I just watched David Lynch’s Dune, and yeah I don’t think it’s great. I can respect many elements of it but mostly, it just made me want to go back and watch the new one again (which I’ll do anyway!) I’m not sure why you still prefer it Ronster, as almost all of your criticisms of Villenueve’s Dune I can find in the 1984 version, only much worse.
I feel that the roles of Liet, Gurney, Thufir and Duncan are drastically reduced in the film. I think we get a brief explanation of the Mentat abilities but as to Thufir’s character, we don’t see him offering his resignation as we do in the 2021 film and he suffers as a sympathetic character. I wasn’t really touched by Gurney and Duncan’s relationship with Paul as I was with the 2021 film. With Liet, we don’t see him making that important decision to help the Atreides against his orders and we don’t see his death, either - he is quickly forgotten about. At least Gurney has his baliset in this version, even though he doesn’t play it! Hoping that’ll be a feature of Dune part 2.
The Harkonnens in the 1984 Dune I found to be the opposite of intimidating, they’re just goofy and beyond cartoonish. I really don’t get what it is with the ginger hair, the bright green interiors and the constant evil cackling. I liked the exterior shots of Geidi Prime but the design of the planet in the new film is miles more sinister, as are the Harkonnens. You don’t make compelling villains by constantly making them look stupid.
It’s fair to say there is so much missed out of the film. Leto and Jessica’s relationship lacked any depth at all for me, in the book and new movie we see how Leto separates her mother and Bene Gesserit identities and responsibilities, not entirely trusting her to do the right things for Paul. It adds so much complexity. I don’t dislike Kylo McLaughlin as Paul, but Timothee’s performance so far is leagues ahead. He’s able to sell the burdened and frightened aspects of Paul as well as the darkness within him which was missing from the 1984 film. That said, Kyle McLaughlin isn’t given as much opportunity - for example, we don’t have the scene where Paul screams in terror at the vision of fanatic legions waging holy war in his name. And take the iconic Gom Jabbar scene: in Lynch’s version, the Reverend Mother actually describes the mounting pain Paul is feeling, while we have fairly monotone voiceover narration from Jessica thoughts, which tells us she fears for Paul’s life. In Villenueve’s version, it is the performances which communicate all this information - particularly how Timothee’s acting communicates perfectly what level of pain he’s in, and how one stare from him shifts the entire balance of power in the scene. In my opinion, Lynch’s total reliance on voiceover throughout his movie versus Villenueve’s visual storytelling is perhaps the main deciding factor for which is the better film.
Didn’t hate the 1984 version though. I loved seeing Jürgen Prochnow from Das Boot as Leto, I think that was a great casting choice. The soundtrack by Toto is really atmospheric, and Brian Eno’s Prophecy Theme does the movie a great service.
Edit: forgot to mention how strange the pacing was. The movie seemed to get faster and faster as if in a rush to get it over with. To me it’s obvious splitting the film into two halves was the right approach. Dune part one, while only adapting half the story, is even longer than the 1984 version and it STILL had to cut out a truckload of stuff. That’s worth thinking about.