DUNE, then and now

[NotHardUp1]

OK, I did a search of this forum and found no thread already dedicated to this. The topic is discussion of the 1984 screen adapatation of Dune, and/or the two contemporary cinema releases of Dune and Dune Part Two.

This thread assumes the reader has seen the three films, so no "spoiler" disclaimers or warnings are necessary in individual posts.

The discussions may or may not include incidental references to other productions (e.g., the Sci-Fi Channel's miniseries in 2000), but the main intent is to discuss the reactions to and analyses of the cinema productions.

For my part, I'm not a fan of reading science fiction, but do enjoy cinema elements that derive from literary sources. The 1984 production, for all its controversy, creating a spectacle unlike anything achieving wide release in the U.S. It contained costumed and sets that contained the flavor of a Jules Verne illustration, but managed to avoid the comic effects of, say, the Flash Gordon sets.

Whereas Herbert devotees were beside themselves with grief at the omissions or inaccuracies to the Gospel, the audiences were nonetheless transported across the galaxies by the Third Stage Guildsmen, and immersed in the inter-clan struggles of a familiar but alien saga. Barely disguised lampoons of imperial American and European powers, of Islam, of geopolitics, were trotted out at engrossing entertainment, and they still are.

The 2021 and 2024 releases of the Villanueve renditions are predictably much more focused on the super-spectacular images demanded by the digital audiences of today. That said, the amount of time Part Two spends in uncomfortably magnified close-ups of the characters is a very effective artifice to force perspective back on the individual. If anyone left the theater now knowing EXACTLY how many blackheads, age spots, moles, and ingrown hairs the lead actors were sporting, then he is in denial.

All three films deserve their accolades. All three films deserve their perch in science fictiton legend and fame. All three films deserve to be viewed in a theater, uninterrupted and in large format.

Oh, and here are some obligatory clips:

 

[NotHardUp1]

A nice meme today riffing on the new Part 2.

 

[KaraBulut]

I'm not sure that each iteration is an improvement over the last.

My favorite:

 

[mark88]

only got 20 minutes in and had to turn it off

 

[cityboy-stl]

I watched the new one with Timothee on Netflix all the way to the end. I still didn't know what was going on.

 

[KaraBulut]

I watched the new one with Timothee on Netflix all the way to the end. I still didn't know what was going on.

You pretty much have to read the books. The books will make you appreciate Chalamet's performance even less.

 

[NotHardUp1]

only got 20 minutes in and had to turn it off

Explain what was the turn-off, please. Interested in what people like and dislike in cinema, even when it is at home on television.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I watched the new one with Timothee on Netflix all the way to the end. I still didn't know what was going on.

My boss went to the cinema to see it finally, and had to same reaction. In his case, his wife isn't exactly low maintenance and neither of them can silence their phones, so I'd lay a dollar to a dime that he was distracted. That said, he hadn't rewatched the first part and isn't literary minded. He didn't understand the story line at all.

 

[NotHardUp1]

You pretty much have to read the books. The books will make you appreciate Chalamet's performance even less.

That's an interesting spin on both the viewer's reaction and the imputed source of the "problem."

I've read a lot about Chalamet's portrayal, but don't credit it to him so much as the director. I feel the same way about how Kyle McLaughlin depicted Paul in the previous production. He and the vignettes we saw of him were but the choices the director made. It was also a bit unfair to the actors and the story that it was riven in half and the 2nd part dragged to the right by three years of waiting, breaking the story up in a way that the author did not and did not sanction.

I have to agree with you on your preference to the original in 1984, although I could not bear the television miniseries version. It felt so goddamned cheap and staged instead of "real" that it reminded me of some stale British sets with flat lighting and no attempt to transport the viewer to another world.

 

[KaraBulut]

...I've read a lot about Chalamet's portrayal, but don't credit it to him so much as the director. I feel the same way about how Kyle McLaughlin depicted Paul in the previous production. He and the vignettes we saw of him were but the choices the director made. It was also a bit unfair to the actors and the story that it was riven in half and the 2nd part dragged to the right by three years of waiting, breaking the story up in a way that the author did not and did not sanction.

I saw the 1984 version in the theater before I read the books. It may have been my total confusion about the spice and the navigator guild that prompted me to read the books. After reading the books, I watched the movie again and it made much more sense. It also made me appreciate the design work that went into the movie.

At the time, I thought Kyle MacLachlan was cast for his looks. MacLachlan was a young actor, fresh out of a university drama program, but he had enough theater training to make his portrayal of Paul believable. The problem with the 1984 Dune is that MacLachlan is a 23 year old actor working with Shakespearean actors who had been acting longer than he had been alive.

Chalamet and Zendaya are just in over their heads. Neither has the gravitas or training to carry the role. It's always a mistake when casting directors are more interested in "box office" than they are in whether the actor matches the character or more importantly, has the acting chops to carry a big role.

The new version has great design work. The set design and costume design is well done. The worms are very true to the books. I liked part 1 but probably because there's not much Paul and Chani in the movie.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Gads! I should have looked up MacLachlan's name before butchering it. Apologies.

I think the designs were incredible in the old production as well, even though it felt a bit too much 30,000 Leagues Under The Sea.

Also, I guess my initial memories are not clear from the theater in 1984, as I saw it many times after on VHS, but I originally had help in understanding from a co-worker who had read all the series.

To your point about gravitas, I think the current director overused extreme close-ups in an effort to add weight to the leads, which is so overdone that I can STILL see Chalamet's moles and pores in my memory.

 

[KaraBulut]

I think the designs were incredible in the old production as well, even though it felt a bit too much 30,000 Leagues Under The Sea.

In the theater, I didn't get the Lynch design ethos. When I read the book and got to the part about the Butlerian Jihad that led to the banning and replacement of computers, then it made sense for Lynch to have chose the Steampunk retro look to all things mechanical in the 1984 movie.

There was a behind the scenes featurette about Lynch's design for the 1984 movie that gave me a much better appreciation for things like the meeting between the Emperor and the representative from the Spacing Guild.

To your point about gravitas, I think the current director overused extreme close-ups in an effort to add weight to the leads, which is so overdone that I can STILL see Chalamet's moles and pores in my memory.

Jessica teaching Paul how to use "the voice" is a key part of the story, so having someone who has gravitas would make sense. I can't help but think of Chloe Fineman's imitation of Chalamet doing a role like Paul Atreides:

I like Timothy Chalamet overall but I just get the impression that someone in Hollywood is still "trying to make Timothy Chalamet happen".

 

[NotHardUp1]

I like Timothy Chalamet overall but I just get the impression that someone in Hollywood is still "trying to make Timothy Chalamet happen".

Yes, that does seem to be the case.

He and his mane are attractive, but not to the degree he is being marketed. The modeling contracts are definitely part of a big push.

However, I think he has the spark that will carry him through differernt roles and help him avoid typecasting, plus I think he will grow into his looks in the next two decades and play more mature roles well. For now, he is youth trapped in amber.

 

[unloadonme]

I've seen the original version two or three times and enjoyed it. I can't recall ever watching a remake of any film and thinking it was better than the original, so I've not bothered with either of the recent Dune films. There's nothing here which is even remotely encouraging in that respect.

 

[KaraBulut]

I've seen the original version two or three times and enjoyed it. I can't recall ever watching a remake of any film and thinking it was better than the original, so I've not bothered with either of the recent Dune films. There's nothing here which is even remotely encouraging in that respect.

The latest iteration is interesting to watch if you enjoy custom design or you like Charlotte Rampling. If neither, then you won't be missing much.