Hacker Cinema
Dune
1984 · Film · 136 min
Directed by David Lynch
ActionScience FictionAdventure
In the year 10,191, the most precious substance in the universe is the spice Melange. The spice extends life. The spice expands consciousness. The spice is vital to space travel. The spice exists on only one planet in the entire universe, the vast desert planet Arrakis, also known as Dune. Its native inhabitants, the Fremen, have long held a prophecy that a man would come, a messiah who would lead them to true freedom.
87 positive66 negative34 mixed68 neutralfrom 255 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
301 comments on Hacker News
You mean the new, worse, Dune movies. The David Lynch Dune movie was pretty colorful, right? So Dune itself was... Dunkirk-ified?
Reminds me of the floating umbrella that appeared on Caladan in the 1984 Dune movie.
Its kind of incredible the Dune series is known for incredible composers.
Not only is Frank's work on Dune 2 and 2000 considered iconic soundtracks, but so is the original Dune, with its more eclectic style by Stephane who sadly recently passed away.
I'd also add that the new Awakenings game has excellent sound design.
On film, the 1984 Dune movie has an excellent soundtrack as well, with Toto's iconic songs and with Brian Eno's theme. The new movies have a good Hans Zimmer soundtrack, but I would argue a bit less innovative and more safe than the above scores.
You've read the book. You don't need the science.
Heck, you don't even need a plot that hangs together. When I was a kid I had trouble figuring out why i loved the original Dune movie while everybody else hated it.
It was a bad movie because the plot didn't hold together. But the visuals and the characters were awesome. As an adjunct to the book it was great. It just didn't stand alone.
Hail Mary as someone who has read the book is a different experience than someone who hasn't. It brings the book to life.
I think that was the joke. It's obvious Star Wars stole a lot of ideas from Dune. But many people think it's the opposite since star wars predates the Dune movies.
A recent example is the Wicked movie musical. It’s not a film and its sequel. It’s two parts of the stage musical produced as a film and cut in half, released a year apart.
The alternative is the 1980s version of Dune, which tried to fit a massive novel into a single mass-market film runtime. It was fantastic, but people who hadn’t read the novel were left very short on story. The newer movies I’ve heard are much better in this regard, and it’s understandable because the runtime of the combined films is longer. The Dune 2000 (AKA SciFi Presents Frank Herbert’s Dune) miniseries was even better in some ways than the original film, largely for the same reasons.
Ender’s Game deserved to be at least two parts, because even the main character got no real character development. You barely learn Val exists, there’s really no Peter, and you barely meet Bean or Petra. There’s no Alai, Achilles, Fly, or Crazy Tom. There’s no zero-G battles at Battle School. The computer game is never even mentioned but is integral to the book. I don’t think it’s even mentioned in the film that Ender is a third child and why that’s important. It could have been a much better film in two or three parts.
It's comments like this that remind me I'm on HN. Let's be honest for a minute - take a sci-fi book of the shelf, any of them, current (Weir, Pierce Brown, etc) or classic (Asimov, PKD, etc). Almost always, you will find paper-thin characters and themes, written with the crutch of 'worldbuilding'. Here's the lineup - a downtrodden nerd, usually the protagonist, some stereotypical caricature of a woman, like a nagging wife, or ditz, or hag. A few archetypes for a boss, and some equally stereotypical villain. You won't find a Karamazov in sci-fi.
This is the problem with sci-fi in a nutshell, the characters fall flat in even the most seminal works. They are nor memorable at all and somewhere between uninspired and just downright bad. It's the status quo.
Sci-fi and fantasy fans talk about worldbuilding like it is some esoteric art. In the end worldbuilding is literally just plot, and it's well understood that plot is not the most important part of literature, not compared to deeper themes and characters. Is that because of "literary snobs"? No, it's because when you come back to a book in 20, 50, or 200 years you don't remember whether the protagonist's third neural implant was made of vibranium or aluminum, you remember how that book tackled incredible subject matter with layered characters, and pushed the limits of language in a way only possible in prose. When's the last time you heard of a sci-fi author that wrote like Woolf, or Joyce? Never.
Even in more literary sci-fi, for example Dune, the appeal is because it's basically just a medieval story transplanted into space. The focus is on politics and the human experience, not "what if storms lasted longer".
It's so obvious that sci-fi stories are generally better suited to the medium of film, they can capture the unreality in a more believable way, visually, and take less advantage of the ambiguity of text. It's not like sci-fi novels are pushing boundaries in prose anyways. It's much more pretentious to say they are by calling them equally "literary" than to just accept that novels which exemplify the medium are instead.
Every once and a while you see an auteur get coaxed out of their genre. Lynch did Dune in '84 right off the back of The Elephant Man. And while he hated the entire experience I know that I'm not the only person that enjoyed the particularly lynchian facets of the story that he brought into the light. His film is much more concerned with exploring the more psychedelic aspects. The divination that comes with being the Kwisatz Haderach, the grotesqueness of the Harkonen house, the psychedelic experience of the spice.. which are all present in the source material. Whereas the Villeneuve take is much more concerned with other aspects colonialism primarily, and those things that Lynch leaned into he certainly acknowledged but spent more time in other places. I love both and I love when we get to see multiple adaptations of the same source material, even if some aren't so great, just because we do get to see these different aspects of the original work.
I know what you mean, I had the same effect from the David Lynch Dune movie. I went in blind, had no idea what I was about to see other than that it was scifi.
Put it on and didn't even make it to a chair before I was spellbound. I stood for the whole movie, feeling as if ages had passed while I was rooted to the ground like a mountain watching seasons pass in stop motion.
I've watched it maybe 6 times since, nothing has quite recaptured that perfect first watch.
I'm "only" 40 and strongly prefer films made when they still shot and edited on film. The peak as far as visual quality and overall effect of film, for me, was probably the 60s through early 90s, though I love a bunch of films older or newer than that.
The constraints of not being able to color-grade the whole film with a slider or two, of every cut in the edit taking time to do, and of effects that weren't in-camera being relatively expensive, tended to lead to better and more-interesting filmmaking, even in middling films.
I appreciate what the right people can do with modern tools—I enjoy and even love plenty of newer films, and it's undeniably brought some cool stuff within reach of smaller, cheaper productions—but overall I see it as making cinema worse.
"We did it in a computer" being the answer to every "how'd they do that?" isn't movie magic, it's boring as hell. It's why even a film that tries to avoid that to some degree, like the new Dune duology, is in some important respects—though setting aside overall quality of the film on some other dimensions—just less interesting than broadly similar films like Lawrence of Arabia or Star Wars (or even, if I may be so bold, David Lynch's Dune).
I think this sort of opinion is fairly common among film-fans of all ages, due to interest in film making itself as much as output of the process per se. Not sure most movie watchers care, and they may well prefer the newer stuff because of the ultra-fast editing and tuned-to-be-cotton-candy-appealing color schemes and unconstrained video-game camera of fully CGI scenes and all that.
> I prefer 1970s music. Autotune is for whippersnappers.
Hard agree. I can't friggin' believe the heavy-handed autotune in children's media, especially (Daniel Tiger! Fred Rogers would be so unhappy with it). Let's teach them that natural human singing voices, like their own, sound wrong and bad. WTF.
I somewhat agree. For me Dune: Part One (2021) and Dune: Part Two (2024) had the visual, sound and acting talent, but felt like it was missing something. I'd almost say it was soulless. I think the problem was in the dialogue or how scenes we acted, I don't know. I didn't think Dune (1984) was any good, but I think that had a lot to do with the technology and film making techniques at that time.
I think the only good Dune media besides the books was the video game Dune II: The Building of a Dynasty by Westwood Studios (RIP). Without it, I think there would be no Command & Conquer and no heyday for the real-time strategy (RTS) genre.
Not to be confused with a list of tracks which sample Dune (the 1984 film):
https://www.whosampled.com/movie/Dune/
Ever notice how much it looks like Lucas directly took the Dune 1984 imagery of the landing on Arrakis and turned it into the Trade Federation landing on Naboo?
[1] Above Documentary, 1:23: https://youtu.be/pQG_Gt6-xpE?si=KZx9K1l1pZERaJ-R&t=83
[2] Trade Federation Craft Landing, 0:25: https://youtu.be/UD8tounIou4?si=-eCg60AvEr0eo3qa&t=25
Lynch hated Dune because DeLaurentis meddled with it so hard (Jodorowsky famously said they only way Lynch could have made a movie so bad, is if the producers ruined it).
> Instead he had to reuses the set from the Conan the Destroyer
My understanding is that Conan reused Dune sets, not the other way round. The Dune sets were extremely intricate and expensive, and are definitely one of the few highlights of the film.
> He didn't even get the music he wanted and that's big part of his movies.
Not sure how Toto ended up doing the music for that film. That film was an absolute mess.
>Lynch Dune is so underrated.
I don't know ... I think it's 'properly rated'. The movie is deeply flawed but it has stayed in public consciousness and is (fondly) remembered. The first half is pretty good. The second half is a total mess and makes the entire plot, characterization and pacing unsalvageable. The visual art style is generally great, but there are some glaring misses.
Lynch hated Dune. Lynch's name is removed from the credits of the original cut (replaced with Alan Smithee) because it's so embarrassing. It's still a Lynch movie, so it's interesting to watch. I would not call it underrated.
The tempo of the movie is completely off, and no cut has been able to fix that. The characters and scenes just run trough the story.
Lynch wanted Salvador Dali to design the set. Instead he had to reuses the set from the Conan the Destroyer (Richard Fleischer, 1984).
He didn't even get the music he wanted and that's big part of his movies.
> It will, OTOH, be long before you can do that and get anything that would satisfy anyone as a movie worth watching, and even longer if you want something satisfying to anyone with a reason for including Lynch in the prompt other than that he was a specific filmmaker who the model might recognize and do something with.
I think soonish we'll get to clips that look Lynchian so that an average person might recognize it as such. Kind of like DALL-E can emulate styles and people might say "aha, looks like it was painted by such and such". But with a full movie, not sure, will the true fans accept it as anything connected to Lynch? Probably never, and will even hate it with a passion...
But then there are fan edits of Dune, for instance: https://fanedit.org/dune-1984-the-alternative-edition-redux-special-1080p-edition. Ok what if the edits were made by the AI? I can see accepting that. Next step is what if it's not a pure cut, but maybe it corrected a few scenes which looked odd, or the character wasn't fitting it gets spliced out of the move altogether, I really don't know, I might like that I suppose.
The lengths they went to to mate in the landing of the Duke on Arrakis.
They used a football stadium in Mexico, in order to get enough distance. The mind boggles as to what they did without CG.
I believe the film run aground on the special effects for the worms, it just goes to show that critics will feast on the weak points.
I utterly relished the scene with the Emperor meeting the navigator; Mr PlansWithinPlans.
Is there enough film to make the purported mini-series of Lynch’s Dune, I take it there was only the film.
Lynch Dune is so underrated. The creativity on display was immense. The new Dune movies have amazing craftsmanship but feel as if they were generated by AI, almost every move and visual predictable.
I gave up on the piece after a bit. It's purposefully and painfully obtuse and has far too much misdirection that serves no real purpose:
SOMEHOW MY FATHER CONVINCED MY mother to squander a date night and watch David Lynch’s Dune when it was in the theaters in 1984. I was seven; my sister, five. When we asked about the movie, my mother or my father or both—they may’ve coordinated their anecdote—told me they knew they were in trouble when the theater manager handed out to everyone in the audience a one-sheet that attempted to explain the intricacies of the film’s logic. Now I am the theater manager. What’s worse, the production I hope to untangle is my own. So: In 1977, George Lucas released Star Wars. In 1980, he released a sequel, The Empire Strikes Back, and, in 1983, another sequel, Return of the Jedi. During Jedi’s production, and even after its release, Jedi was often referred to as Star Wars III. This is not to be confused with Star Wars Episode Three: Revenge of the Sith, a Star Wars prequel released in 2005. Also, until the end of 1982, Return of the Jedi was titled Revenge of the Jedi. This is not to be confused with Star Wars Episode Three: Revenge of the Sith. And: I write about two directors named David. David Lynch, who wrote and directed Blue Velvet and co-created/directed Twin Peaks, and David Cronenberg, who wrote and directed Videodrome and the 1986 remake of The Fly. I don’t mean for this to be confusing. And: Two excerpts from the screenplay for David Lynch’s Revenge of the Jedi appear in this essay. The first begins, “INTERIOR: DEATH STAR—MAIN DOCKING BAY”; the second begins, “INTERIOR: JABBA’S PALACE—HALLWAY.” Okay. Let’s begin. This, to me, is not an enjoyable read.
There are far too many attention sinks in the world, and unfortunately we're only alive for a geologically infinitesimal instant.
> Lynch would author the look of Dune.
This is so true. The recent films and the spinoff series all look like his Dune.
Loved the Twin Peaks tv series. Also the eighties Dune movie is a gold mine for awesome clips. RIP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4NWOyPp1yg
> Dune is more fun to watch and seems to have emerged as my all-time favorite film. In spite of it's flaws and Lynch's own disdain for it, the orphaned film is no less visionary, and is as strikingly original as anything Lynch has made.
I don't get all the disdain for his Dune. For its time, I found it quite entertaining. The scene of the menacing black tank containing the guild navigator emerging out of fumes at the emperor's court will stay with me. Obviously it can't compare in terms of effects or the subtleties of the latest version but it was impressive nevertheless. Without his version, I wouldn't even have known about Dune.
Other than the 1980's Dune movie he directed, I think it was either Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive that made me want to know more about David Lynch.
I had to watch Mulholland Drive at least 5 times to get a sense of what it's even about, and I think I must have been the audience for which he made that film, if it wasn't indeed just art to make himself happy (which is the BEST kind).
Anyway, it kind of endears another person to you when you connect with their work. So this one hit kind of hard.
I lost a fellow weirdo, and he'll be missed!
I really like the original Dune. While uncommon I think that hearing what people thought worked well. I also like the visuals, like the guild navigator or the disgusting baron.
That said I appreciate the new films too, in different ways. It looked amazing watching it in the IMAX theater, and I liked how the visions were presented. Not perfect films though, especially I think casting fewer big stars could have helped. I almost got distracted by the familiar faces.
Regardless of how his films come together as a whole, Lynch is without a doubt the most prolific producer of haunting and unforgettable imagery that inhabits my mind. A few months ago I rewatched, on Youtube a scene from the Elephant Man, a film I saw once 30 years ago. The scene was just like I remember it, I only to watch it that one time and it was etched into my mind forever, crystalline.
Dune is more fun to watch and seems to have emerged as my all-time favorite film. In spite of it's flaws and Lynch's own disdain for it, the orphaned film is no less visionary, and is as strikingly original as anything Lynch has made.
I love Lynch and Dune, but his Dune was a cult film but not a good adaption. I mean the cat milking scene is absolutely a wtf.
Villeneuve version is the superior adaptation.
I camped out in line on Hollywood Blvd for several hours to be in the first public screening of Dune at the Chinese Theater. So I know I saw the release print and to my then college-aged perceptions, I didn't really connect with it. I didn't think it was bad but I didn't think it was good either.
I blame this on the muddled mess that was the release edit and how misleadingly the film was promoted by the studio. I was a huge fan of pop sci-fi like Star Wars, Alien and Blade Runner and the advertising set a very different audience expectation than what the film delivered. Unfortunately, that experience kind of tainted Lynch's Dune for me.
I didn't really begin to appreciate Lynch as a great filmmaker until Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks, both of which I loved. Someone linked a 'highly-regarded' three hour fan edit of Lynch's Dune which I've bookmarked to check out.
I was young when dune was released and a big fan of herbert books. there was also star wars that ive seen at the same time. Dune is still today to me one of the great SF movies and I count a very few I really love (cloud atlas is another more recent one, speed racer too).
All his weirder movies were great experiences but my favorite ever Lynch movie is the Straight Story. such a perfect beautiful movie. I loved badalamenti music as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCzAetSFRC8&ab_channel=amasterofnothing1
I always thought writing and directing a movie of pure kindness and making it interesting as a piece of great art was the real mark of genius.
Interesting. I understand he wasn't satisfied with the introductory narrative and other non-cinematic means of storytelling. But I love how the movie focuses on inner dialog to approach the novel and how decidedly non-techie, for sci-fi of all things, the movie was at the time, believably telling the story of a post-tech society that had room for style and decadence. And the Dune remake pays tribute to it.
I was also in awe how time travel was depicted by music; might help that the cheesy guild navigator scene operating the spacecraft wasn't shown (or was it? I didn't notice it when I first viewed it, and I like to think that's one of those scenes David Lynch would've rather left out).
Dune or Twin Peaks are probably going to be more accessible than anything else.
For Eraserhead, I understand the metaphor of how parenting can be larger-than-life and terrifying and I see how Eraserhead was trying to embody that but I very much didn't appreciate the highly pessimistic ending. It's an early movie that would have benefited immensely from an alternate ending on its DVD.
I want to push back on the surreal end slightly. It's true that his movies are extremely resistant to analysis, and it's true that much of his imagery is de-facto surreal. But his movies still have narratives assembled from humans in concrete situations with concrete problems and easily understandable actions and reactions. In other words, you can enjoy his movies as an experience at relative face-value in a way many other forms of surreal art resist.
Some more than others, perhaps—the man produced Dune and Eraserhead pretty damn close together, and Eraserhead is not generally considered an easy movie to watch. But the man was never afraid or dismissive of giving us straightforwardly enjoyable cinema, even if we can't easily articulate why!
I thought I was the only one who preferred David Lynch's Dune. I'm glad to find out I'm not alone. I explain to people that it depends on if you're a bigger David Lynch fan or a Frank Herbert fan. I have nothing against Herbert, but I guess there's something about Lynch's work that speaks to me, even a movie like Dune that he himself hated.
How sad. Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive (the IMO under-appreciated pilot), and yes his Dune even though he didn't like it are some of my favourite movies of all time. RIP
Except, well, there ARE still interesting Trek stories being told on TV. That universe is interesting enough, and rich enough, that I see it as being more sustainable. I mean, not for nothing, but there's a whole HOST of characters there instead of one dude, as with Bond.
I'm a little confused about your ire about Dune. Prior to the recent films, those novels never had a decent adaptation -- Lynch's film in 1984, and then a really terrible TV attempt by SciFi like 25 years ago. They're hugely influential in SF, so taking another bite at the apple seems reasonable to me.
My understanding is that Villeneuve is in fact doing a film based on _Dune Messiah_ as a third film, but I don't know if he'll go farther than that. The books get increasingly goofy, so that would be a reasonable stopping point; nobody wants a 3 hour film about a giant human/worm hybrid who rules for 2,000 years or whatever.
The TV show is its own work. I have no judgement on it at all, but its success or failure doesn't affect my opinion of the films.
Something the older Dune movie got right, iirc. In the new movies there’s a lot of fast blade action. In the older one, any fast strike would bounce off. Some trickery was required to get a slow blade past the shield. Been a while since I watched it though…
I've tried watching classics like the old Lynch take on Dune or 2001, and I couldn't finish them; I don't believe it's entirely down to phones / tech-induced attention deficit, but simply due to different filmmaking styles of the time, where I presume visuals and the experience had a much higher impact on their own. As someone else metioned, Villeneuve's films echo these slow burners, but they're a bit more modernised. But, I need to make time to watch films like that, ideally on my own because in a house with family and youth with both clinically diagnosed ADHD and a chronic youtube/tiktok/gaming-with-voice-chat addiction, getting three undisturbed quiet hours to myself is difficult.
I’m not 100% sure Tolkien is right for Kubrick. Maybe but I’d be concerned that he’d make it a little too ponderous and symbolic. He’d nail the spooky dark aura around the ring though. But with the Beatles? Nah no way.
Peter Jackson’s adaptation was so authentic it looked at places just like my mental imagery looked as I was reading the book. That’s a tough thing to pull off in and of itself.
Spielberg would have made it campy. Lynch would have made it surreal, might have been cool but like his Dune would be a weird cult film take. (I like Lynch’s Dune but it’s weird.)
For some reason I think Ridley Scott could have done it if he could have gotten his head out of sci fi.
The original dune movie was excellent and I will die on that hill. It accurately portrays the absurdity of the books.
You’d give the same complaints to anyone who bothered to try to film Charlie and the great glass elevator.
Lynch gave silent treatment to Patrick Stewart on the set of Dune, making him very aware that he didn't agree with him being cast.
According to Patrick, that is part of the reason he's unhappy with the performance he delivered for that movie.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
> I'm not sure why this is particularly needed and it isn't really in the novel...
I know saying this is sacrilegious to some sci-fi fans, but I think that the novel, Dune, could do with improvement. Neither the book nor the movie spend enough time fleshing out the details of their characters, which in my opinion robs both of them their ability to connect more deeply with the audience. The scene where Duke Leto explains to Paul that they will require desert power to rule Arrakis, for instance, did not have to be set such that the characters were alone on an empty cliff above the shoreline. There could have been a city full of culture upon this shoreline with great boat yards and planes over the sea to show the audience the empire that they are leaving behind on Caladan. I want both the novel and the movie to flesh out the details which make the audience engage with the fact that Caladan is a comparative paradise to the harsh, prison-like planet called Arrakis. It would suck to be forced to leave behind all the great work that the Atreides' forefathers put into Caladan. But, ultimately, both the film and the novel fail to fully engage their audience with these facts since they don't flesh out the details about the environment and people that the Atreides rule. At least that is my opinion.
There are a number of things I'd like to change or improve upon if I had the chance to edit Dune (novel or film): the story's allusions to the Cold War fight for oil in the middle east; the poor decision making by the Harkonnens; Dr. Yueh's murder of Duke Leto etc. But I don't want to ramble on too much. My point is that I think the film could have improved upon the novel in a number of places, instead of following the novel to its detriment.
You need to watch both of them: Jodorowsky's Dune and H.R Giger's documentary "Dark Star: HR Gigers Welt". Giger was a true artist to the bones, his house was like a macabre gothic castle from dracula, full of statues, books and art.
Jodorowsky hired Dan O'Bannon, HR Giger, Jean Giraud Moebius, Salvador Dali, Mick Jagger, Pink Floyd... not to mention his own son.
He and Moebius created L'Incal and Metabarons, one of the wildest rides in the realm of european comics. Moebius was one of the most talented artists in the history of the Franco Belgian comics scene of France.
Surreal that Jodorowsky's Dune never materialized. I think it would have been truly amazing and far better than Lynch's Dune. I won't even mention the modern adaptation. How can the guy who made Blade Runner 2049 fails to deliver something so important for Science Fiction? Villeneuve was saved by legitimate actors on blade runner.
The scene that sealed the deal for me was Paul's awakening: I absolutely loved how it was done in Lynch's version, complete with the grand score by Toto, and it was so, so bland and uninspiring in Villeneuve's version.
Mind you, there were great moments in it too, and my ideal Dune movie would take things from both movies (and also from that [0] Dune 1 game!), but overall Lynch's direction was better for me.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(video_game)
I feel like I live in a different reality to the other viewers of the new Dunes
"Best Sci-Fi of the decade"??
They're both some of the dullest sci-fi movies I've ever seen, especially compared to the Lynch one.
Disgracefully I imagine that few people saw the extended two-parts version of the Lynch movie, and were burned by the insanely shortened ending and the other cuts of the theatrical one. I recommend checking the extended version out, it will probably change a lot your idea of the movie. I was probably influenced by seeing it before the (criminal) theatrical version.
Lynch's Dune was visionary, at times disturbing and with Kyle McLachlan. Can you really beat a Kyle McLachlan movie? No, I don't think so. xD
In Villeneuve's version I was e.g. shocked by how watered down the Baron Harkonnens is; the movies are just bland and Hollywood-y.
The music is as banal and badly employed as any average Hollywood blockbuster; the actor chosen for Paul Atreides is as much insipid as Kyle McLachlan was eclectic; Zendaya is incomparable to Sean Young; a couple parts are plain stupid (Gurney's entrance...)
Despite not having the length problems that Lynch had, they managed to compress the ending again; they gave too much time to unimportant parts while compressing the ending and other important passages (the final battle lasts what, five minutes? Does he actually cross the desert??).
Some actor choices seem good (Florence Pugh, Rebecca Ferguson...), but yes not some of the most important.
And I did like a lot Blade Runner 2049, I think I liked Denis Villeneuve, but these movies made me change idea.
To be clear, it's not the worst movie I ever saw; it's simply bland, and I think it's bewildering that this version gets praise while Lynch's one is considered junk.
I should say that I never managed to read the books, though, that might play a role in these opinions.
Lynch's Dune is, I think, a significantly better movie than Villeneuve's Yeah. Ultimately I think Villeneuve's movie commits the worst sin of all which is being kind of boring. (Though as a Dune "veteran" I realize my perspective is highly skewed!)
Lynch's movie is kind of a mess maybe, but there is a sense of wonder there that I just don't get from Villeneuve's beautiful-but-sterile version.
I've probably seen Dune 1984 too many times to have an objective opinion, but I feel like the acting in Dune Part 1 is comparitively very very muted. All the characters (minus Duncan) seem bored the whole time, which is disappointing in relation to the bombastic Shakespearean performances in the Lynch film.
Yeah, I don't remember Jessica being nearly as overtly emotional in the book as she is in Part 1.
I enjoyed Part 1 while watching it, but somehow it's just not memorable to me. It's a much more faithful book adaptation than Lynch's Dune, but Lynch's Dune is full of moments that stick with me and has an iconic soundtrack. To be fair, I first saw Lynch's Dune when I was very young so that might explain part of why I find it so memorable. I dunno. To me Villenueve's Dune just kind of seems... flat, by-the-numbers, gray and dull. Weird thing is, I love Blade Runner: 2049 and I find it to be very memorable and vivid. But then, Villeneuve had a chance to make his own story with that one, which might explain the difference.
Lynch's Dune is, I think, a significantly better movie than Villeneuve's, but it is so different from the book that I'm not even sure I am willing to call it an adaptation - and that might have made Lynch's job easier. For example, Lynch's Dune fully just goes with the classical "hero's journey" approach to Paul, with no hint of the devastation that he will be responsible for. It also goes full on into mysticism, which I enjoy, but which is quite different from the book's skeptical and cynical approach to spirituality. Nonetheless, it is a better movie just as a movie. I have not seen Villenueve's Part 2 yet, but I hope that it makes up for some of the things that I find dull about Part 1.
I think movies these days struggle to compete with serialized television shows which can run very long, allowing a lot more opportunity for character and plot development. Dune also just has a lot to cover. See the Lynch adaptation for what happens when you start to push against the inherent runtime limitations of film.
I'm 44 and I think Lynch'n Dune is better, because it has soul. The first movie was very sterile and lifeless. I commented about it here a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38980303
I would like to see the average age of people who prefer the new Dune movie to the old David Lynch one. Are you all Millennials and younger?
I liked the first 2/3 of the first film. It had some fun takes on events and scenes. But after that it felt like it was on auto pilot plowing through plot bits. The events that close that film are really uninteresting / don't feel very climatic.
I get it's a two part film but I do expect a given part to feel somewhat complete, but I felt like it was more of a "to be continued" ending and I was less than entertained by that point.
I do like that there's such a variety of Dune films and content (the sci-fi miniseries including children of dune being my favorites). It's fun to see a different take on things. I really have never felt any of them were "wrong" or fundamentally "bad" just different approaches.
I wish every great sci-fi content could get lots of versions / interpretations.
I've read all of the Herbert's Dune before watching Lynch movie, cited phrase above stood out to me at the time even when embedded within the broader context of a dialogue. Its possible though that I've picked it up from someone who picked it also up from the movie, sure.
I agree. Lynch's Dune is a really, really rough cut gem, but it is a gem. The last half-hour is obviously rushed without the ability to make it a longer film. Honestly it needed at least another hour or more.
Villeneuve's adaptation so far has been really good, but it's a piece of keenly honed metal compared to Lynch's. Better engineered, but sterile, and missing the kind of messy beauty that I find in Lynch's adaptation.
The Dune books are really, really weird, and the social order they depict has all the ugliness of the historical precedents it apes. Lynch's weirdness captures that, and the "mystical" feel you talked about in a way that Villeneuve doesn't.
Incidentally I agree that Mamoa's Idaho is one of the highlights.
EDIT: On that tentative connection I finished with. I do also worry that in this era of film, Villeneuve's Dune will become somewhat Marvelised. But we'll just have to see.
It does disappoint me a little that at the end of the day, Villeneuve will be the canon adaptation. Just good enough, but unless something radically changes, not nearly so weird as it should be. But we'll see. First movie could just be the first stage of boiling frogs, who knows.
I recently rewatched Villeneuve's Dune in addition to reading the books for the first time (after being a long-time fan of Lynch's take) and I kept thinking a TV series is what it needs. It's hard to imagine it following on from Villeneuve's film given they've dropped so much from the books although I think it can be done. What would be incredible is a Rings of Power-style big budget TV adaptation which would make room for adapting the more fantastical stuff from the sequels as well.
I just rewatched the new Dune, and disagree with my previous assessment. I enjoyed the movie a lot more the second time around.
Perhaps I had preconceived notions the first time (I did watch Lynch's version immediately prior). Perhaps also as others have mentioned I didn't catch all the dialogue as it is quieter than the score in many sections, this time I had the subtitles on.
The cinematography is great, there are way more wide context shots than I remembered. I also felt the magic was there and there is a dreamlike quality during Paul's spice vision scenes. I'm honestly not sure why I didn't enjoy it the first time.
If you are like I was and ambivalent about the sequel, maybe give this movie another go. I've changed my mind and now looking forward to seeing part 2.
I generally don't trust IMDB or RT scores, but I agree with your assessment. They Shoot Pictures Don't They [1] has always been my go to for critically acclaimed movies. Neither Dune film makes it to their top 1000 of all time. The new Dune is #430 in the 21st century, which isn't spectacular, but it's ranked above some movies that I would consider quite good.
I'm a huge fan of Lynch and enjoy the original Dune for what it is, but there has been plenty of time for the critical assessment of it to settle, and it doesn't look good.
[1] https://www.theyshootpictures.com/
> On the other hand, Lynch's Dune also has a great cast, great music, great sets, and it also has the all-important dream-like mystic feel to it, which is completely absent in the new adaptation.
Im glad someone else is happy to say it out loud: Lynch's Dune is art. I love the book and know some people are beyond sore at how Lynch's Dune isn't "faithful" to the letter of the text. The real faith is paid to the spirit of the work and I really appreciate we have it.
Villeneuve's is the best since, and there have been other attempts between.
I would have loved to see what Jodorowsky would have done because he was also a "spiritual" film maker. Both his likely approach and Lynch's do a great job at, judging from what I understand of the later books, bringing out the mystical aspect of the work that envelops everything but is hidden at the same time. The event to event happens in Dune can be explained in mundane ways: issues amongst the royal houses, trade disputes, natives, resource extraction -- Lynch's Dune uses what's practical to amplify the role of the supernatural.
I'd be just as interested in a spiritually skeptic Dune, where the mysticism is downplayed or revealed as all smoke and mirrors.
People are replying asking "Why call it Dune then? (If it does not have anything to do with the books)".
That wasn't what I was talking about – some imaginary filmatisation which has nothing to do with the book. I was talking about not staying true to the "author's vision". You can make a Dune movie in many ways. You can have the same characters, ornithopers and main events, while having a completely different vision for it.
Dune is also a book full of ideas. You can play up many different angles – ecological aspects, loyalty to leaders, political drama, religious fanaticism, etc. – while still being very much a Dune filmatisation. And a film maker can put their own spin on any of those, or bring up their own topics which makes sense to treat within the Dune framework.
Sure, for the money people, being a Dune filmatisation means people will see it because they know that Dune is a famous book (irrespective of weather they read it). But only die hards who have read the book (and have a very immature view of film as a medium) would judge it for how true it stays to the author's vision. The rest will be happy if it is a good movie.
Note also that Lynch's Dune influenced the later books!
I watched the original Dune at the cinema at around eleven years old, was a fan of Star Wars, and I didn't understand anything coherent about the movie. Probably because I was a young child (or have comprehension issues, though). I remember it was boring, Sting there was weird. That is my memory. The new Dune enlightened me. Have not read the books myself.
Dune: The Alternative Edition Redux at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faHQA_0d9Mo is a fan's "fanedit" of Lynch's original Dune movie, about 2h50m I think. I found it enjoyable to watch.
"Dune Remix is as close to Lynch's vision as possible. Its authors even followed the original script and all the scenes are in this version now reassembled in the correct chronological order and originally intended. It is true that not all the scenes could be found because probably Dino de Laurentis didn't even let them film, but much of what is in the cut, according to Spicediver, was enough to restore the film practically in its entirety according to what was written and planned by Lynch decades ago, following the script from scene to scene as faithfully as possible."
> In contrast, Lynch's doesn't look anything like his other films.
Well because this was the only big budget film Lynch ever worked on and produced by none other than Dino De Laurentiis.
> beside that there is a sterility and cleanliness, a monotony in how the images are handled
Not sure what you're referring to. Maybe you're missing the analog feel of shooting in film? Dune 2021 was shot in digital (the newer digital Arri IMAX cameras) and Dune 1984 was shot in 35mm.
It's totally fine to not like digitally shot movies.
What i'd really want is a tv series that looks like Villeneuve's Dune, with ornithopters, ships and all, and has a soul of Lynch's Dune, and is 10 episodes for the first book.
After Villeneuve had repeatedly blown my expectations out of the water. He turned my favorite short story that I thought was unfilmable into the fabulous Arrival created a worthy sequel to the groundbreaking Blade Runner. So I was extremely excited about him making a new version of Dunrle given that Lynch's Dune is one of my favorites movies. Yet, I somehow didn't feel it. I thought it was that I didn't like the actors nearly as much and that I was so used to the music from the Lynch's version. I think you hit the nail on the head though by calling out the lack of dreamlike qualities. To me that was always what I loved about the movie (and other Lynch movies). I can see that others might prefer it without that, but to me that's what made the movie. Without it it's just yet another space opera which I think of as a derogatory term.
I found both disappointing. They kind of had opposite prolems though.
Imo, the new movie was much better execution, but also is super generic removing much of what makes dune actually interesting. The lynch movie is in theory interesting but execution was poor, making it a drag.
I like both Dunes for different reasons.
I do think there’s a major challenge in adapting Dune, which is that Paul’s arc is just starting at the end. The narrative tension doesn’t let up until three books later. If you’ve only got one movie guaranteed, morphing it into a more-traditional hero’s journey isn’t the worst way to solve that rather large problem.
I’m curious how Villeneuve’s going to deal with that.
Forget the books for a moment. The film is a brainless action film.
Most of the criticisms I made are film criticisms that could be levied against any bad or middling movie.
- The film is a vacuum for intricacy and coherence.
- The characters are one-dimensional, unchanging, and don't matter.
- The stakes might be huge, but they carry no emotional weight. Like most superhero films these days.
These are deficiencies in storytelling.
If we contrast Lynch's Dune with Villeneuve's, we might find similar analogies in contrasting "Jurassic Park" versus "Jurassic World", Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" versus Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit", or "Independence Day" versus whatever the hell "Independence Day 2" was.
Each of these latter films promised more, but they turned out to be empty and soulless. More box checking than composition, more visual spectacle than substance. The same is true of Villeneuve's Dune as a film.
I don't need a film adaptation to be faithful. I just need it to be a good movie. I'd be totally fine if the film made a wild departure from its source material, so long as it used that liberty to deliver something impressive. That would honestly mean more to me than a fully "by the books" rendition.
Villeneuve's Dune was just lazy.
Agreed. I love the weirdness of the Lynch film, but it's not a great Dune adaptation. The SciFi miniseries has the lowest production quality (desert scenes shot in real deserts are a lot better looking than desert scenes shot on a very low budget soundstage), but it's the most faithful adaptation, covers the first three books, and still has its own weird Dune charm.
Villeneuve's Dune is sterile and devoid of charm or personality. I love Dune, and I was bored to tears watching that movie.
Exactly this. Lynch would be the first to say that his "Dune" is a failure. The movie is pretty much incomprehensible if you don't know the book. Famously, the first cut was 5 hours long, and he never had a plan how to get the runtime down. I mean, just watch the prologue with the woman talking for 90+ seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqvSJp-6qT4
and tell me with a straight face that someone not knowing the book would be able to understand this. It's pure desperation. Don't get me wrong: it's beautifully shot, especially with the in&out-fading of the face, but it does not work to convey the setting of the story. It's simply too much information.
Quite famously, and also in this case, he refuses to even discuss it because this is a place in time he would rather not go to. It must have been traumatic for him. But this failure was a blessing in disguise, as he did this little movie "Blue Velvet" afterwards, and the rest is history. Lynch would not be where he is today without this failure. After "Elephant Man", he was destined to be the next Lucas, but instead, he pretty much defined a new genre.
The problem with mentats is deeper, as they are integral in the traitor subplot, which forms the main intrigue part of the first half of the book and pays off in the second half.
In new adaptation Yueh's betrayal came out of the left field without real explanation, wasn't shown how it was motivated, suspicions of everyone vs Jessica and Leto's trust in her are all dropped, and on top of it all Yueh's death was very anticlimactic compared to the old movie.
And also, Paul's awakening was my favourite scene in Lynch's Dune, and it was a letdown in Villeneuve's.
As a Dune enjoyer in pretty much all it forms these two movies occupy two different categories for me.
One one hand the Lynch adaption is the campy and fun movie I like to watch with my friends with a few beers, not pay a whole lot of attention to but laugh and have a good time.
The Villeneuve version however is something I want to watch in 70mm IMAX, feel the soundtrack in my bones and be left in awe at the visuals/cinematography. I don't want to talk, just watch.
I like both in different ways.
The first line saying that Lynch’s Dune is a “misbegotten botch job” is based on the authors definition of success in art which is box office returns. And yet here we are discussing a film that turns 40 this year. And there the Wired author is selling ads on the back of David’s work and disabling my back button to grab mailing list signups.
To gain an understanding of David’s approach to art, which is deeply inspired by Robert Henri’s book “The Art Spirit”, it’s worth watching The Art Life (2016). David is a believer in the artist alone in the room with an infinite supply of coffee and cigarettes, creating new ideas with pure creative freedom and the removal of societal pressures. There’s no doubt that his art and all art and creativity is derived from experience and experiencing the art of others. But the point is that for original art to flourish, there comes a time for the artist to seclude themselves and create without market pressures, the influence of popular culture and daily distractions. Us devs can learn much from him.
So I think Lynch’s Dune is spectacular in its originality and bold creativity. And I think looking to box office returns as a measure of success misses the long term value of that kind of originality.
I would say the best - or at least most imaginative and presumptuous - version of Dune is the one we didn't actually get: The version by Alejandro Jodorowsky, in the 1970s. It was a grandiose project involving many artists and themes which went on to inspire, or feature in, films and comics and sculpture for years later (including, among other things, Alien). There was a documentary about it several years back, here's the trailer for that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0cJNR8HEw0
One of the reasons Lynch's Dune is so (more) memorable than Villeneuve's version is the audio, due to Brian Eno generally, and Toto who scored the soundtrack. It was inspiring, majestic, spiritual. The newer film does not reach such heights, and depths, IMHO.
PS - I watched the extended cut with the tacky animation at the beginning, which was probably quite a good thing to have as a prelude if you hadn't read the book before. I had read the book before though.
Learn more about the scoring of the soundtrack and hear some tunes at:
https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/the-unlikely-story-of-totos-soundtrack-for-david-lynchs-infamous-dune-adaptation/
> I, for one, prefer Lynch's Dune to Villeneuve's. I was very hyped for the latter and left the theater disappointed.
I prefer neither. Lynch's is odd and silly while villeneuve's is just eye candy. Dune should be read. A movie simply isn't going to capture all the emotions, inner dialogues, intrigue, history, etc. I think it's impossible to make a good movie out of Dune without completely reimagining and rewriting it. Dune isn't like a detective story or a horror story where the ending or jump scares are the the payoff. Dune is the culmination of the entire journey. It's greatness lies in the details.
Try it. Read Dune and then watch Dune. Something is off. Something is missing. It's like the difference between a grape drink and a grape flavored juice. The latter is a poor imitation of the former.
A few comments in this thread, including yours, have made me wonder: are you a fan of Dune and how Lynch adapted it, or are you a fan of Lynch's Dune?
Because the qualities you're describing sound very much like other Lynch films but not like Herbert's Dune.
To me, they're in an odd balance between Lynch's version, and the Villeneuve version. The visuals were much better, but because it was broadcast, were mostly experienced on TV's that couldn't do them justice -- but at the same time, they also weren't good enough for cinema anymore. And in a similar vein, unlike the Lynch version, they followed the books much more closely, which to me made them lose some of that warm fuzziness charm. I also can't say that the acting was particularly memorable to me, which is to say that nothing stood out as so bad as to be memorable, but I can also barely remember who was in it.
And as far as the sequel, Children of Dune goes, that year BSG blew it out of the water for me.
> [Lynch] managed to cram the whole story in less than 2h30 and in (to me) coherent and understandable way.
I don't think you can make a coherent and understandable movie-Dune without using voice-over character thoughts. You need the footnotes.
It's a tricky device, because it's so easy to overuse, but Lynch mostly limits himself to where it's really needed. AND makes it play better with his trademark dreamlike mood.
Villeneuve's Dune is what you get without this -- I hope everyone read the books! Which on one hand, respect your audience. But on the other, most people haven't read the books.
E.g. Lynch Gom Jabbar: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QrCfivcQe48
Villeneuve Gom Jabbar: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mbTp1vlRqYA
PS: Wtf Lady Jessica in Villeneuve Pt I? She's got enough mettle to defy the Reverend Mother and bear a male child, but then all that strength disappears? I get it... setting up for contrast with Fremen Jessica, but hamfisted. :(
Same here. Even though the "new" Dune has a lot of good VFX, I found it boring to watch, and that was only Part I. Before watching "new", I watched Lynch's to have something to compare to. I vastly prefer Lynch's Dune. It wasn't boring. He managed to cram the whole story in less than 2h30 and in (to me) coherent and understandable way. Although the movie did demand all of my attention and weaving of threads in my mind while watching. Lynch still wins, hands down, not the least because of the atmosphere.
For what it's worth, I think he is most likely correct that 20 years from now, any discussion of Dune and its adaptations will call Lynch's version "inventive, but flawed" and Villeneuve's "drab and lifeless, aimed at movie-goers who had freshly aged out of Iron Man and wanted to feel like it". I can practically feel this article stare at me from the screen already, too. And it probably wants to provoke a little. If anyone still cares, that is.
The reception of Lynch's version will continue to be colored by his overall ouvre, and it's all just so much more interesting and charming for anyone who has to see and write about movies all week long.
I feel the same. I went to see Villeneuve's Dune in the theater - the first time I'd been to a movie theater since the equally underwhelming Valerian - and it was... fine, I suppose. I was really disappointed by the washed-out color schemes permeating every shot. It made Arrakis look more like Antarctica to me than the Sahara. The only thing I recall being truly wowed by were the awesome Mass Effect Reaper-like sound effects that accompanied some of the drop ships, but those were more menacing in, well, Mass Effect.
All that said, I do think the visuals of Lynch's Dune have had longer to enter the public imagination. Cryo's Dune game took a lot of visual and musical cues from that movie, and even Westwood's Dune 2 felt like it drew mostly from the Lynch version. For me as a teenager, those became the iconic representations of the Dune universe, and it's hard for me to imagine it looking any different. Perhaps in 20 years people who grow up with the Villeneuve version will feel the same way about it.
Most films based on books are made only to cash in on the name and preexisting audience of the book.
Consequently, most films based on a book are worse than the book.
Neither Dune film is an exception to this. I'd rather just read the book again than watch either film. And if you're someone who has never read the book, and indeed has no desire to read the book, then why do you even need a "Dune" film made for you?
What's truly sad about Hollywood is the complete lack of original film ideas.
As someone that works in, and enjoys the visual arts field, I think they both have their place. Lynch's Dune is the one I would watch on a random weekday night -- there's a warmth to it that the new one lacks. As you said, there's something sterile about the new one (though maybe it's just the lack of film grain...)
But Villeneuve's is the version I would pay to see in 70mm IMAX. It is a feast for the eyes, and not every movie has to be something deeper.
Lynch’s Dune is up there with Apocalypse Now as my favorite movie. It got the feel of Dune correct, even if it made weird changes, and inspired me to start reading sci fi (I think I first saw the movie on TV in the late 80s, and would watch it whenever broadcast).
So many of the negative comments about Villeneuve's Dune in this thread are astonishing to me, but I will just pick this one: surely scale is something that Villeneuve does so brilliantly! From Arrival, though Blade Runner 2049, to his Dune, he has an amazing ability to make things seem vast (space ships, buildings, cities...) - it's almost a trademark of his work, to me, so colour me baffled that you would single this out for criticism.
(For context, I read and enjoyed the Dune books as a child, I've seen the Lynch film several times and find it broadly comical, I love Twin Peaks, and I think Villeneuve is arguably one of the best mainstream directors working right now.)
I, for one, prefer Lynch's Dune to Villeneuve's. I was very hyped for the latter and left the theater disappointed.
You see, Villeneuve's Dune has a great cast, insanely great cinematography and sets, but it is also very sterile, devoid of life and has very unimaginative directing. Some scenes were direct adaptations from the book, like Gom Jabbar scene, Shadout Mapes scene, and were very confusing for people who didn't read the book. (why does that sand woman shout when Jessica says a certain word?). Paul's awakening is very bland, too. His mentats were useless. De Vries was just a sad freak who stood nearby and then died. Hawat was in three scenes where he had any lines, and in two of which he counted expenses, and offered his resignation in the third. If I didn't read the book I'd assume he's some kind of accountant.
On the other hand, Lynch's Dune also has a great cast, great music, great sets, and it also has the all-important dream-like mystic feel to it, which is completely absent in the new adaptation. Sure, it has a lot of script problems, which mostly boil down to far too short runtime, as moviegoers in 1984 weren't ready for 2 part movies, so it had to cram the second part of the book in the final 20 minutes or so. Had it been two movies, it would have been much better.
One big improvement in Villeneuve's adaptation is Momoa's Idaho, who basically saved the movie for me. Lynch's Idaho was very bland and died far too easily and non-consequentally. Other than his scenes, if I ever want to see some scene from Dune on Youtube, it'll be Lynch's (except "the Guild doesn't take your orders", if you know what I mean).
As a huge Dune fan, I’ve honestly tried giving Lynch’s Dune movie a fair shot multiple times. But everything just totally falls apart for me with the weirding modules.
Lynch's Dune is vibrant, transgressive and weird. Every detail is unsettling in the way only Lynch is. The scale invokes awe. Excited frisson and disgust overlap uncomfortably. The emotions evoked are grand and complex. It is a challenging film, a masterpiece.
Villeneuve's dune is an enjoyable film, it conforms to expectations, and easily lauded. As such it is somewhat anodyne and flat. It is only rich where it borrows from Lynch. The scale feels small like tilt-shift does.
I agree! I found the new Dune boring, nice looking but generic (a lot like e.g. any recent Ridley Scott movie) and the actors seemed bored too. It failed to communicate a sense of wonder at the strange world. I re-watched Lynch's version after the new one, and even though the story is the same, I cared about everything that happened. I can overlook other flaws in a movie if it's at least interesting. So I think you are right, not because Lynch's Dune was a masterpiece (it wasn't), but because the new one will be mostly forgotten in a decade or so.
Perhaps the new Dune was so appreciated because it ignores the recent trend of over-complicated story telling with time jumps and mystification, and instead just tells it straight. But that's a pretty low bar.
If we keep on praising uninteresting, soulless movies like Villeneuve’s Dune while shooting down more artistic (but weirder) views such as Lynch’s one, then I think we might end up with the opposite: human crews making films based GPT’s scripts.
The same thing happened with Society of the Snow: a technically beautiful movie with nothing to say other than being more “faithful” and using native actors. All that is appreciated but Alive was a flawed but much more exciting telling of the story.
Probably the -value- of F.Herbert Dune is high enough to survive a film transposition, givin an higher-than-mean Director (in theory), and in pratice all those read and love Herbert work will see his message and meanings behind a movie.. Lynch Dune is not bad seen today but the director is not 'fit' for SciFi IMHO, Villeneuve, decades after, seems mode inside the genre and capable to manage the matter and the modern SFX, it's Dune seems more close to the essential minimal trascendent adn vastness spirit of FH Dune. All IMHO.
> In other words: in 2050, Dune 2021 will be perceived as just another sci-fi film, whereas Dune 1984 will still be weird and unique.
Just like The Room is "weird and unique"? :)
> As a side note: does anyone take RT or the Oscars seriously anymore? That whole line of argument isn't very compelling to me, but I guess it is for some.
How much would you agree or disagree with this 'ranking' of Lynch's works?
* https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/david-lynch/
These are all personal opinions, but I agree that the first Dune is a much more interesting movie than the newer one. Awards are much more about politics and trend engineering than anything else. It’s good when they are on your side but I bet I can find highly awarded movies that you hate.
Villeneuve’s Dune looks like what a very advanced moviemaking ChatGPT would do: technically flawless, completely soulless, and an absolute snore fest. Lynch’s Dune is flawed, but full of character, and excitingly weird. It’s not a superb movie but then again the comparison isn’t either.
I said "a few decades from now" because I wanted to highlight the fact that the recent Dune movies are unremarkable and similar to other films made today, whereas the 80s Dune is fairly unique, even for the 80s. In other words: in 2050, Dune 2021 will be perceived as just another sci-fi film, whereas Dune 1984 will still be weird and unique.
As a side note: does anyone take RT or the Oscars seriously anymore? That whole line of argument isn't very compelling to me, but I guess it is for some.
And as a final comment: note that I didn't say Dune 1984 was an amazing film, I just said it would be looked at more favorably than the current films because of its uniqueness. This tends to happen to older films: the solid-but-boring ones get forgotten, while the weird-but-unique ones develop a cult following and get re-evaluated positively.
I feel very similarly - I will go and see the new one, because I love Dune.
But the last movie was.. sterile, dead. There was no warmth between the characters, little of interest in them. It was stark. I didn’t care for any of them and it didn’t seem much like they cared for each other.
The old Lynch movie isn’t a great film in that it doesn’t hold together well, and it’s not the best telling of Dune. But it has so much character, and it has characters, and they have meaningful interactions.
I worry that the money that has gone into the Villeneuve movies is the last time Dune will be able to attract that sort of funding, and the biggest budget telling of the story we will have is one in which the characters may as well be wax droids.
Dune is easily Lynch’s worst movie. Hard for me to see it being remembered as anything other than that.
> A few decades from now, I think Lynch's Dune will be looked upon more favorably than the recent films.
By whom? Lynch's has been out for decades and is at 6.3:
* https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/
Villeneuve's is currently at 8.0:
* https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1160419/
The RT for each are at 44% and 83%:
* https://www.rottentomatoes.com/search?search=Dune
Even with recency bias, do you think their scores will change much in 20+ years?
The recent one was so "indistinguishable" from recent sci-fi movies it won Best Original Score, Sound, Film Editing, Cinematography, Production Design, and Visual Effects:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_Dune_(2021_film)
How many other sci-fi films even get nominated (including Best Picture and Screenplay), let alone win? What were the accolades for Lynch's movie?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(1984_film)#Accolades
I bought the dvd of the original Dune before having seen the movie. I’ve watched it a few times. I really wanted to like it. Something’s really off about it.
If you don’t already know dune the original movie is really hard. If you do know it there are some changes.
It really is of its time however. It’s a kind campy art piece that makes it hard to take seriously. Though Sting.
The music in both movies is fantastic.
I already do.
There are some ridiculous changes to the story, and the end is so weird that it's funny, but the dialogues are so much better, the characters have substance. The scary ones are scary, the glorious ones are glorious. There is actual development in Leto. The whole world feels deep. Altogether, it feels like it was aimed at a more mature audience. The same audience that would also buy the books afterward if they didn't already read it.
New Dune however feels more like Young Adult Entertainment. It looks fantastic, but the rest doesn't really matter. I didn't feel anything for any of those characters. Some of the dialogues were really cringe worthy (the Hangar dialogue for example) I went there with someone who never read the books. They were confused also didn't bother with most of the characters or what has become of them.
I will go and see the second one though since it's Dune and I love Dune and this might also be the reason why this way of making movies works...the nerds still go in even if they complain and the "normal audience" gets something which won't be too challenging.
A few decades from now, I think Lynch's Dune will be looked upon more favorably than the recent films. They simply have more character and vastly more interesting set design, whereas the recent ones are visually indistinguishable from most other sci-fi films made at the same time.
How did you come up with "less data"? Video and audio are much larger then text even when compressed. You can put whole Dune book original series in space of a single MP3 song, and the entire text of English Wikipedia in a single high quality movie.
well film making is subjective so..
i personally prefer the film making on Villenueve mostly because he has double the time and 35 years of CGI and effects available to him so there are things he can show now that Lynch could not on the other hand Lynch needed to rely much more on storytelling to give us information while Villenueve can just show things and hope we will get it..
Another thing.. Lynch movie came out in the 80s when scifi was still in its infancy, so everything was new and exciting.. By now everything has being done and re-done a bazillion of times.. In the 80s they were still learning how to do things and remembers Lynch's Dune was a failure at the time.. Sure it achieved cult status now but it had its fair share of bad criticism when it was released..
One example, it was unthinkable making a film split in two parts in the 80s while it is common now.. On the other hand having 5min of face talking doing exposition on the start of the movie like it is done in Lynch movie is unthinkable now when you have the CGI to show stuff but it was often a necessity in the 80s.. They are both products of their time and work with were available to then..
But i think that if he will go on to write an essay about the movie, first he should watch the full movie and not only half. And second he should judge the movie on its own merits and defects and not keep comparing it to the Lynch movie at every corner. He think the movie making is not good tell us why instead of saying it is bad because Lynch made it different and he like Lynch more so Villenueve is automatically bad..
like he say that in Lynch film he use voice over to show characters inner voices, and that this make it "vastly texture-enriching and deftly add a haunting dimension of subjectivity", i on the other hand always found lynch's voice over inner voices to be weird and out of place even if it add to the movie, i dislike then not because they are there but how they were done.. The problem is that how they were done is a product of the time the movie was made and resources available at that time, it would never be done the same way today even if one choose to do inner voices..
Same when he talk about the Gom Jabbar test.. Lynch movie has to show the burning hand in the box melting as if it was actually happening to his hand to show the pain that Paul is facing at that moment and has to use his inner voice for the litany of fear.. While Villenueve show us glimpses of visions of a fully carbonized hand in the desert to make it clear what Paul is felling without actually showing what is happening to his hand so we can grasp the level of pain without really knowing it and then he cut to Jessica outside in despair chanting the litany of fear just because he the time to do it.. He think the Lynch version show the pain better because it was more explicit while i think the Villenueve does a better job exactly for the opposite reason.. totally a matter of personal taste.. Neither Lynch or Villenueve movie are bad because of it, just diferent ways of portraying things each limited by the resources available.. And to go even further, neither does a good job in portraying the fear the reverend mother felt of Paul for a split second that caused her to end the test because the pain level he was enduring was so high..
So it seen unfair to compare both works to each other like he did..
If he want write about why he prefer the Lynch movie over the Villenueve movie it is totally fine, but do not call it a review for Villenueve movie.
Both are good movies and both have their fair share of defects, some will prefer one, some the other and not everyone will agree and again this is fine.. But just because you prefer one over the other first it does not make the other bad and second it is not an excuse to just bash the other because they did not make things the same way..
This is why his review sound dull and elitist to me.
you misspelled incorrect.
But honestly, there is so many things wrong in his review that show he does not know anything about Dune, it look like this review is only for him to mention how much he liked the Lynch movie.
Only taking a look in the first four paragraphs.
Movie take place in year 21,267 not 10,196, it is in-universe year 10,196 AG, that mean after the navigator guild was formed that was when the calendars were reset.
The name of the substance is Melange not Spice and it is not a mineral, it is basically sand-worm shit.
He miss so much about why Leto was given Arrakis and why the Harkoneens took it back and completely miss the fact that it was the plan all along, i think this probably will be more clear in the next part, although it is mentioned by Leto to Paul that he knew it was a trap.
Paul never came to believe he was the messiah since he was not supposed to be, and surely not in the first movie. He will use the Bene Gesserit prophecies in his favor knowing full well the damage it will cause in the universe. But all that will take place in the second part so not sure why he is even mentioning.
The Kwisatz Haderach was not meant to be the savior of house Atreides and the Freemen like he say in the forth paragraph.
He make fun of Paul vision including Chani, first his dreams are the early signs of his prescience or his ability to see the future, so it is expected he would see her as she will play a important role in his future other then being his concubine and the mother of his children, she is the reason why Paul will rejected the Golden Path, his son will then accept it and became the god-emperor that will rule for 10,000 years. second, he dreaming of her is even in the books that is the source material although he keep forgetting it and things it is the Lynch movie.
He keep dismissing things that are in the book because they where not in the Lynch movie like this was a remake of the Lynch movie and not a completely separated and independent adaptation of the same source material.
The Lynch movie has a ton of problems as well, it had to cut many things to make the book fit into a 2h movie and it is one of the reasons it was a failure at the time, sure it achieved cult status by now, but it is not a movie without problems.
Also why Villenueve movie is so long that it had to be split in two and even with almost 6h they had to cut stuff from the books. It sure has its problems but it is way better then the Lynch movie.. hell, even the John Harrison series is better then the Lynch movie in my opinion.
I liked that Lynch somehow preserved the mythology. In contrast, the new Dune, looks like an action movie.
I'm not sure I understand why you find those lines particularly comedic. Campy? Most definitely. They also don't really work out of context, so I sat down and watched the actual scene and well... they're still not a particularly funny line, and I don't think the scene is meant to be funny. Are you suggesting that they're intentionally hamming it up? Honestly, I can't even tell if this point.
Wikipedia seems to support this theory as well:
"Lorenzo Semple Jr. wrote the script. He later recalled:
Dino wanted to make Flash Gordon humorous. At the time, I thought that was a possible way to go, but, in hindsight, I realize it was a terrible mistake. We kept fiddling around with the script, trying to decide whether to be funny or realistic. That was a catastrophic thing to do, with so much money involved... I never thought the character of Flash in the script was particularly good. But there was no pressure to make it any better. Dino had a vision of a comic-strip character treated in a comic style. That was silly, because Flash Gordon was never intended to be funny. The entire film got way out of control."
It seems like the kind of show that would fit well in mystery science theater though. This is likely just one of those things that is more of a time capsule, or a period piece, it's likely very difficult for people who grew up watching this type of show to be able to objectively have an opinion about it without nostalgia creeping in.
Personally, I can't fathom thinking the 1980s Flash Gordon was a good movie while the 1980s Dune movie was not.
1984 Dune was enjoyable as a bonkers Lynch movie, less so as a Dune adaptation.
I actually credit the 1984 Dune with turning me on to Lynch.
> I don't understand all the love for Dune. I read it, it was ok, and that was it. 3 underwhelming film adaptations is more than enough.
It's the Count of Monte Cristo meets Star Wars, with great world building, pretty good plot and characters and a lot of interesting philosophy, sociology, strategy and tactics. What's not to love?
The scifi miniseries was decent. The 1984 one was...barely Dune, though I enjoyed it. The current one is the first really good adaptation IMO, I don't think it's overrepresented at all.
IMHO, Denis Villeneuve (and the rest of the crew) did a wonderful job with the visuals in Dune; there's some aspects of it I don't care for, but it definitely looks cool. But then again, I also think David Lynch (and the rest of the crew) did a wonderful job with the visuals in Dune, although somethings were a bit over the top; OTOH, I first watched this one when I was like 10 and got sucked in, so I'm not unbiased. I think both films did a great job of practical shooting that will continue to look good well into the future unlike a lot of recent films that are a lot of short takes in front of a green screen (cough Star Wars after the first two; most of Marvel cough). I'm looking forward to Dune: Part 2 this year, even if I'm pretty sure I'll dislike the same things I dislike from Dune: Part 1, because the visuals are likely to be going to be wonderful.
The SciFi channel had zero budget and it showed; but I think they stuck to the book a lot better; but I don't think I'll ever rewatch them, because the visuals are so bad.
Anyway --- we can always treat adaptations as inspired by rather than based on. I, Robot is a fun action film that name drops the three laws, but is otherwise unconnected to the book. The song retains the name, as they say.
I am not the one who suggested Mars, but if we interpret 1984 style as a reference to scifi movies instead of Orwell, it does fit.
The original Dune was released that year, and Terminator too...
There’s a great movie version of it from the 80s by David Lynch. Not so good if you haven’t read the book but I found it oddly, perhaps uniquely, sublime representation of the book after having read Dune. I don’t think I’ve ever experienced art like that where it changed so much after experiencing the source material or some other piece.
It was like a private key/ public key where you need both pieces to match in order to work. (Although I think the book is excellent by itself)
I can see why you might like 2049. To me it’s not the introspection and growth of the character that’s its failing, it’s the poignant multi-second shots of a tree root or a bit of ash that felt overly deliberate and designed to seem meaningful while also dragging out the run time.
Yes - I love the books of Dune (well, the Frank Herbert ones) and I find the old movie entertaining and used to obsessively collect different cuts. I enjoyed the sci-fi channel adaptations, though I didn’t much care for their portrayal of Paul and also I probably haven’t watched them in 15 years.
I felt that the lack of interpersonal rapport and affection, along with his choice of palette, just made the whole thing feel sterile and dull.
My fear is that this becomes the definitive Dune for the next few decades, blowing the budget (both literally and metaphorically) for Dune adaptations on a polished though ultimately bland pair of movies.
Dune seems to be one of those books that's really hard to translate into film. I had to read the book before I understood what the heck was going on in the 1984 film.
Having said that, I'm pretty excited about part 2.
I liked part One but not as much as the David Lynch version of Dune. I liked Part One better than the prior TV miniseries. The casting was better in the David Lynch version as the current Paul is weak.
Well said, all!
I particularly appreciate hearing someone other than me point out that Dune is very much not the hero’s journey. The first book sure rhymes with it, with some odd dissonant notes if that’s all you’re expecting. I loved the Lynch movie, but it basically leaned into the hero’s journey on acid, so it worked (for my adolescent self) as a movie, but was clearly not something hewing to the point of the series.
I feel like this new take is much more likely to capture the ambiguity of operating at the scale of galactic civilization rapture and stasis. We’ll have to see the next film to know!
I am shocked every time I hear people be surprised that the dinner scene was removed. There’s no way to translate that scene to film in a way viewers could understand, and I don’t get why people feel it was so load bearing to the novel.
You're asking a movie question in a forum that's probably very resistant or even actively hostile to visual storytelling[0]. Weight answers accordingly.
For my $.02, it's a great film. I loved it; we have a cheap IMAX in our city and I must have seen it there a dozen times, and then a few times at home later. Greig Fraser was a fine stand in for Deakins, which was a relief. I love the look of the Lynch film, expected to remember it better than the DenVil designs, but then the new movie surprised me by topping even Tony Masters' fantastic Lynchian fever dream.
As the film tells a story, however, it has some weaknesses[1] that it inherits from the text, and doesn't really completely dig itself out from those. Which is bad - that's an adaptation's only job. The worst of this is probably the choice of ending point: probably the vision in the tent would have been the latest possible moment to do a solid ending, IMO. That single change would have made the movie 10-20% better, and is the lowest hanging fruit. It still baffles me, because Dennis is no idiot, and I wonder if the payoff is next movie.
Another is the character count from the books. I'm going to say some bad things now, so get ready: the characters of Gurney and Duncan should probably have been amalgamated into a Duncan Halleck. There's zillions of other places to do things like this, because Dune is littered with characters who don't appreciably advance the story and disappear after Book 1; Shadout Mapes and Chani could, I think, be realistically amalgamated, and it would be a kick in the pants when you learn the housekeeper is daughter of Liet. Yeah, the book fans are gonna be pissed, but they were going to be pissed no matter what you did, because unlike LotR the novel is a young adult / coming of age story and people get weird about those. I've had friends screaming about the "missing dinner scene" for a year now.
Something more abstract, too, is the lack of an object - metaphorical or physical - that the danger revolves around. Lynch's film dealt with this via several devices: the signet ring, the weirding modules. Dennis' film does not. Now, disclaimer. Dune as a giant metaphor rejects, in its own way, narrative as a generic concept, or at least the heroic narrative, so you have to bite your lip and wonder if this lack is intentional, and Dennis chose to push that absence forward as a metaphor. But metaphor tricks in storytelling only work if they leave the movie's skeleton to function; push them too hard (like, IMO, The Lobster did, critic tonguebaths notwithstanding) and a film can fall apart, like a sloppy abstraction.
[0] This is "Hacker News", after all, and if there's one thing that's core to the word "hacker" it's "text".
[1] "Weaknesses" from a movie perspective, where time is the most critical resource. Vs a book or video game, which can - and does! - stay engaging even when the main character is going to the bathroom, or climbing a mountain, or chopping garlic.
It won 6 Oscars, deservedly, though all technical, but should have won Best Picture, which went to CODA. CODA had a budget of $10M and a box office take of $1.9M, while Dune had a budget of $165M and a box office take of $402M, if that tells you anything. Chalamet should have won Best Actor, he did quite well, but he is too young. He'll get one later when he's older, undoubtedly. Best Actor went to Will Smith for King Richard, and Smith is certainly talented, but Chalemet is in a class by himself. Smith probably should have forfeit his Oscar for his violent outburst at the ceremonies.
The acting in Dune is simply excellent. Everyone brought their A-game. The cinematography, special effects and soundtrack are all excellent. The screenplay is surprisingly very similar to the 1984 film.
I'm "in the middle"; it's certainly not a bad movie, but it also failed to really capture me. I still prefer David Lynch's Dune – yes, it has its issues[1] but it's so much more creative and bewildering than the almost sterile "Villeneuve look". I certainly don't begrudge Villeneuve for following his own creative vision, but I wish it was more Lynch-esque, minus the problems of course.
[1]: The DVD copy of Dune I bought at the store many years ago has a cover with visible JPEG artefacts. It's a perfect cover.
I've read the book, and I quickly found the movie to be unwatchable because of dumb, pointless changes to the story. Not quite as bad as David Lynch's "Dune Velvet", but still bad.
One thing that really bothered me is that the movie had Gurney Hallack warn Paul not to sit with his back to the door rather than Thufir Hawat. In the book, this was an important early scene because it's a setup for Thufir's death scene at the end, when he says, "The universe is full of doors." Of course Thufir's death hasn't been shown yet in the movies, but they already degraded it somewhat.
There were other changes that bothered me too. IIRC there was something crucial missing from the gom jabbar scene that left out a big part of the motivation for it. I don't remember all the details now. (Edit: Now I remember. The Reverend Mother explained that an animal would gnaw off its own leg to escape the trap. In the book, she explains that a human would fake death and kill the trapper to eliminate a threat to its kind. Whereas in the movie, she just says "What will you do?" WTF?!?) I stopped the movie after a half hour or so. I didn't see the point, when the book is so much better.
I've read the book, and I quickly found the movie to be unwatchable because of dumb, pointless changes to the story. Not quite as bad as David Lynch's "Dune Velvet", but still bad.
Why 'Jihad' specifically?
I never read any of Dune, but I watched the David Lynch film and saw a desert planet.. Did it originate there or something?
Wow, the artwork is just beautiful. I wish this could get a re-release now that the new movies are introducing Dune to a new audience.
>Tbh I thought David Lynchs Dune captured the oddity of the universe, the cruelty of the universe, and did it's own stuff as well.
Wait till you hear about Jodorowsky's Dune[1][2], the best film never made.
With Pink Floyd doing the soundtrack, H.R. Giger doing the visuals, Jean "Moebius" Geiraud creating the story board, Dan O'Bannon on VFX, and Salvador Dali agreeing to play the Emperor, you'd get a lot to say about the oddity and cruelty of that universe.
...had anyone had the guts to actually fund Jodorowsky on that one. Alas, after assembling the all-star team, doing the pre-production, securing the rights, and being ready to go, he simply didn't get the funding to implement his vision.
Giger, who hasn't been involved with film till that point, went on to make Alien with O'Bannon; and the project - despite never been made! - has influenced all subsequent space sagas.
The documentary about it[3] is fascinating.
[1]https://www.jodorowskysdune.com/
[2]https://www.openculture.com/2016/10/14-hour-epic-film-dune-that-alejandro-jodorowsky-never-made.html
[3]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1935156/
> Tbh I thought David Lynchs Dune captured the oddity of the universe
What I liked about Lynch's version is hold old everything felt. The Empire was around for a long time and so had become mostly ossified and decadent (which the Golden Path was/is meant to rectify), and you could tell that by the clothes people wore and many of the sets (e.g., the room where the Navigator and Emperor meet).
The Sci-Fi miniseries hewed closer to the story, but everything felt too 'shiny' (no doubt due to budget constraints).
Villeneuve wasn't as old looking as Lynch, but not as shiny as Sci-fi, but somewhere in the middle. The costumes were also pretty good.
I also appreciated Zimmer's 'alien sounding' musical score, and the way it blended in with the sound design many times (the teams ended up working together a lot instead of being strictly siloed like often happens).
Tbh I thought David Lynchs Dune captured the oddity of the universe, the cruelty of the universe, and did it's own stuff as well. I know not everyone likes it, but I think it has it's place, especially in the context of all his other movies and tv shows.
"Dune, the greatest film that was never made" looked like it could have been incredible. Both casting and asthetic was in place, with the story they had it would have taken that film in a different and some would say more interesting direction.
Still very much a fan of how Villeneuve is handling things now with this established direction.
I know I'm weird because I absolutely despise Dune the book and the movies but I like everything else Frank Herbert wrote including Destination Void and its sequels, the BuSab stories, Eyes of Heisenberg, etc.
I object to your tone, and I don't understand why you're taking it with me, or wrongly assuming that I didn't see 'The Deer Hunter'; I did see it. I had heard rave reviews about 'The Deer Hunter' but as things happen, I only got around to seeing it ~15yrs after it was released. It was decent, De Niro and Cazale are standouts, but not as great as the accolades it had been showered with. I like most De Niro (Scorsese, Cimino, or other director), but for a slow-boiler character study of a man's descent into insanity, 'Taxi Driver' (or the little-known but superb Danish film trilogy 'Pusher' (1996-2004-2005)) are IMO far superior. Or maybe even Takeshi Kitano. As far as TDH goes, I think the last chapter suffers a break in coherence, and it doesn't advance the narrative to see De Niro unravel in slow-motion at the end. As far as anti-Vietnam war films go, Bogdanovich's 'Saint Jack' made the point more deftly; we don't necessarily need to see people literally blowing their brains out to get the point that they've been systematically dehumanized. Perhaps it's the Oscar hype machine rather than Cimino's directing that's responsible for the perpetual hype around 'The Deer Hunter', and the lack of hype around Nicolas Winding Refn. In any fair universe, foreign directors like Refn would have won an Oscar for his early work, regardless that it was in Danish; which is a Hollywood attitude that persisted until 'Parasite' (2019).
Be assured I've "watched old films" aplenty. (I referenced 'Alphaville' above, earlier; and the David Lynch 'Dune'. I was even gong to reference Tarkovsky). My comment wondering if Godard was ever considered to direct 'Dune' is obviously praise for his work.
Have you seen Pusher Trilogy? or Bogdanovich's 'Saint Jack'? How do you think they compare?
(Also, 'The Deer Hunter' running time is 3h3m, so the "you can't spend an hour just watching someone else's creation" misassumption is offbase for multiple reasons. Ask questions, rather than make wrong assumptions.)
It's one of the very few movies I chose to sit down and watch but had to stop after just a few minutes.
The others would be The Departed — I loved the original Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs, but I couldn't bear to watch more than a few minutes of The Departed. And the David Lynch Dune.
Usually I tough it out, L.A. Confidential, for example, I thought was awful, but saw it through to the end. I couldn't believe that the same director (Curtis Hanson) could have made such an awful (though, stangely, lauded) film and also the absolutely amazing Wonder Boys (and the servicable The Hand That Rocks the Cradle).
It's a gestalt imo, kinda like Lynch's Dune. Flawed film with lots of bad parts and bizarre decisions, but also unique and memorable enough to elevate it above 'just bad'
The thing with dune is the first 2 books are perfect for that sort of thing. Then it goes kind of meta weird. Not sure most audiences would be up for that. The last movie I was pumped for. However, I did not realize you could make dune that mind blowing boring. It was very nicely done, but kind of boring. I think that is because the book breaks one of the rules of movies/tv 'show dont tell'. Whereas the dune books are nothing but 'tell'. It is why a lot of Steven King books fall flat in the movies. That can be tough. As that can get rather dull. As you look at what the chars are seeing but you are missing out on their commentary. They tried that in the 84 dune and it just came out awkward.
That's a good angle
But that's the thing, jodos dune came as an aggregate of "non-movie" mediums, because jodorowsky was not a cinematographer by trade he was an avant garde theater person, giger, Dali, moebius, Foss, neither of them "were part" of the "movies" medium, they all and the rest of the crew were painters or writers or musicians, comic book artists, not cinematographers per se, in that sense what jodorowsky set to do was not even a movie as we might think of one today, but an agglomeration of different types and styles of art with all their own individual Influences mixed in
I think today, it would be nearly impossible for "works" to exist and not have been inspired themselves in some degree by the downstream effects and inspiration that jodorowskys movie had, just think that starwars itself is inspired by it
But anyhow, it is a quite interesting food for thought
If anyone knows of some niche modern scifi books or works which might not be influenced by this failed dune movie let me know, I love this stuff
I know the post is satire but using baldness as a feature of villains in movies is surprisingly common still. I noticed it watching Dune recently given that the Harkonnens were not even bald (or specifically entirely hairless) in the books or the 1984 movie.
I don't think anyone's arguing that it's the worst injustice anyone faces but it is surprisingly often used as a visual shorthand for people lacking humanity, which is pretty nasty.
Lynch's Dune still has the best movie soundtrack of all time and I will die on that hill.
I mean, the Dune book itself is a bit on the self-serious side if we're being honest. It's appropriate to the style of the story IMO. I still found it very entertaining, myself (book and movie).
Lynch’s Dune was ambitious but we all know it missed the mark. It’s been memed to death at this point.
Vilaneuve’s Dune was spot on. It remains to be seen how great the film turns out with Part 2 more than a year away. But I had it at a solid 8.5/10
I liked the Villeneuve dune, but I have to admit it was a bit self-serious. Lynch may be avant-garde, but he understands that the movies are supposed to be entertaining
Any story has an implicit assumption about the kinds and levels of absurdity you can expect. People get weirded out when you violate those expectations. Marvel, by virtue of their source material if nothing else, has set a much higher baseline of goofiness for their movies than most others. Whereas we all sort of know Dune was meant to be Serious Scifi. And I guess people who decide they like the Lynch adaptation have re-calibrated their expectations, and found the movie internally consistent on some level. It's all about audience expectations (and sometimes Hollywood ignorance/laziness, I guess).
If you're referring to something in the Villenueve Dune, I don't remember it in enough detail to know what you're talking about. And I only know the Lynch one from snippets and memes. :) I think I agree about breaking formation. Just once I'd like to see a movie that took battle formation seriously.
just speculating (usually set design isn't accounting for anything beyond "looks cool"):
- Hazmat suites can contain climate control, and the Tuareg wear dark clothing as well
- Wyrding Module: In Lynch's words: He didn't want Kung-Fu on sand dunes
- No idea what you mean, but charging into battle has since been proven to be viable tactic by the Avengers, so it has to work
- Ornithopter refers to the propulsion, like a bird, instead of a simple helicopter; I'd have to watch Lynch's Dune so to see how those actually look like in his film; Villeneuve nailed them pretty well
- Same reason why the first Enterprise under Archer used fancier screens than the ones under Kirk or Picard; IMHO Lynch borrowed a lot of his aesthetics from WW1, and the Dune universe is surprisingly low tech anyway
- The navigator: A wild guess, I always understood it as a way to show the importance of Spice and Arrakis to the Guild when they had to send one of their Navigators to talk directly to the Emperor instead of using proxies
I think there's a better version of Dune somewhere between Lynch and Villeneuve.
Lynch didn't trust the audience enough. The wierding modules, the amount of voice-over, the limitations of the special effects of the time, etc. Also, the studio didn't fully trust the material, forcing Lynch to cram everything in one movie. The movie starts off well-ish enough. But after Paul and Jessica escape the Harkonnens, we just sort of yadda yadda years away and jump to Paul getting ready to attack Arrakeen. I think only the last 30 or so minutes is after the escape (excluding credits). Could be longer, but the jump is jarring. The movie moves at a decent clip otherwise. Set up with the emperor whinging about the Atreides, the Atreides getting ready to leave, the arrival, establishing the Atreides are not the Harkonnens, the coup, the escape, the time jump montage, the final attack.
Villeneuve's movie covers up to the escape and that's it. Villeneuve's film is 19 minutes longer. So Villeneuve basically had the opportunity to expand the beginning of the story by about an hour. He's going to be able to cover the same ground as the last 30 minutes of the Lynch movie with at least 2 hours.
The issue is that Villeneuve kind of wastes his time. We see Dr. Yueh. And that's really it. We never get even a mention of imperial conditioning or why it's shocking that it's Dr. Yueh that betrays the Atreides. Piter is seen, but I don't think ever named. We don't meet Feyd at all in the movie. We get way more backstory about a bull's head than we do any character.
If we had more of Lynch's development and Villeneuve's aesthetic, we'd have a near perfect version of the film.
They are based on a book. They adapted the key scenes from the book.
Also Lynch’s Dune descends into farcical whimsy, it’s not a good movie, although it has some good costume and set design.
Old Dune is kind of trippy view that happened once and I can't imagine it happening ever again, not with that budget and quality actors. Its still most approachable of all of Lynch's work. I like it a lot for sort of nostalgic feeling for the 80s vision of the future like from some pulp comics.
New Dune is completely different beast, can't wait till second part comes. That universe is rich for other stories, tv series etc. which seems to be the direction all major studios are moving to.
Lynch-dune is mostly good, but Villeneuve's is so much better in a beautifully indescribable way that only cinema can really do.
Villeneuve has been dreaming of making his Dune since he was a boy and it shows. ignoring the visuals, the tone is just so much more ominous and alien than Lynch's. One thing that really dates old movies versus their modern counterparts (of sorts) is the sound design. Dune's sounds are absolutely fantastic.
I'm assuming this is a movie tie-in, so it's odd that the depiction of the worms is closer to the three-lobed mouth of the original novel cover art and 1984 movie than the round mouth of the new movie.
Anyway, I do think that 4X RTS is a bit of a tired genre for Dune, and probably won't live up to the original.
I also think it's a waste. Why just another story of exploiting a land's natural resources, mining, subjugating villages, and sending spice off to a distant empire. Sure, it fits so well into the 4X genre it's an easy, thoughtless adaptation. But what about a game told from the Freman's perspective? How about a game of repelling the imperialist invaders? Or a naturalist tale of trying to turn the desert green?
It is hard to think of a good example of CGI from modern films because good CGI is invisible. There are an incredible number of effects shots in modern films and TV, everything from removing backgrounds to replacing stuntpeoples faces with the stars. Most of it you will never even notice unless you look.
I don't disagree with the article entirely but I think the landscape of film has changed so much over the years that it is hard to make a comparison. The rise of superhero films has meant that blockbusters these days have to include comic-book style CGI characters, spaceships, and citywide destruction that is always going to look fake because it is literally incredible (as in non-credible) to our eyes.
Dune is an interesting case because we can directly compare Dune 2021 to Dune 1984. Both SFX powerhouses of their times. Dune 1984 does contain some very impressive shots but nobody is going to say that it looks better than 2021.
So much of this is just how _much_ work had to be done to get practical effects to work, and how practical and CGI are often good for different things. For an insane example of this checkout this video of how they did the ship landing in the original Dune movie (of which step 1 was "rent a stadium").
https://youtu.be/OHPkdMGI6D4?t=568
Also, I think there's a very selective bias against CGI where when it looks _real_ we just assume it's real and don't notice so we're only criticizing the portion where it failed to live up to reality.
Are you otherwise familiar with the story? There's a good reason it is recommended to read the book before you watch the movie/series. A book allows you to completely apply your own imagination. My path was: Dune II (game), Dune (David Lynch movie), Dune (game, did not finish), Dune 2000 (game), Dune (remake from 2001), Children of Dune and in 2016 I finally finished reading the book (I started in ~2012). Obviously I knew the story quite well as I played Dune II and watched the movies a lot (though I did not like Children of Dune much). The book felt like a choir, but it was good. Really good. Its just that the movies were good enough. Its why I don't bother reading Fire and Ice, Lord of the Rings, or The Witcher. I've seen the series/movies. We also need to put a book in the age or context it was written. Or, well, 'need to'? It'd be fair. I do the same with older content of movies and series.
There was a movie made about that story book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky%27s_Dune
With it there are 4 Dune "movies" out: the 1984 Lynch version, the 2000 Sci-Fi Channel one (a 3 part mini series, nearly a movie), the aforementioned 2013 one, and of course the 2021 Villeneuve one.
I liked the Gom Jabar Scene, the pain box part that is, a little bit better in David Lynch's adoption. Jessica's despair about this whole thing was done better by Villeneuve, if you ask me.
If they pull of at least one more book, or even two, this will be on par with LotR if not a tad better. If the team can keep the level, that is.
I did like the original Dune movie a lot, one of the most under-valued films.
> Do you think Animal Farm is a book about pigs?
I read many books in the "Freddy the Pig" series, and picked up Animal Farm when I was 8. I thought it, too, was a book about pigs and read it as a book about pigs. I can vouch that it works as a story about pigs. I didn't realize it was an allegory until maybe a decade later.
I also read Dune as a teen, and took it at face value, too. It was a moderately good scifi book, but not good enough to tempt me to read the sequels. I didn't really think much more about it. I've read a lot of scifi books.
It also seemed to be much more based on Saharan desert culture than Native American culture.
I confess to being out of step in not seeing it as a great story :-/ I've seen all 3 movie versions, thinking "what am I missing" and not finding it.
First of all any article referencing Brian Herbert as an authority on Dune is suspect as a result. Those atrocious fanfiction additions are best used as cat litter box liner, period.
Secondly, if you read the Appendices of Book I of Frank Herbert's Dune series, you'll see that he more or less invented the concept of 'planetologist', which in the late 1990s became a recognized academic discipline under the umbrellas of 'planetary sciences' and 'earth system sciences'. This was in response to a sense that the academic study of the subject had been too fractured, i.e. disciplines such as oceanography, geology, ecology and atmospheric chemistry and physics were actually highly interrelated, to the point that the historic divisions didn't make as much sense as they once did. This is now seen in, for example, the scientific study of Jupiter's moon Europa.
As far as the current impacts of human civilization on Earth's climate and ecology, see the original Dune book:
> "The thing the ecologically illiterate don’t realize about an ecosystem is that it’s a system. A system! A system maintains a certain fluid stability that can be destroyed by a misstep in just one niche. A system has order, a flowing from point to point. If something dams the flow, order collapses. The untrained might miss that collapse until it was too late. That’s why the highest function of ecology is the understanding of consequences - Pardot Kynes in "Appendix I: The Ecology of Dune"
Finally, am I the only sick of these stereotypical images of 'native indigenous cultures living in simple harmony with nature' a la Avatar? One real refreshing aspect of the film and the book is that the Fremen were often more technologically advanced than offworlders, having superior stillsuits and so on, and they had their own long-term agenda - i.e. slowly terraforming the planet to make it more suitable for human life. Note also that the infantilization of native cultures was often used as a justification for enforcing 'civilization' on them, as well. Enough already, they were people with goals just like all other peoples.
still, the new Dune explains itself better than the old Dune. Meaning the old Dune was even more whack (in every possible way) than the new one. Still, all these movies (Dune A and B and also LOTR) have one thing that makes them worthwhile: gorgeous visual world building.
You're in for a deeply strange, wild time. Stick with it after the bizarre opening and abrasive dialog; it gets better and is quite affecting by the end.
Boorman depicts the Arthurian myth almost in religious way; it is intentionally solemn, weird, almost painful in its lack in humor, and jarring in its refusal to explore the psyches of its characters, preferring instead to insist its tale itself is transcendent and demand reverence. The closest other film I can think of that makes remotely similar choices is David Lynch's Dune (1985). Dune is seen as odd by the Lynch fanbase, but I've come to view it as fitting perfectly with Lynch's fascination with subjective experience, given what we see is the depiction of the 'Messiah' through the frame of devoted believer Princess Irulan. Dune (1985)'s disinterest in authentic human experience is built into the frame; there's a reason some viewers felt like they'd sat in a 2 hr Sunday school lesson.
And yet...
I think it really just comes down to the skill of the film makers, as it always has.
I think a really good example of this is this comparison between the old and new Dune movies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHPkdMGI6D4
The new Dune is masterfully crafted, and I was never once bothered by the CG, even though there was clearly a ton of it. The old Dune, on the other hand...I don't think it's aged particularly gracefully. Then again, I've never been a huge Lynch fan.
The biggest problem with the 1984 Dune is that the film becomes overburdened with clunky exposition. I think there was a deliberate decision to avoid that mistake with this adaptation.
While, as a fan of the novel, I'd have liked to see these elements given more explanation, I think on reflection that they did a commendable job deciding which elements needed exposition for audiences to follow the plot and which ones could be left as background details and texture for the world to avoid overwhelming the viewer and letting the film breathe more as a film.
Dune in its full glory is simply unfilmable. Between the exposition that can be naturally woven into a novel that simply can not be naturally woven into a movie and the amount of the book that takes place as character's thoughts, to even the little things like the chapter headings being used for flavor text from a future encyclopedia, there's just no way to capture the whole thing on film.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I liked the sci-fi miniseries well enough. (As I've said before on HN, watch it as a very well-produced theater production and not a somewhat poorly-funded movie and it's really quite good.) So I'm not saying it's impossible to film something Dune and for it to at least be good. But it'll never be able to stand in for the novels.
I would be amused to see some series get far enough to try to film Chapterhouse Dune, though, which in my opinion is even more complicated than the original Dune in the ways that would matter for a film. Books 2 and 3 would be generally simpler, you can tell they didn't get as much love. God Emperor of Dune I believe holds up better than 2 & 3, but it is still narratively simpler than the original Dune. The final truncated trilogy is quite complex, though.
Nobody seems to mention the mini-series - I thought it was the best Dune rendition to video/film. I hated the Lynch version. Sting totally turns me off.
I read the book in the early seventies; never liked the prequels/sequels. I'm also not that keen on the mutant Paul/Sandworm god. That didn't work for me.
The 1984 movie did a better job of efficiently explaining what was happening.
Two good examples are the pain box and the slow blade penetrate the shield in training.
While the new Dune movie mention how they work - they just do a bad job of communicating that as effectively as the 1984 movie. To really appreciate this movie, you either needed to have read the book, or watched the prior movie (1984), or the TV mini-series'.
They also introduced things from the book, like how to walk in sand, and the visions of the jihad, but describe them poorly, and leave the viewer wondering why they're even mentioned. It's just badly written.
...but there were other issues with the movie as well. Long useless sequences of sand visuals that added nothing to the story - and that annoying scream sound that left our eardrums ringing, for no other purpose than to try to make the audience feel like an uneventful scene is somehow important to the plot.
A lot of people complained about the voice-overs in the 1984 film but they actually added a lot of value by efficiently introducing concepts to the viewer succinctly - especially the intro in the beginning which sets up the universe.
The best take on this universe after the book is actually SciFi channel mini-series in 2000 and then the Children of Dune in 2008.
> the story was cheesy mysticism in a Game of Thrones sauce
I've not seen the new movie yet, but the biggest problem I have with Lynch's movie is that it treats the mysticism as serious/plausible; yet a key part of Dune is that its religions are social engineering tools, managed and spread by the Bene Gesserit over thousands of years. In particular:
- Their "Missionaria Protectiva" programme spread the meme that Bene Gesserit members are supernatural witch/sorceress-like figures, who should be revered and assisted.
- The "Kwisatz Haderach" is the end-goal of their breeding programme: a male who can survive the Bene Gesserit training. As part of this 10,000 year plan, a religious meme was propagated that a messiah would appear in 10,000 years time. Hence when Paul appeared 10,000 years later (one generation early, since Jessica was meant to have a daughter), he could cash-in on the religious capital the Bene Gesserit had built up, and use it for his own ends. Note that others came close, including Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen and Hasimir Fenring (plus others who are mentioned in later books).
Yet Lynch portrayed Paul as a messiah to the audience, showing the audience a world of "cheesy mysticism" rather than letting them in on the scheme. (The miniseries did a better job of showing Paul's helplessness, despite his prescience; and his guilt for the inevitable genocide that will occur in his name)
For all its faults, Lynch's Dune turned out to be an overall better movie! Who could have thought?
I might be in a minority, but I came to a conclusion, that Lynch's "Dune" (1984) is a superior movie. Of course, the extended version with all deleted scenes put back in.
Sure, this movie has great visuals, great actors, great cinematography, but _that_ movie too had great actors, imaginative distinct sets, and great memorable music. The biggest flaw is short runtime - first half of the book fits 85% of runtime, and then things are quickly rushed to a conclusion (note that the audiences in 1984 weren't taught to see movies in 2 or more parts). I feel that many book scenes were done better by Lynch (Paul's awakening, Yueh, Leto's death, Gom Jabbar test), while many Villeneuve scenes must be utterly confusing to viewers who didn't read the books (Shadut Mapes scene, which is quite weird without Jessica's inner monologue, and her lucky 'maker' pick).
In Villeneuve's Dune, the plot is very unclear, the traitor plot is absent, no meaning is given to why nobody suspected Yueh to be a traitor. His mentats are useless furniture. Thufir Hawat is given three scenes: in the first, he counts the travel costs, in the second, gives assessment of production capabilities, and in the third offers his resignation, which is declined. Who is he, an accountant? COO?! Peter DeVries is reduced to a sad freak who stands near the baron and then dies.
If you look past the visual effects, the only three big improvements in the new movie are Momoa's Idaho, which was GREAT, Batista's Rabban, and all fight scenes. Idaho's role is wasted in Lynch's Dune, Rabban was so-so, and battle sequences were meh. If only Lynch had steered away from those sonic weapon modules and had 6 hours runtime, we'd have an extremely good and vivid movie. Oh, and sound design in new movie is good, Harkonnen / Sardaukar singing / battle language are cool and weird.
All things considered, Dune (1984) was a flashy, vivid, and somewhat messy movie full of life, while Dune (2021) is sterile and almost devoid of emotions.
They've not really stretched it at all, Dune is a long dense book, and to try and do it justice in a single film would result in a confused mess. Just look at the David Lynch version, which even as a huge fan of the book I can't even begin to follow.
Lynch and Jodorowsky had wildly imaginative visions for Dune. A precedent has been set that Villeneuve failed to live up to.
The new Dune relied on mostly the same key scenes, and lifted dozens of shots directly from Lynch's Dune. Villeneuve isn't enough of of an artist to imagine his own film, so we instead got a watered down version of Lynch's Dune.
Baron Harkonnen was properly villainous in Lynch's Dune. In Villenueve's Dune we got a fat guy in a mumu, and Gurney had to explain to us that the Harkonnen's are "brutal", because no actual brutality made it to screen.
The new Dune had way more expository talking heads than the old Dune, yet I still managed to lose the plot. The battle sequences looked like something you'd see on the history channel. They sent a full crew out to the Wadi Rum desert and somehow managed to make it look like the rear-projection set of The Mandalorian.
I loved Blade runner 2049, but I suppose with that film Villeneuve had an established style guide to work from, and understated performances fit with the tone of the film.
Dune is a different beast, and Villeneuve doesn't have the chops, unfortunately.
I don't really agree, I think it was great. I'm really glad it's not GoT style, and that it's more austere, cold in a way, as I think it's a better fit for the story. I don't think it failed to engage the audience emotionally, but rather that you personally failed to engage with it. Same thing with the lack of backstory, I don't have many memories of the Lynch one and had no trouble following.
I think maybe you are used to a certain style of movie that Dune differs from, and thus have a hard time with it?
Similarly, over the years I've read the novel in my mother tongue (multiple times), watched Lynch's movie, read the original and finally listened to the audiobook. I have seen Dune today in IMAX 3D and I simply loved it.
As for the missing details, I think what especially hit me was SPOILERS AHEAD the whole Jessica<>Hawat tension is simply not there.
There are 2 different "first" games of Dune, that one is Dune 2, there's also Dune: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3NcFEvc4yk
It even has clips from David Lynch's movie.
Sigh, I remember getting the CD-ROM version with my first multimedia PC and playing this game...
I've read the novel several times over the years, and watched both he 1984 Lynch production and the mini-series several times each. IMO, the new movie is better than both previous screen adaptations. It follows the book pretty closely, only omitting some details, and not adding any McGuffins or other needless new plot points (coughweirding modulecough).
I certainly have my nits to pick. But, they are truly nits. Friends have reported non-Dune fans (never read the book or watched other adaptions) can get a bit lost, particularly children. But, my wife and I loved it and hope part 2 gets procured in a timely manner.
It surprised me, but Dune (1984, full version) is an overall better movie.
This one is beautiful, but the direction is weak, many scenes are confusing to non-readers, mentats are useless furniture, traitor plot is absent. Two bright spots are Momoa's Idaho and Batista's Rabban.
I looked up that part. Indeed there are two of the "guild agents, one tall and fat, one short and fat" as part of the entourage, and they are referred to in the text as Guildsmen. Paul asks them if they are both navigators and they reply with yes. And yeah they are revealed to have blue eyes, so I think this is correct. However, later books do describe the tanks in which the navigators live.
The dune wiki says that Herbert apparently liked how the navigators were depicted in the movie so he added their description to his last Dune book "Chapterhouse Dune". But even earlier books described the guild navigators as humanoid fish in a tank.
Apparently the explanation for these different forms is that there is a progression, where the guild navigators start out looking like humans, and eventually they look like the two in the Lynch movie.
https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Guild_Navigator#Physical_Description
So what I said about the navigators not appearing at all was wrong, as they do appear in the first book, but they appear only way later in the story.
The first scene of the 1984 movie does not exist in the books, even though they were depicted correctly. In fact, they didn't appear directly in the original Dune book at all, and they were only described in later books of the series (Both the 2021 and 1984 movies are adaptations of the first book, the 2021 one adapting the first 75% ish).
Bit of a stretch. Lynch disowned Dune as they denied him final cut privileges, i.e. his artistic vision. It may have been great otherwise but as it was it failed to capture the philosophical mystique I got from the books.
Jodorowsky's Dune could have also been great but his ambition outstripped practicality and the movie never got made as a result.
I've heard Villeneuve's version is good and will be watching it on release. He is one of my favorite directors so I have a lot of confidence in his rendition.
A better option is rereading the book ahead of the movie.
Side note, if this latest version is good I hope Villeneuve directs any sequels, all the way through at least God Emperor of Dune as that was my favorite.
Do you suppose ascended beings and advanced alien technology are scientific as opposed to plot devices? It's all fictional. Star Trek, Star Gate, Dune, Battlestar Galactica, even plenty of things in the Expanse (Epstein drive, protomolecule tech). Interesting answers means expanding on the rules and story in the fictional universe to provide explanations for mysteries the author(s) set up.
It doesn't mean providing a hard scientific explanation for something that supposed to be beyond our scientific knowledge. Who took out the protomolecule builders and why? Leviathan Falls will likely provide some answers. Same with Death's End giving more details about the Dark Forest. It's an exploration of an idea, not a documentary.
Imagine criticizing Dune because the spice and sand worms aren't based on actual biology.
It's a reference to the 1984 movie Dune. I don't remember the exact details, but it's very similar to oil, in that it's a valuable natural resource that different factions go to war over.
Or the second moon (this is in the 1984 film) https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Muad%27dib_(moon)
This is all reminiscent of David Lynch and Dune. It was his first big box movie and someone else's material.
That's it. I played Dune 2 and watched the movie so much I thought I knew most about the universe. I guess its about time I pick up Herbert's seminal work. Thanks for your analysis here.
My standard advice for people reading the books with the movies/mini-series mixed in:
Read the first one. It's not for everyone, it's a little dry, POV is all over the place, and it's very political and thoughtful. It can be a slow read, but it's worth it.
Watch the Lynch movie. (Lament that this could have been Alejandro Jodorowsky's Dune if so inclined.)
Watch the Sci-Fi Channel's Frank Herbert's Dune.
(Probably watch the Villeneuve Dune due out in December this year.)
If you happened to like it, read Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. You'll probably like these books as well. (If you didn't like Dune, it's okay to stop here.)
Watch the Sci-Fi Channel's Children of Dune.
If you happened to like those, try God Emperor of Dune. Be warned it is extremely different from the previous books. It's become my favorite book in the series after multiple re-readings of the entire series (previously was Dune Messiah), but it is certainly not for everyone. It's okay to quit here.
If you made it through God Emperor, read Heretics of Dune.
If you enjoyed it, read Chapterhouse: Dune. (If you didn't enjoy Heretics, don't bother).
Lament that it is over.
If you must, read Sandworms of Dune which is written by the son, but is supposedly based on the father's notes. It is the least bad of the books I've read by the son. Don't read anything else.
Edit: Formatting
One aspect of the original novel: Frank Herbert is rather terse on his descriptions of the environment, world and universe, leaving a lot for the reader to imagine. He excels at world building without being prescriptive, I think it’s a strength in the novel and allows for a certain timelessness.
Lynch’s film production design was pulled out of nowhere and it isn’t any more accurate than Villeneuve’s. It just has a more direct relation between the subject - a future space feudal society - which most people correlate with pomp and elaborate visual motifs.
In fact, if you consider the only visual work based on Dune that Herbert himself endorsed, it recalls the the newer film more than the baroque aesthetics of the former - the work of John Schoenherr for an illustrated edition of the novel: http://ski-ffy.blogspot.com/2010/08/illustrated-dune.html
Lynch's Dune never looked so good! The actors were fully committed, whereas those in the trailer look like they're just reading the lines. No conviction. Guess we'll see if that holds in the full film.
Lynch's version also had an unbeatable cast: the Baron, the Reverend Mother, both mentats, Sting in his finest moment as Feyd Rautha, Kyle MacLachlan, etc. Throw in the sets and costumes and it's a tough act to follow. It would have benefitted from another hour, but so it goes.
Plus, those sandworm teeth in the trailer just don't look like they'd make a good crysknife.
It would have been nice to see what Lynch made of Return of the Jedi, which he apparently turned down for this, but I'm glad he made Dune.
> Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?!
Do you really have to ask or do you not believe words have associations that aren't their exact dictionary definitions?
Dune was written well before the word was associated with religious extremism in modern times, the word didn't have the associations of terrorism and caliphates and 9/11.
As a die-hard Dune (1984) and book fan, I'm not really ecstatic yet. Old movie had some unique qualities, and would be a great movie if it was 7 hours long.
Also, why on earth they changed jihad to crusade in new movie?!
I’m also a huge fan of Lynch’s Dune. Lynch, I would say, probably hates the movie because of memories of industry drama and studio pressure- more to do with having had a bad experience than the movie being actually terrible. It also almost killed his career in a way. I wonder if he had a desire to work on more big budget films in the mainstream like Spielberg throughout his career and perhaps Dune was the film which ended those dreams. Guy has like three of four legit towering masterpieces (not including twin Peaks)so his career was great despite things but I do wonder what kinds of movies he’d have ended up making if Dune was a success or if he never made Dune after The (very nearly perfect film) Elephant Man.
High concept sci-fi is consistent box office poison and while this new version of Dune looks good, and I want to see it, I don’t think it will set the world on fire. It seems to feel like YA fiction more than I’d like it to be and borrows heavily, stylistically, from Lynch’s Dune but doesn’t seem to have the same design impact as the original. The YA tone in the trailer for me feels like studio meddling. But we’ll see how good the actual movie is. Blade Runner 2 was a fine film but not quite a home run and I expect the same from Dune.
I had the impression that the Fremen were based on the middle Eastern stereotype male. This was a great use of the word Jihad to describe. The culture needed a focus point and the Atreides family provided one by manipulating their beliefs.
Jihad was also used to describe the past where thinking machines (AI) was destroyed in a tech smashing jihad which lead to the world of the books without AI.
While I liked the books 20 years ago .. I think that the previous Dune movies were really bad and I'm going to give the new movie a chance. Even without being true to the books and somewhat politically correct.
The fact that people are still watching this movie 35 years later implies there is something very good about it.
Lynch distanced himself publicly from it, because it was an economic disaster bad on many levels, but I'll bet $100 that with some afterthought, people can recognize what is 'good' about it.
It's a genre defining feature, almost entirely unto it's own, the creative design was 'otherworldly' to the point it probably has not been matched in SciFi ever. Baron Harkonen's scene where he murders of his aid ... the scene where Paul sends his ultra-creepy sister Alia in, alone to 'face the emperor' and she murders Baron ... the representation of the Gild Navigators - just so well done.
Almost everyone but possibly Feyd (ie Sting) and maybe Duncan Idaho, maybe the Padishah Emperor was perfectly cast.
Lynch bit off more than he could chew, and there were too many characters in too little time.
You know when a creative representation just 'feels so right it's right'? For example with the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy? Frodo, Gandalf, the Elves - it was 'perfect' - it seemed to 'everyone' that 'this is right'.
I feel the creative direction with Lynch's Dune was that. Reverend Mother Gaius Mohiam from Lynch? I think this image is etched into our minds as 'exactly what she is like'. Our comparisons in the future will be in reference to her.
There was a very interesting version by Jorodowsky that looked really fun, however, I feel it was way too corny, and would have ended up more like Barbarella [1].
For those interested: Jurodovsky's Dune [2].
The missing ingredient in everyone else's Dune is the acid! I would say to Villeneuve "Ok, now take what you have done, and remake it while you are on an acid trip". It's a psychedelic movie about transcendence, God, realpolitik etc.. Hardcore stuff.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarella_(film) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky%27s_Dune
Totally agree, this looks like it'll be missing everything that's weird and wonderful about Dune.
Lynch's Dune can be bewildering coming at it without the context of the book, but that aspect of it is frankly just something you get used to with Lynch's works, and like you said its filled with so much oddness and detail. The hulking Heighliner spacecrafts, the mutated ghoulish guild navigator, the fascinating cave-like imperial palace set, the manic cyst-covered Harkonnens. I've never understood why it gets a bad rap, I think it's a hugely underrated film that did a wonderful job capturing the strange universe of Dune.
Here is a very nice set of articles about the book, movie and both games by the digital antiquarian: https://www.filfre.net/2018/11/controlling-the-spice-part-1-dune-on-page-and-screen/ https://www.filfre.net/2018/11/controlling-the-spice-part-2-cryos-dune/ https://www.filfre.net/2018/12/controlling-the-spice-part-3-westwoods-dune/
I have high hopes for Villeneuve, but Lynch's dune is still one of my favourite sci-fi movies from 1980s.
Off-topic, but I saw the 1984 Dune film in theaters. It remains the only film I’ve been to where the theater handed out a sheet of paper with a glossary.
How familiar with the books do you need to be to play this?
When I’ve done a great job of procrastinating, I normally have a lot anxious energy that I feel I need to get rid of so I go for a 30 minute walk or run. During this outing I repeat the Mentat Mantra from the Dune film to myself the entire time.
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion."
I then arrive home ready to work, feeling like I can accomplish anything. I take a quick shower if I’ve been for a run then go to the kitchen and go through the ritual of making a cup of tea. I sit down at my desk, finally ready to begin. Then I’ll pick one last HN comments section to read. I normally pick the one that has the most comments. After that’s done I desperately search for anything else that I could justify doing. Then I’ve got a pretty good chance of starting unless it’s close to lunchtime.
In all seriousness though I’ve learned to just accept it without guilt and stop torturing myself. I’ll spend a couple days out of the office and not even try being productive, maybe have a long weekend. There’s no point in suffering in front of a computer screen if I’m not going to be productive anyway. Might as well sit in the sun with a cup of tea and listen to the birds.
Lately I have been seeing a number of films that have been altered against the wishes of the director, such as Lynch's "Dune", Michael Mann's "The Keep", and various other WW2 movies.
I understand the want for studios to make movies palatable to an audience, but there is only so many people who are interested in watching these movies to begin with, so really cutting is just going to piss off the fans and won't earn you any accolades.
And it's a damn shame because in a number of cases the original footage has been lost, so there is no hope for some miraculous "Uncut" or "Director's Cut" version in the future.
Pity they didn't mention Dune. Not the best film, nor a big role for him, but for young me it was still a wonderful experience to watch this. He replaced the imagined book version of Kynes forever in my head. Peace.
I was convinced for years that there was a scene in Dune where they show the making of the water of life, by drowning a young worm in water. I had seen it in the cinema when I was quite young but it never showed up on rewatching.
20 years later I found out that there was such a scene, and it was just as I remembered, but it was only in an extended, poorly made tv-edition cut that was never shown in theatres.
I still don't know what happened there, really.
> Shortly after, Lynch directed his own version of a space opera / sci-fi film: Dune (1984)
Dune is old enough to have deeper connections than just catch phrases. It spawned RTS games via the Dune 2 game based on the movie. RTS games then which spawned Moba's like League of Legends via Warcraft III (Defense of the Ancients).
Though as you say “Fear is the mind killer” shows up all over the place.
Dune is a book. The movie is just a horrible adaptation of that book.
The prequels written by his son and Co are not as great but they are easier material to be converted into movie format which will attract more people to the story.
Unfortunately the original books of Frank Herbert are really hard to convert into movie / TV format and that's why Dune never became as popular as star wars. Part of the reason is the inner narrative and attention to details like facial expressions. Actually what makes the books great is what's stopping them from becoming mainstream.
I loved the book and mostly liked the movie.
Some of the movie is fantastic, but some of it is laugh out loud silly.
It's one thing to read about the voice and worm-riding, it's very hard to put those into movies.
Apparently a new film is being made by Denis Villeneuve. Let's hope for the best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(2020_film)
> Fear is the mind killer?
"Fear is the mind-killer," whispers Paul Atreides. "So is this movie," groaned the critics.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/03/the-messy-misunderstood-glory-of-david-lynchs-em-dune-em/284316/
What you call "dedication to atmosphere" felt just too over the top to many others.
From one other review:
"The second scene depicts the mysterious “Guild Navigator,” a brainiac character Lynch devises as a literal giant talking brain floating in a tank of brine. His mouth is triangular-shaped. There’s really no clean way of saying this, so here goes: It looks like a vagina. And it secretes gas. Lynch likes to shoot this in graphic close-up, and they’re explicit enough that if you see the film cut on TV, the editors completely omit these shots."
https://www.metro.us/entertainment/in-slight-defense-david-lynch-s-dune-isn-t-that-bad/tmWncw---08O6Xetk1qBrk
I respect your appreciation for the movie, but to most people it's objectively bad.
From Wikipedia:
"In retrospect, Lynch disowned the film and acknowledged he should never have directed Dune:
I started selling out on Dune. Looking back, it's no one's fault but my own. I probably shouldn't have done that picture, but I saw tons and tons of possibilities for things I loved, and this was the structure to do them in. There was so much room to create a world. But I got strong indications from Raffaella and Dino De Laurentiis of what kind of film they expected, and I knew I didn't have final cut."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(1984_film)#Critical_reception
> Catchphrases from the book have not entered the language.
What an odd framing. True, perhaps, but what about from the 1984 movie?
> "The spice must flow!"
> "If you walk without rhythm, you won't attract the worm"
> "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion."
Frank Herbert isn't exactly known for succinct, catchy one-liners. Here's at least one I recognize from the book, "Fear is the mind-killer":
> "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
Sure, Dune may not be as big as LOTR or Star Wars, but before the blockbuster films, what catchphrases from LOTR were (are?) remotely commonplace?
I might be in the minority but I liked the Dune movie. It introduced the universe, how it worked, had a solid cast. The movie is clearly one from the 80s with it's dedication to atmosphere.
The last Dune movie (1984) didn't do it.
"It's like The Last Airbender, but with sand."
- The "Esper Edition" of the Blade Runner soundtrack, by Vangelis et al., is a must: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQFRtbDK9Yk
- The classic horror movies made by Hammer Films had terrific soundtracks, James bernard's being my favorites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isG3-rQqxZA&list=PLs3T-t417YhSZSUSAIDgcLjvhE4h2n1Vl
- David Lynch's Twin Peaks, by Angelo Badalamenti: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDbSYAJ9Tvw
- Everything and anything by Bernard Hermann: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owm8RkA3FtA
- I'm not sure if it ever received a proper release but the Hannibal TV show's soundtrack, by Brian Reitzell, is highly regarded for, IMO, good reasons.
- David Lynch's Dune, by Toto and Brian Eno: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMnM1Qww2xs
- Goblin's horror soundtracks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQejiArD608
- John Carpenter wrote the soundtrack of most of his films himself. My personal favorites are The Fog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKGzUxH9GyQ and Christine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEwN1-Gaj5s
- John Schlesinger's Marathon Man, by Michael small: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh8osZAYTjo
- Classic Godzilla soundtracks by Akira Ifukube et al.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3FnS6lx-Ds
- David Cronenberg's The Naked Lunch, by Howard Shore with Ornette Coleman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBh_4_i2zLk
This probably isn't the place for it, but here's my anecdote to give background to why I think this is a step in a more humane direction than most.
Once upon a time, I chopped up a bag of dry mushrooms and mixed them with some general tso chicken. I really love my general tso.
This particular meal occurred during a point in my life where I was near my lowest. I was depressed, burned out, reeling from failure.
For about an hour, the world remained as it always had. Then, I started periodically feeling something akin to an electric shock pass through my body. Electricity is only a useful explanation in so far as how long the pulses lasted. On and off in an instant.
The shocks were like momentary flashes of comfort. In the time between seconds when those flashes occurred, the chair I was sitting on was softer, my clothes were more comfortable and I felt a glow of appreciation for the people in the room with me.
I decided to set a watch and eat more general tso on the hour.
Eventually the pulses blurred from spikes to rolling hills. I realized they happened when I was stimulated by something beautiful. The mundane became beautiful. The contrast and saturation of my vision increased. My brain streamed my visual frame buffer through a pixel shader that made everything photogenic, perfectly tone mapped. It was like HDR for the eyes.
Beauty is something I had never had a refined eye for. Stuff looked "neat". This felt like a visual sense that perhaps existed normally in other people, but for me I was only borrowing.
Then my alarm went off. Time for more chicken!
While I was eating, we started watching dune. I was stunned by how colorful David Lynch's dune is. Vibrant purple and green matte backgrounds. I would have told you the movie was all desert tone yesterday.
I shut off my alarm until the movie was done.
I ate one more scoop of general tso after that. Then, I laid down in the dark. I was able to visualize incredibly complicated 3d shapes. I could persist those shapes, rotate, scale and modify them while keeping the image at the forefront. This capability was clearly an enhancement. I got up, opened blender and "printed" some of the things created entirely mentally.
After I laid back down, I thought about my childhood. I thought about frayed relationships and trauma I had experienced. Every negative experience I could come up with bounced off simple epiphany after simple epiphany.
Prior to this, I was under a crushing amount of stress. I felt like I was being hunted, under attack in a world devoid of merit. I was misanthropic.
I thought about the situation I was in, and determined I was fine. Everything is going to be okay. We're all bouncing amidst a manifold, influenced by each other. The whole of humanity, even the crabs pulling at our feet, is beautiful. Quite a few people try to pierce the manifold to transcend the chaos. Maybe we'll never do it? It's valuable to try regardless.
The evil in my life became re-framed as force that might send me towards the boundary. Approaching the boundary is the goal.
Even if I fail at everything, I'm better for trying, even after death.
I played Dune 2 first (in ~1993), then saw Lynch's Dune, then played Dune 2000, and then saw the Dune miniseries and Children of Dune (which, in a fan move, I posted on Usenet and got me my first and only DMCA warning from the MPAA :^). 10 years or so later, I bought the book Dune, and a few years later I finally read it. It is a legendary book indeed, but I wish I read the book first.
If you can, please read the book first before seeing/doing anything else in the universe. Don't let your imagination be spoiled!
(I'm not very interested in reading the sequels. Children of Dune was a terrible movie, IMO.)
Which makes me wonder what I missed with regards to J.R. Tolkien and George R. Martin.
One of the more entertaining things about Dune is that it's been relatively bad at attracting fanfic and cosplay.
It's so ambiguous, rich, and open to interpretation that it's a daunting universe to visit as a casual tourist - and it's so stark and amoral that it's hard to feel comfortably at home in it, even if you're a fan.
Which is why it's such a challenge for directors. The visuals are critical, but it would take an uncanny imagination to make them work as metaphors as well as images.
IMO Lynch was a bit too literally imperial and historic. The movie feels more pedestrian and earth-bound than the books do, with some of the grandeur squeezed out by obvious signifiers and references.
The Jodorowsky version would probably have been amazing. I'm looking forward to the Villeneuve version, but I think Jodorowsky's Dune would have been a real game changer for SF movies - and all the characters would have been strikingly but plausibly weird, the BG included.
David Lynch's "Dune" is always described as "David Lynch's 'Dune'" because he, uh, made the movie very much his own.
Terrific read, can't wait for the sequel.
Having read the book once, and having seen the Lynch movie, and the miniseries (as well as Children of Dune) various times, I don't hold my breath to see a remake of Dune. At some point there's this thing where there's a certain fatigue of familiarity which is hard to impress.
I believe I'd gain more from reading the sequels. For my child however (who never read/seen Dune, and is too young for it now), I'd wish a remake for her, yes. However, the same is true for Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash" and "The Diamond Age" the latter of which reminds me somewhat about Dune.
Part Two is about the games spawned from the Dune universe. The author (or someone else) could write an article about the audio in the Dune movie/mini series, as well as the music inspired by the Dune universe.
Many other famous actors such as Virginia Madsen, Brad Dourif, and Juergen Prochnow (also famous of Das Boot) were not mentioned either.
Dune is visually great but the script and performances are terrible. So much of the novel is concerned with the inner motives of the characters and the wheels within wheels of plots and counterplots.
Lynch tried to capture this with ridiculous voiceovers that slow down each scene and don't really help anyone who hasn't read the book anyway.
I don't make films so what do I know, but I have always thought that the only way to film Dune is to ignore all the background and make a rip-roaring adventure film with giant worms and wizzing ornithopters.
The Lord of the Rings films were successful in keeping the general tone and most of the plot of the source material while jettisoning elements that grind what Lynch made to a halt.
Nope! I have missed it.
The only one I've seen is the movie with "that Twin Peaks guy". Though it is a cult film and all that, I did not think it was very good to be honest. The movie was rather confusing and made more sense after having read the books.
A new film/films would be great for many reasons, including the complexity of the plot and the sheer timescale involved. For example, at the core Star Wars is a rather template-like father-son good vs. evil monomyth, with all kinds of small (interesting) details woven around it. It also has a top-tier presentation. I like Star Wars of course but the plot itself is pretty basic, perhaps that is why it appeals to so many people from small kids to grown-ups.
The Dune trilogy could offer so much more, I believe, if someone like Jackson of the LOTR fame would pick it up.
It still has the single best movie soundtrack I've ever heard (and yet the article didn't even mention it, or if it did, not prominently enough for me to notice). I'm a musician (albeit an amateur one); a good sountrack makes or breaks a film, and that definitely made Dune for me. The main theme in particular is unforgettable.
You neglect, of course, that David Lynch, himself, sought to distance himself from the movie, considering it something of an embarassment, and requesting an Alan Smithee [1] credit for at least one version of its release.
In some ways, we can look back on it with a sort of "so-bad-it's-good" a e s t h e t i c in mind, and when understanding David Lynch's sensibilities, you can still catch a glimpse of his creative influence shining through. But really, David Lynch is ultimately correct in his self-effacing critique. It's kitschy and campy in a lot of ways. Just watch the closing credits in isolation, if you don't agree, and try and challenge that opinion again.
To understand what I'm talking about, watch Dune, then watch Eraserhead, and then watch Dune again. Eraserhead informs us of David Lynch's purest intent realized as a feature presentation.
You can see some of Eraserhead in Kenneth McMillan's portrayal of Vladimir Harkonnen (and indeed, it's the scene that Jack Nance [3] appears in), but that's really about it. That Dune doesn't live up to the visualizations of Moebius' imaginary realms [4], and that much of the budgeting, politics and film making technology of the day stood in the way of the final theatrical release is probably what bummed David Lynch out about it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRzVFlZxBv4
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nance
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Giraud
It's a bit unfortunate, but - the original 'synthetic marijuana' that was sold here in Britain a few years back called 'Spice' (that in turn gave its name as a broad catch-all for all subsequent types of much-worse synthetics) - based its name from the magical stuff in Dune.
And yes, the movie was excellent, I thought :)
I've always held that the David Lynch version of Dune was an underrated masterpiece. Tastes vary, but the film was visually stunning and I can't think of another director from the time that would have done justice to the novel. Obviously Dune is a big deal but I'm frequently surprised at just how little attention it's gotten in pop culture beyond the odd references to Butlerean Jihads and the odd pumpkin spice joke. What I wouldn't give for an expansive HBO season-length treatment of the first book.
A series that lasted more than one season? Brilliant!
Devil's advocate would raise the example of Dune perhaps, with a fairly decent IMO SyFy network TV miniseries, a lot more nuanced than the film and far more from the novel but didn't have the staying power of either of the two film versions. (Not that any of the film versions or the miniseries seems to be broadly loved)
As eager as I would be for a Foundation TV show, I think about Dune and what an abomination that was. Similarly, I loved The Hobbit, but Jackson's trilogy was all but unrecognizable. With few exceptions (GoT, for example), multi-volume novels are made well.
I find Lynch's Dune good even if he disowned his movie. I like watching it from time to time like Alien.
I've re-read The Belgariad series, by David Eddings, so many times I've lost count. Easily once a year, every year, since I was in my mid-teens (I'm in my late thirties). It is most firmly in the territory of "comfort reading" for me these days.
Dune, by Frank Herbert, comes a close second. I've read that at least a dozen times or more. It took me ages to get it. My dad had a copy, and I'd tried to read it probably 4 or 5 times, never getting far. Then I watched the David Lynch movie, went back to it and just devoured the book in a couple of days. Even though the two are wildly different, something about the movie gave me that kick I needed to get me in to the book.
I'm really not one for re-reading books all that much. Most books I read once. The ones I do re-read, I've read maybe 2 or 3 times.
The screens are restricted to showing protagonists doing, experiencing and talking, whereas books can ramble on forever about background.
Screen adaptations of background-rich books have three choices: simplify away the background, add new scenes engineered to convey background via protagonists, skip the background and let the viewer sink or swim on their own.
Readers who later watch an adaption are rarely happy with either option, but "simplify" is the worst. People new to the material rarely even notice "simplify", but fall into two very polarized camps for "engineer" and "skip". Just ask them about miniseries vs. Lynch Dune.
Personally, I love the feeling of only scratching the surface of a much deeper world, and I hate having everything spelled out in detail. As for The Expanse (TV only), I could have binged through ten seasons of life, death and intrigue in an industrialized collar system, could protomolecule ruined that, cancellation or not - guess I should read the first book for more of the good parts)
Late to this game...
Galaxy Quest
V, but the original miniseries from the 80's
Close Encounters
Dune, this is controversial I'm sure!
Starship Troopers
The Day After Tomorrow
The Fifth Element
Terminator I
Alien
Aliens
Tron, oh god I nearly forgot this one from the 80's!
I watched the documentary in a small screening a few years ago and the project sounded incredible... It wasn't Dune, not the Dune we've read, but amazing nonetheless. I definitely recommend watching it (be forewarned, Jodorowsky's english is atrocious). So many interesting stories about that movie:
Some of the design work and the people that worked with Jodorowsky actually went into Alien. I mean, Giger, of course, but also Dan O'Bannon a few other people.
He actually got Dali and Orson Welles to say yes to the project. Dali wanted to be the most expensive actor in history.
The story with his son borders abuse. He basically wanted to convert him into the Kwisatz Haderach and made him go through a very tough training for years.
Personally, I did enjoy David Lynch's version and even the tv mini-series they did (back in the late 90's?).
If you enjoy literature and have not read the Hyperion Cantos yet, I beg you to stick to just the first book.
What Simmons did to conclude the Cantos is on par with Star Wars episodes I-III. Sometimes it is better to preserve the magic by omission.
As for a movie, I do not think doing it justice is possible today. The only adaptations that came close to a suitable spirit were Dune (1984) and Beowulf (2005). It is SF only by name and requires a very strong and independent minded writer and director, both of whom should be relatively well read as well.
It's a Messiah story set in the far future. I included it here because it had an impact on the way I understand history (I prefer to leave that a bit cryptic).
As a work of fiction I'd call it good but not great. But at the moment I can't think of a work of fiction I'd call great, so I'm probably not the best critic on that point.
Everybody seemed to hate the 1984 film adaptation by David Lynch but I think it's pretty good. The Syfy miniseries got much better reviews but I thought it was only so-so. The film doesn't really spoil the book, which is kinda cool, but may be easier to follow and more fun to watch after having read it. Last but not least, I really enjoyed the recent documentary Jodorowsky's Dune...
I remember reading that script, some years ago. I feel like it would've ended up like Jodorowsky's Dune if they'd tried in a serious way to make it - failing that, like Lynch's, with the same heroic but ultimately foredoomed struggle to carry a burden of story and symbolism that's just too heavy for a feature film to bear.
> I really think from set-design, costume, and setting perspectives this movie on par with visual feasts from the 70s/80s like Bladerunner, Dune, Star Wars, or Alien.
For those who haven't seen the live-action movie, Kotaku just put up an article showcasing some of the concept art:
http://kotaku.com/the-incredible-art-of-the-ghost-in-the-shell-movie-1794015446
(Except for die-hard fans of GitS, I would not recommend the new movie.)
I think we both speak of the same thing, but I come from dramaturgy background. Story is story, no matter the genre or medium. At its core, story is always about change in the character through dramatic arc. If there is none, it's journalism, for lack of better words. Mechanics are vastly different through media. For example, in screenplays you get to write only what you hear and what you see. Essay form is allowed only to explain to the creators of ultimate form what you mean.
When you shed all the layers of genres, when you come down to the basic principles of dramaturgy, you're left with the core of storytelling that's in all stories ever told. From Plato's Cave to Aristotelian unities onwards to Star Wars and Seinfeld, there are certain core principles which hold true in form and structure. Form, not formula. In dramatic arc and story structure there are elements which morph and trade places and these, along with psychological and visual motifs make a genre. It's probably valid approach to view/interpret this on a whole other level, and that's the beauty of it. This is just my viewpoint based on some experience and background in dramaturgy. It's a view on abstract principles of storytelling where you get to manipulate form and structure itself before you materialise it into particularities. Kind of like virtual functions, or better yet a class diagram of a story before you write it down. Dramatic theory is not competing with literary theory - it complements it, specializes it. I took dramatic theory as a heavy weapon which I find extremely useful in my work, but I didn't dwell much further into literary theory. I took some bits and pieces that I find useful for my work, like intertextuality (esp. biblical - which is tropey as it gets, Star Wars for example and Hero's Journey, but most modern literature as well)... etc. I have colleagues which are far more well-versed in literature theory than I am for when I need insight. I'm more concerned with dramatic mechanics and structure, because that's what I do and what interests me.
What I'm saying is that behind all of the layers of a genre, there is a common subset to all stories. If you start with that and build towards a genre, you get to see the specifics of how it modulates that core structure. SF, in that regard, is always heavily biased towards internal-driven change with accentuated wants and needs switch[1] where character is in an extreme psychological situation driven by an extreme physical situation flared by science. Character is driven into a corner where he/she has to act on his core flaw in order to achieve the need in order to change. Whereas fantasy has a character on a journey both physical and psychological through which he/she overcomes the flaw in his character in order to act on it when third act kicks in.
It's a bit of an abstract way of thinking, but I don't know how else to put it without first explaining all of the intro to dramatic theory, hah.
[1] Wants vs needs is the epitome of character arc mechanics. There's something character wants that drives his story arc, only to be exposed to his actual needs (what he really wants). Shedding his wants and fulfilling that need he discovered he overcomes his major flaw and thus changes his character.
Now, if you view through prism of that mechanics (core one though) and go back to genre structures you can clearly see where most differ (not all, there are blurry ones!). For example, if you look at Star Wars or Conan which are fantasy (one with SF theme and one with fantasy theme) - there's a clear flaw in the character that gets replaced by a need and fulfilled on the journey (actual one). Be it Force training vs Dagobah cave or Sword training vs Valeria. It's an actual quest! Now look at a clear-cut SF, for example Inconstant Moon episode from Outer Limits (check that out if you haven't!) or any of the more fabled STNG or DS9 episodes. In Inconstant Moon, main character realises this might be the final night of his (and everyone's life - Sun has gone Nova on the other side of the Earth (it's nighttime), and he notices Moon is exceptionally bright because of it... so he calls up his ex girlfriend (wants) and he becomes more open and free (needs).. or in DS9 Pale Moonlight (Moon, again!) where cptn. Sisko wants an action attack plan or whatever only to need to become vile and dirty character in order to win, thus overcoming his flaw (being a good guy)... no quest. When we return to Dune, that's where lines get blurred and there's an endless debate.
I mean, I could go on forever and we all could probably be right to most extents. This is just my way of thinking. Flair on top of all of that is of least concern, but is the most visible in a genre. By that I mean spaceships vs swords or whatever. It's just a motif. Hence why people commonly confuse Star Wars as an SF - which it isn't at all. Also a reason why new Star Trek movies aren't really SF. It's a fantasy or in ST case action story with an SF theme on top.
I'm really passionate about this subject (storytelling) and we have debates like these almost on a daily basis because we all love it. We all agree on one thing and that's that everything lies in character development and arc and grows from there, so excuse my elaborate intro to debating the topic!
Drug assisted is the last thing I'd say about either the book, or movie.
I dunno about the movie, but I have heard sometimes that Herbert was quite fond of helping the creative process by those means.
http://dailygrail.com/Shamanism/2014/7/Magic-Mushrooms-were-the-Inspiration-Frank-Herberts-Science-Fiction-Epic-Dune
Dune the book was written in 65, the movie 84.
The book heavily references the middle east, and oil dependecy.
The movie has zero, or at the least, very little visual symbolism. Especially if compared to Lynch's other work.
Drug assisted is the last thing I'd say about either the book, or movie.
I upvoted the article because I like Dune and think that discussion of the books/movies is interesting.
I disagree with your take on the original article in that the point is that Dune fails as a sci-fi movie partially because Lynch didn't get the genre and didn't understand the original novel all that well.
IMO, Lynch had the deck stacked against him from the start as the studio didn't know what kind of budget and planning it would take to get everything right in the movie and both the studio and Lynch learned some expensive lessons from this. So the movie was a failure, but an interesting one.
The first mini-series was a bit hit-and-miss for me as well. I loved James McAvoy's take on Leto II in the Children of Dune miniseries though. The sci-fi miniseries treated the characters alot better than Lynch's work, but sacrificed the special effects and some of the world building.
The writer was wrapping up a reread series of the entire first novel and is now covering the movie versions before moving on to the second novel. I think that colors the perspective: as an adaptation of the novel, Lynch's movie fails horribly, IMO.
There are alot of influences for Star Wars, but the biggest is probably all cinematic: Kurosawa's movies, WWII fighter movies, and some episodic action serials. I won't say that Sci-Fi books weren't an influence, as I'm sure there were people who read Dune working on Star Wars, but they weren't a huge influence for Lucas.
I think one of the reasons why "Jodorowsky's Dune" is such an amazing documentary is that it describes an impossibly ambitious film, something so awesome that you're drawn into believing in it with the director himself.
If it really _were_ made however, yeah, it could _only_ have be a disappointment in comparison to what the documentary about it suggests.
Jodorowsky's version of Dune is perhaps the greatest film that was never made and, ironically, it is better this way.
That miniseries is terrible. The acting is wooden as all get out, all of the scenes look like they are shot on a hastily dressed community theater stage and it's boring as hell.
The Lynch movie has, like most Lynch works, a strange atmosphere that in this case helps highlight the changes that Paul is going through as his consciousness expands.
That said the children of dune miniseries fares much better, but maybe because there isn't anything to compare it to.
As a big fan of Jodorowsky (L'Incal is one my favourite graphic novels ever), I think we could also unequivocally say that whatever he had made would not have been very faithful to the book. It's quite possible that Dune fans would have been even less happy with Jodorowsky's film than Lynch's.
We also have to remember that this was before Star Wars and Alien. Most scifi at the time was, with some honourable exceptions (2001: A Space Odyssey, Silent Running, The Andromeda Strain, Solaris), pretty silly, childish, often campy stuff: The Black Hole, Buck Rogers, Moonraker. Pulp origins aside, Star Wars introduces a level of violence, maturity and realism to the genre that stood out at the time, and closer to that of contemporary adult 1970s productions like Apocalypse Now, Easy Rider and so on.
For all the considerable talent involved in the Dune adaptation, it's quite possible — and this eases the pain over the loss of the project a bit — that it would have been closer in tone to something like Zardoz or Flash Gordon, i.e. a big, colourful, but ultimately also a bit silly extravaganza. Even O'Bannon's Alien script was also pretty pulpy and silly until Ridley Scott, David Giler and Walter Hill hammered it into shape.
I loved Lynch's Dune. Whatever the cause, the end result was a film that felt as weird and surreal and alien as Dune itself. The retro-futurist aspect of the tech only added to this.
I love the first half of Lynch's Dune. Even the long comic-book style exposition dump at the beginning.
"What is in the box?" "Pain"
IMHO it all goes wrong after Paul and his mom escape the betrayal and attack. The movie gets so bogged down with turning Paul into a Freman god that it goes completely off of the rails.
You can find a lot of cut scenes on Youtube, but the problem is the decision to go from 3-hour epic to 2-hour feature was made about mid-way through the production, so we really won't ever see what was truly cut, because it never got shot in the first place.
Dune could have been a proper masterpiece if the producers let Lynch geek out with a 3 hour cut. Instead we have the first half of a very gorgeous and interesting movie with a wonderful slow-burn leading up to something then... a sudden "Oh god, we have so much story to finish," second half that feels entirely too rushed for its own good. The non-canonical ending could have been workable with enough exposition and justification, but as-is completely comes out of nowhere and caps the mediocre 2nd half with a nonsense ending few walked away from happy.
As the original commenter, I feel I should at least somewhat explain.
The article is about how Lynch's movie "has no interest in science fiction". And why? It lists qualities that are true for many, if not most, SF movies.
Essentially, the author of the article may have made good arguments on why Dune is not a good movie compared to the novel, but did not make any good arguments on why it is not SF.
So, I can make the exact same silly comment in response. Yes, it's true that Dune did not fit my liking for SF, and when I read it, it was just a fantasy with some whizbang stuff thrown in.
>Not to mention that "is this SF" is a bad question, like "is this Art": it tends to produce gatekeepering flamewars rather than an interesting discussion on genre boundaries.
Is that not what the article does? Why is my comment so irritating to others when the article isn't?
Ultimately, I think I'm downvoted because people liked the book and I didn't - the same reason the article is being upvoted.
The 2000 miniseries already looked awful and campy when it came out. I should know -- as a Dune fan I bought it instantly, and was deeply disappointed.
Lynch's version, for all its flaws, is still watchable.
I didn't like the 2000 SyFy miniseries at all :( It looked so... cheap and campy. There are plenty of flaws in Lynch's Dune, but it managed to look awesome at times. The meeting between the Emperor and the Navigator is awesome and ominous. Nothing in the SyFy miniseries matches this. And SyFy's Baron Harkonnen manages to look completely non-threatening :(
I really hate the miniseries.
Lynch's Dune does have many problems, but I still enjoy it. The set design and world that the film describes is often quite beautiful and has in many ways set the tone for all depictions of the universe after. The books don't offer much in the way of visual specificity, so even the later Scifi Channel's mini series took on various inspirations from the Lynch film.
I think the real hatred for the movie comes from not just cutting down the original material to fit within a film, but then needlessly adding new material that wasn't at all in keeping with the book, so it loses "trueness" from both ends. There's also some unevenness in the pacing and gravity the movie tries to get across. Dune is by no means an action story, but the movie can be a bit plodding at points that don't call for it, and faster paced parts sometimes don't work or come off poorly or cheesy.
I think also there's an unnecessary attempt at adding mystery to a story that didn't really have or need it. The book explains many of the strange parts of the universe quite well, but the movie has characters uttering odd phrases and strange events happening without comment or description -- reading the book fills in most of this strangeness, but it shouldn't be necessary as the film should stand on its own.
Still, the new cuts of the film are good watches and make for an entry into a nice thoughtful sci-fi weekend that might include movies like Bladerunner.
As a young man who had read and loved Dune, Lynch's movie infuriated me. (Weirding modules? Really?) I should give it another chance.
>But terrible? Wisecracking CGI Superheroes Episode Number Actually I've Lost Count Now is a terrible film.
That's a really low bar. A better comparison would be the three-part Dune miniseries that came out in 2000, one in which Lynch's version doesn't fare very well.
After decades Lynch's Dune is still my favorite movie of all times. I was very young when I watched it and I didn't have much of a reference for what movies were even supposed to feel like at the time, so Dune seemed like a perfectly normal place to start. Suspect the experience is quite different if you already have decades to movie going by the time you see it.
Besides Star Wars and Blade Runner I can't think of another SF movie that has as much impact on me.
What I enjoyed most about Lynch's version is he got the looks right. From costumes to hair color of the characters. These are simple things that book readers do notice. While his weirding devices and rain at the end were not great choices they did not take away from the movie too much for me.
Where I like the SF version was the followup, Children of Dune. That I enjoyed, I didn't care for Leto's transformation makeup but marked it off as budget.
I mostly agree with the premise that it's a deeply flawed film that fails to capture many parts of what makes Dune such a masterpiece. That said, the scene where Paul calls his first sandworm is one of my favorites (the great Toto score certainly helps) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj7R_2WWdKs
I agree, which is why I find it baffling that the author started out complaining about the set design and the limited outdoor scenes -- for a movie made in 1984. C'mon, it was a lot harder then. One of the directors almost died falling off of a miniature model used in a establishing shot. And I like the dark baroque sets, they'll always be the canonical look for my internal Dune universe.
(I do think the second half of the movie and the battle scenes kinda dragged, though.)
I saw Dune on the big screen when it first came out, and it is unquestionably the second-worst SF movie I've ever seen - so bad it put this formerly avid SF fan off the genre for years...
The criticism reads like superficial snark, and misses the wood for the trees.
It's not a terrible film. Not by a long way.
It's a difficult film. It's risky. It's not entirely successful.
But terrible? Wisecracking CGI Superheroes Episode Number Actually I've Lost Count Now is a terrible film. (One of a long, long series.)
Men With Guns and So Very Much Shooting is a terrible film.
Too Many Explosions Looking for a Plot That Isn't All About Running and Shouting is a terrible film.
Dune was one of many drug-assisted weird things that fell out of the 1970s and never quite left. It's not a terrible film - it's a museum piece.
I first saw it as a teenager, right after I had finished reading the Frank Herbert series. It was so different from what I expected - I HATED it! But over the years, it has grown on me, and has really made me appreciate the difficulty that creators face when they are adapting something into a different medium. Lynch is a master filmmaker, and he was ruthless in his re-molding of the source material to make it work on the silver screen. The books are very focused on the internal lives of characters, and the grand designs of powerful people - and I think Lynch instinctively knew that a lot of that wouldn't translate well. Indeed, the awkward inner thoughts that you hear all through Lynch's Dune are one of the worst aspects of the movie... despite being faithful renditions of Frank Herbert's Dune.
What finally won me over was the realization that Lynch's movie in no way devalued the books. Sure, it left out a lot... but it more than made up for it by giving me some visual glimpses of what a Dune universe might be like, how live-action representations of these characters might behave. The aggressive weirdness helped give it that otherworldly feel that I felt when reading the books. I would never recommended it as a substitute to reading it... but as a companion work, it's excellent.
I hope the scuttlebutt about a new Dune movie is true. The more the merrier!
It's hard to squeeze Dune into a single movie. The book is a good 500 pages long, which fits better into one three movies than into one.
But if you are determined to fit it into a single movie, it should be possible. Here's the outline I came up with:
ACT 1 (30 min) Start in Arrakeen, with the Atreides already in charge. Leto is the kind master, Paul his formidable young son. Their rivals are the Harkonnen, a nasty bunch (they abuse servants). Introduce Arrakis as the source of the Spice, possibly as part of Jessica's training of Paul in esoteric disciplines. The Fremen are mentioned, but as a minor impoverished rabble. Meanwhile, the Emperor, the Space Guild, and the Harkonnen meet and agree to replace the Atreides, together to maintain control of the Spice. The Harkonnen attack, Leto dies, and Paul and his mother flee to the desert. End with Paul looking back and vowing revenge.
ACT 2 (30 min) Paul and Jessica encounter the Fremen, and are taken in by them. Paul tests himself against young Fremen fighters and is impressed; they are very good, but he is better. He accompanies them on a raid against the Harkonnen, and is again impressed. He joins the Fremen, and becomes a worm-rider. He learns the true size of the Fremen from seeing one of their secret meetings. At Jessica's urgings, he decides to lead the Fremen against the Harkonnen. Meanwhile, the Harkonnen are making a cruel mess of Arrakis.
ACT 3 (30 min) Paul campaigns to become the Fremen war-leader; this is shown as a montage of public speaking to increasingly large gatherings and knife fighting. Harkonnen cruelties continue; the Emperor announces plans for a visit. Jessica speaks of the Voice from the Outer World prophesy. Paul, Jessica and Stilgar begin training the troops, incorporating her and Paul's esoteric training. They wait for a sandstorm, and attack in force with wormriders. Fight scenes between Fremen and Hakonnen. The fight goes to the Fremen. The Emperor flees in a ship. Paul addresses the crowds of Arrakeen from a balcony proclaiming a new day of Arrakis, with the natives in charge.
I think that could work. But some stuff did get left out: the spice as a mutagen, the nature of the Bene Gesserit and their goals, the Kwisatz Haderach, Paul's Harkonnen heritage, Paul's duel with Feyd-Rautha, and everything about Liet-Kynes.
Alternative hypothesis: something set 21,000 years (edited - well spotted!) into the future is going to be as impossible to imagine for us as today's world was for Jules Vernes. As such gothic madness might be a more realistic interpretation.
A lot of the criticism misses the mark. I can try and find alternative explanations. The "outdated" computers? The Butlerian Jihad caused that future world not to build anything more complicated than a light switch. The unique worlds, monochromatic and with their odd uniqueness? Visible signalling of these being different cultures that survived by virtue of their unique characteristics. Unlike the "bugs vs Marines" of a lot of space opera, the Tleilaxu, Guild, Bene Gesserit and Harkonnen are all fundamentally different, their differences giving them a survival edge, influence and power. Black desert suits? Maybe the filters need solar energy to run. Erotic Bene Gesserit intonation? Have you read the later books?
This was the only depiction of Baron Harkonnen which I thought truly captured his sadistic genius. And the blocky shields are so much cooler than the form fitting transparent bubbles of later Hollywood SF (e.g. Star Wars), also explaining the difficulty involved in going slow for so long when trying to penetrate them (because the space between shield and human is so great). Or what about the worms, which despite (or perhaps because of) the sorry state of 1984 CGI somehow were just as immense as I had imagined them reading the words. There was this alien feel to all the vehicles, especially the ornithopters and the harvester carrier, which has only been recently replicated in the seemingly nonsensical vertical ovals of Arrival or the glaring contrast between earth and ship in District 9. This was definitely the artistic generation responsible for Brutalist architecture, which is not always fun to live in, but has a thousand times more soul than the International Style condos copy/pasted across all of the world's megacities today.
Lynch's movie was glorious precisely because it freed itself from the constraint of present day science and became a standalone creation from the inspiration of the source material. The other interpretations did not create that sense of awe. I found the miniseries particularly boring, a kind of BBC period drama feel instead of being transported into a completely new, intense world. What makes Dune great as a book and as a 1984 movie is precisely that it frees itself from "realism" and suspends disbelief in just the right way for telling a great story. Might as well complain about X-wings flying like F-14s and making sound in vacuum...
Look, I'm a big fan of the original Dune series (not of the mess Frank Herbert's son did after his death in order to make money out of his father vision - those books actually ruined a bit of the originals for me, I actually suggest that you don't read those).
Anyway, first time I saw Lynch's Dune I didn't really liked it because it was too different from the books. But after some years (and reading the all series from Frank Herbert) I actually started to like the film.
See, for me, Lynch's film, was the best possible one. A lot of Dune is about thoughts, mental plans, counter plans. A mental chess game that goes on the mind of all the main characters and I don't think you can actually put all that on screen (at lest not without extending the film for several hours).
Sure you could have a grander vision of the books with better SciFi and a lot more money, but other than visually for an higher budget, I don't think any director can really do much better than Lynch.
Well, it's my take at least. I might be wrong (and would like to be proven wrong by a new Dune movie that exceeds my expectations) but until I see a movie that does better, I actually vouch for Lynch's Dune.
based on the tone of this article, the writer of this article would judge anyone, including Frank Herbert, who professes to liking the film version to be lacking in understanding or appreciating Dune and SF in general.
I also love Lynch's Dune. I've seen the extended version once a long time ago. From what I remember there was scenes of voiceovers and art explaining more of the universe and the houses and their relationships.
Have you seen the documentary "Jodorowsky's Dune"? If you're a Dune fan, or a fan of 70's and 80's era sci-fi films, I highly recommend it. What I found most interesting about that documentary is how the director created this amazing team to work on his Dune project, which eventually failed, but ended up influencing the style/art of so many subsequent Sci-fi films because that team dispersed and they worked on so many prominent films.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg4OCeSTL08 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky%27s_Dune
Dune is a beautiful film by Lynch, but the story pacing and deadpan-ish acting really hurts it. Lynch sometimes needs to be reined in. A reined in Lynch can make the difference between an amazing "Elephant Man" or weird as hell "Rabbits."
The "6-hour version of Dune" is probably confusing the Lynch treatment with Jodorowsky's attempt at a Dune film -- which was never filmed (the script wasn't even finished!), but whose production was documented in the 2013 Jodorowsky's Dune:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky's_Dune
It may also be confusing Lynch's film with the 2000 Sci-Fi miniseries Frank Herbert's Dune, which totalled roughly 5 hours across three episodes.
IIRC Lynch did not have final cut on Dune, and was so bitter about it he never made a film he wasn't contractually allowed to edit himself again. If you look at the deleted scenes, they show Lynch was going for a very different tone to the finished product.
The same was done to the 1984 Dune movie. It was originally 4 hours, then cut down to 2.
Data and Goliath - Bruce Schneier (very good, preaching to the choir in my case though)
Dune - Frank Herbert (been waiting more than 20 years to read this. If you haven't seen the movie from 2001 highly recommended, else not)
The Psychopath Code - Pieter Hintjens (psychology book, highly recommended, allowed me to understand a whole lot more of the "toxicity" in society)
Python for Informatics - Charles Severance (too easy for crowd here, and for me, but quite good for newbie programmers. Note: Python 2.x; not 3.x!)
Ghost in the Wires - Kevin Mitnick and William L. Simon (good humor, great suspense, likeable main character)
Kingpin - Kevin Poulsen (a less likeable main character but nevertheless suspenseful)
And a bunch of cookbooks which I won't bother you with, I didn't fully complete any of them either.
I'm very happy that all the books I read were a hit, but did not read nearly as many as I wanted to. To restate, I can recommend all of the above. But they're not all new from 2016 (if that was the intention I apologise).
"The problem isn't machines, it's letting machines do your thinking for you." - Leto III (Dune)
A friend suggests that Black Mirror is "about screens". I see what he's saying on a surface level, but, screens are just how we interface with machines doing the thinking for us, instead of people.
On the other hand, isn't bureaucracy a machine, running on meat? "Screens" used to be "Paper" - see the crazy movie "Brazil". Replacing something hard (actually getting to know someone and their situation) with something easy (the output of a system) has been with humanity for a really long time, if not forever.
Most [of the prior] Black Mirror episodes are about, I think, man's inhumanity to man, just mediated by modern technology. Most of them are about some way that people are failing to connect to each other.
I have only watched one of the new episodes.
I have to login and comment to express my disappointment with the bad reviews this movie has always gotten.
Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 56%, which is really sad. Here are two of the negative reviews.
Corliss:
Most sci-fi movies offer escape, a holiday from homework, but Dune is as difficult as a final exam. You have to cram for it.
Ebert:
This movie is a real mess, an incomprehensible, ugly, unstructured, pointless excursion into the murkier realms of one of the most confusing screenplays of all time.
This movie is Lynch interpretation of a very complex book and he did so while still being faithful to its uniqueness. He gave us visual aesthetics that are very different from our standard views of space travel (ie: arabesque spaceships and gothic outfits) and didn't skip over the less popular concepts of mind evolution present in the book
What can I say? This movie deserves more recognition than a 56% score.
I am a David Lynch fan, I loved Dune. I lent out my DVD copy to a few people and everyone hated it. I've never read the book, I really should, considering that when I do actually read (very occasionally), it is more than likely sci-fi; and I've never seen any of the series' that were made. Basically I watched Dune because I'm a David Lynch fan and all of my knowledge of Dune comes from the film, so I guess it's not all that accurate? Anyway, I liked it because of the atmosphere, and the story; it's certainly unique, but that's Lynch for you.
It would have been amazing if Jodorowsky's Dune actually got made and released. He really was too far ahead of his time for the studio.
I feel that in order to make a roughly 2-hour long film on as complex a subject as what the novel portrays, the only way to illustrate that complexity properly is to ascribe to surrealist elements. That is the only form that can provide the necessary density, if done properly. Lynch knew this, which is why he took on the project, but was later pressured by the studio and his vision was lost. He did a pretty admirable job considering.
Lynch's pedigree speaks for itself:
Blue Velvet: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090756/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_23 Lost Highway: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116922/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_16 Mulholland Drive: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_14 Twin Peaks... etc...
Any fans of Dune should check out the exceptionally good documentary about the aborted film version by surrealist film maker Alejandro Jodorowsky.
The vision he had for his film far outstripps anything seen in the Lynch film or TV show.
Trailer here: http://youtu.be/GOaGoFqTWtw
I'm with you. I definitely don't hate it like many seem to. No, it's not a to-the-letter portrayal of the book, nor does it do a great job of portraying the "subtleties," but it's probably much better off not doing that. Look at the evolution in the Harry Potter movies. The first few tried to jam pack several hundred pages of detail into 2 and change hours, and miserably fail to make "good" movies on their own or good enough adaptations for the rabid fans of the books. The last few stopped trying to cover every chapter of the book in favor of better scenes and movie storytelling and were (IMO) much better for it. No, there isn't a navigator portrayed as a slug in the first book (though they show up that way in later books), and the Weirding Way is just some overthought martial arts, but I'd rather watch a movie with space slugs folding space and mmmbop sound cannons to visualize the things that don't translate well into visual/auditory space from text. If I were to pick an issue with the movie, it's that Lynch used a bunch of narration instead of coming up with creative ways of representing that stuff.
There is an uncanny valley for book to screen adaptations. Lynch's Dune is just far enough out of the bottom of that valley that I can enjoy it as an incredibly expensive, overproduced sci-fi movie based on the Herbert universe by the same name.
A related epic failure, that gave so much to film even though it was never made:
Jodorowsky's Dune
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg4OCeSTL08
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky's_Dune
They discuss Lynch's version in the film. Highly recommended viewing for all sci-fi enthusiasts.
I read the book before the movie, yet I still liked the movie. It's not a pure adaptation by any means but it has style, it's not really good but it's glorious. It's a mess but there's imagination and it took guts to make this movie. And I love the guild navigators!
By contrast the Scyfy mini-serie is closer to the book but is boring in that it doesn't bring anything compared to the book.
Granted last time I saw the Lynch movie was 20 years ago about but I'll watch it again this month :-)
Another completely different take on Dune that used scenes from the movie and was really great even though it was very loosely based on the book was the game from Cryo. If you have a chance to play it, do it. It's a very weird and interesting mix of adventure and strategy.
It's actually kind of amazing how much inspiration this book gave to multiple innovative projects from the Lynch movie, the Jodorowsky movie (I wish I could go to a parallel universe where this movie got made...), the first real RTS Dune 2, the weird and imaginative Dune game from Cryo...
Oh, I love it. Not because it's good, it's not, it's an incoherent mess; but it's a great incoherent mess. By which I mean that it tries so hard and fails so badly I end up somehow seeing through it to the vision of the film Lynch was trying to make, which is a masterpiece. It's fascinating.
And there are moments of brilliance to it. The Guild Navigators! The Emperor's Court! The spacecraft design! I even love the poorly matted and ludicrously scaled sandworms, which convey a sense of grandeur that modern films somehow have trouble with. Oh, and Toto's soundtrack is great.
Ah, here we go.
David Lynch's sandworm ride: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld2DMsyy0go
Scifi channel's sandworm ride: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVqXE9ZY5wk
Which of those is more fun?
I'd rather have a glorious failure like Dune over the polished insult that was Avatar any day.
Next I will explain why Van Helsing is one of my favourite films...
Lynch's Dune is one of my all time favourite movies. I watched it a lot growing up and it didn't make a lick of sense to me, but I still loved the world it created. Later on I saw the extended edition (on laser disk baby!) and it became a lot more clear. And then finally I read the book and it all made sense to me.
Yes the SyFy Mini-Series is more true to the book, but their pronunciations make it unbearable to watch for me. "Hark-e-nin" vs "Har-ko-nin" drives me up the wall.
Another thing I love about it is how surreal Lynch creates the future. To me it's one of the most immersive sci-fi movies that really takes you out of this reality and into it's own and it does it with minimal flash and special effects.
The Guild navigators are gross and amazing. The Lynch Baron Harkonin is possibly my favourite Sci-fi villain of all time.
Dune needs/needed the Game of Thrones treatment. Full seasons to develop the story and characters.
The film was interesting mess. It was very beautiful visually. It was also very stupid - both Harkonen and the Aes Sed .. I mean Ben Gesserit were just a pale shadow of themselves without the depth in the book. And we had naked Sting in thongs which is something that the Geneva Convention strictly forbids to be unleashed on civilians.
Hugo and Nebula award winner Ancillary Justice is pretty good, though perhaps not great. Before that I reread No Country for Old Men, Cormac McCarthy is definitely great and I enjoyed it far more this time than when I read it nine years ago. Right now I am rereading Dune for the first time in at least twenty and possibly thirty years partially because Ancillary Justice reminded me of it, partially because it might be something I recommend trying to my son and partially because being able to read previously read books in new ways is turning out to be a pleasure of getting older. Anyway, Dune is great in ways that Dino Delaurentis and subsequent film makers had made me forget.
Langston Hughes' Weary Blues is amazing, but I'm no expert on poetry.
I took it as "filmed theater" rather than a movie. Aside from William Hurt, all actors are playing their roles, not "acting". So if you see it that way it's enjoyable. Everything is theatric, from the costumes to the dialogs, it doesn't really feel like a movie at all.
I prefer this to Lynch's film which has great costumes and design but you can't tell Dune in less than 2 hours, like one cannot tell lord of the rings in one movie.
However,there is certainly room for a real trilogy movie. I'm sure it will happen in the next 10 years.
Dune is one of my favourite books and I actually enjoyed David Lynch's film.
I would love to see a modern cinema adaptation, but with the current political climate it might be impossible to make a movie about a messiah leading religious fanatics on a jihad against an empire for control of the commodity on which all civilization is dependent.
I thought it odd that the article did not mention the SciFi mini-series Dune and Children of Dune that came out a while back [1][2]. These were actually quite good, much better than the David Lynch version.
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/ [2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287839/?ref_=tt_rec_tt
Another TV adaptation worth mentioning is SyFy's miniseries "Frank Herbert's Dune" and "Frank Herbert's Children of Dune". They are much more faithful to books than Lynch's movie and better show the epic universe that Herbert imagined.
I saw that movie, I thought it was very good.
Just curious, what did you like about it that it changed your life. Did you mean the how it was shot (i.e. impressed by director's work), Jodorowsky as a person, his story how he worked on Dune with other people (the complexity, dedication, the obsession), or Dune itself?
I found interesting how Dune influenced all these other blockbusters that came after, most importantly Star Wars. It was also fascinating how Jodorowsky never actually read Dune. EDIT: that is not correct as someone pointed out by Nemcue, I (and others apparently) misremembered. It was both the financier, Michel Seydoux and the illustrator Chris Foss who hadn't read it.
Or say, why anyone thought Jodorowsky, based on his previous track record of making surrealist films, would be a good candidate to make Dune. I just don't see the obvious connection from "Holly Mountain" to blockbuster "Sci Fi" for the masses. Now, of course in a funny twist, David Lynch, another surrealist author, actually made the American (Universal Studios) version, and it was terrible I thought.
I didn't read "Maker of Dune", but Starts Wars plot as litle in common with Dune, i think the similarities with Akira Kurosawa films is right on. By the way the Dune movie from 1984 is a much better plot than Star Wars, it's really a shame that didn't come to fruition it got lost on the directors cut, it should have been cut in 2 or 3 movies.
two versions of "It's hard to be a God" (in Russian) one from 1989, another from 2013:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ_D_eI6KMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBoyjleXFz0
The final scene in 1989 movie is clearly influenced by Dune (1984).
Likeiwse it's clear that this movie influenced modern American/Canadian Sci-Fi series like Stargate Atlantis [1] and Defiance [2]. I.e. both Wraith and Votan look like noblemen from "It's hard to be a God" (1989).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wraith_%28Stargate%29
[2] http://en.defiance-wiki.com/wiki/Votan
It looks like a sandworm from the computer games and shitty [1] film adaption of the Dune series by Frank Herbert [2].
[1] The games were great, if unrelated to the story. The film is ridiculous and uses the books merely as backdrop.
[2] Pedantic I know, but the books had pictures on the covers that showed exactly what a sandworm should look like – e.g. visible crystal teeth of a size that could be made into a dagger (a crysknife) and a hot furnace behind – not three weird flaps around a dark mouth.
My stock recommendation is: The first book is a classic for a reason. However, if you don't like it, stop here. The subsequent books will not change your opinion. In fact Herbert may really not be your thing. (He has a certain unique feel to his writing, I think.)
The rest of the first trilogy is definitely more hurried and rather than "justifiably classic" are merely pretty OK if you like that sort of thing. A lot of people jam up here.
God Emperor of Dune is one of those books that is more fun to read the second time than the first, because the first time you really want the primary plot line to finish up and it feels like it is dragging. It really isn't, the rest of the content is quite worthy and the book would be made worse for removing it, but the first time through it doesn't feel that way. I like it better on re-reads, but this is a lot to ask of a reader. (Another one I feel this way is A Deepness in the Sky by Vinge. It's packed with goodness and I love it, but in the first read the middle half of the book can really drag since the goodness isn't in the "A plot".)
Finally, if you make it this far, Chapterhouse and Heretics are once again quite fun reads and re-reads. But it can be hard to get this far in the first place.
My suspicion is that a lot of people who blanket bemoan all the sequels never made it as far as Chapterhouse Dune. But then, it's perfectly understandable.
Oh, and I'll edit this to include my video recommendations: The classic Dune movie should be considered only loosely related, IMHO. The Sci-Fi (before it was "SyFy") miniseries of the book is good if you've already read the book and you view it as a filmed theatrical production rather than a "movie". Which, IMHO, actually works, as theatrical tropes are a better medium for Dune than conventional movie tropes in a lot of ways, but if you don't know what you're getting in to can be a shock. The miniseries of the second two books is better produced, but IIRC still requires you to have read the story first to really understand it. I definitely don't recommend them as your intro to the series.
Have to agree, Dune is an amazing book and stands well on it's own. One of my favourite ever. Even the film/TV interpretations are pretty good :)
'some dune fans don't mention "that" film.'
A view I'm plenty sympathetic to.
True the harkonens where very squicky - but some dune fans don't mention "that" film.
Never give up, don't end your life. Failure is a part of life, we humans learn from our mistakes. If you ever read "Dune" or watched the movie "Fear is the mind killer." and it makes a lot of sense that statement.
I am 45, and I am having a hard time. I am flat broke, disabled, and 100K in medical debt. No startups want to hire me, nobody wants to help me, and I did a great job when I was working and did two startups of my own.
http://www.greatdox.com/documentaries/ I want to do documentaries on various topics because I faced a lot of stuff in my life and I don't want to see others suffer as I have, as I have seen many others suffer. Know that you are not alone. I have software I want to develop as well. http://www.greatdox.com/software/
I have recently thought about a possible future where everybody could kill everybody else anonymously. No idea how that would play out - probably with extinction?
I think technology could provide such a future, for example something like those tiny poison drones in the movie Dune.
Or maybe it will be possible to genetically engineer a virus to just kill one specific person - kind of like Stuxnet was targeted at one specific factory...
Something Dune accomplishes really well -- and which very few sci-fi books or movies have ever pulled off quite as effectively -- is weaving a lot of background, and culture, and esoteric terminology, into the story without disrupting the story's flow. There aren't lengthy, disjointed sidebars about what X means, or why Y exists. Instead, X and Y are woven into the narrative via context, allowing the reader to pick up quickly on what they are. (There's also a glossary at the back of the book, of course, which helps).
The book's most glaring weakness, however, is that many of its characters suffer from I'm-going-to-spell-out-precisely-what-I'm-about-to-do syndrome (Harkonnen, in particular, has a James Bond Villain-esque penchant for such speeches.)
Regardless, the book has been absolutely foundational to the genre. Nearly every convention of the modern space opera can be traced back to Dune.
It's a pity that no one's ever been able to crack the book's code on film. Understandable, though, as so much of the action is psychological and the drama internalized.
Wow, this is incredible. Sean Young is an amazingly underrated actress. She was really fantastic in Blade Runner.
Dune is also one of my favourite books, although I see the film as a separate entity it is one of my favourite Lynch films - perhaps not the most accessible, but nonetheless one of my favourites. Thankyou for sharing this link.
This article points out that movies are now excessively marketing-driven, and suggests that the reason is that the generation born in the 1960s suffers from "arrested development" — i.e. psychological neoteny — to a unique degree, and that they now control Hollywood. Although it does not offer any evidence to support either of these propositions, it suggests that Top Gun or the Reagan administration might be the cause of the neoteny.
In reality, marketing-driven movie are nothing new. In the 1960s, they were called "exploitation" films; "exploitation" was the 1960s movie-biz term for "marketing". The crucial question is, why is so much of the movie business organized around exploitation films today? And an unsupported psychological hypothesis doesn't cut it as an answer.
Here's an idea that seems at least as good as the answer proffered by the article. The internet makes word-of-mouth travel a lot faster now. It used to be that the box-office receipts of a stinker movie would decline over the first few weeks after its release. Now, they decline even during the opening weekend. (I haven't verified that, but it seems like it ought to be easily verifiable.) People tweet about how bad the movie is even before they've finished watching it.
In turn, this word-of-mouth heightens the winner-take-all nature of the film industry; hit movies take home a bigger share of the total box-office receipts of the industry (unverified, but should be verifiable), with the result that more movies these days fail to even make back their production costs (unverified, but should be verifiable). In short, film production is a riskier investment than it used to be, and there's less that marketing money can do to rescue a stinker.
An economically rational response to this situation (assuming I'm correct!) would be to work harder to figure out which films are going to be hits and which are going to be flops, make the hits bigger hits, and spend less on the flops. For example, you could do any of the following:
• Value talent more highly. Talent can't stop a flop from being a flop, but it can make the difference between a hit and a mega-blockbuster.
• Don't spend anything on marketing. Release films in a single theater or a single city. If it takes off, print more copies. If GQ is to be believed, this would cut the cost of filmmaking in half, which would mean you could make twice as many movies.
• Release movies to audiences in episodes; start by releasing a half-hour pilot, and if it takes off, call the actors and director back to make another hour. This could cut the cost of filmmaking by more than a factor of 2, especially if the first part goes easy on the special effects, the music, that kind of thing. (In a way, that's what's happening with the sequel craze that the article is complaining about, but the difference is that you need to have the story arc planned out: Dune or Star Wars Episode IV or Babylon 5, not Fast Five.)
• Instead of a first episode, release an abridged version, maybe a half-hour. This has been done unintentionally and on a small scale for many years; think of Blade Runner and Blade Runner: the director's cut. The difference is that you can actually save money by not shooting the parts of the story that you leave out. Maybe instead of showing it in theaters, you can show it on Lifetime or HBO or something, or just on your web site.
• Instead of a pilot episode or abridged movie, do the first installment of the movie as a comic book. Comics have a lot in common with films: they're intensely visual and powerfully immersive, they even use cinematographic techniques, and a "graphic novel" is a lot closer in length to a movie than it is to War and Peace. These days, online, maybe you could even add a voiceover to your comic book. (Admittedly, filmstrips never really took off as a dramatic medium.) Again, in a sense, studios are doing this already; they're just not funding the production of the comics in the first place. They ought to. If there were ten times as many graphic novels coming out every year, they'd have a much better selection of audience-proven storyboards.
• Post trailers and teaser episodes on BitTorrent before you're done filming in order to see if they take off. It's no guarantee — lots of people will be willing to watch the movie for free even if they wouldn't shell out for a ticket — but if it flops there, it'll probably flop in the theater too.
• Cancel more films before they're even finished shooting. If your early indications are that it's not going to work out, don't try to rescue your investment by sending good money after bad, hiring a famous film editor to try to salvage something from the wreckage, nonsense like that. You need some kind of interim feedback on quality, of course, which is impossible to do reliably, although some of the approaches above might help. The big returns are going to go to the mega-hit films. Invest the money you would have invested in finishing the film in something that has a chance to be a mega-hit instead.
• Leave room in filming budgets for expansion. If early feedback (from the first episode, or just during screenings) is that the film is good, double the special-effects budget. Splurge on ADR and better music.
• Make more films, which means making a lot of low-budget films.
• Diversify your film investments; we should see more multi-studio films, just like we see lots of multi-VC-firm startups.
• Share the risk with the fans. Sell nonrefundable opening-night tickets before you're finished shooting, in order to raise money for the film. Give them cash back if the movie is a hit. Or sell the advance tickets in groups of four. (If the movie's worth watching, they can treat three of their friends for free.)
However, although as I said above, the studios are using some of these approaches, we're mostly seeing something else entirely. When you're used to a certain level of risk, and that level of risk goes up, your natural inclination is not to figure out how to take advantage of the new risk; it's to try desperately to push the risk back down. So, instead, we're seeing stupid moves like these:
• Release the film initially in more theaters, not less. That way, if it sucks, you might still make your money back before everyone sees their friends tweet about how it was so bad they walked out of the theater.
• Make films that people will want to see before they hear from anyone who's actually seen them: sequels, comic strips, toy brands. This is a necessary complement to releasing the film in a lot of theaters at once.
• Spend more on pre-release marketing instead of less. This slashes your maximum possible return on investment, but you have to do it if you're going to get people into all those theaters on opening weekend instead of a week later.
(The author's grudge against comic books is pretty embarrassing. Are you going to tell me Watchmen was infantilizing, not aimed at adults?)
Now, I admit I know little about business and nothing about the business of movies. So maybe these ideas are stupid.
I disagree.
Eventually, Qwiki can provide a very very good lesson on varied topics in a very consumable manner.
Ever see the movie 'Dune'? Where Paul is learning about Arakis on the video terminal?
That is what Qwiki is doing - as a platform.
Eventually - it will be able to take the deeper, more broad content and do the same thing. Providing an hour long info-mentary on a subject based on widely dispersed information across the web. Video from varied sources, pics, wikipedia articles etc...
Dont lok at what Qwiki may be today -- think about what Qwiki will be in 5 years.
Imagine if qwiki also incorporates WordLens technology as well - in 5 years - it will be able to translate and read to you PDFs in multiple languages.
Dune the film. It's different to the book. It is flawed. It's also one of the most atmospheric and convincing SF worlds ever realised on film, on a par with Blade Runner. It's got plenty of cool bits and a wicked Brian Eno soundtrack.
What you have to remember about Nausicaä is that it's 26 years old. Miyazaki was hitting wonderfully balanced deep green themes and using ambiguous villains whilst Disney was churning out 'Mickey's Christmas Carol'. There's lot's of truly wonderful space and silence in Nausicaä's 'forest' scenes.
- I Heart Huckabees - You, Me And Everyone We Know - Juno - The Straight Story - My Neighbour Totoro
Are all straight forward feel good movies.
- Caché - The Lives Of Others - The White Ribbon - The Fountain - Amores Perros - City Of God - Fargo - Dune - Castle In The Sky - Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Festen
Make you feel good simply by the presence of their across the board brilliance.
I guess you're probably happier not knowing about the David Lynch film, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_%28film%29
The Dune miniseries was wonderful. I watched it as a kid and never got over it. It's a very nostalgic thing for me.
Maybe it doesn't match up to the book, but if I ever read the book it would only be because of the miniseries and comments that the book is even better.
I liked Dune. The PC game and movie. It could be imminent that a Hollywood remake is in the works.
I have read amazing books with boring stories. I have read amazing stories with poor writing. Both are good for very different reasons.
Tolkien still stands out in my mind as one of the best story tellers I have ever read. He was such a good story teller that people are retelling them in every way they can imagine in books, films, role play games, computer games, all sorts of media. D and D, warcraft, Diablo, all Tolkien rip-offs. Even Harry Potter.
The awe inspiring bit is the ambiguity, the hints of all the other stories untold, the heroes with bit parts, mentioned in passing. He didn't just write a story, he wrote a whole universe. What he did is rare, I can think of only a handful of other works that pull off the immersion convincingly, Isaac Asimov's Foundation, Ian M. Bank's Culture, Lucas' Star Wars (if they'd have just left it at 4-6) and Herbert's Dune (just). And none of them quite touch the awesomeness of middle earth.
He wasn't just good, he was amazing. Pure fluke perhaps, as the article hints at, but what a great one.
Not to review a review, but this is not a very good review. Much more interesting is the linked wired article.
I have always been disappointed in the Star Trek films, being a fan of Dune. Yes, it does seem to me to be a rip-off of Dune, and a poor one at that. I think Avatar is a much better movie than any of the Star Trek series. I wouldn't say that it is the best movie ever, but it is certainly at the top of the list for special effects, by a large measure.
(Don't forget that James Cameron did Aliens, Titanic, Terminator one and two.)
Well, the story is a combination of typical archetypes retold with pretty pictures. That much I cannot argue about. And I think that what you are really saying by "the plot sucked" is "it's too archetype driven". I'm basing this on:
>I personally found the warmed over "Stupid White Man penetrates exotic closed society and rises to be leader of it, seducing the native woman" plot tiresome, repetitive and tedious
Sure the characters ranged from a bit 2-d (the Col.) to well fleshed out (Neytiri (watch it again if you don't believe me)) and the acting ranged from "will probably win an award it was so good" Saldana to "thanks for showing up and picking up your paycheck" Weaver. But that's nothing different than you'll find in almost every movie -- the principles are fleshed out and the supporting cast is flat.
Why can't we have more 'smart' movies like Erin Brockovich/Schindler's List/Fight Club/District 9/Oldboy/etc. (archetypes of David vs. Goliath, Greed and Bullies) or The Incredibly True Story of Two Teenagers In Love/Léon/American Beauty/Mississippi Masala/South Pacific/Moulin Rouge/West Side Story etc. (Forbidden Love) or Lawrence of Arabia/Dune/Hunt for Red October/etc. (Lovable Turncoat)... you ask? And I'd counter that all of those are as archetype driven as any other well known flick (archetype stories provided in parens).
You see where I'm going with this. Even if you don't agree with all my movie choices as being "good" or "smart" you'll at least have to agree that most movies that are at least reasonably well known are pretty much based on a dissection or aggregation of common archetypes. How many times has Romeo and Juliet been retold almost verbatim? And by and large the audience enjoys these things and says "oh the plot was so good" when really, they are just a rehash of old story ideas. We even group movies into archetype driven categories "love story", "ghost story", "suspense", etc.
So yes, I was being "cute" with my notional art-house flick. But if you want to find something not driven by archetypes, where the artists consciously try to avoid those things, you have to go there, or to France or Italy perhaps. Here, http://www.imdb.com/chart/top this is the top 250 movies on IMDB not by dollars but by rating. How many of these are "smart" movies meaning "not a rehash of archetypes"? Very few if any.
It's pretty simple really, if you don't want your intelligence to be insulted (meaning you don't want an archetype driven story), you end up with a movie about a vapid cowgirl/model with giant thumbs or a movie director that can't focus on making movies because he's too busy with all his mistresses (which is actually just a retelling of the "guy with too many girlfriends archetype"). And given that non-archetype driven movies are typically poorly rated and attended by the open public, either you are particularly "smart" or those movies tend to suck.
Repetition leads to boredom, boredom to horrifying mistakes, horrifying mistakes to God-I-wish-I-was-still-bored
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed, The lips acquire stains. The stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. -- David Lynch (Piter de Vries from Dune movie)
"It is caffeine alone that sets my mind in motion. It is through beans of java that thoughts acquire speed, that hands acquire shakes, that shakes become a warning... I am... IN CONTROL... OF MY ADDICTION!" -- From the Minicon Graffiti Wall, 1989
Since this is fast turning into a list of good mind-bending movies, I'm going to put a shout out for eXistenZ, as it always seems to be slightly overlooked.
Also, most of Lynch's non-Dune stuff would fit in this category.