you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I mean, which version?

I almost think the early low budget adaptations are better because of how zany they get with the art and effects.

The Timothee Chalamet version is just another action movie. But Lynch gets wild with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    "Just another action movie" but the guy up the comment chain is literally dozing off. Part one actually has very little action in it, most of it is packed landscape shots, politics, and lore dumping. Which is very accurate to the source material. If you dislike Villeneuve's adaptation, I can only assume you did not love the Herbert books because he was incredibly faithful to the tone, especially for material that was thought to be impossible to adapt to the big screen.

    Lynch's stuff is simply not comparable because he said "fuck the source material" and just kinda did whatever came to him in some acid trip or other. Fine if that's your thing but that's not what Dune is - especially not the first few books.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    The Lynch version isn't low budget.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Any time you put electrical tape on a cat and use it as a prop, I reserve the right to describe the film as low budget

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment