AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,127 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok, I've never seen the original Dune 1984 by David Lynch yet. I have a chance to buy a used copy of the original for like $5 or pick up a copy of the new extended-edition 2-disc-gives you a blowjob and picks up your trash as well edition. From a fans point of view which would you choose. The original unedited or the new extended version of the film?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,570 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,771 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,127 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by FredProgGH /forum/post/0


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.

That's what I've heard from a few people. That The extended edition was edited rather poorly too. I've never seen either edition yet, just wanted to know if it was worth the extra money for the new one.


If the old version was non-anamorphic then I might as well pick up the newer version just get the anamorphic transfer. To answer your question, Yes, the new edition has the theatrical version on one disc and the extended edition on the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,893 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,127 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z /forum/post/0


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.


Ewwww, I may just end up renting this one then. No reason to pay for a gawd awful transfer or Non anamorphic
. Well, good thing I have netflix.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JGDragov /forum/post/0


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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,893 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JGDragov /forum/post/0


This extended edition appears to have edited some scenes from the theatrical version(i.e. the Baron's scene with the water flowering Harkonen). I do not know if this is the same extended version that now appears on the Region 1 SE DVD.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,893 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JGDragov /forum/post/0


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.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
34,841 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z /forum/post/0


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.

Me too.


Quote:
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.

True.

In the 1st novel she is only a footnote.

But her role increases considerably with Dune Messiah and Children of Dune.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
34,841 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1094 /forum/post/0


All of them and more than once.

Me too.

Quote:
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.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
34,841 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1094 /forum/post/0


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.

FORGOTTEN by all the Dune characters...no one took her seriously.


In the books, she comes off as a terribly flawed and tragic figure.
Quote:
Have you read the latest book by Anderson and Brian Herbert? If so any opinions?

I did...it is only OK IMO (as a Dune Junkie).

Definitely, not a FH book.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top