's version. There is more to making film adaptations than adding everything. I think Lynch's direction was wonderful and I prefer many of the characterization over the series ones.

I don't like some of the changes in the LOTR fims but I can accept them. Films and literature are a differen medium.
Regards,
The Count

The Apple Scruffs Corps, 07

"Imagine"

reply

[–] SinisterCreep 16 years ago

Although I might not state it exactly that way, I must admit I agree with DrPhoton on this. The attitude of so many of the posters on IMDB towards the film is truly baffling to me. I can certainly understand it if someone dislikes both versions, and prefers that no one ever try to transfer another Frank Herbert novel to the screen, but I cannot even fathom how anyone who read the same book that I did could honestly enjoy the Lynch version. Maybe it's due to some sense of 80s nostalgia. I wasn't alive when the film was released, and I read the book before seeing either version. I saw the miniseries, and had some of the same complaints the OP has. After reading all of the arguments on these boards, it seemed that the film was pretty well preferred by most posters, with the general consensus being that it was some sort of "unpolished gem."

After actually seeing it, I can honestly say I overwhelmingly prefer the miniseries, even with its myriad problems. Yes the acting was pretty bad. The fact that this is stated over and over lead me to believe that the acting in the film would be far superior. I was pretty disappointed in that regard. If this is an utter travesty, then...boy, I dunno, but "love the Lynch version?" Love? Really? I mean...really?

I've read the book and even though it had it's faults I much prefer Lynch's version to this flat, souless version. Lynch's version did have deviations from the book yes but things like the set design, music, costume design and acting were much better than the bland miniseries. I also thought Lynch captured the feel of the Duniverse much better.

Spielbergs WOTW is an insult to Hg Wells! LotRings 11 Oscars, King Kong 3 Oscars, WotW 0

reply

[–] grey_outlaw 16 years ago

Lemme ask you all something, now when I moved here to UK i used to get locked in the library by myself so i could catch up but instead was reading the Dune series of books and trust me nothing like the books. In the books you have the power of imagination and insanity is the limit while in the films the director's vision is the limit. I also played the Dune game on the playstation a couple of years before thats why i picked up the books to read the story because i just loved the game and i mean i really loved the game.
So my question is does anybody think there shud be a good remake or not just a remake but a new film that is true to the book down to its core? i think a decent director shud take up the task, somebody with experience of culture and spice (no pun intended) coz i feel the Dune universe is yes a desert but the tribes and the cultures are more like the middle eastern crap (home sweet home) of the olden days of the bazaars and what not. The bazaars are busy and full of life but once u step outside into the desert the feel shud be quiet and still.

" It's The Fourth Of The Trilogies!"
Lord Of The Ringtones, Orange Net.

reply

[–] MystRose 17 years ago

I, too, am a Lynch version fan - not the least of my reasons is the author was satisfied with it as well.

The worst failure, to me, of the miniseries was casting. I love William Hurt, as an actor, he is so extraordinarily evocative, he is one of those actors that simply stands alone.

But no matter. Jurgen Prochnow was born to play Leto. Prochnow was perfect in capturing Leto's decency, his innate gentleness, his leaking despair at being thrown into a miserable situation he did not want, and the grim steel he forced upon himself when required. Francesa Annis was the same, the regal, conflicted Jessica.

Hurt and Reeves were neither of them remotely physically right for the roles. In the hands of actors of their calibre, it should make no difference for most roles, but these two are iconic. I submit that having a Nordic blonde play the role of Spock would be jarring no matter the acting excellence. Neither of these actors remotely resembled Leto or Jessica. In no way could Hurt be described as having dark hair, olive skin, and a hawk face. In no way would Reeves be tall, sensual, bronze haired, exotic. And Mohiam! Was the actress at all crone-like? Was Piter de Vries the paranoid ferret? Hawat and Yueh were unrecognizable, something as simple as Yueh's drooping mustache was discarded. The Baron was fat, but far too clean.

And Paul. Where to begin. The acting was wooden, he was far too short, there was little transition from Boy to Man. He went on whining and pouting and stomping about throughout.

Chani was alright. Barbara Kodeteva had more the Fremen earthiness than Sean Young did. Duncan Idaho was acceptable, as was Gurney, although the series Gurney did not have Patrick Stewart's reflection of the novel's Gurney as somewhat of comic relief. Stilgar was actually very good indeed, and while Leto II wasn't what I expected, he was also appealing in the role.

The women's costumes were amazing, especially Irulan's butterfly gown.

But that's about it for kudos.

reply

[–] azrah_t 17 years ago

Im a new fan to dune and have only just finished reading it and watched the mini series...I've never seen the Lynch version but my boyfriend has and he hated it...said it made utter shambles of the book

Aside from that...I thought the mini-series was flawed and that if you hadnt read the book; rather unwatchable. Saying that however, there are a lot of aspects to the book that dont translate well on screen. A lot of the book deals in Paul's thoughts and dreams which are difficult to capture visually...the philosophical aspects which make the book so great also pose difficulties. I think that the mini-series could have been improved but at least at no point does Paul say 'I love you Chani...I have always loved you'... that seems so completely out of Pauls character to me

And as for Alec Newman's version of Paul being very moody etc...once Leto dies thats how he is...very withdrawn into himself, overwhelmed, isolated and angry about the changes taking place within him that he cant quite understand at first...

Just a newbie's 2 cents

reply

[–] magus-21 17 years ago

I admit, I was bored out of my skull when I watched the SciFi miniseries for the first time. I fell asleep halfway through Part 1. But it grew on me. I accepted it, for all its simplicities. And I fully enjoyed the Children of Dune sequel miniseries.

Lynch's version just made me angry, because it was a complete butchery from beginning to end. Dune was one of my earliest obsessions in scifi/fantasy, and while Lynch kept to some of the superficialities of the setting, he utterly destroyed everything else that made it Dune. The way things played out in the Lynch movie, and the way he "reimagined" other aspects of the story completely changes the movie from soft science fiction to pure fairy tale fantasy, and often non-sensical fairy tale fantasy.

Not to mention it was just a poorly structured movie overall on a technical level. What the bloody hell inspired him to actually play the characters' inner monologues?

People call me a cynic. I call myself a realist.

reply

[–] Rob9989 17 years ago

i agree with ssdexecutor and magus-21, both versions have flaws but the 64 version butchered the story hard where the sci-fi version made some what of an attempt of being decent. at the end of the day i wont watch either one a second time for the rest of my life, *beep* both versions to be frank.

reply

[–] chinchilla_c 16 years ago

The lynch version is the WORST movie I have ever seen. The wierding way was HORRIBLY carried out. It seemed like more a of a spoof than anything else. The movie allows for ZERO character development, and the acting is nothing to write home about. By far the worst of the two movies. Saying it was a good movie for the time, I can understand. But saying it is still a good movie is a completely indefensible position.

reply

[–] vorlonhomeworld 16 years ago

I totally disagree! I've read the books (the "FRANK HERBERT" books, not
the Pol Anderson continuance), I've seen David Lynch's version and the
SCi-Fi version. David Lynch's version was the best!
Kenneth McMillian (the late) WAS Baron Vladimir Harkonen, he captured the
mania and the homosexuality of that charater, IAN MCNEICE just couldn't do it.
(Besides which, he reminded me more of ORTHO from Beetlejuice!!!!

The actor the used to Paul Atreides was godawful, they had him play him
as bratty, he was no such thing in the novel !! Yes, he had his immature
moments ("I'm not in the mood!") and he was set in place by Gurney for it.
He was never bratty (Gurney would have b@tchslapped him for that {or worse!})

Making the guild navigator into a bat was horrible! Bat's exist on
Earth. David Lynch's guild navigator made sense (the book hinted
- but never stated - that that's what the navigator's looked like,
the book also mentions that they live in tanks!!!!)

The Sci-Fi channels version is a disgrace! Frank Herbert would be rolling
in his grave over that.
Heck, he worked with David Lynch on his version of Dune and actually liked
the thing - to me that says it all.

David Lynch's version (all of them ) rocked. They were the best version(s).
The Sci-Fi channel's version blows chunks!

reply

[–] tristan-131 16 years ago

For a diehard Dune fan the 84 version is watchable, but you could never recommend it to your a friend or family member that hadn't read the book. It would be way to confusing and while you're trying to figure out what a Lansraad is you're grossed out by Baron's gross face or the ugly bald Bene Gesserits and no one's going to sit through that Guild Navigater folding space with a guitar solo in the background. The 2000 version isn't perfect, but you definitely could recommend it to a friend.

The '84 version also has no sense of scale - supposedly these guys are Dukes that control an entire planetary holdings or Emperors that rule a thousand worlds, yet there's no opulence, no entourage, no massive armies, etc. Donald Trump flies with more style than Duke Leto and his family.

reply

[–] newsfop 16 years ago

I was very excited to see what a different director would do with the material. When I sat down to watch it, I was set upon the feeling of resting on newly formed gelatin. And when a friend walked in during the scene with the Hunter-Seeker, she verbalized my thoughts. "Why is there a sperm flying around the room?" I thought the new envisioning was just horrendous. It was tedious to endure. I liked nothing about any of the characters. My favorite performances from the previous incarnation were nowhere to be found in this droll. The action was better, sure, but who cares about violence when you don't care about who's getting hit?

reply

[–] palindromicevilolive 16 years ago

All in all, I liked the mini-series version of Dune quite a bit. I felt it was more true to the spirit of Herbert's novel than Lynch's film. It covered more material and was free from the deleterious effects of Lynch's..erm...innovations. Not that it was perfect-the story-telling was a bit uninspired, the low budget showed through in the cheesy painted backdrops, and I don't know what the costume designer was smoking. But despite these flaws, I think the mini-series is buoyed by some exceptionally strong performances: P.H. Moriarty played an excellent Baron Harkonnen, Laura Burton played a marvelously beautiful and cunning Irulan, and Karel Dobry gave an outstanding if brief performance as Liet Kynes.

reply

[–] parkpunk 16 years ago

At home, sick. Watched both in the last 24 hours. My comparison is:

'84 version: dark and ominous
2000 version: bright and colorful

reply

[–] jason-michael-rowe 16 years ago

I have not read the book, but will endeavour to rectify that now I have seen this rediculous farce of a shambolic re-hash...I fail to understand how anyone can compare a book to the TV....visual images are going to be completely different, and need to be conveyed in a completely different way to that of mental images created through words. The Lynch version is in my opinion very well acted and dramatic enough to keep me entertained.

I am a fan of the Lynch version, but not having read the book can't comment on whether the full story was conveyed correctly, I can only go by the opinions of others, who have read the book and seen the film and who happen to like both.

Now on to the mini series, which I have had to stop watching a quarter of the way through the second disc....the casting is severely miscast; the type of man I considered Baron Harkonen to be would be an evil overlord, instead they have created a jolly fat man that seems to have spent the last few months prior to filming practicing his evil laugh in front of a mirror. None of the cast stood out or made any sort of dramatic impact enough for me to remember their names, within 30 minutes I still had trouble remembering who everyone was....for some strange reason every character seemed to be introduced to the audience as you would expect George Bush to be introduced to members of a anti war deminstration. My next point....why did they seem to think it would be necessary for Feyd-Rautha to prance around for the entire first two hours shirtless, barely acting...I can't honestly remember a single dramatic line the actor said throughout this debacle...and why oh why as if that wasn't bad enough, did they also feel it was necessary to the plot for Baron Harkonen to remark at how good looking Feyd was, at every turn....GREAT! Now we have a big fat jolly gay man playing Baron Harkonen. The scene between the Reverand mother and Paul "broody" Atreides where he has to leave his hand in that box as a test, wasn't so much a test of pain, but a test to see whether this "TV" actor can act??? The answer was no...surprising eh? Next....why did the set of the Atriedes family space fleet seem like they had borrowed it from Star Trek....the original TV series?

Which leads me on to the clothes....why did I think Lost in Space, when I first clapped eyes on them?? I immediately asked myself what year is this??...I can only assume the budget must have been so low they had to ask for handouts from Oxfam....where we initially had a dark, seedy dramatic telling of a great story. We now have a fun, colourful, is this a disney tale of...nothing!

The visual effects used were pretty sub standard...Lynch's version seemed to have the better technology based on the 2000 version. At one point during the scene where Paul and Jessica are running through the desert I sware I saw in the background an approaching herd of buffalo being chased by a Police car....is this a spoof movie I thought to myself???

Why were there so many shots where the camera panned across a crowd of Fremen displaying their "blue eyes", as if the director was saying LOOK, we can make the eyes go BLUE!! I really hate shows that make use of their supposed visual effect talents, purely because they can.

Why was Duncan Idaho never there? Where's Duncan? asked Paul...hmmmm maybe he's off gaining acting lessons I thought, and surely the Director agreed by constantly bringing him back in to the film, thinking oh god no, that man can't act, quick lets *beep* him off to the Fremen....before ending the life of the character...and possibly the actor, who knows? Were all the actors taught by Keanu Reeves?

Dr. Yueh looked like an extra from Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, and I seriously thought he was going to die at any moment he was that frail. Had I not seen the Lynch version of Dune, I would never have realised what Duke Leto was doing with his mouth whilst trying to chew something, right before he tried to asassinate Baron Harkonen....surely in the Lynch version we are made aware that Duke Leto is heavily drugged and therefor believes wrongly that the Harkonen mentat is Baron Harkonen, hence why he died and the asassination failed. If I was a first timer watching this film there is no way I would know what was happening.

William Hurt played the part of Leto like he couldn't care less, more about the paycheck than the dramatisation and portrayal of the character...and how ironic that he "starred" in the movie of Lost in Space!!

Why did the scene where the Harkonens take over the palace take all of five minutes, during which all we saw were shots of men jumping about while explosions raged in the background, none of which made any sense to me....surely this wasn't the A-Team?? a poor mans Michael Bay maybe.

Further more, I have just noticed this won awards???? I can only assume their was only one nominee??? Standards have surely slipped???

All in all the set looked cheap, the clothes looked cheap, the "actors" were cheap, the visual effects looked cheap....none of which I could ever say about Lynch' version, despite the year it was made in. No "serious" film that makes me laugh out loud is ever going to win me over and Dune the mini series was doomed from the first half hour...I deserve a medal after sitting through 2 hours of this tripe.

reply

[–] palindromicevilolive 16 years ago

Um, well the Baron Harkonnen was clearly portrayed as gay in the book, and I believe it is implied in the Lynch film as well. Furthermore, the Baron admired Feyd-Ruthka in the book as well. I thought Ian McNeice's performance as the Baron was quite good, and the character was much better than the over-the-top comic book monstrosity that Lynch dreamed up.

As for the bit with the tooth, the scene with Leto and Yueh clearly explained that the tooth contained some method by which Leto could inflict his vengeance on the Baron, so I thought that scene was adequately explained.

I do agree about the cheesy sets and costumes though, and the acting was a bit uneven(though I think two of the actors you singled out, McNeice and William Hurt, were actually among the best of the crew)

reply

[–] klarno 12 years ago

But despite these flaws, I think the mini-series is buoyed by some exceptionally strong performances: P.H. Moriarty played an excellent Baron Harkonnen, Laura Burton played a marvelously beautiful and cunning Irulan, and Karel Dobry gave an outstanding if brief performance as Liet Kynes.

Wat. You've got something mixed up here. Baron Harkonnen was played by Ian McNiece and Irulan was played by Julie Cox. P.H. Moriarty was Gurney Halleck and Laura Burton was the child St. Alia Atreides...

Ian McNeice at the very least is such a fine actor in anything he does that he needn't be confused with anyone who doesn't even look anything remotely like him.

reply

[–] finniksawot 16 years ago

Sure, the movies are not like the books and they don't do the books justice. This can be said of hundreds of books turned to movies.

Having said that, I thoroughly enjoyed the sci-fi movies and the 1984 Lynch version. If you can manage to separate yourself from the books and don't let yourself get bogged down in all the dissimilarities, it's quite enjoyable.

I find that if you watch them numerous times, the small flaws that bother you deeply tend to become dull and you can overlook them in order to see the qualities of the movies.

As for the jumping around... Keep in mind it was made as a mini-series. It had to be broken up and played with commercials over many nights. It's not a movie played in a theater.

There was a motive presented for Yueh, and Gurney returns later on and in Children of Dune. As for the water selling, nitpicking will never let you enjoy a movie. It's not important. The story is important, not details. If you want details then stay with the books.

It's important to keep in mind that movie versions will never live up to book versions. They cannot. They must be translated, and as long as the translation can stand on its own, it's fair to assess the movie independently of the book. If you cannot tolerate watching it for its own merits, then truly that is unfortunate for you.

reply

[–] dharmabum 16 years ago

To sum up:

'84 version: crappy movie made by genius.
'00 version: mediocre movie made by committee.

The bland sci-fi crap they had to fill into the '00 was annoying. Took away all of Paul's weird confidence and manner at the beginning, turned him into the stereotypical whiner with a destiny. Awful costumes for the most part, especially the parachute pants-inspired stillsuits and Yueh and Thufir, who were butchered. No attention to detail - Yueh without a moustache and diamond tattoo? Mentats without stained lips? And those STUPID looking cat's eyes they gave the Fremen.

The pointless Irulan plot was unforgivable, too. None of the political intrigue really carried through - the Landsraad isn't mentioned that I can remember, the whole concept of the tripod of power, what Mentats are, virtually any detail about the Bene Gesserit - that all goes in the bin, but we get Irulan playing detective to tell us all what we all know anyway. The first hour just rushed them off to the desert, and then treated me to endless scenes of people looking over the edges of rocks at people jumping out of the sand. And they somehow made the sequence where Paul rides his first worm boring.

Lynch's movie is a mess. Impossible to follow story, stilted acting at times, some bad casting like Sting. While I'm not too wild about the whole Weirding Way stun-gun thing, at least I understand WHY he did it - to avoid the movie turning into a martial arts story. Little details like the odd, distorted shields were perfect, even with the dated-looking effects. The whole anti-technology undercurrent in the book is realized. Actors like Freddie Jones, Brad Dourif and Dean Stockwell couldn't be better suited. And the thing oozed style. It looked great. Dated effects or not, the worm-riding scene is still exciting.

reply

[–] ninevoltz 16 years ago

I whole heartedly agree, dharmabum! But you have to admit for the small budget the miniseries did a pretty good job at telling the story.

reply

[–] dharmabum 16 years ago

It told the story as comprehensibly as you could ask. The truth is, Herbert's writing doesn't suit film adaptations that well.

I will say, though, that they corrected more than a few of their errors for the subsequent mini-series that covere Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. It was much better. Even the eyes thing; they toned down the "glow", and interestingly (maybe on purpose?) when a certain major character is blinded, the way they portrayed the sightless eyes actually looks more like proper deep spice-addicted eyes of Ibad.

reply