MovieChat Forums > Dune: Part One (2021) Discussion > Some disappointing elements compared to ...

Some disappointing elements compared to Lynch's Dune.

posted 3 years ago by LetoAtreides (576)
11 replies | jump to latest

I'm a long time Dune fan, but I also try to put myself in the shoes of someone getting introduced to this universe for the first time.

I liked the movie but It was a bit bland and shallow.

You would think that by aiming for a two parts 5 hours movie, Villeneuve would have been able to show and explain way more than the 1984 movie. How is it that after 2:20 hours we've seen less and know fewer things than in Lynch's version by the time Paul and and Lady Jessica join the Fremen?

The pivotal dinner party, a glaring omission in 1984 Dune, is still not included.

The Harkonnens have way too little screen time and their cruelty is barely on display. The Baron has what? 3 scenes? Feyd is not shown or mentioned. Piter De Vries might well have been a unnamed extra. In fact, mentats are not explained at all and even Thufir disappears after the first hour.

Spacefolding is not shown either.

The music was forgettable. We are miles behind the outstanding 1984's theme.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

Nice to see a Dune fan who feels, generally speaking, how I felt about the film. Bland and shallow was the impression I got from it too. I don't know much about Dune's lore, but I agree that we learned very little about the Fremen. From my perspective as a Dune ignoramus they just seemed like generic indigenous people. And yeah, very little Baron Harkonnen. When I read that Stellan Skarsgard was playing an obese mutant villain I was excited to see what kind of evil shit he would do. He didn't really do much but speak exposition tho. And Batista had even less to do

And yeah, the score was totally forgettable. This was one of the few decent Fantasy adaptations that Hollywood has made since the LotR trilogy, but the score of that trilogy was so beautiful and epic and this completely failed to even come close to that

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i enjoyed the movie a lot, but i have to admit that, coming in as someone who's never read the books & never seen lynch's version (the only lynch i have yet to see) i didn't really understand a lot of stuff. i didn't really follow why anyone wanted spice, why oscar isaac was attacked, who the people were that attacked them.

but i was happy to put all that aside and just ogle the film. it looked fantastic. i guess i'd call it an empty experience, in that i definitely never latched onto any characters or had any kind of emotional involvement or anything.

but i loved looking at it. will probably go again next week.

[–] damocci (1516) 3 years ago

That's the impression I got. I read the book for the first time last month to try understand why it is so hyped, and while watching the movie I was surprised to see that they didn't didn't even explain that spice causes people's eyes to turn that unnatural blue color. They didn't explain why spice is so valuable either, or that the giant sandworms create it, either. It's a great movie but it must have been a bit confusing for anyone who hasn't read the book, and I feel at least emphasizing what spice is and why it's so valuable would have enhanced the movie experience. Not sure why they chose to leave out something so fundamentally important.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

didn't even explain that spice causes people's eyes to turn that unnatural blue color

Yeah they didn't explain why, but they did mention it. I think in this case it's sufficient. No need to explain the actual cause of why it is so.

[–] damocci (1516) 3 years ago

They mentioned it? I must have missed that part.

[–] LetoAtreides (576) 3 years ago

The mentioned it was necessary for space travel, but someone could easily miss it.

The 1984 movie did a much better job as everybody is constantly talking about the spice.

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 3 years ago

I loved Take My Hand from the original soundtrack. I have it and Toto did a great job on it.

[–] TheMouseShadow (418) 3 years ago

I agree that the dinner party really showed a lot of the political dynamic but could’ve been so hard to film and make interesting for the casual observer.

[–] LetoAtreides (576) 3 years ago

There are many ways they could have filmed it. You can have somebody explaining to Paul (the audience) who is who around the table and go from there. Or have a prior scene where Jessica tells the Duke she knows there's a spy and then make the scene focus mostly on Jessica watching the guests.

Somebody above didn't even know why Leto was attacked so more exposition was obviously needed.

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 3 years ago

I'm a fan of the 1984 version having watched it over a dozen times, an I have to admit I like the new version better.

1) Special effects far superior.

2) The use of hand signals was a nice touch.

3) The Harkonnes attitude is better, serious psycopathy is more interesting than manicial laughter.

4) The fight scenes are superior.

5) The use of a Asian actor for betrayer refreshingly unPC and politically relevant.

I do agree with you that the Harkonnes didn't get enough screen time, maybe more in the second half.

[–] avigalidou (618) 3 years ago

Dude Dune 2021 sucks only masochistic edgelords liked it.Dune 1984 is way better