If you want some quality Sci-Fi, GO SEE THIS MOVIE!

If you can swing IMAX, do that. But see it. If you're a fan of the book, you'll really appreciate the attention to detail that the filmmakers put into this work.

Just amazing.

I came out of it thinking I'd sort of seen it before with the David Lynch version.

Back then, they had to cram it into a single movie, and there's a lot of cramming in the last section.

More space here. But for all that there was a big subplot that felt surprisingly rushed.

Differences between the two versions, but both have their strengths. Book purists and click bait sites can find differences from the source to point out for both too.

I caught an interview with the director the day before I saw this. The word silly was used to describe some of lynch's touches. Having seen this, that's more than unkind. I didn't come out of this version wondering how none of it had shown up in the last version. Or feeling that Lynch had gone off on wild tangents.

The story and this take on it are more than strong enough for it to be pennies decently spent.

I actually enjoy both for what they are. The 84 version had its own charm, that I still enjoy to this day, even though at the time I walked out of the theater trying to make sense of some things as a massive fan of the book (I also remember vividly the glossary handouts that they gave to the audience as we walked in so that you knew what people were talking about). This movie was also my introduction to David Lynch, which then led me to be a massive Twin Peaks fan, but that's a whole other thing.

Its unfortunate that Villanueve used that word to describe the earlier work; I haven't seen the interview you are referring to, so I'll take your word for it. Its a massively difficult story to make in the first place, even more so to jam it all into a single film, so some of the touched Lynch did make sense in that way.

I did appreciate in the new version how the script built the world to the audience out of the narrative, then ran loose in that world, but I think that is a factor of breaking this into two parts, so you have the time and space to do that.

One other thing that I did appreciate about this version versus the Lynch version was the depiction of the travel between worlds. The book barely talks about the process of interstellar space travel; it just happens, and you need spice to do it. The Villanueve movie basically does the same. Lynch's film makes a whole sequence of introducing the navigator, then spends a decent amount of time on a sequence showing the navigator do his thing. I'm not sure any of that is needed for the story, but then again, Lynch has a predilection for the odd in his films, and he may have wanted to stay on that theme with the navigator.

And part 2 is greenlit!

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/dune-part-2-sequel-1235094974/

Not following the industry news, I thought they'd have been filming them right after each other.

I've only ever experienced Dune via the Lynch movie, and then only as a teenager. It was a bit too weird for me at the time. I'm definitely curious about this version.

I'm curious, though....I've been under the impression that the 2000 miniseries (and its sequel) aired by Syfy were superior, definitive versions of Herbert's work, at least compared to Lynch. Long before this current movie came out or was even announced, I made a mental note to try to see those miniseries at some point but have never had the opportunity. Anyone seen those and have an opinion either in and of itself or in comparison to the new one?

It's been a while since I watched those minis (In fact, I don't think I've seen them since the second miniseries aired), but I did enjoy them a great deal at the time, as I remember. I felt like someone (in this case John Harrison) had finally done the book justice, and I was ok with the changes that they made, especially in the adaptation of Dune: Messiah and Children of Dune, as it made sense for TV purposes.

But the Villanueve adaptation captures most of the elements from the book that I've seen. But what's best is that a sense of mounting tension is very well textured in over the course of the film, and its something that didn't seem to be done as well in the mini from 20 years ago. I find the new film to be very haunting.

So the old mini is probably worth a watch, although I would probably want to wait until part 2's release for a true comparison.


Legendary films, for whatever reason, opted only to do one at a time. Oddly enough, it kind of works out, as the second part of the book takes place three years after the first.

I saw it yesterday and enjoyed it very much.

I had attempted to read the book several times and was unable to penetrate it. I finally listened to it on audiobook and loved it. I have listened to it twice over the last year or so.

Until then, my only frame of reference was the Lynch film, which was, when I saw it many years ago, was good, but felt rushed. I did not see the miniseries.

This new film is beautifully made, acted, and told. I want the sequel now!

I said the exact same thing to my daughter when the credits started to roll!

I put on the 1980s version at the weekend. I have to say I prefer that version of it. With the caveat that I should proably prefer the upcoming second part of the latest version. The 1980s film really does go through a manic checklist to get to some sort of ending. Things are so rushed, there's not even time for a proper montage. The extra running time of the film to come should give it all some extra depth and space to breathe.

I actually do like the Lynch version, despite its flaws - mainly the introduction of the whole "weirding module" and all that - as it does present the whole package of the story at once.

There is (and they may still air it occasionally) an "extended edition" that Lynch disavows (it is credited to the "Alan Smithee" no-name) that runs even longer. If you liked the Lynch version you might like the extended version as well. There is a lot more generic narration as part of it - for example the Virginia Madsen Irulan intro is gone, replaced by an odd montage explaining the background with production art.

Interestingly, to this day, Lynch will barely speak of the movie.

I don't think I've seen the extended version, so thanks for that GL. I hope all the extended bits are in that last half hour though.

I think the Weirding modules were a short hand way of getting the voice to become a combat weapon for special effect laden battle scenes, while also having the religious parallels of the power of the word of what is basically a messiah (his name is a killing word). It sort of works on a few levels, so I didn't mind it.

Lynch probably doesn;t mention it as even mentioning shatters the glass in buildings for a block or summons sand worms.

You might be able to find it on the air on various networks - stations may have bought up some showings of it to cash in on the new movie coming out, but it will likely be on late night airings if at all!

I just popped into ebay and have put in a bid for 1 of them. There was a strange, regular thumping noise when I confirmed my bid, but I'm sure it's nothing.

Bid without rhythm, my friend

Just tagging on to the thread here as I've found that the Villaneueve version of Dune has turned into a "stop and watch" movie if I see it on HBO. I just love the imagery. AND the Hans Zimmer score.

Not thinking of Dune here particularly, but I find that the when I go to see a sci fi movie I'll always come away at least admiring the visuals and the score. The plotting, dialogue and acting on the other hand...

I think it depends for me, but I get more impact from Sci-Fi movies for sure, especially around music, as a lot of modern composers (like Zimmer) will make interesting choices to reflect "alienness" in the music. And when it works it usually works WELL. I just finished listening to the Dune score and its fantastic.

The Marvel movies, by contrast, are pretty forgettable music-wise.