Dune (movie vs miniseries)

[Silvana]

Which one is better?
I only watched the miniseries and I think it's okay.

[Barbara]

I only watched David Lynch's movie, and although it has been critizised a lot, I liked it. Baron Harkonnen was absolutely gross, and you have Sting on it!

[Bill]

I have seen them both multiple times and like both. The advantage of the miniseries is that it does the 1st 3 books of the Dune saga.

I recommend everyone read the books before seeing the multimedia.

[Jerrod]

I liked both, the mini series encompasses more of the book IMO, but does take some snapshots from the others. I'll always like the Lynch version too.

[Mawgojzeta]

I wanted to love the Lynch movie, but hated it. I disliked it so much that I did not read the books until almost 10 years later. I then tried to watch it again after having read the books, but it still did nothing for me.

Loved the miniseries and agree with Kernos' suggestion to read the books first.

[Libby]

Love the miniseries Dune and Children of Dune. Original movie was not my favorite - primarily because it's dated and seemed cheesy in light of newer miniseries from SciFi (sorry to anyone who loves the original movie). That being said, read the books and then rewatch both miniseries. The books fill in a lot of gaps and will enhance your enjoyment of the miniseries.

BTW - the soundtrack to Children of Dune is wonderful!

[Stuart]

I quite like the Lynch movie...it is definitely a pretty bad movie, and feels like it was made in the seventies (even though it wasn't!). It's probably even worse as an introduction to Dune, since it gets so much wrong.

There's some good bits in it, though, like the Baron, Max von Sydow as Keynes, and things that make me just smile, like the Mentat Eyebrows. The opening of shifting sands with Brian Eno's theme playing belongs to a really great movie.

I couldn't get into the miniseries, even though it looked really good. All of the acting seemed oddly restrained, almost flat, and my attention kept wandering.

[[deleted user]]

Neither. The most influential of the direct spinoffs were the computer games, especially Dune 2. An entire video gaming genre consists of imitations of these games. Arguably, most were not as successful, although their cash take may have been bigger. I never played it, but Dune 2 was acclaimed heartily by friends during the early 1990s. I did try Dune 2000, but that seemed rather dated by the time that I gave it a shot.

[Terence]

Whew! Both movie and miniseries were pretty bad and neither did any sort of justice to the novel.

I will admit that the miniseries was less bad than the movie - particularly the actors playing Paul and Jessica - but William Hurt as Leto? The man can be a good actor but he was a complete cipher in this one, bland and colorless. This man inspired his men to a fanaticism that rivaled the Sardaukar?

[Cathy]

The movie I see in my mind while reading these books is really the only one I like, but I thought the casting in the Lynch version was hugely better and more true to the descriptions in the book. And there were some scenes that captured the mystery, darkness and majesty of the book, such as the Fremen and sandworms attacking at the end or the dripping water Paul sees in a vision. Overall, this is one of those cases where reading the books first is a must and the movies only supplement that experience.

[Silvana]

Thanks guys for the comments!
I did read Dune once, but not Children of Dune (or yet). A friend gave me a copy of the Dune miniseries and I have to say I enjoyed the book more (as what happens with almost every book vs movie internal debate).

The miniseries is okay, I agree with some of you that it is not perfect. I concur with Terence's view that William Hurt might not be the best option to play Leto.

However, I did hear people say that David Lynch's version is a cult movie and raised lots of fans. I think I'll borrow it from my friend.

I am wondering whether in Lynch's version, Irulan's role is as big as in the miniseries?

[Barbara]

I don't know about the miniseries, but on the movie, both the roles of Irulan and Chani are played by Sean Young. Irulan is the narrator of the story.

[Kelly (Maybedog)]

I saw both the movie and the miniseries before reading the book which ruined the book for me. I can't get them out of my head and thus can't get into the book, which is unfortunate because I think I would have liked the book. So I think reading the book first is imperative.

I loved the movie but I was a teenager with a huge crush on Kyle MacLachlan, bad hair and all. I'd probably hate it now. The first miniseries was pretty good. The sets were mostly fabulous but the bad blue-screens were irritating. I liked the casting of Jessica a lot and the young nephew, the jerk he fights, can't remember his name.

I haven't seen the sequel because I keep hoping I'll get through Dune and then able to read the other book first.

[Barbara]

On the movie the young nephew, Feyd-Ruatha Harkonnen, was Sting!

And I totally agree about Kyle MacLachlan, he was sooo cute! Did you see him in Twin Peaks?

[Usako]

Dune (Lynch version) holds a special place in my heart. That is one of the earliest sci-fi movies I remember watching with my father OVER and OVER and OVER again. I adore the opening prologue. I found Princess Irulan was portrayed closer to the books than how the mini-series handled her (and EWW butterfly outfit!).

Sting was another favorite out of the movie alongside our loveable fat Baron. Oh and the creepy kitty to milk and the heart plugs. To me it made the Harkanens more creepy in the film.

The miniseries, to me, create a wonderful Baron more along the lines of the book. He was a "thinker". And his actor did a superb job portraying such a keyrole mastermind. And when he reappeared in Children of Dune *shivers*. Great villain.

The miniseries tickles me funny but it IS truer to the books (least over the movie). I didn't like some of the costumes. Sorry the movie wins in that department. Musical soundtrack, both are tied. I have both on my iPod.

Not sure which sandworms I like better. Hrm. I guess the movie b/c I was amused at how they climbed and rode them. Oh and the weirding way voices was soooo much better!

I like the Fremen in the miniseries more. We got to see a lil more of their character and way of living amongst the dunes. Even seen some of their critters!

So hm...I've come to appreciate all three - the movie, miniseres and books - all the more.

[Paul]

To me, neither film or miniseries captured the entire essence of the book. Granted that is a difficult thing to do, the book was so long and multilayered. Both have their good points. I think I prefer the movie worms and Sting (Feyd Rautha). In fact, the movie had a great cast all round, but the weirding way was just - weird. In the book, there are just advanced fighting techniques, although Muad'Dib can kill with a word, as the Fremen say.

[Libby]

Kelly wrote: "I saw both the movie and the miniseries before reading the book which ruined the book for me. I can't get them out of my head and thus can't get into the book, which is unfortunate because I think ..."

I had the same problem. I enjoyed the mini-series and then read the books afterwards. I wholeheartedly wish I had read the books first. I believe that I would have enjoyed seeing the plot unfold on the page. Due to seeing the miniseries first, I had too much "advanced" info to really enjoy the complexity of the book. But as I can't turn back time, I still enjoy both.

[Jakob]

I have to agree with Tanja. The original Dune movie I liked the actors best and the music. As long as you remember the effects were good in their time, and disconnect it totally from the books, it can be an enjoyable time.

The miniseries are great too and closer to the actual story. In the end though, if you really want to appreciate the depth possible from the Dune stories, you will have to read the books to really get into the complexities.

[Chad]

Neither, of course, compare favorably with the books. I did appreciate the cinematics of the newer mini-series. It was done in an interesting manner that reminded of an onstage play instead of a movie.

[Kevis]

Although there are a lot of things I like about the T.V. series, I prefer to watch the David Lynch film version of Dune. As good as it is, the T.V. show's limited budget diminishes its potential. Unlike most people, I enjoy the film's Brian Eno/Toto soundtrack.

[David]

I watched a little of the movie last night and was struck (again) at what an enormous waste it made of a really good cast--not to mention the cost of the practicals, and in-camera effects. Maybe they just weren't doing good CG in 1984. When did Jedi come out? Whose idea was it to cast Stewart as Gurney? And the Harkonnen scenes were so over the top, I wonder if they weren't all parceled out to the AD.

Of course, it was sort of a no-win situation (so many people love the books--even the fils books) but I often wonder if Frank Herbert's ego was getting in the way (I seem to recall him railing against Lucas for "ripping him off").

[Kevis]

Overall, with the exception of Star Wars, I don't think any sci-fi film measured up to the high quality standards of other genres during the 80's. In fact, we still don't get that many well-made science fiction films in 2009. Considering the technology and the politics behind the creation of Dune, I think it was a decent film (especially considered with its contemporaries).

With that said, there were a few gems in the early 80's. Bladerunner and Wrath of Khan were both released in 82'. Return of the Jedi came out in 83', followed by Terminator in 84'. Those were the cream of the crop of sci-fi movies in those days. It wasn't until a few years later that we Predator showed up to give sci-fi films a much needed shot in the arm.