Visually it was great, but Lynch "grossed it up" and then added a magical
device called a "weirding module" at the end to save the day, while Herbert
took great pains to make the story sort of 'anti-technology' in many ways.
And then it rained at the end. Hoo boy.
BTW, I have a copy of the shooting script and it describes at the end a
tracking shot into Paul's eye that showed rain, meaning that it was Paul's
vision for the future; but like so many scenes, between the planning &
execution/editing they forgot what they were doing, and made it literal.
What do you want from a film who's director thought it was called "June" for
the first six months he worked on it?
In general, Lynch messed with all of the fundamentals of the book and came
up with a film that was less about the story of Dune and more like someone's
nightmares after having read the book and downing three pepperonis pizzas
before bed. Still, it DID have SOME kind of vision, whereas the current
version is lifeless.
(It's only a matter of time before someone yells at us for this thread...)
-----Original Message-----
From:
jhaible@... [mailto:
jhaible@...]
Sent:Monday, 04 December, 2000 4:45 PM
To:
motm@egroups.comSubject:Re: [motm] OT: Dune (for sci-fi afficianados only)
> I never thought that the Lynch version had any positive aspects...
Ah, what exactly is wrong with that movie ?
I remember I was deeply impressed when it first came to the movie
theaters. (How many years ago was that ?)
I like the "ancient" decor of that movie, as opposed to the modern-ness
of many other SciFi films.
JH.