Originally posted by: SKot
And MeBeJedi is right... a big part of it is just looking at it. I prefer looking at Lynch's version, even if the miniseries was a more faithful interpretation of the original.
--SKot
Originally posted by: theredbaron
I think the movies are terrible. There is no substitute for the book. The videogame's awesome too, but about the only thing it has in common with the book is the sand dunes, spice and sandworms.
I think the problem here is in thinking that there IS a substitute for the book. There isn't. The idea isn't to consider the two movies (Lynch's version and the miniseries) a substitute for the book, but more like a supplement to it. Paintings of the same subject material by two different artists, if you will. Each will interpret it differently, and each viewer will further interpret that in their own way as well.I think the movies are terrible. There is no substitute for the book. The videogame's awesome too, but about the only thing it has in common with the book is the sand dunes, spice and sandworms.
And MeBeJedi is right... a big part of it is just looking at it. I prefer looking at Lynch's version, even if the miniseries was a more faithful interpretation of the original.
--SKot
Yeah, but the question is, is Dune a good movie? and I'm flat-out just saying, "no, it's not". It doesn't stand on its own as a movie, and it doesn't distill the basic essence of what Dune is. All it gets down pat is some of the visuals (which isn't hard, what with sand and all that).