• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    I mean, which version?

    I almost think the early low budget adaptations are better because of how zany they get with the art and effects.

    The Timothee Chalamet version is just another action movie. But Lynch gets wild with it.

    • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      “Just another action movie” but the guy up the comment chain is literally dozing off. Part one actually has very little action in it, most of it is packed landscape shots, politics, and lore dumping. Which is very accurate to the source material. If you dislike Villeneuve’s adaptation, I can only assume you did not love the Herbert books because he was incredibly faithful to the tone, especially for material that was thought to be impossible to adapt to the big screen.

      Lynch’s stuff is simply not comparable because he said “fuck the source material” and just kinda did whatever came to him in some acid trip or other. Fine if that’s your thing but that’s not what Dune is - especially not the first few books.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Any time you put electrical tape on a cat and use it as a prop, I reserve the right to describe the film as low budget

        • lilmookieesquire@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          The funny part is that Sting didn’t even know he was supposed to be acting in a movie. He just showed up on the set randomly and just did his regular daily routine.