Movie vs. Miniseries

[bob_fox]

How would you compare David Lynch's Dune (1984) to the Dune miniseries? You don't have to say which one you think is better, but just compare them. (I believe a poll on this site once lightly touched on this subject.)

I think that, all in all, the miniseries is probably better. However, the movie (which my father owns on videocassette) has a certain atmosphere which the miniseries lacks. An irritating thing about the miniseries is the fake backrounds. The movie, though, has some terrible special effects (like the personal shields).

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I think that in the movie the actors look more like the people described in the book. although the baron should have spiderbalck eyes >:(

I personally like the movie the most

[Caid Ivik]

I consider Lynch's movie better. Miniseries look like a carnival. Persons are much closer to Herbert's look (excluding Paul, who really haven't looked like 15-year boy). Altough the visual effects in 1984 weren't what we see now in last Star Wars, altough I think the shields were the best thing they've made. Especially the final battle for Arakeen was thousand times better in movie. Sardaukars really looked fearful, also they had laser guns, not funny triple pistoles as in miniseries. Also the mystical atmosphere of Dune, as it was in the movie, was fully erased. About the story, I think that miniseries are closer, but still too short, altough not as the movie, which has as fast timeline as i.e. Evangelion: Death. Second (last) plus are ornitoptheres. Primary thing Herbert created was the fact, that Dune should be weird. Lynch is an expert in showing weird movies, as he proven also in Dune. But Harrison? Just trying to seek a goldmine opened after prequels revived of Duniverse.

Oh, and I've nearly forgotten to mention the music. What we hear in movie is the best we can. Sometimes I open my favourite divx file just to hear the Prophecy...

[Vanguard3000]

I liked the Lynch movie better. I thought the acting was amazing, the set design, wardrobe, and imagery was beautiful, and the music (Toto and Brian Eno) was very fitting and atmospheric (I have many of the tracks on CDs somewhere). Also, because it's older, they actually used models instead of that CGI garbage.

The mini was okay. I liked bits involving the Harkonnens (the rhyming couplets, the Baron snuffing the Spice, and the Baron's steel chinese-style fan). But overall, the acting was sub-par, the Fremen contacts looked stupid when the blacklight wasn't on them, and it didn't have the atmosphere that the movie had. And, as I mentioned above, it had too much CGI, and I hate that.

Also, I don't think the Prana-Bindu fighting was depicted well. It was shown as a super human thing, almost Teg-like, whereas it's simply a very efficient and powerful fighting/meditation technique.

[Andrew]

Somewhat a reply to Vanguards,

The first dune thing I ever saw or read was FHD mini. I'm sure most people who saw the lynch version first are more biased towards it as i am to FHD.

The movie was ok for me but was not near as good as mini. The mini as much longer and folowed book better except for a few parts (the atreides mentat). I did not like the worms in lynches as they were mere puppets flying into sand at super speeds. also a bad thing about movie was the wieding modules. I think the mini's way of portraying pauls(and others) powers was better showed in mini than book. As for CGI i can say that the backround in FHD was awful and they screwed up a lot of stuff like that(colors).

CoD:

I found they made the worms look less like worms with their mouths opening more cirlce like with more teeth popping out. The CGI in it was much better than the backrounds in FHD, although the movie's backrounds still beat both. Some aspects of the movies wardrobe were very well done, although I liked the mini's Stillsuits better.

[TMA_1]

I loved these episodes! geesh guys, its better than nothing.lol its of franks books that havent been put to film. wonderful stuff and I hope that God emperor comes of the popularity of these. God emperor is probably tied for me with Dune itself.

David Lynch's is great and my favorite. Basically for all the reasons vanguard pointed out.

THere is one thing in the new mini's that pisses me off. Have any of you guys noticed the huge amount of sun burst scenes? I mean sun rise after sun rise. Even in space! argh.lol

[bob_fox]

Also, because it's older, they actually used models instead of that CGI garbage.

You know, I COMPLETELY agree with you! I'm sick of computerized special effects! Models look more real any day! And that's why Star Wars Episodes IV, V and VI are better in the special effects department than Episodes I and II - they just look more real.

But you must admit that some of the special effects in Lynch's Dune leave much to be desired. Some of them are outright shocking! The personal shields, the Guild Navigator bending space and the Guild Heighliner approaching Dune are examples of things that could've easily been improved. So I still think that in this regard the miniseries looked better.

I still say, though, that the miniseries had a very bland atmosphere. Lynch's movie sought to satisfied the fans, but the miniseries sought to impress everybody. And when you seek to impress everyone, your movie (or miniseries) will be very "empty" (I hope you know what I mean).

BTW, we're talking about the first Dune miniseries, not Children of Dune.

[Vanguard3000]

I agree, Sven. Although IMO there were a lot more problems than just CGI in the Star Wars prequels.

And I really liked the shield effect. It was so different than what you would normally see in an energy shield. A refreshing change over the simple "transparent egg" effect. I also liked how their voices sounded staticky when the shields were on.

But yes, the navigator folding space could have used some better effects (it could have glowed in certain spots, like the Delorian in Back to the Future. That would have looked really cool.) but in my opinion, the miniseries wormhole effect wasn't really that good either.

[Caid Ivik]

Worst thing which blurred the miniseries was the sandworm. I wonder if Harrison was inspired by the well known rock pokemon, Onix, which looks nearly as same ;D

http://www.ktf-split.hr/~eni/goran/pokemon/slike/095.gif

[bob_fox]

I agree, Sven. Although IMO there were a lot more problems than just CGI in the Star Wars prequels.

And I really liked the shield effect. It was so different than what you would normally see in an energy shield. A refreshing change over the simple "transparent egg" effect. I also liked how their voices sounded staticky when the shields were on.

I strongly agree with you on the Star Wars thing. But I really think the shields in Dune look terrible. It looks like it's out of a wireframe arcade game! The "staticky" effect IS cool, but that's actually taken from the books.

The movie was considered really, REALLY expensive when it was made ('84). They spent a lot of money on the sets and costumes, apparently. I think they should have spent more on the special effects. Lynch achieved a really good atmosphere with that movie, though; an atmosphere the miniseries didn't create.

[quoudam72]

I like Lynch's movie better than I like the mini-series for some the reasons mentioned atmosphere, the computerized special effects and the lighting and coloring the visual style of the mini-seris is what I did not like much. TMA-1 spoke of the over use of sunburts that was annoying what happened to the the nighttime of Arrakis minus the attacking Fremen (shot of the cities). I am glad they chose to change the painted backdrops from the first mini-series of the Dune saga. Costumes in the mini-series for me do not compare to wardrobe in the Lynch movie but then again movie and mini-series budgets differ in the mediums of there presentation to the respected audiences.

CoD was filmed in the Chec Republic while the movie was filmed in Mexico that makes for the difference in the atmospheres. I liked Lynch's movie better but really comparing is unfair cause I am slightly bias. ;)

[Egeides]

I prefer the movie... The movie really tries to put the core of FH's world. The series went more to something like "let's put it like it will pass more easily: action movie, heroes that are "Hey dude, make my day. I'm a heck of a kid with sunglasses and cool-guy haircut" and so on. It's an action movie... Watered-down. Also, Lynch is incredible for getting the right actors doing the right thing!

[Andrew]

But the storyline and dialogue are closer to the book in the miniseries, if you exclude Irulan and the atreides mentat's death. especially if comparing ti to lynchs theatrical release. The long allan smithee version is much better and tells more story.

[ilexatrei]

I saw Lynch's film first and although I was dumbfounded by the work on it. I still believe that the miniseries was superior. I felt, that the acting was much better. Baron was one of my favorites along with Idaho's short part. I do not like the back drops during Paul's flee from the Harkonnens. As many of you have stated that it does not look real which, I have to agree with; however, the CGI makes the difference between the two. By this, the miniseries is far superior. I don't know why you would not like it...possible reasons is that you have fundamentalist views on movies, not very many movie attendances, or who knows. Personally, I am very proud to be a dune fan after I heard that the miniseries with it's Special Effects was able to be at Matrix level *in my opinion better than the Matrix*. That is something that is not achieved quite often. ANd it makes a hell of a difference in the quality of the movie. Maybe I get this assuption from living near Hollywood and knowin the struggles that you might not know to accomplish such things but, i do believe putting down high quality CGI is not necessary because that is the new part of our lives. Whether or not, you want to live it is your choice.

[bob_fox]

You misunderstand me - I'm not putting down CGI completely. I say merely that it is used too much nowadays. Now some movies are like watching a non-interactive computer game demo (okay - with slightly better graphics!)

Special effects used to require a certain type of artistry. Now it just requires a good programmer (I'm not putting down programmers (they're excellent); I'm just saying that they have their place).

CGI has its place, and it should stick to what it's there for - stuff that you can't achieve with models (like weird aliens - Watto, for instance). But now people are using it for stuff that models could achieve. Why? I don't know if it's cheaper or easier to do, but for some reason directors love using it.

[Vanguard3000]

I think CGI is best used for spaceships (sometimes - I prefer the Star Trek models to CGI), or when there is no other realistic option (as Sven said: Watto). But when it's used for everything, I find it very difficult to appreciate.

Compare the sandworms, for example. One of my favourite effects in the movie was the worm model. IMO, it was perfectly done. I like the scenes where they show it smashing into the sand, or that one scene where it's bristling with static electricity, and it has that big pile of sand on top of it. But the miniseries CGI worm looked too fake. You could tell it didn't really "exist".

[bob_fox]

You can't create the same kind of atmosphere with CGI. Compare Episode VI to II - the perfect example. Sure, Episode II isn't supposed to have the same atmosphere as Episode VI (the situation isn't as bleak), but it should have SOME atmosphere. Episode II has no atmosphere compared to Episode VI.

BTW, don't get me wrong - I like Episode II a lot (it's one of my favourite movies).

[Vanguard3000]

I agree with you entirely, except I hated EP2. I think it, and EP1 are disgraceful compared to the originals.

[N_Wigle]

I liked the miniseries better. the original movie was a shade campy, and altogether too blade-runneresque. Plus, some of the characters were just plain goofy. Like Thufir. He looked more like a mad scientist than the Master of Assassins. I did like Sting as Feyd-Rautha, though. The shields in the miniseries were much more convincing, as how, in the books, they were described as faintly shimmering, not opaque and blocky.