…and, um, wow. That was an abortion of a film. I can’t fathom how anyone who didn’t read the book could possibly figure out what was going on with the plot. There were a few reasonably competent actors in the movie and every one laid a giant steaming turd of a performance. Brad Dourif was especially notable in his terribleness. I understand that this is a Sci-Fi flick from the early 80’s but the special effects are an embarrassment.
Anyways, I realize I’m about 20 decades late on starting this thread, but the movie was so startlingly bad that I just had to comment on it. You folks were the only ones up at this hour so you get to hear it.
I’ve heard that the SciFi Channel’s version is even worse, but I’ve never watched it, so I’ve no idea if that’s accurate or not. People I know who’ve seen it all say that it makes the David Lynch version look good by comparison.
Wait, did you see the one with Sting in it? Because that one was quite amusing just for that realization that Sting was in it in like a loincloth.
I saw both of the movies, and having never read the books, I found it tolerable. It was good cheesy Sci-fi fun. I mean, it wasn’t anywhere on my list of good or great movies, but I felt it was worth the rental.
But as for the plot- i just tried to let the film lead me to its conclusion, and that’s it. Even on watching the second movie, I knew what was going to happen, but i didn’t mind the journey that it took. But I guess YMMV.
I don’t think that’s true. The sci fi version is a little on the plodding side, but it’s very loyal to the book. I’d say it’s a better job all around.
The sonic weapons from the Lynch movie upset me to no end. Would American audiences really be unable to imagine that the emperor wanted to kill off a noble with a huge army and strong political influence? Why come up with bullshit magic blaster pistols and add them to the plot for shits and giggles?
Lynch’s movie had an awesome look for the most part, I’ll admit.
Yup, that’s the one. Sting’s unintentional comedy was one of the few high points!
I just can’t get my mind around how you could have followed the film now knowing the book. The entire scene where the Fremen confront Paul and Jessica on the rocks is glossed over in like 8 seconds and it’s one of the key plot points in the book. They barely explain why the hell Yeuh was motivated to betray the Atreides and why he was so trusted. The concept of Mentats was barely explained, though that concept was pretty poorly handled in the books too. The way that they turned Paul into an instant hero was just a head scratcher.
I did, and I watched it first when I was 12 or something.
Adding the pulse gun things makes sense from a film-maker’s standpoint. You can either hire a few hundred thousand extras to portray the massive armies of the Fremen people and go into depth on the various tactics employed to win, or give them some sort of special power that will let them win a fight against the emperor of the known universe. The latter is a lot cheaper and allows you to cut to the win and still explains why they were able to succeed.
I liked the 80s movie. Though I never read the book so that might be why I can appreciate the movie. For the time I don’t think the special effects were all that bad and whoever played the emperor’s daughter was a real hottie.
But I think that’s what made it easier to watch the 2nd one. As the first film i saw (I think it was the sting one) really went by quickly, so watching the 2nd one kinda filled in the details.
So watching the second one became sort of the “expanded” version of watching the first film, ya know?
I liked the 80s version as camp. Everything about it was completely over the top and, since the books themselves are completely over the top, the style fit well IMHO.
I also liked the Sci Fi version, but admittedly a large portion of my enjoyment was the man-candy playing several of the leads.
That was the way Pepper Mill felt about it. She didn’t figure out what wa going on until she tread the book. I think that Lynch wanted to make it longer, but the powers that be wouldn’t stand for it. George Lucas could get away with a two-part sci-fi epic (Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi), but nobody else got away with that sort of thing until Lord of he Rings.
2.) Despite this, I rather liked Dune. It showed a future with neither the sterile white appearance of early SF nor the Lived-in cruddiness of Star Wars. Its style of Imperial splendor not obviously derivced from something else has been much copied (especially with Lucas’ last three Star Wars movies), but was original then.
3.) I didn’t like the way they made the Harkonennens over-the-top crazies, and gave the Baron a case of terminal acne. It’s hard to take someone seriously as a threat if they’re that overblown. And they didn’t have to be that ostentatiously redheaded.
4.) And they didn’t have to give the mentats Andy Rooneey eyebrows, either. The sapphoo stains would’ve been enough.
5.)“Weirding Modules”? Gimme a break!
6.) That said, a lot of the stuff they did was well done. The scenes on Caladan, the force fields, the Guild Steersmen, the use of John Schoenherr’s Sandwom designs (and the elephant’s trunk mottling), the overall look. A lot of the effects complained about are simply the limitations of 1980s effects technology. Overall, I think the look better than the SciFi TV version.
I *love *the Lynch movie. I saw it first when I was a kid, before I read the book, so that might account for my affection, but it holds up well for me. It has a look and feel that I really like and a handful of actors I enjoy watching, like Brad Dourif, Sian Phillips, and Patrick Stewart. I can’t watch Linda Hunt in anything else without expecting her to hiss at people, “I am the Shadout Mapes. The housekeeper.”
I’ve always liked the Lynch version a lot. In fact, it’s one of my favorite SciFi movies. I found the book turgid, labored, and verging on unreadable (the sequels are unreadable). But the movie flows along nicely. Also, the Alan Smithee version is readily obtainable, and it’s interesting how Lynch managed to patch that debacle up. True, a few of the performances suck (although I don’t think Brad Dourif’s is one of them), and the script can be a bit hokey. Well, the same is true of Star Wars.
According ro IMDB, Peter Berg is the director. I haven’t seen anything he’s done, can anybody comment on his body of directorial work? Also, he seems to have a whole lot of acting credits, that’s a little odd for a director, isn’t it?
That’s a great way of putting it. Love the film, its look, Kyle M’s performance, it’s an epic celebration of the book. Still, wouldn’t disagree with the OP that it’s a bit of an abortion of a movie. It is absolutely all over the place.
I thought the SF version was quite derivative of the film in some ways, like they had cribbed off it intently, trying to flesh out the bits that didn’t work. I mean obviously it’s using the same source material, but I was disappointed with it.
You see I found it to be completely contrary - I watched the film when I was about 13 and then read the book when I was 16 and thought the book far superior. I also immediately felt quite aggrieved at Lynch for making the film so cruddy.
Saying that I agree a sci-fi TV telling of the story with the 1980s film aesthetic would be the best of both worlds.
