• 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.