It seemed to me that the '86 version of Dune stayed much truer to the book than did 2000, but as I haven't really sat down and watched them both back to back. I'm not positive with this assumption, I believe I've only seen the 2000 version once and the '86 version three times. What does everyone else think? If you have an opinion on this, different or the same, please reply.
May 7th, 2006, 02:30 PM
Dune afficionados are just lucky to have two / three adaptions at all..
May 8th, 2006, 07:52 AM
I found the mini-series is a lot truer to the book than the film ('84). The mini-series gets a lot more the details right, and have a more acurate representation of most of the characters; it's especially obvious with Paul's character.
That said, I enjoyed the movie a lot more than mini-series. I can't stand cheesy TV special effects, which limited my enjoy of the series.
May 8th, 2006, 01:15 PM
I agree... David Lynch's adaption kind of seemed more like his own vision of it (Wierding modules....Geidi Prime being all industrial, heart plugs.. etc etc), rather than trying to do what Jackson did for Lord Of The Rings.
That said, though, I find Lynch's movie much more entertaning than the mini-series.
May 11th, 2006, 08:29 PM
I have seen Lynch's movie and is not that great in fact is sucks. The movie goes to fast and skip great details of the book. The mini-series is much better because it gives you the detail of the book and the flow of the book also. I don't know why people don't like the mini-series i thought it was great. :)
May 11th, 2006, 09:12 PM
The Lynch film is amazing, it's got Sting in it for one, plus Muad' Dib is a badass
" When Sting shows up and starts acting all weird and **** with his stupid-looking hairless cat, Muad'Dib has a hardcore Beat It-style knife fight with him in the Harkkonen throne room. Of course, Paul is awesome and knifes Sting to death." (http://www.amazingben.com/arf0092.html)
(sorry people, some very strong language, though it is funny)
May 11th, 2006, 11:05 PM
I have seen Lynch's movie and is not that great in fact is sucks. The movie goes to fast and skip great details of the book.
If that's the only reason you think it "sucks" then maybe you should try and enjoy it at the level of it being a David Lynch movie instead of a literal adaptation of Dune. I love Dune and Lynch's movie separately, but would never say to anyone that it was a spot on translation to film.
May 11th, 2006, 11:53 PM
Like Madonna, Sting can't act his way out of a bag.
Mr Sumner,like Ms Ciccioni , is too much of a narcissist to ever entertain the notion of being someone else, which is of course, what actors do.
What on earth would be the point of that? :rolleyes:
He's the number one worst thing about the movie.
May 12th, 2006, 07:25 AM
I can take or leave both. I enjoy the visual aesthetic (almost dreamlike) of Lynchís version, but there are several areas in which it falls down badly, IMO. Kyle MacLachlan strikes me as charisma-less. I doubt he could inspire sheep into a pen, much less an army of Fremen warriors to holy Jihad. In fact Iíd say there is some terrible casting all round Ė Stilgar, Duncan Idaho (what there is of him), Gurney, Thufir etc. Ė all jarring. Iím not sure whether it was the lines or the choice of actor but Aliaís delivery was cringeworthy.
I donít know about anyone else but I thought the sound was atrocious. Itís one thing to shoot a movie entirely on a sound stage Ė itís something else for the balsawood echoes of the soundstage to still be present in the cinematic release. I wasnít convinced by the appearance of some of the spacecraft, either. I appreciate that alien machines are likely to look alien but Iím sure functionality-before-aesthetic is a universal virtue.
It would be nice to see Lynchís preferred Ďcutí, if it exists.
As for the TV show Ė I think the F/X are quite good. They certainly didnít distract my attention at any point. As is the case with the cinematic version Iím not enamoured with the actors, who are passable (barely) rather than exceptional. I did like the expansion of Irulanís character, which was a clever method of providing much needed background information. Overall Iíd say the production standards are very high, for a TV show.
What I think neither version captures is the juvenile attraction. The novel functions first and foremost as a teenagerís rites-of-passage/escape fantasy. When I was fourteen I could see myself as a young Paul Atreides staring out across the barren desert from a rocky sietch. Both Kyle MacLachlan and Alec Newman look far too old for the role. Theyíre grown men. I doubt any fourteen-year can get excited by men pretending to be kids.
May 12th, 2006, 10:05 AM
In fact Iíd say there is some terrible casting all round Ė Stilgar, Duncan Idaho (what there is of him), Gurney, Thufir etc. Ė all jarring. Iím not sure whether it was the lines or the choice of actor but Aliaís delivery was cringeworthy.
It's hard to argue my point that the movie is worthy when I admit that it's VERY cheesy. It's mostly over-acted, with sketchy dialog at best (Sqeeeeze.. and squeeeeeezeeee... YES BARON! MUAHHAHAHHA!). The whispered voice-overs... (My son...... lives...). The fight scenes where the same group of soldiers keep running past the camera, first one way and then another.... :)
However, I guess my point is that I like it because it's David Lynch's vision of the film. It's exactly what I would expect from him. It would be like... what would you expect if Spielberg did Dune? Jackson? The Coen Bros?
The casting is with people who then became Lynch's regular staple. McLaughlin, Stockwell, McGill, Nance.. etc etc. It just adds to the "Lynch" feel of the movie. I agree though on Alia.... man she drives me up the wall in the movie.
Sting's inclusion was because it was 1984 and the Police were the hottest thing on the planet. He wasn't that great as Feyd, though. Played him TOO maniacal.
I like the movie for its bad points. I guess Iím just odd that way.