Dune Extended or not?

For the film-the original. The long cut is just more bloated and dull- David Lynch himself disowned it and had his name removed It's now an Alan Smithee film. Although if you're a fan it's worth seeing just out of curiosity.

As a disk- I don't know firsthand but I'm guessing the new version is better- I think the original was non-anamorphic?? Not sure. And the new one has some other extras. Does it have both versions of the movie? If so get it. Otherwise don't watch the long cut until you've seen the original.

There is a great deal of magnificent material in the extended cut, but it was put together by a bunch of morons who had no clue about how to use music or pacing and they actually invented new scenes by rearranging material to make the story easier to follow, so the results are very poor. It's a crime that we will never get a proper extended cut, which is why I have started to work on my own bootleg version. But it's going to take a long long time to do because my time is limited.

Meanwhile, the film looks very very good on HD on HD-DVD.

The theatrical cut is David Lynch's one and only Director's Cut. The extended edition is a joke thrown together by incompetent morons. It contains some interesting footage, but is useful only as a curiosity.

The original DVD was non-anamorphic letterbox. The "Extended Edition" DVD contains both versions of the movie in anamorphic widescreen, but the video transfer is frikkin' awful. The only good looking edition of the film (in the US) is the HD DVD, which comes from an all new, beautiful remaster. For region-free viewers, the French "Ultimate Edition" PAL release is the best DVD version.

I have two versions of this film. One is an "original" VCD which is the theatrical release and the other is a Region 2 extended edition DVD which was aired on British television years ago.

This extended edition appears to have edited some scenes from the theatrical version(i.e. the Baron's scene with the flower watering Harkonen). I do not know if this is the same extended version that now appears on the Region 1 SE DVD. If so, than I would definitely say you should view the theatrical cut first.

Having said that, the extended version did have some merit. I particularly liked the added dialouge of Pitter Debreeze (please don't kill me on the spelling) and the additional scenes with the Fremin. Needless to say, the image quality for both my versions is mediocre and I might be tempted to buy the "Ultimate Edition" that Josh Z has kindly informed us about.

One last thing I'd like to say about this movie. I saw it in the movie theater in the eighties and I liked it a lot. As the years have gone on I've actually come to appreciate it more. This is one of those movies that receives a lot of bad ink and I can't understand what is so awful about it. The cast is first rate and the effects were more than respectable for 1984. I can only assume that this is one of those movies you either love or you hate, and the majority of people seem to hate it.

Ditto on all counts. I have both versions myself, as I like being able to watch the extended cut out of curiosity. But I would never show it to someone who hasn't seen the theatrical cut first...

Yes, it's the same version of the movie. The "Extended Edition" was created for TV syndication, so several bits like the Baron pulling out the flower boy's heart plug or spitting on Jessica's face were censored.

I realize wormraper's post is about the 1984 version, but I have never seen the Dune movie that came out in 2000 with William Hurt. I have always felt reluctant to watch it due to my strong feelings about David Lynch's epic.

Josh, I have no doubt you would be the one to ask this question to. Is the 2000 Sci-Fi Channel version any good? I am considering getting it as I don't feel I can consider myself a Dune fan if I don't check this movie out.

I sincerly doubt it is better than Lynch's version and I don't excpect you to say it is but, I would respect your opinion as a Dune enthusiast in telling me it's pros and/or cons.

Jeff

I thought it was horrid, personally. But keep in mind that I came to Dune first through Lynch's movie and then later to the book. I can't read the book without picturing Lynch's visuals and characters. So I'm probably not the most objective person to ask on this.

The miniseries eviscerates the entire first 1/3 of the novel, starting with the Atreides already en route to Arrakis. It misinterprets most of the characters, especially Paul, who's been turned into a petulant whiny little prick. It also adds a needless "Girl Power" storyline in which Princess Irulan takes a much more active role in the plot than Frank Herbert ever intended.

The miniseries production values are absurdly low-budget and cheesy. Every single character wears a silly hat. The pinnacle of this is when Feyd appears at the end to confront Paul with a big red triangle sticking up from behind his head for no reason. The CGI is terrible, and most of the movie consists of the actors standing around in front of fakey green-screen backdrops.

What I will give the miniseries is that the last act, which is where Lynch's film falls apart, is better fleshed out and more coherent. Nonetheless, I absolutely hated it.

Josh, thanks for the candid response. I too, came to know and appreciate the Dune universe through the eyes of Lynch's movie as well. It seems your experience with watching the mini series is exactly how I thought I would perceive it. I mean, who makes sets like that anymore? Can anybody give a better performance as the Baron than Kenneth McMillan?

In the little I have seen of the Sci-Fi channel version(10 minutes total) it seems to have a very slick appearance and the actors just don't have the pedigree of the original cast, with William Hurt the lone exception. This complete change of atmosphere is not good to me, and I'm sure not you, given most of the charm of Lynch's movie is it's atmosphere.

Thanks again for your response, and for reafirming what I already suspected. That the 2000 version isn't a pimple(or boil) on the great Baron Harkonen's ass.

I always thought that if the miniseries was done with the backdrops, casting, and costuming of Lynch's movie it would come close to the perfect Dune. The stupid wierding modules and poor editing of the movie ruined it.

Chris.

Me too.



True.
In the 1st novel she is only a footnote.
But her role increases considerably with Dune Messiah and Children of Dune.

She becomes a thorn but little more. Herbert spelled it out clearly in Dune the last paragraph of the book:

"Do you know so little of my son?" Jessica wispered. "See that princess standing there, so haughty and confident. They say she has pretensions of a literary nature. Let us hope she finds solace in such things; she'll have little else." A bitter laugh escaped Jessica.

Scott

Have you read DM and CoD?

All of them and more than once.

Yes, she had a role and even played a part in what went on in those books but, she was played for a dupe and ended up nothing more than Paul's chronicler. Her biggest contribution is the chapter headers culled from her writings. IMO.

I can see how others might see it differently.

Scott

Me too.


Yes, she was used and used up.
Nevertheless, many of the plots/conspiracies involved her to some extent.
Her dedication to the twins was not inconsequential to the arc of the story.

Agreed Oink, she was (IMO) very much in love with Paul. I guess to me the fact that she was never accepted by anyone but her co-conspirators, left me with the impression that she was almost forgotten by Herbert.

I found that he left many of his characters hanging and at times it troubled me. Lady Fenring and her baby by Feyd. Count Fenring, and many others that could have played an important part in the later books.

Have you read the latest book by Anderson and Brian Herbert? If so any opinions?

Scott

FORGOTTEN by all the Dune characters...no one took her seriously.
In the books, she comes off as a terribly flawed and tragic figure.

I did...it is only OK IMO (as a Dune Junkie).
Definitely, not a FH book.

Oink,

Yeah, they claim it was based on notes and out lines Herbert left behind in a safety deposit box but, I find that hard to believe. I fail to see how they can salvage the story with this next book.

Scott

Just stay far, far away from the newer "made for TV" version with William Hurt. Wow, does it ever suck!

Josh, I'm contemplating the "Definitive Edition", which is a UK release form a few years ago. It is suppose to be taken from a HD source. Do you have any experience with this version?

See here:

http://www.mindspring.com/~dunestuff/av.html#DVD

Agreed...I'll read it, but I don't have high hopes.

Having read the books first, the '84 Dune was a huge letdown same as that lame, feeble attempt at LOTR way back when.

The 2000 sci-fi channel's Dune was fantastic. As a pre-movie Dune fan, the mental imagery and emotion produced from the books was way superior to the '84 film. The 2000 Dune focused on the book and it allowed me to relive the book experience, making it all the better.

If you see the '84 movie first, IMO, the Dune experience will be all but ruined

If you must, the superior 2000 version (4.25 hours) is a much better way to go.

I've already debunked the myth that the Sci-Fi miniseries is more faithful to the book. See post #11 above.

Frank Herberts Dune and Children of Dune (Scifi) blew the original away.

I watch them every few months and love every minute of it.

I have to side with Josh on this one. There were just too many problems with the Sci-Fi version. From Irulan's involvement (did she really attend Feyd's birthday party? Was she really a guest at the banquet on Dune?) I don't remember Paul and Jessica riding a worm when they first met the Freman. I don't remember outside gatherings at Tabor. I could go on but I think you get my point. The biggest sticking point for me is the large number of cast members that did not speak English and spoke phonetically. That ruined it for me.

Scott

>>> See post #11 above.

My opinion is debunked and overridden by post #11?

Two points:

First. You saw the movie first. By your admission the film's imagery influenced your reading of the book/s.

Second. The book, Dune', was not just a fantastic novel, it was an education. The intricacy and detail could never be given justice by a mere film any film.

>>> It misinterprets most of the characters, especially Paul, who's been turned into a petulant whiny little prick.

Compared to what?

So your opinion, is very valid given how you were introduced to the Dune saga. That you hated what I found wonderful, is based on your preference to a film you liked. That I loved what you hated, is based on the book/s I read prior to both films.

In either case the book/s are the essence, and the film/s are the after-effect of Herbert's work. Herbert's work is what I was first exposed to, and there is no way the '84 version stands up to that!

For myself, having been properly exposed to Dune (the story, imagery, emotion, already experienced as it was meant to be) the '84 film was corny to say the least in comparison. The 2000 version did far more justice to my pre-established, conceptual view of the saga, and remained much more true to that imagery much the same as the now lauded LOTR film trilogy sits well with Tolken trilogy readers.