David Lynch has died

Lynch's was still my favorite version of Dune despite flaws.

Yep, no contest. Compared to the sterile, boring, brooding Villeneuve version - a tone that worked well in Blade Runner 2049 however - it's so much more entertaining and interesting.

I liked the first one from Villeneuve because for the most part it stuck to the story but the second one veered off into its own story.

I know its nerdy but I absolutely hate when movies of classic books think the story needs to be changed (I'm looking at you, Peter Jackson).

I'm still reserving judgement.

In a vacuum I don't love the changes he made to Part 2 but I can also see how they will make it flow much better into Part 3 than Dune > Dune Messiah ever did (that always felt disjointed to me); as well as make that story more compelling.

I wish just for once these directors had simply made the movie of the book and damn the consequences of what Hollywood thinks audiences want. The movies that directors such as Peter Jackson make are brilliantly done - if only the story wasn't hacked. And that's not even addressing the worst of the travesties such as Radagast the Brown being covered in bird shit and the dwarves in The Hobbit being a bunch of circus clowns.

Just be sure to watch the longer, two-parts version; it's bewildering how much the ending was butchered, and changed, in the theatrical one

They re-released it in theaters when the new Dune came out. I was one of four people at my viewing!

I appreciated the change to make Chani fill a role like Sherif Ali in the film Lawrence Of Arabia (the book Seven Pillars of Wisdom, if not the film, is plainly a huge influence on Herbert's Dune, and it's probably impossible for a director to film so much as a scene set in the desert without thinking of Lean's film).

So much of Dune takes place inside people's heads that it's basically unfilmable if you don't make some changes. Plus, even with five hours of film, you're going to be cutting whole scenes from the book whether you want to or not. Lynch's solution was to make it a more straightforward hero's journey—and given the length of his film, and no expectation of sequels, I can't really blame him. Villeneuve had more space and so could tell a darker and more foreboding story, closer to the original, but still needed to externalize some of that internal struggle and foreshadowing, for which he used, especially, Chani.

[EDIT] Oh and as for this:

> I know its nerdy but I absolutely hate when movies of classic books think the story needs to be changed

Every now and then such a deviation ends up being excellent as its own way, while still benefitting from the connection to the original and being better as an "adaptation" than an independent property. Verhoeven's Starship Troopers would be one of the more extreme examples of this kind of outcome. A gentler one might be Kubrick's The Shining.

Its often not directors defining pacing and length of the result, but producer/studio. A lot of bitter conflicts came up from this.

What works in books often doesn't work on screen and vice versa. They are different media.

I thought I was the only one who preferred David Lynch's Dune. I'm glad to find out I'm not alone. I explain to people that it depends on if you're a bigger David Lynch fan or a Frank Herbert fan. I have nothing against Herbert, but I guess there's something about Lynch's work that speaks to me, even a movie like Dune that he himself hated.

I've tried to avoid spoilers below, but there are some minor ones for anyone reading who has never read Dune Messiah.

I've read Dune at least a dozen times and followed up with Dune Messiah a few times. Sometimes I get that feeling of disjointedness. At its most extreme, Paul feels like a total stranger. (Stilgar might as well be a different characters; we see a changed character, but not the change.) Sometimes it feels like the books flows nicely despite the time jump. My best guess is that it depends on what aspects I've been most focused on while reading.

I'm reserving judgment as well, but one part is really stuck in my craw. Although I felt like Villeneuve's Chani was generally stronger I felt the last scene made her look like a child and my first thought was that it was a weak attempt to set up a particular relationship for Part 3.

Lynch had the cojones to show a guild navigator

Good adaptation is inherently transformative, despite nerd disgruntlement.

Perhaps in a few years AI will have progressed to the point people can spin up their own literal version and see this for themselves.

Agreed. The difference between a book and a film is that they are completely different things. You can't just graft a story from one directly onto another and expect results.

It's not about what they "think audience want" it's about what film directors know works for visual storytelling as opposed to written storytelling.

I love Lynch and Dune, but his Dune was a cult film but not a good adaption. I mean the cat milking scene is absolutely a wtf.

Villeneuve version is the superior adaptation.

I really like the original Dune. While uncommon I think that hearing what people thought worked well. I also like the visuals, like the guild navigator or the disgusting baron.

That said I appreciate the new films too, in different ways. It looked amazing watching it in the IMAX theater, and I liked how the visions were presented. Not perfect films though, especially I think casting fewer big stars could have helped. I almost got distracted by the familiar faces.

This is the the most famous, if not the only instance of Lynch giving up control of the final edit. He seemed angry about the way it turned out.

That's why the director is listed as "Alan Smithee"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee

"Alan Smithee (also Allen Smithee) is an official pseudonym used by film directors who wish to disown a project."

> but I can also see how they will make it flow much better into Part 3 than Dune > Dune Messiah

Lynch could have made a Dune Messiah. Villeneuve is not able to express the mysticism.

> What works in books often doesn't work on screen and vice versa. They are different media.

Not really. The biggest issue is time. As far as i noticed, one needs 2 hours of movie for 100 pages of a book. Anything below this (fitting 400 pages in 2 hours) is art. That's why Lynch's version is better.

I am Herbert "fan". I think Lynch captured better the religious part, the mysticism of Dune. Without this, Dune is just another first person shooter.

Yeah. He seemed pretty torn up about it. I believe he said he “died a death” over it.

Here’s more into for anyone interested.

https://www.cinedump.com/reviews/2021/6/3/dune-alan-smithee-...

Exactly

For example, 2001 was a great movie but Clarke's worst book imo because he collaborated with Kubrick to write it for for big screen.