Most Frank Herbert readers consider the first Dune book to be by far the best one, and Villeneuve's 5+ hour adaptation into two films will unquestionably be considered definitive for a long time. There will be always be those who will complain that the screenplay excluded certain aspects/characters/storylines, while others will make much of the changes that were made. Still, this rendering is just so well done that I'm sure the overwhelming majority of those familiar with the book will be able to overlook any imperfections and appreciate the immense amount of work that was done to put this epic back into the public consciousness.

Setting aside the endless quibbling over casting (which I thought was above average), the absolute best thing about these movies is how smoothly and logically the story (which in the book is very dense and almost over-written) unfolds. I'll admit it's been decades since I've read the first book, but while watching these I was able to understand what was going on and remember the character inter-relationships without any problems. Unlike the Marvel/DC movies, these films always take themselves seriously, almost to the point of austerity. The beautiful visuals and world-building are truly awe-inspiring without being too CGI-overloaded, and Hans Zimmer's otherworldly scores are just the cherry on top.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on these two films, positive or negative?

Of the novels, my favourite is God Emperor, number four in the sequence, a work of tortured genius and, I suspect, virtually impossible to film.

Saw the first film, but could never get a review done, and the only thing I did not care much about was the cave-in to some bits and pieces of the time and place, which I did not want to see done differently than the book! 

I have not decided to see the second film ... can't afford to go to the movie houses these days ... gosh, a small bucket of popcorn for $10 bux? Does anyone have a pocket pop'r so I can bring my own popcorn for $1.29?

Saw the first but not the second.

I originally saw the 1984 movie before ever reading the book so that became my first impression. I've also always been acutely aware of the limitations of books to movies and keep that firmly in mind when watching. By today's standards, the David Lynch version might seem campy or hokey. But back then, on the big screen, and with the talent of actors, it was great.

So that's my context.

Now, I remember feeling like Chalamet's character didn't have the same arrogance that MacLachlan's did, and I felt that as a young ('prince?'), Paul should have a bit more of that given the importance of his family and his desire to please his father. Current movie technology has elevated the perception of Arrakis to an impressive sight. I'm looking forward to the worms and battles.

Maybe I'll re-watch Pt 1 this aft.

Logan encapsulated my feelings exactly.  Originally, many theaters handed out a Xeroxed program to help the theatergoers familiarize themselves with brief descriptions of the characters.

Hi,

The only thing that was 5h!t in the 80's, was a lot of American film, since the film companies maintained their control, despite Robert Altman fooling them, and the record companies had just bought all the FM stations, and took the "new music" out of the listening ears around the country.

But, by that time, a lot of college stations and other non-affiliated stations managed to push through and the music never died ... it continued and then was picked up by the Internet full force as soon as 1990's hit.

The issue, we do not realize, is that the same companies that own the studios were the same companies that bought out all the radio stations, with different names of course so you wouldn't know the difference ... but someone had the money to spend!

The hardest part, in AMERICA, is the expense, and how many, or how much, is needed to make a film. The same film made in Spain or France would cost, maybe 20%, or 30% of the total cost, and have far more "freedom" of interpretation than in America where respect for literature and the arts is not a favorite thing of these big companies ... they were the same folks that voted out all the money that went to PBS for broadcasting too much material that was "too left sided" to make the government look bad ... and when a big time LA newspaper even stated that I, Claudius was the perfect example by making government look petty and crazy, then it became open hunting season ... right away, stations like KMET got taken down over night and replaced by washing machine music called  new something or other ... and did anyone get mad? NOPE. It was ignored.

Jodorowsky's idea would have made ... probably a bigger mess than what ended up being done ... don't forget that his theater group was banned in Mexico City because it was wide open experimental theater and some players were even having sex. He even explains a scene in El Topo that would have made the making of this film a serious issue for American money controlling the investment. Not to mention that Jodorowsky's style of improvisation and free form, would have given us a mixed bag of things that would be really hard for us to discuss, specially if we knew the books well. It would have looked worse than Antonioni's film (which he "disowned") because of American money intervention, to insist on a "story", instead of an "event" which was Antonioni's style. And the "story" created so much garbage that made the "hippies" look even worse, and it was a perfect example of media manipulation of an audience that hated them hippies along with a lot of American media, that still thought that the pink paper background was the real image they wanted to see, not their sons and daughters. DUNE, in Jodorowsky's hands would be something that we don't want to handle, and the film would have more background material from the novel to help get the story out about each character. But Hollywood, always thought a whole hour of film could be taken out with one LINE in the film! And we still think that way!

JD wrote: ... I honestly wonder how Alejandro Jodorowsky's Dune would have been received at the time, as grandiose as it's plan was.  ... But if you haven't seen the Documentary, get it and watch it...with a critical eye. Somehow I feel his eyes were bigger than his stomach.  ...

My bigger concern about this is how he would have been disciplined and affected by the studio mannequins running around getting upset about each and every line, and too much breast showing ... right there ... something that Jodorowsky probably would not have given a damn about. And it would have made sense, unless you were using some of those colored glasses sold in some churches to support the graven image! 

I tell you who I think would be interesting ... Terry Gilliam, and make more than half this film a "cartoon" for most images so we can get the worms and the desert image as the dream images they are meant to be ... the spice is INSIDE US, not on a distant planet ready for farming. Another director that might be interesting would be Lars Von Trier, but what he would do with it, might be such a color mess up and mesh that we would never enjoy sitting through it ... 

It's precisely the popcorn eaters (or other noise-makers) that keep me out of cinemas. Why spend that amount of money and then be constantly annoyed? Plus the sound is much better at home anyway. 

80's was great decade for sci-fi

Blade Runner

Alien2

Total Recall

Robocop

John Carpenter's The Thing

The Abyss (think that one just snuck in)

The Terminator

A lot of this was pre CGI as well so it wasn't easy makimng some of these films, the trials and tribulations that were put in the documentaries were often better than the films themselves admittedly!

I actually liked Lynch's version....yes it was campy at times but it was entertaining and strange.

I had a slighly odd experience of going to see Outland at a cinema in Newport, South Wales. I had a day to kill before college started so purchased a ticket for an afternoon sitting. It turned out I was the only person in there! Enjoyed the film and felt obliged to buy an ice cream off the lady who came out especially for me (this was before multiplex cinemas became a thing in the UK, they were still very old fashioned traditional cinema houses even in the early 80's)

I generally disliked the 80's for many reasons but occasionally something interesting happened out of almost nowhere. For instance the TV series A Very Peculiar Practice seemed to capture the zeitgeist of the time. The UK was decaying and in turmoil as we moved further into Thatchers divided Britain. The popular MTV driven and plastic produced music was well out of line with the reality of life as far as I was concerned. I liked Suzanne Vega and Kate Bush but most well known bands just sucked balls! The fact that U2 became so popular in that decade is enough of an inditement of it's music as anything. OK the likes of Tears For Fears and China Crisis were good and a few other arty pop bands were fine but pop music was just not my thing. Roll on the 90's!!

Hi,

I don't think there is a single film that is so tight and clean to the book, that stands out ... I think it is nearly impossible, since many books include internal parts from the character's mind/ideas which are always difficult to insert in the film, and have to be added via some dialogue, which tends to distort some of the continuity that the book has.

This is the hardest part of all films ... dealing with the "internal" ... and being able to make it work. There were/are some directors that were good at it (Bunuel is probably still the best at it!), but all in all it is like a screenplay writing professor once told me ... you can't jerk people's minds around like that! ... which is what happens in so many films with their continuity hurt.

As a fan of the novels (Only the first 4 books up to the God-Emperor of Dune), I don't understand why:

Liet Kynes has become a woman

The Na-Baron Vladimir Harkonnen ends in a very different way (I don't want to spoiler, even the obvious)

The character of Alia is almost cancelled. In case Villeneuve decides to proceed with the Saga, this change makes it impossible without modifying completely the plot of the second book.

Some changes to the book make no sense at all. They subtract instead of adding.

Then, as Moskhito says, the books are full of thougths and reasonings of the various characters. I don't know how they can be transposed into a movie.

Thumb up for the effects, thumb down for the plot

Much better than the previous version with Paul McLachlan, anyway.

I haven't heard for sure, but I would bet anything that Liet Kynes became a woman simply because someone at the studio thought the book was too "male-centered" and wanted more roles for females.

Some (but certainly not all) fans of the book have often complained that Vlad's death in the book is anti-climactic, even embarrassing. This change was an obvious concession to what moviegoers expect.

You're correct about the change regarding Alia. The problem is the action of this film series is condensed down to 4-5 months, instead of 4-5 years, like the book.

It should also be said that there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of the Spacing Guild in this series.