
On David Lynch's 'Dune' - prismatic
http://www.avclub.com/article/dune-cant-capture-novels-incalculable-brilliance-233858
======
kerr23
Lynch's Dune is one of my all time favourite movies. I watched it a lot
growing up and it didn't make a lick of sense to me, but I still loved the
world it created. Later on I saw the extended edition (on laser disk baby!)
and it became a lot more clear. And then finally I read the book and it all
made sense to me.

Yes the SyFy Mini-Series is more true to the book, but their pronunciations
make it unbearable to watch for me. "Hark-e-nin" vs "Har-ko-nin" drives me up
the wall.

Another thing I love about it is how surreal Lynch creates the future. To me
it's one of the most immersive sci-fi movies that really takes you out of this
reality and into it's own and it does it with minimal flash and special
effects.

The Guild navigators are gross and amazing. The Lynch Baron Harkonin is
possibly my favourite Sci-fi villain of all time.

~~~
dicroce
Mostly agree... I have always loved the look of Lynch's Dune... I want the
look of Lynch's Dune with the story telling of the mini series... :)

------
dcip6s
Any fans of Dune should check out the exceptionally good documentary about the
aborted film version by surrealist film maker Alejandro Jodorowsky.

The vision he had for his film far outstripps anything seen in the Lynch film
or TV show.

Trailer here: [http://youtu.be/GOaGoFqTWtw](http://youtu.be/GOaGoFqTWtw)

~~~
aduric
It would have been amazing if Jodorowsky's Dune actually got made and
released. He really was too far ahead of his time for the studio.

I feel that in order to make a roughly 2-hour long film on as complex a
subject as what the novel portrays, the only way to illustrate that complexity
properly is to ascribe to surrealist elements. That is the only form that can
provide the necessary density, if done properly. Lynch knew this, which is why
he took on the project, but was later pressured by the studio and his vision
was lost. He did a pretty admirable job considering.

Lynch's pedigree speaks for itself:

Blue Velvet:
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090756/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_23](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090756/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_23)
Lost Highway:
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116922/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_16](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116922/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_16)
Mulholland Drive:
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_14](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_14)
Twin Peaks... etc...

------
song
I read the book before the movie, yet I still liked the movie. It's not a pure
adaptation by any means but it has style, it's not really good but it's
glorious. It's a mess but there's imagination and it took guts to make this
movie. And I love the guild navigators!

By contrast the Scyfy mini-serie is closer to the book but is boring in that
it doesn't bring anything compared to the book.

Granted last time I saw the Lynch movie was 20 years ago about but I'll watch
it again this month :-)

Another completely different take on Dune that used scenes from the movie and
was really great even though it was very loosely based on the book was the
game from Cryo. If you have a chance to play it, do it. It's a very weird and
interesting mix of adventure and strategy.

It's actually kind of amazing how much inspiration this book gave to multiple
innovative projects from the Lynch movie, the Jodorowsky movie (I wish I could
go to a parallel universe where this movie got made...), the first real RTS
Dune 2, the weird and imaginative Dune game from Cryo...

~~~
Sainth
The Dune game from Cryo is one of my favorite games of all time. It has
cartoony graphics and solid controls so it is still a very playable game and
the combination of adventure and strategy is really well done. Would love to
see more games combining adventure and strategy like that. Though I am afraid
as a genre it doesn't cater to a very wide audience.

------
LandoCalrissian
I actually like Lynch's Dune. There are dozens of us, dozens!

~~~
david-given
Oh, I love it. Not because it's good, it's not, it's an incoherent mess; but
it's a _great_ incoherent mess. By which I mean that it tries so hard and
fails so badly I end up somehow seeing through it to the vision of the film
Lynch was trying to make, which is a masterpiece. It's fascinating.

And there _are_ moments of brilliance to it. The Guild Navigators! The
Emperor's Court! The spacecraft design! I even love the poorly matted and
ludicrously scaled sandworms, which convey a sense of grandeur that modern
films somehow have trouble with. Oh, and Toto's soundtrack is great.

Ah, here we go.

David Lynch's sandworm ride:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld2DMsyy0go](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld2DMsyy0go)

Scifi channel's sandworm ride:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVqXE9ZY5wk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVqXE9ZY5wk)

Which of those is more fun?

I'd rather have a glorious failure like _Dune_ over the polished insult that
was _Avatar_ _any_ day.

Next I will explain why _Van Helsing_ is one of my favourite films...

~~~
secabeen
For me, the Lynch one is better because it was clearly filmed in a desert. The
SciFi one is just too obviously a soundstage.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
It was the CGI equivalent of matting for nearly the whole movie. Sill a very
nice looking but unnatural film. Which seems appropriate.

I think Lynch's characterizations were superior. But the SciFi one was long
enough to do a better turn to the book.

------
telesilla
A related epic failure, that gave so much to film even though it was never
made:

Jodorowsky's Dune

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg4OCeSTL08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg4OCeSTL08)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky's_Dune](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky's_Dune)

They discuss Lynch's version in the film. Highly recommended viewing for all
sci-fi enthusiasts.

------
venomsnake
Dune needs/needed the Game of Thrones treatment. Full seasons to develop the
story and characters.

The film was interesting mess. It was very beautiful visually. It was also
very stupid - both Harkonen and the Aes Sed .. I mean Ben Gesserit were just a
pale shadow of themselves without the depth in the book. And we had naked
Sting in thongs which is something that the Geneva Convention strictly forbids
to be unleashed on civilians.

~~~
thebooktocome
Robert Jordan wrote the Wheel of Time long after Dune.

------
jwiley
Frank Herbert seemed to like it...

[http://io9.gizmodo.com/5458417/new-evidence-that-frank-
herbe...](http://io9.gizmodo.com/5458417/new-evidence-that-frank-herbert-
loved-david-lynchs-version-of-dune)

------
andrewstuart
The extended directors cut edition was much better.

I saw the film before reading the book and it inspired me to read the book.

I thought the movie whilst not perfect was very well done.

------
peterwwillis
Man, these book-movie comparisons always annoy the hell out of me.

If a painter paints a cliff-side seascape, and a dozen years later a sculptor
sculpts the painting as a bas-relief, you don't judge the sculptor because his
sculpture didn't measure up to the painting. He's not a painter. He didn't
paint a picture, he made a sculpture. It's the same subject, even the same
perspective, but they are two completely independent works of art made by two
separate artists. The fact that the cliff was in both works is inconsequential
because the works stand by themselves.

The same goes for novel-film "adaptations". It's a different work, produced by
a different artist, and involves a completely different process to accomplish.
They aren't _supposed_ to be the same. They _can 't_ be the same. If you like
the novel, enjoy the novel. If you like the movie, like the movie. If you
don't, that's fine too. But stop comparing them, please.

~~~
3minus1
It's an implied promise when someone announces they are adapting some beloved
work that there will be some level of faithfulness to the source material.
That is why many people pay to see it, and they have a right to be
disappointed when that promise is unfulfilled. No it is not required or even
possible for it to be 100% faithful, but it's ridiculous to say an adaptation
should not be compared to the original. "Don't act offended by this movie of
bacon cooking that is my adaptation of Casablanca. What did you expect it be
exactly the same?"

------
cowardlydragon
If only it had more sex in the novels, it is basically the next Game of
Thrones scale.

Maybe if they "fleshed" it out with more drama between the houses, and Dune's
portion only came as the later seasons.

Fleshing out the badassery of:

\- Bene Gesserits \- Sardaukar \- Navigators \- Spice use \- Mentats

The alien culture of Dune is kind of it's problem. GOT is basically just a
middle ages Europe riff, much easier to understand.

But Dune is still close since it's technology use limits makes it accessible
to our imagination. And the things that aren't can be teased out...

~~~
defen
It's amazing to me that Dune, in 412 pages, develops a more fully fleshed-out
universe than A Song of Ice and Fire does in 4,223 (so far).

------
brillenfux
It's too easy to criticize the film, but I wouldn't want to be in Lynch's
shoes. He was too inexperienced and the book is far too large and there were
many other constraints. All in all it must have been a terrible experience.

I however really like the art style. A weird mix of 19th century uniforms and
steam punk(?). Also: The navigator is the best navigator I've seen so far.

~~~
ihavedna
"To that point, one of the more prevalent criticisms, specifically from Roger
Ebert, was that the movie was ugly."

The movie is intensely influential on me, aesthetically.

------
anotherevan
I really disliked the that Dune miniseries[1]. There was some really awful
acting and very cheap looking sets throughout a lot of it.

I also thought they got the tone of Paul's character completely wrong. To me
he came across starting off as an arrogant thug whereas my perception of him
from the books was a very thoughtful and reserved young man. (Obviously
subjective viewpoint, but it put me off right from the start.)

OTOH, the audiobook produced by Audible I thought was very good. I've probably
read the book four or five times, the last time well over a decade ago. I
listened to the audiobook recently and really enjoyed it and reminded me how
much I liked the first book[2].

[1] Have not seen the Children of Dune miniseries.

[2] I'm in the "first book was good, the rest was crap" camp. I read through
'til about halfway through Heretics of Dune before asking myself why I was
still reading and stopped.

------
omarrr
I have to login and comment to express my disappointment with the bad reviews
this movie has always gotten.

Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 56%, which is really sad. Here are two of the
negative reviews.

Corliss:

    
    
       Most sci-fi movies offer escape, a holiday from homework, but Dune is as difficult as a final exam. You have to cram for it.
    

Ebert:

    
    
       This movie is a real mess, an incomprehensible, ugly, unstructured, pointless excursion into the murkier realms of one of the most confusing screenplays of all time.
    

This movie is Lynch interpretation of a very complex book and he did so while
still being faithful to its uniqueness. He gave us visual aesthetics that are
very different from our standard views of space travel (ie: arabesque
spaceships and gothic outfits) and didn't skip over the less popular concepts
of mind evolution present in the book

What can I say? This movie deserves more recognition than a 56% score.

------
roryrjb
I am a David Lynch fan, I loved Dune. I lent out my DVD copy to a few people
and everyone hated it. I've never read the book, I really should, considering
that when I do actually read (very occasionally), it is more than likely sci-
fi; and I've never seen any of the series' that were made. Basically I watched
Dune because I'm a David Lynch fan and all of my knowledge of Dune comes from
the film, so I guess it's not all that accurate? Anyway, I liked it because of
the atmosphere, and the story; it's certainly unique, but that's Lynch for
you.

------
dlandis
Alejandro Jodorowsky's version would have been incredible. There is a
documentary
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky%27s_Dune](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky%27s_Dune))
about it. Shows a lot of the concept art and describes the vision Jodorowsky
and the others had. I think he got salvador dali to agree to take part under
some outrageous terms.

------
jboydyhacker
The movie was good- for the time it was rare to see many decent SCIFI movies
made at all. There is no way they could capture the nuance of those books and
expecting that is a recipe for frustration.

That said, Scifi did an amazing job of the books and they are well worth
watching

------
jfaucett
these books are so incredible well written, but because of their style - very
inner thought and subtlety focused - I think any director would have a
difficult time realizing the intricacies and tense plots of the books.

But if captured in the tone of Frank Herberts novels, I think the series could
easily rival Game of Thrones, it certainly is epic enough. And that is
something I would love to see onscreen.

Oddly, I have the feeling these novels aren't that popular (compared to Lotr
or GoT or even some Philip K Dick), which is equally odd to me b/c they
certainly are just as incredible intricant, fascinating and innovative.

~~~
cgh
Dune is probably the bestselling science fiction novel ever. By 2000, it had
sold more than 12,000,000 copies[1]. It also won both the Hugo and Nebula
awards. It's true that it hasn't penetrated popular culture like Game of
Thrones but I think the reasons why are obvious.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/03/tv/cover-story-future-
myth...](http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/03/tv/cover-story-future-myths-adrift-
in-the-sands-of-time.html?src=pm)

------
transfire
One of the those movies that critics love to bash, but it's actually pretty
good -- if you don't judge it by the book. The book is in a whole different
stratosphere.

------
anotherevan
The David Lynch movie was both good and original. However the bits that were
good where not original, and the bits that were original were not good.

~~~
anotherevan
I'm referring primarily to the script. The set design was a very good 1984
interpretation of the feel for the book, I thought.

------
brightball
I really want somebody with a budget to take this on like LOTR.

------
Animats
Where did this come from? Is someone planning a remake?

~~~
Havoc
There was an attempt recently but it was aborted. The concept art looked a
touch dodgy too me (pink tiger strips on spaceships) so I'm kinda glad it
never became anything.

Wish someone would do a full scale remake though (LotR style big)

~~~
douche
The Sci-Fi channel (when it was still Sci-Fi...) did do a miniseries version
of Dune[1]. Some people apparently don't like it, and they did make it on a
relatively low budget, but I like it, and it feels more like what I imagined
reading the books than the David Lynch freakshow.

Seriously, "weirding modules"...?

[1]
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/)

~~~
thisone
agreed. I liked them as well. Though probably heresy, the Sci-Fi series of the
first two books were how I got into Dune.

I went on to read all the Frank Herbert written Dune books and I still like
the Sci-Fi series.

~~~
AdamJacobMuller
I also enjoyed the SciFi series. While it didn't posses the same level of
Artiness that the Lynch adaptation had, it definitely was a very beautiful
movie.

There was very little CGI in the movie. Seriously real sets and some
absolutely massive and impressive ones at that. All of the interiors of the
palaces on Arrakis? Wow.

The backdrops weren't CGI either, nor were they Matte paintings. They used
Translights
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translight)
which are basically gigantic sheets of plastic that hang behind the sets
meaning the actors actually got to stand on real sets and actually see the
world around them and I think it showed in the quality of the acting. Actors
don't act well when they aren't able to immerse themselves in the world they
are pretending to be in. Watch the LOTR making-of documentary where Andy
Serkis explains how he basically inserted himself into parts of filming that
Peter Jackson didn't think a Voice/Motion-Cap actor needed to be involved in
(not that Jackson objected, he embraced the ideas, but just didn't realize it
at first).

Speaking of the acting, I hear a lot of people complain about Alec Newman,
calling his character "wooden". Hard tasks need hard ways and hard ways need
hard people. I think he nailed it.

