I'm asking simply because his version has so much more of the plot in the movie. As visually impressive as the new version is, it just seems devoid of substance.
shareThe only thing I remember from Lynch's Dune is sandworms and Sting wearing a speedo.
share- "...devoid of substance..."
There is an entirely new LEGION of fans for this story, including myself, who never would have given it any sort of "chance" based on the Lynch version.
You ever see an actor on stage who is "lost"?
That's what Lynch looked like with this version of dune... now, I understand, it has a cult following, and I don't fault those folks.... I like Superfuzz and Corvette Summer, so I know what it's like to love something most think is garbage...
I loved the new Dune. And I can't wait until part 2. I never had this for the Lynch version.... I recoil at the thought of sitting through that film....
So that's my corny two cents.
Why corny? You had a reasonable point. I disagree with you but it's not corny, there were real problems with Lynch's Dune, and the new one too of course.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I certainly preferred many aspects of Lynch's version, such as giving Dr. Yueh decent screentime so his betrayal actually had some amount of weight. The overall movie doesn't really work for me though.
I do like the first half(ish) covering the fall of House Atreides and would have liked to see how that portion would have been improved if Lynch had final cut. Even with that I still believe the second half of the movie would bring the whole thing down. There's just too much content and it rushes through all of it. Even the extended versions can't save that portion of the movie.
I noticed Redlettermedia recently reviewed both movies together for a comparison, worth watching.
What I liked about Lynch's version is how well the characters were defined on screen; his portrayal of the Baron portrays him and everything about the Harkonnens as complete psychopaths. This version he's just menaces people with his presence, and I'm not sure if he directly killed anyone other than the Duke. Also, the book does detail a lot of individual characters' thoughts. Lynch just relays them as a voice-over which keeps the pace up but feels like exposition IMHO.
Wouldn't mind watching both versions again, to be honest.
> his portrayal of the Baron portrays him and everything about the Harkonnens as complete psychopaths.
That was my main problem with the movie ... someone so rotted out psychologically could never plan such a massive plot, or even sustain his own House/empire.
I thought Lynch's version had the better feel of what I felt or imagined when I read Dune.
It's impossible to compare them as this is only half the story.
When we see the second half in a few years we'll know.
This version is very impressive though.
No. Lynch's version is incredibly campy in a bad way.
shareNot sure we can answer that until part 2 is released. But I do think part 1 was a bit self indulgent and I suspect I'll prefer the Lynch version at the end of the day.
share