I'm asking simply because his version has so much more of the plot in the movie. As visually impressive as the new version is, it just seems devoid of substance.
shareThe main thing I prefer about the Lynch version is the sound of the thumper - boom boom boom; the new one is more tap tap tap
shareThey are both good in different ways. Lynch's version nails some stuff that Villeneuve left out (I love the Princess Irulan opening narration and sweeping opening score over the opening credits) and Villeneuve nails some things that Lynch left out (I love the ornithopters being insect-like in how they fly)
share> I love the ornithopters being insect-like in how they fly
That was true to the book ... but is is ridiculous. When an idea is just bad it doesn't matter if it was in the original book, it needs to be jettisoned, and airplanes with flapping wings are ridiculous.
Check out this 3 hour re-master of the 1984 version done in 4k. It uses an AI algorithm to convert the quality, and you'll see detail you never knew was there! Yep, this Dune is the REAL DEAL! Nothing else even comes close. PERIOD!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faHQA_0d9Mo
literally no. to everything you said
shareYou've got to be kidding!!!
shareI recently watched both versions. To be honest, it's really hard to compare the two, Dune '21 is only half the story, Dune '84 is the full story. We're still waiting for "Dune 2".
I haven't read the books so, I can't compare them to it but I really liked the first hour of Dune '21, I thought it was some very good film-making but the second hour (and remaining minutes) are not as interesting.
The sets are pretty damn good in '21 though, the thing I don't really like about '84 is the cartoon feel it has. Seriously, its like watching a cartoon, its like a comic book version of the story, whereas 21 is a more serious approach. As a previous poster said in here, the Lynch version is very campy. But I don't think I would call it "bad". It has some elements I do like about it but yeah, the first time I saw it was probably back in the 90s and I liked it more back then than I did this time around.
If you compare the main characters in each film, I definitely like Kyle MacLachlan as Paul Atreides more than Timothée Chalamet. In fact, I'm not really sure why those chose Chalamet for this role but whatever...
The Baron in the new film is better too. I like his "floating scenes" a lot more for sure. And it's hard to compare the "Duncans" because Momoa got more screen time, but yeah, I liked Momoa more. Paul's parents are a toss up but I think I prefer the new version a little more...
Anyhow, I'll give '21 a solid 7.3 out of 10 and '84 gets a solid 6.5 out of 10. We'll see how the second Dune release turns out. Scores might change afterwards.
> I definitely like Kyle MacLachlan as Paul Atreides more than Timothée Chalet.
Yeah, I cannot believe they chose him to play Paul. He looks like he just stepped
out of a skateboard completion or something, he just does not have that royal
noble bearing that Kyle M did so believably.
The Baron in the new movie was better, but only in the sense that they had the
good judgement to tone him down from the Lynch version.
I thought the Lynch father was better, but that is mostly because I think Oscar
Isaacs is so overexposed these days ... he is in everything.
I'd have liked to have seen what Lynch would have done with the movie if he had
his way with everything. I'm not sure it would have been better as Lynch is not
really known for his restraint.
Visually impressive? Not to me. I thought Lynch's version was much more ornate and believable. In this new version the whole castle looked like the inside of the complex in the first versions of the video game Doom. No one, least of all royalty, would want to live in big massive compound like that. It reeked of cheep effects.
That said, to me, what ruined Lynch's version was the Harkonnens and how ridiculously over the top they were. Some will say that is how they were portrayed in the book, and that is true, but movies and books are different and in the case of the Harkonnens less would have been more.
The space ships and the guild navigators were like nothing ever seen before. It was amazing.
Also, both of them and movies in general these days, especially science fiction always have to strive for bigger and grosser. It's to the point where it's just boring. The villain dies, and they have to come back over and over again. It's like the Star Trek movies where now they have to destroy the Enterprise in worse ways in ever movie.
On this new version of Dune I probably would have just shut it off if I had not wanted to compare it to Lynch's version ... which I did not particularly like either at the time but now evinces a bit of nostalgia.
Yes, the new version was more like a storyboard of a movie than the movie.
Fair assessments, Trentn.
I gotta go with the new version though. It's just more polished than the Lynch version and way less campy/cartooney.
But Zendaya is going to have to light up the screen in part 2 for me to keep this opinion. It's a make or break moment in my view. I've already questioned their choice of Chalamet as Paul Atreides, so yeah, Zendaya is going to have to really carry the film in part two.
I also thought she was an odd choice as Chani. We'll see if she can pull it off in the next film. She's got some pretty solid acting skills but I never pictured her in a sci-fi film. We'll see...
Ahah, totally brought Doom to my memory too.
But I liked that!
I do, the extended cut is almost great.
share