Dune (1984)

[Winston T. Boogie]

Title: Dune (1984)

Tagline: A world beyond your experience, beyond your imagination.

Genre: Action, Science Fiction, Adventure

Director: David Lynch

Cast: Kyle MacLachlan, Francesca Annis, Patrick Stewart, Linda Hunt, José Ferrer, Leonardo Cimino, Freddie Jones, Brad Dourif, Richard Jordan, Virginia Madsen, Silvana Mangano, Everett McGill, Sting, Kenneth McMillan, Jack Nance, Siân Phillips, Jürgen Prochnow, Paul L. Smith, Dean Stockwell, Max von Sydow, Alicia Witt, Sean Young, Danny Corkill, Honorato Magaloni, Judd Omen, Molly Wryn, Angélica Aragón, Miguel Cane, Thomas Ebert, Humberto Elizondo, Ricardo Hill, Ernesto Laguardia, David Lynch, James Mathers, Ramón Menéndez, Ana Ofelia Murguía, William Phipps, Scott Price, Claudia Ramírez, Julieta Rosen, John Sabol, Margarita Sanz, Jacqueline Voltaire, Carla Rigg

Release: 1984-12-14

Runtime: 137

Plot: In the year 10,191, the world is at war for control of the desert planet Arrakis—the only place where the space-travel substance Melange 'Spice' can be found. But when one leader gives up control, it's only so he can stage a coup with some unsavory characters.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

OK, why am I posting about this version of Dune? Well, David Lynch has recently said he would like to revisit this picture and do a new "director's cut" of the film. Something that was offered to him by Universal in the past but he turned down because he claimed it was too painful to revisit Dune because he felt it was a failure.

Now, the word is his original vision of the film was three hours in length and fairly different than what we got. His recut of the film would feature somewhere around an hour of footage I guess we have never seen and which all exists and is intact so he can create this new version. All of the scenes were shot and finished but cut when Universal did the final edit on the picture themselves which they wanted to be closer to two hours.

It is interesting that he is putting out there right now that he wants to finally create his director's cut but he claims it took him this long to get over what happened with the picture.

I'm curious to see this but at the moment there is no deal on the table for him to recut the film. I assume he is telling people now that he wants to revisit it because he is now hoping to make a deal to recut it.

I will say that I would not count on this happening because Lynch can be a difficult guy to make a deal with...or has been in the past. I hope he gets to do it though.

 

[Malcolm R]

If I were Universal, I'd tell him to get lost. They just released the definitive 4K version on disc. The time to do a director's cut was prior to that release.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

If I were Universal, I'd tell him to get lost. They just released the definitive 4K version on disc. The time to do a director's cut was prior to that release.

Yes, well this is Lynch this time saying he wants to do it, whereas in the past Universal wanted him to do it and he refused. I actually am coming to believe I like Lynch's Dune better than the 2021 version. I guess I have to see the second half of the 2021 version before I can really decide but at the moment I feel Lynch's take was overall more interesting. So, I am more fired up at the moment to see Lynch's 3 hour director's cut than Part Two of the Denis Villeneuve version. Maybe part two will really kick the thing into gear. Part one seemed mostly prelude.

 

[JohnRice]

I watched it recently, probably for the first time since I saw it in the theater.

I have to say, it is possibly the most hilariously bad movie I've ever seen. Certainly at or near the top of the list.

 

[JohnRice]

Yes, well this is Lynch this time saying he wants to do it, whereas in the past Universal wanted him to do it and he refused. I actually am coming to believe I like Lynch's Dune better than the 2021 version. I guess I have to see the second half of the 2021 version before I can really decide but at the moment I feel Lynch's take was overall more interesting. So, I am more fired up at the moment to see Lynch's 3 hour director's cut than Part Two of the Denis Villeneuve version. Maybe part two will really kick the thing into gear. Part one seemed mostly prelude.

OK, yeah, he had an interesting approach. But that doesn't mean it didn't fail miserably.

I admit to being a Villeneuve fan, but the 2021 version is a textbook example (for me) of what a big, ambitious sci-fi movie should be. A very welcome reprieve from the monotonous stream of calculated, boring Marvel crap we're being fed.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

OK, yeah, he had an interesting approach. But that doesn't mean it didn't fail miserably.

I admit to being a Villeneuve fan, but the 2021 version is a textbook example (for me) of what a big, ambitious sci-fi movie should be. A very welcome reprieve from the monotonous stream of calculated, boring Marvel crap we're being fed.

Yes, I don't dislike Denis' picture. It looks and sounds wonderful. I have this terrible hang-up with Chalamet and he puts me to sleep as an actor. I find him to have zero charisma, at least in what I have seen him in. I like a lot of the rest of the cast though I just wish there was more of them but the promise of that comes in the second half.

That fan trailer for Lynch's film in the first post is excellent and makes me want to go back and watch the film again. I was not a big fan of the Lynch film when it came out. I have kind of warmed to it over the years. The one thing I kind of wish Denis did in his version was turned up the weird more. I feel like he toned it down to make it all more accessible.

 

[JohnRice]

Yes, I don't dislike Denis' picture. It looks and sounds wonderful. I have this terrible hang-up with Chalamet and he puts me to sleep as an actor. I find him to have zero charisma, at least in what I have seen him in. I like a lot of the rest of the cast though I just wish there was more of them but the promise of that comes in the second half.

That fan trailer for Lynch's film in the first post is excellent and makes me want to go back and watch the film again. I was not a big fan of the Lynch film when it came out. I have kind of warmed to it over the years. The one thing I kind of wish Denis did in his version was turned up the weird more. I feel like he toned it down to make it all more accessible.

Yeah, but along those lines, Jodorowski's would have been awesomely weird.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

 

[TravisR]

I think that interview really sums up a potential Dune director's cut- it can't be done because he dropped things he wanted in the script phase. I'd like to see what Lynch could do if he was able to re-edit Dune but I can't imagine it would suddenly become a great movie because it was compromised before they shot it and what they have is what they have.

 

[jayembee]

I watched it recently, probably for the first time since I saw it in the theater.

I have to say, it is possibly the most hilariously bad movie I've ever seen. Certainly at or near the top of the list.

I saw it in the theater back in its initial release, and I also thought it was just godawful. And a tremendous waste of a terrific cast (to have Linda Hunt in it, and reduce her role to the line "I am...the housekeeper!" is just...words fail...)

I did make the mistake of watching the "Alan Smithee/Judas Booth" TV version when it was broadcast. Of that, I can only say that it was as bad as the theatrical version, only there was more of it. Admittedly, it did have more Linda Hunt in it, though. Not that that helped.

When Arrow released the movie on UHD, I was sorely tempted to get it, since I hadn't seen it since the TV version. In the end, I decided against. There are enough films I want to watch that I don't really feel much enthusiasm for spending more time on one I don't. With one exception, I've loved (or at least liked) every other Lynch film. The exception is Inland Empire: I watched about 20 minutes of it, realized that I just wasn't in the mood for another 2½ hours of it, and put it off until later, but never got around to watching the entire thing.

If Lynch actually managed to recreate a new edit of it from all of the footage he shot, I would certainly be more than happy to see if he could, as Master Chiun would put it, make diamonds out of river mud. I'm not sanguine that it'll happen, though.

 

[Tino]

I dunno. I’ve always really liked this film and never thought it was a disaster.

 

[SamT]

 

[TravisR]

I dunno. I’ve always really liked this film and never thought it was a disaster.

To say something nice about the movie, I think nearly every shot is beautiful to look at.

 

[SamT]

EXCUSE ME?!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think that interview really sums up a potential Dune director's cut- it can't be done because he dropped things he wanted in the script phase. I'd like to see what Lynch could do if he was able to re-edit Dune but I can't imagine it would suddenly become a great movie because it was compromised before they shot it and what they have is what they have.

I'm not sure what the result will be if he goes in and recuts the picture. In the clip you referenced, yes, he is still in that phase of the picture was ruined and they made him compromise on things. He had nothing good to say about Dune for many years and I think he was furious they cut his picture twice. Once for the theatrical release and then the "Judas Booth" version for TV. None of that sat well with him.

That's why the most notable thing about this is he has oddly decided now he does want to go back and create his own cut of the film. He says, and Villeneuve agrees with him because he is telling the tale in two pictures, that the main problem is they would not allow the length he needed to tell the story. As I understand it what Lynch would do if he recuts the picture is to reedit the entire thing. It would not just be bits tacked on to extend the length. There is also, apparently quite a bit of footage he shot he would use to remake the picture. So, I believe new footage would appear throughout the film.

Now as to if a new cut from him would produce a great film, I mean, I don't think anytime a director goes back to an old work and reedits it they turn it into a great picture. They may make the film better overall, play more like something that has their personal voice, or they may just take a film that did not work and make it longer.

When Coppola recuts things he often changes them to better show what he intended. It is questionable if he made any of the pictures he has recut greater than they were. When you cut new scenes in, it can improve the picture or it can show why the scene was cut. When Coppola put the plantation scene and the second Playboy bunny scenes back into Apocalypse Now, I was thrilled to see them BUT they both stopped the film dead in its tracks. So, what they did for me was to clarify why you would consider cutting them. The plantation scene was sort of legendary in that Coppola had talked about wanting that in the film. However, when it came to finally seeing it in the film, well, I just thought it did not work there. It shifted the entire feeling and created this interaction that really seemed little more than an attempt to make a sort of additional political statement. The film did not need it and in terms of pacing, I kind of felt it was terrible. Maybe I was too used to not having it there.

When Ridley Scott recuts his stuff, it's funny, he generally never improves upon his theatrical cuts. Sometimes it is just lazy additions, like the longer cut of Alien. Nothing he put back in that worked and all of it was better cut from the film. His fiddling with Blade Runner was interesting but I don't think he ever really made the film greater than it was. He made it somewhat different, removing the voiceover worked to some degree but did not make the film far better.

The best example in this case is probably Oliver Stone's Alexander. Not seen as a good picture from the start he has taken several runs at recutting it. I don't think he has changed anybody's mind about the film with the different cuts. It is fascinating to watch them though and see the ways he has tried to improve it.

So, I mean, do you feel anybody has gone back to a work and recut it and took a picture people felt was not very good and made it great?

I think Coppola did improve The Cotton Club with his reedit. He made it play as a better film. I think Lynch could improve Dune by recutting it but make it great? Probably not. I like the weirdness of the Lynch version over the more bland Villeneuve version. It would be cool to finally see a cut overseen by Lynch rather than the other two cuts.

I don't think Lynch's Dune is a great film, so I doubt his cut will make it so, but it might make it a better film than the one they released.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

When Ridley Scott recuts his stuff, it's funny, he generally never improves upon his theatrical cuts. Sometimes it is just lazy additions, like the longer cut of Alien. Nothing he put back in that worked and all of it was better cut from the film. His fiddling with Blade Runner was interesting but I don't think he ever really made the film greater than it was. He made it somewhat different, removing the voiceover worked to some degree but did not make the film far better.

I think Kingdom of Heaven would make a great example of drastically improving on the film with a director's cut.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think Kingdom of Heaven would make a great example of drastically improving on the film with a director's cut.

It's been a while since I have seen Kingdom of Heaven, but yes I agree, I recall his longer cut of Kingdom of Heaven being a better film. I've not revisited that one since the second cut was released on blu. I will have to go back and watch that again.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I saw it in the theater back in its initial release, and I also thought it was just godawful. And a tremendous waste of a terrific cast (to have Linda Hunt in it, and reduce her role to the line "I am...the housekeeper!" is just...words fail...)

I did make the mistake of watching the "Alan Smithee/Judas Booth" TV version when it was broadcast. Of that, I can only say that it was as bad as the theatrical version, only there was more of it. Admittedly, it did have more Linda Hunt in it, though. Not that that helped.

When Arrow released the movie on UHD, I was sorely tempted to get it, since I hadn't seen it since the TV version. In the end, I decided against. There are enough films I want to watch that I don't really feel much enthusiasm for spending more time on one I don't. With one exception, I've loved (or at least liked) every other Lynch film. The exception is Inland Empire: I watched about 20 minutes of it, realized that I just wasn't in the mood for another 2½ hours of it, and put it off until later, but never got around to watching the entire thing.

If Lynch actually managed to recreate a new edit of it from all of the footage he shot, I would certainly be more than happy to see if he could, as Master Chiun would put it, make diamonds out of river mud. I'm not sanguine that it'll happen, though.

I do think the film is beautiful to look at. I think the Lynch film brings a lot more to the table in terms of the look of things in the film than the Villeneuve version, which seems a bit more spartan to me.

I did buy the Arrow release and I did think it was the best release of the picture so far. I did not like this picture when I first saw it either. Over the years, and I don't know if it is nostalgia or what, I have come to like it more and more. Part of it is, you can sort of tell Lynch wants to really go for it and create this bizarre world. I feel like there is a struggle going on with the film between Lynch wanting to tilt more into the weird (which I think suits this story) and probably Universal saying "No, that's too weird and gross!"

I feel like in the Villeneuve version he does actually tone down the weirdness and tries to make the world more palatable to a wider audience. Which is fine, and which is really what he needed to do to try and make the film a success. He needed a lot of people to see it and understand it and Dune is a strange and complex story.

One of the rules for big budget films today is that you have to make sure the film is no more difficult or complex than a young adult novel. I think Villeneuve hits that mark in his version of Dune. I don't think Lynch was at all going for that in his take on Dune because they really did not apply that rule then.

At this stage I just would like to see Lynch cut the film together the way he wants to. I sort of feel if he does that we will get a better version of the picture. I am not going to hold my breath that he gets to do it because I don't know what kind of deal he would want to do it. He can be a tough negotiator and he is not going to do a Coppola and fund the work himself I would say.

So, before getting excited about seeing a Lynch cut, we have to hear the deal was made for him to do it. If he makes it too complicated or has demands that they feel are too much...well...I can see people pushing away from the table. Nice that he is finally interested in doing it, let's see if he actually gets to do it.