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.
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:
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.
> 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?
The Room is an extreme example because it’s mostly remembered for being so bad that it’s funny, but sure: it has had a thousand times more influence than the hundreds of competent but procedural thrillers that came out at the same time. It will still be watched in fifty years.
I don’t like that list at all and think it’s basically a list of how “traditional” the Lynch film is. I’d put Mulholland Drive first personally.
It’s using RT’s scoring, which tends to favor movies that are broadly likable over movies that are more willing to take risks that don’t connect with all of their audience.
A big-budget Hollywood blockbuster will have a high RT score even if it’s kinda bland. A filmmaker like Lynch will have a lower RT score, but the people who connect with his movies are more likely have a deeper experience than someone who connects with the blockbuster.
I can think of no memorable visuals despite having seen it on IMAX.
I can remember plenty of interesting visuals from the Lynch one despite thinking many other aspects of it were horrible, and having seen it in my room 4 years ago.
A few you didn't mention that stand out to me, just because it brings me joy:
- Jessica meeting Mohiam in the unrelenting rain of Caladan
- The first time a transport picks up a harvester
- Paul's vision of Jessica holding Alia
- Salusa Secondus...
- Sardaukar dropping into the research station, and the Fremen revealing themselves from the sand to attack
It’s hard for me to think of any one specific scene that is visually memorable, because _the entire movie_ is visually memorable to me. It’s easily one of the most visually and auditory impressive films I’ve seen in the past decade, whereas Lynch’s seemed like a low-budget SyFy film in comparison.
The new one is basically unfinished, it's a nice setup for part 2.
Of course you're right, somehow Lynch did more in less time, but also maybe (hopefully!) part1-2 together will be a valuable take on Dune.
I have one vivid memory from the Lynch one. The Baron's blood torture contraption seared into my mind about 25 years ago, and I have some half faded ones about the last attack, the Imperial palace, and ... that's it probably.
For me Dune was more about vibe, atmosphere, scale, grand space opera mindfuck than concreteness and still images.
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.
Your ChatGPT comment is a perfect description of Villeneuve’s movies and I’ve thought similar things for a long time. There’s just something missing that prevents them from being great.
It’s a real shame, because he is technically brilliant. Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most beautifully shot/edited movies I’ve ever seen, but it just cannot reach me beyond the surface.
If you’re interested in seeing him put his skills to tell an actual impactful story, watch Incendies. By far his best movie.
Also Prisoners and Enemy were impactful imo (and Sicario of course). I feel like where Villeneuve fails in that respect, filmmakers such as Nicholas Winding Refn succeed— I just watched Drive for the first time (I know I know), and it was one of the best cinematic experiences I’ve had in probably 5 years. Even though the film had a bit of a distant, hands-off quality, one connected with the film and characters completely (a lot of that maybe had to do with Gosling’s impeccable performance, but I’m sure the director had something to do with it).
> About Gosling I’ll refrain from commenting as it can get ugly. :)
I think it's fair to say that any particular performance of Gosling may be good/er or bad/er, but his broad range is impressive: The Notebook, Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl, Blue Valentine, The Place Beyond the Pines, Only God Forgives, The Big Short, The Nice Guys, La La Land, Barbie.
Also: Crazy, Stupid, Love and Drive came out in the same year.
He was outstanding in The Big Short, I'll give him that. And his casting in BR2049 was the perfect choice; all he had to do to act like a robot was to act as usual...
For me it's fan service, but there must be more to it that I'm missing. Apparently it made nearly half a billion dollars over a budget of 165 million, so it cannot be just hardcore sci-fi fans. Chances are it's simply not my cup of tea, or not the cup of tea of a few people who value other kinds of experience on movies. I have a cousin who loves the movie and he says that the cinema experience is amazing, the images and sounds and the whole thing kinda pulls you in. Maybe that's just it: technical quality.
While I agree, I'd say the merit to the new Dune film is as an excellent example of ambient film - think of it less as a film in which things must happen and more of the waves at the beach - calming and tranquil, mostly, an occasional freak wave to keep you on your toes.
(Yes, I think it was solidly average otherwise and arguably the most boring of Villeneuve's work if watched conventionally).
Oh the world and the characters in my head from when I read it are much more interesting. I will keep this in mind for when (if) I watch the 2nd one tho.
People tend to project their personal preferences with an aura of superiority to the unknown future when everyone will ascend to their level and reach enlightenment.
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.
Citation needed; the top X on IMDB has a mix of recent (2014's Interstellar) and older (1972's The Godfather) films in their top ranked films: https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/
Of course, rankings on any platform should be taken with a grain of salt; if you like the film you like it, can't argue with taste or personal preference. Ranking tries to apply an objective fact (a number, an expert's say-so) to an inherently subjective question (did you enjoy it).
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.
The new dune is just better. Some people can’t get around that fact and I think it’s the same realm as retro computing. Sure it’s cool, it’s interesting, it’s fun, but it’s not better. I think they have the same “hobby” as retro computing but won’t admit it so to speak.
>They simply have more character and vastly more interesting set design
I feel the opposite. Lynch's Dune did its own thing with meandering and confused direction. Villenuve's Dune complements the book much better. It respects Herbert's intelligence and understands the world building decisions Herbert made. I'm betting that the book and Villeneuve's Dune will stand the test of time better.
It respects the source material too much. It serves the only function of being an acceptable, technically excellent version for two audiences: the purists, who care more about the book than about film as an art form; and the people who are interested in Dune because they heard about it but they will not sit down and read it.
It has nothing to say cinematographically, and it has nothing to add to the messages that were written into Dune 50 years ago.
Do you feel the same way about the Lord of the Rings films? The most common complaints about those are where it has strayed from the source material.
Dune isn't fully pure, either. It goes against the most frequent theme of the first book simply by 'shooting' scenes outside during the day. Caladan is much more fleshed out. It introduces new Bene Tleilax lore in the first film which is notable because Herbert himself didn't introduce them until there was a second book to write, omniscience to restrict and characters to resurrect. Looking at the trailers for the next film, Feyd Rautha is bald Elvis instead of a handsome Paul-like character and I'd be very surprised if all of the Baron's proclivities are retained.
I recently got to rewatch the first LOTR film in theaters, after not having seen it for maybe 8 years.
I was stunned at how well done it was visually, and how well handled the tension and pacing are throughout the whole thing. It was just an impeccable cinematic experience.
In contrast, there are many things to say about Lynch's version, but he didn't just play it safe. Although compared to the plans Jodorowski (original director) had for the movie, he was probably conservative :D
I'm with you, _pace_ the bulk of the other comments in this thread. My wife, knowing nothing whatsoever about _Dune_, saw the movie with me, and "got" every element of the complex political background - in the car ride home she asked questions and spun theories, all of which were dead-on. It's a masterpiece of adaptation, a beautiful film, and I don't get the "soul-less" critique at all. On the big screen, at least, it's alive as hell, and Paul's prophetic dreams are handled perfectly: confusing and suggestive and strange, without ever taking you out of the narrative.
It's not even like the film is "slavish" to Herbert's narrative, either, like a few people have said. Having Kynes assassinated, rather than captured, removes a fun scene, but gives the audience a first hint of worm-riding, which is narratively useful.
My only regret, which I only arrived at after my third viewing, is that the actor playing Jamis should have played Stilgar, and Bardem should have played Jamis. I think Bardem is slightly mis-cast, but he's also enough of a name that the audience would have felt the same regret as Paul does at Jamis' death.
> It respects Herbert's intelligence and understands the world building decisions Herbert made.
I completely disagree, it does a few major plot points decently but the gender swap of Liet Kynes completely erases the point of that character as a parallel to Paul’s journey in relation to his determined destiny as outlined by the people before him. It completely wipes away any difference between the two invading armies as well they both come off as generic evil villains where in the book they have a purposeful lavishness and guadiness. Not to mention the entire obvious white washing of the entire jihad and Fremen who are clearly based off of Middle Eastern peoples.
The changes to Kynes and Hawat removed subplots to focus on the primary plot. They don't even mention Paul's mentat training.
I feel that removing the Arabic names from Fremen is to make it palatable for modern audiences. Herbert did respect Arabic cultures and (in my opinion) did not have an insulting representation of them. It is still a caricature of a people made by someone who is not of that people. We do give up some context, but we also avoid insult in our now-global world. I don't think there was any winning move here, but I think they gave it thought and made a careful decision.
No I think they took the easy way out because “modern” aka 1st world audiences are afraid of the word jihad. It wouldn’t be such a big deal if people weren’t proclaiming it to be an accurate depiction of the book when it clearly overwrites several big pieces of plot in favor of modern anxieties.
There are a lot more Arabic aspects of the Fremen in the books that didn't make it into the movie. They could have left those and removed the word Jihad but they went all the way.
Agreed. Dune is essentially an exploration of Middle Eastern cultures, in which a peek into is something that could benefit Hollywood and their audiences, especially in modern times.
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.
Also the cast of Lynch's version is better -- you had first rate actors like Kyle Mclachlan as Paul, Max von Sydow as Kynes, Patrick Stewart as Halleck (and yes, Sting as Feyd-Rautha, although that's maybe not a plus as Sting is a much better singer than he is an actor).
Jose Ferrer showing us how to de-cloak better than a dozen synchronized Romulan warbirds, Brad Dourif as the explanation of what happens when you twist a mentat, wee Alicia Witt as St. Alia of the Knife, and let's not forget Freddie Jones, a late British actor of a subtle versatility. The money men were really quite skeptical of hiring him on but after being shown some daillies, supposedly they apologized.
Lynch himself hates the movie, he had to make it due to contractual obligations. It does have a few cool moments, like the fight where they activate the barrier shields, but it's overall terrible.
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.
Not op, but I thought that the roles for Rabban and Feyd were absolutely ham-fisted acting in the Lynch version. Maybe there was a goal to communicate complex character elements in a highly condensed way, but it just comes across as clumsy to me.
Baron was fine if not better in the Lynch version.
Note that I watched the Lynch version in a theater in the 80s and recently rewatched it, and my feeling about the acting portrayal of these two characters was the almost exactly the same then and now — painful to watch.
I thought the new movies were absolutely awe inspiring. I bounced off the old movie pretty hard and thought it was some weird joke I hadn’t been invited in on.
> New Dune however feels more like Young Adult Entertainment.
Paul Atreides (the main character) is 15 years old in Dune.
Most people that read and revered Dune probably did so during their young adult years.
I say this as someone that loves the Herbert's works, but it is really apparent that the first Dune book originated from an ecological article, and mushrooms (of the psychedelic kind).
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.
My hope lies on AI making it right in hopefully my lifetime. Or maybe it'll have to be me on some cracked AI because the copyright prevents the usual Hollywood AIs from making it ;)
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.
Great video. Thank you and yes, I agree it feels just like that. The unfortunate thing here is that this is a reboot. I guess it is this why those shallow characters hurt even more.
And yes, it is so gorgeous. It looks so breathtaking, but it feels hollow... I felt the same thing with the new Blade Runner. I really wanted to love that.
Jean Baudrillard would have something to say about all that.
Funny though that he brings up the new Dune somehow (hopefully?) positively, and there is even a fast shot of the new Blade Runner. I wonder if Dune makes the turn in the second part, but I doubt it since I haven't seen Villeneuve making it in any of his movies I've seen.
What I liked was "The Killer" vs. the whole John Wick thing. It was such a brilliant twist on the "revenge" trope. I doubt that I'll be able to watch another movie based upon this trope again. For me, it reached perfection with that.
One of the few uses of ever-improving "AI" bot generation of characters, faces, blending images, etc. I can imagine is the ability for fans to remix films and TV.
For example...
* to edit together the original BBC TV Hitch hikers' Guide to the Galaxy with the better SFX of the otherwise poor film.
* to create extra episodes or installments of beloved serials where the text exists but the actors are dead
* Or, in this instance, to mix Lynch's visuals and characters with Villeneuve's less scenery-chewing version which sticks closer to the text.
One could even imagine editing Villeneuve's Arrival to stick closer to the text of Ted Chiang's sublime "the Story of your Life", where the way the aliens write is pivotal to the story but the screenwriters didn't understand.
If I remember correctly (can't find the book), the novel describes the aliens writing as a intricate multi-level rectilinear ideogram where in order to start drawing the design, you needed to know the exact ending of the entire message.
Each ideogram was an entire complex reply. This implied that the aliens had a different sense of time.
Whereas the movie, the writing was a simpler circular design with slight filaments hanging off and no mention of the encapsulated message as a whole IIRC. The movie design reminded minded me of the Lucent Technologies logo [1] (worked for them a short while, back long ago).
I really liked the story and the movie but different media formats have different aims and constraints so it's hard to compare. I wish the movie industry would tackle more original content (like Arrival) rather than endless sequels.
Just one data-point, but I have only seen the _Arrival_ movie and perfectly understood that element of the aliens' writing system, and why it was important to their experience of time. I suspect that the circular design was chosen to be a better visual depiction (time as a closed loop, maybe?) of that idea.
In order to learn to write the aliens' script, the interpreter must learn what Douglas Adams called "defocussed temporal perception". To write the language you need to be able to see into the future. Learning the script teaches her to do this.
Seeing into the future she watches her own daughter die and there's nothing she can do to stop it.
The scriptwriters didn't understand any of this so they made the aliens spray-paint stencils on glass and inserted a terrible irrelevant subplot about stopping a war.
I have not read the novel, but I felt from the film that it was crystal clear that learning the alien writing system was what gave Amy Adams' character the knowledge her daughter would die.
And yet, when I think about Dune 2021, I feel like it lacks a lot of interesting context and explanation from the novel. But I know plenty of people who didn't read it and loved the film. I suspect DV takes more care to lay out the important details than I'm able to perceive knowing the book.
I don't think it's that they didn't understand. They movie just focuses on something different from the book. Where the book is highly conceptual and philosophical, the movie applies this in a very personal way. I walked away thinking about how every story ends in sadness and despair. Even though we can't see the future in this much detail, we all know how every human story ends. And yet, we engage with hope, and I think life is still worth living.
> They movie just focuses on something different from the book.
1. It's not a book. It's just a short story. It's only 16pp long or something.
2. The central point of the story is: brilliant linguist learns to write an alien script and it teaches her to see the future. That is the core plot in a sentence. The film loses that.
Don't get me wrong: I liked the film, as a modern SF film: i.e., brain damaged into mindlessness, but still quite pretty.
It's like a version of Hamlet in which he lives happy ever after, though. It is missing the point in the most profound possible way.
I just completely disagree with you. Watched the film and read the short story. The central premise absolutely comes through. I watched the film first, and understood it well. Love all of Ted Chiang's stuff, too.
It's funny though, I do feel a bit the same way about Dune. It's a Cliffs Notes of the book, and doesn't add anything new and thought provoking. Mindless but beautiful.
Still, I wouldn't say it missed the point. Just that it wasn't really necessary.
Fair enough! De gustibus non est disputandum after all.
I did say:
>> Don't get me wrong: I liked the film, as a modern SF film
I agree about Dune. If you know the book, it's a very pretty retelling. If you don't, it's a sort of weird summary with no signs of why so many people love it so much.
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.
About Arrival, another one of the soulless, empty outings by Villeneuve, it has 7.9 on IMDb and 94% on rotten tomatoes. Obviously, nobody really cares about the details (unfortunately).
If anyone is interested in the ridiculous amount of potential that Villeneuve threw away by becoming Hollywood’s generic sci-fi director, watch Incendies.
I really like the movie, but i think it did lose some of the soul of the short story.
The short story is essentially a story about grief using time travel as a metaphor but not actually having time travel in it. The movie has the character changing the past in a critical moment which kind of undermines the whole soul of the story imo.
To be clear, i still think arrival is a great movie, just rather different from the source material in terms of meaning and "soul"
I loved the movie Arrival and can't agree it is soulless. Don't get so focused on what it lacks from the short story that you don't see what it does have that the short story does not.
I haven't read the original text, I just couldn't find anything interesting about it. I understand that there is a plot twist which I should've become interested in, and apparently some of the characters are supposed to have some kind of emotional depth, but it just totally missed me.
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.
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 think the GP meant Lynch's world (universe) felt bigger, more mysterious. Like there were more things going on outside this story than could ever be told. Not that the physical size of things was too small. I think I agree a bit. But that universe is supposed to be small and claustrophobic I think? It is part of the lesson in the last few books. I liked the scifi miniseries the best but mostly for what came after the first book. Lynch's I liked when young, but even then I found the amount of internal narrative extremely irritating. The new one jas the problem of most every adaptation of a beloved and dense written work. It tries to serve existing fans and the casual viewer with the same movie. It does much better at that than anything but Jackson's lotr I think, but it is always hard.
I thought Lynch’s was corny and funny. But I do think we have hit an inflection point of big movie fatigue. Small scope movies are just way more fun and interesting right now.
Thinking about it less than a second: Prometheus. Drab colors, very neat and slick sets and costume designs. Heck even Interstellar. BR2049 although that's much more interesting in having all the neon, at least there's some color and some grit.
Well BR2049 was made by the same director and probably a lot of the same crew so I'd be surprised if it didn't look similar.
Prometheus and Interstellar look nothing like these movies though. The production design is completely different even though there might be similarities in the color grading.
I give you that the super washed out colors has been a very common aesthetic in the past 15 years or so but I wouldn't say all scifi movies adopt it. Some examples: District 9, Avatar 1 and 2, Inception, Tenet, Ex Machina, etc.
In contrast, Lynch's doesn't look anything like his other films.
Color grading is a huge part of what makes movies look like they do, but beside that there is a sterility and cleanliness, a monotony in how the images are handled.
> 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.
I didn't enjoy Lynch's Dune much as a Dune adaption, but I commend them for incredible creativity in the characters, costume, and sets. Most of the cast are not what I ever imagined in the books, but that does make it interesting and the characters are convincing.
