MovieChat Forums > Children of Dune (2003) Discussion > Children of Dune looks so much better th...

Children of Dune looks so much better than Dune

posted 18 years ago by Chrislowski
9 replies | jump to latest

Children of Dune looks so much better than Dune. I thought Dune looked incredibly cheap, despite the budget (which I believe was pretty big for a tv show). I think the main reason Children looks so much better is mostly down to lighting, Children is a lot darker which gives it a lot more (needed) atmosphere. Dune was far too bright, allowing you to see just how bad the costumes really are, as well as the pretty awful backgrounds and bog standard cg (I'm not a fan of cg anyway, but I understand that sometimes it's needed). Anyway, It all looks much, much better in Children.

Also, I'm sure Greg Yaitanes had a lot to do with it looking so good, and I only wish he had directed the first three parts instead of John Harrison. Damn.

[–] iteration84 18 years ago

Agreed. I couldn't stomach the Dune mini series... I loved the original film (I did read the book too); dated as the special effects may be, and even as badly as the story held up. So much to say and so little time to say it is basically what it came down to with the 1984 attempt, and even a somewhat recent attempt at re-making Dune, as you've said, was bad. Just leave it alone guys!

[–] max619 18 years ago

"Dune was far too bright, allowing you to see just how bad the costumes really are" I dont think the lighting would have made the costumes look any better or less noticable. They were horrible plan and simple. The worst costumes in any movie i have ever seen. And that last costume worn in COD by Farad'n,in my opinion, should win the award for worst costume ever in a movie.
Anyway, yes COD was light years ahead of the Dune miniseries. I loved COD and hated the other miniseries.

"It's Bob! He stole his car!"

[–] mjensen-3 18 years ago

I love both of them in there own ways. There both equal IMO. But I do prefer "Children of Dune." It's one of the few sequals that surpasses the original.

Last Films seen:
Dune(1984)- 7/10

[–] Book1245 18 years ago

You mean "Children of Dune" by any chance? ^_^

I always like to watch it
1984 movie
then
Children of Dune

it keeps the dark feeling there. Plus, both of those have an amazing score

"Why would they want the Duke's...son killed?"

[–] mjensen-3 18 years ago

Sorry about that. I corrected it. And David Lynch's version is average at best. It looks nice,I like the score, and I like the performances. But it's just..............average. Definitly Lynch's worst film.

Last Films seen:
Ghost Rider- 0/10

[–] durdenism7 18 years ago

I agree with the op. Not just the sets, costumes, and overall effects got better but the acting did too. The worst actors were recast and other bad ones got better.

[–] Chrislowski 17 years ago

The weirdest thing about all of this, is that I've just found out that the cinematographer that worked on Dune was Vittorio Storaro! This guy is usually a master when it come to the use lighting and shadow, just watch The Conformist; the cinematography in that film is breathtaking! How on earth Children of Dune looked better than Dune I have no idea...

Films and Movies are not the same thing.

[–] lbrad2001 17 years ago

For the most part I think the casting in Dune was better than in Lynch's version, with the exception of Thufir and Piter de Vries. The Desert scene's looked awful because it was obvious that it was on a set or using CGI. However from listening to the commentary on the DVD, that was a concious decision to make it look like a play. They didn't have the budget to actually go out and shoot in Tunisia like the original did so they just decided to give it the feeling of an epic play. I personally disagree with it and it's obvious that they decided to go in another direction entirely with the sequel. I haven't watched COD in awhile but I don't remember any shots with those horrendous backdrops in it.

That being said it was a valiant attempt and still better than Lynch's version. It probably won't happen anytime soon but I'd love to see Dune get the full on Lord of the Rings treatment.

[–] kevinsmithf1master02 16 years ago

Unfortunately, while attempting to improve upon the weaknesses of the previous film, this new Sci-Fi Channel affair forgets to take a lesson or two from the strengths of the Lynch version. The acting in the 2000 film is a stunning embarrassment, with William Hurt as an expressionless and seemingly medicated Duke Leto and Alec Newman portraying an uninspiring and desensitized Paul Atreides. Also completely lost in the new film is the epic scope of the story, with few special effects and entire scenes of action simply omitted to avoid costs and keep the story based at ground level with the characters.