4 ms·
As someone that works in, and enjoys the visual arts field, I think they both have their place. Lynch's Dune is the one I would watch on a random weekday night
by genocidicbunny 3y ago
As someone that works in, and enjoys the visual arts field, I think they both have their place. Lynch's Dune is the one I would watch on a random weekday night -- there's a warmth to it that the new one lacks. As you said, there's something sterile about the new one (though maybe it's just the lack of film grain...)
But Villeneuve's is the version I would pay to see in 70mm IMAX. It is a feast for the eyes, and not every movie has to be something deeper.
- galangalalgol 3y agoWhat are your thoughts on the sci-fi miniseries?
- genocidicbunny 3y agoTo me, they're in an odd balance between Lynch's version, and the Villeneuve version. The visuals were much better, but because it was broadcast, were mostly experienced on TV's that couldn't do them justice -- but at the same time, they also weren't good enough for cinema anymore. And in a similar vein, unlike the Lynch version, they followed the books much more closely, which to me made them lose some of that warm fuzziness charm. I also can't say that the acting was particularly memorable to me, which is to say that nothing stood out as so bad as to be memorable, but I can also barely remember who was in it. And as far as the sequel, Children of Dune goes, that year BSG blew it out of the water for me.
- brnt 3y agoNot movie, but if there ever was one that should, it's Dune. It's about us.