A Side-by-Side, Shot-by-Shot Comparison of Denis Villeneuve’s 2020 Dune and David Lynch’s 1984 Dune

As a long­time fan of all things Dune, there’s no liv­ing direc­tor I’d trust more to take over the “prop­er­ty” than Denis Vil­leneuve. But why remake Dune at all? Oh, I know, the orig­i­nal film—directed (in sev­er­al cuts) by “Alan Smithee,” also known as David Lynch—is a dis­as­ter, so they say. Even Lynch says it. (Maybe the nicest thing he’s ever said about the movie is, “I start­ed sell­ing out on Dune.”) Crit­ics hat­ed, and large­ly still hate, it; the film’s mar­ket­ing was a mess (Uni­ver­sal pro­mot­ed it like a fam­i­ly-friend­ly Star Wars clone); and the stu­dio felt it nec­es­sary to hand glos­saries to ear­ly audi­ences to define terms like Kwisatz Hader­ach, gom jab­ber, and sar­daukar.

But when I first saw David Lynch’s Dune, I did not know any of this. I hard­ly knew Lynch or his fil­mog­ra­phy and had yet to read Frank Herbert’s books. I was a young sci­ence fic­tion fan who saw in the movie exact­ly what Lynch said he intend­ed: “I saw tons and tons of pos­si­bil­i­ties for things I loved, and this was the struc­ture to do them in. There was so much room to cre­ate a world.” I did not know to be upset about his devi­a­tions from the books in the grotesque imag­in­ing of the Third Stage Guild Nav­i­ga­tor or the deci­sion to cov­er Baron Harkon­nen in bloody, ooz­ing pus­tules. The film’s impen­e­tra­bil­i­ty seemed like a fea­ture, not a bug. This was a world, total­ly alien and yet uncan­ni­ly famil­iar.

In hind­sight, I can see its many flaws, though not its total fail­ure, but I still find it mes­mer­iz­ing (and what a cast!). Vil­leneuve, I think, was in a very dif­fi­cult posi­tion in updat­ing such a divi­sive work of cin­e­ma. Should he appeal to fans of the books who hate Lynch’s film, or to fans of the clas­sic film who love its imagery, or to the kinds of the­ater­go­ers Uni­ver­sal Stu­dios feared would need a glos­sary to make it through the movie? Add to this the pres­sures of film­mak­ing dur­ing a pan­dem­ic, and you can imag­ine he might be feel­ing a lit­tle stressed.

But Vil­leneuve seems per­fect­ly relaxed in a recent inter­view above for the Shang­hai Inter­na­tion­al Film Fes­ti­val, and the trail­er for the new film has so far passed muster with every­one who’s seen it, gen­er­at­ing excite­ment among all of the above groups of poten­tial view­ers. As you can see in the video at the top, which match­es shots from the pre­view with the same scenes from the 1984 film, the new Dune both does its own thing and ref­er­ences Lynch’s dis­put­ed clas­sic in inter­est­ing ways.

No direc­tor should try to please every­one, but few adap­ta­tions come laden with more bag­gage than Dune. Maybe it’s a good idea to play it safe, anchor­ing the film to its trou­bled past while bring­ing it in line with the cur­rent size and scope of Hol­ly­wood block­busters? Not if you ask the direc­tor of the Dune that nev­er was. Ale­jan­dro Jodor­owsky intend­ed to bring audi­ences the most epic Dune of all time, and was relieved to find that Lynch’s adap­ta­tion was “a shit­ty pic­ture.” By con­trast, he pro­nounces the Vil­leneuve trail­er “very well done” but also com­pro­mised by its “indus­tri­al” need to appeal to a mass audi­ence. “The form is iden­ti­cal to what is done every­where,” he says, “The light­ing, the act­ing, every­thing is pre­dictable.”

Maybe this is inevitable with a sto­ry that film­go­ers already know. Maybe Villeneuve’s movie has sur­pris­es even Jodor­owsky won’t see com­ing. And maybe it’s impossible—and always has been—to make the Dune that the cult Chilean mas­ter want­ed (though break­ing it into two parts, as Vil­leneuve has done, is sure­ly a wise choice). Herbert’s vision was vast; every Dune is a compromise—“Nobody can do it. It’s a leg­end,” says Jodor­owsky. But every great direc­tor who tries leaves behind indeli­ble images that bur­row into the mind like shai-hulud.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Glos­sary Uni­ver­sal Stu­dios Gave Out to the First Audi­ences of David Lynch’s Dune (1984)

The Dune Col­or­ing & Activ­i­ty Books: When David Lynch’s 1984 Film Cre­at­ed Count­less Hours of Pecu­liar Fun for Kids

Moe­bius’ Sto­ry­boards & Con­cept Art for Jodorowsky’s Dune

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness


by | Permalink | Comments (10) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!


Comments (10)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Sami says:

    The 1984 ver­sion looks sooooo much bet­ter. Why is it that today’s movies have all com­plete­ly lost the vivid­ness and lights. Movies are not sup­posed to be dark, they’re movies — fan­ta­sy!

  • Steve P says:

    I guar­an­tee if Lynch did the movie today it would sur­pass any­thing Denis Vil­leneuve would accom­plish. This day and age we have easy access to CGI…back in 84 it was ani­ma­tron­ics and mat­te screens. Lynch ver­sion albeit it was made over 30 years ago still stands the test of time…

  • trommo says:

    Com­plain all you want about Lynch’s DUNE (actu­al­ly just stop) — it’s got style, atmos­phere and lots of clas­sic Lynchi­an weird­ness. So many scenes have been vivid­ly impressed in my mem­o­ry since I first saw the film decades ago.

    From what I can see, Jodor­owsky is right on about Vil­leneu­ve’s ver­sion — it’s a drab indus­tri­al prod­uct, com­pe­tent­ly designed and man­u­fac­tured.

  • Rivka says:

    Stopped read­ing at gom “jab­ber”. Smh.

  • Rivka says:

    From what you’ve seen.…that amounts to next to noth­ing. See the movie before com­par­ing. I will.

  • K says:

    I was 11 when David Lynch’s Dune came out. I liked it back then. When I got a lit­tle old­er, I not only still enjoyed it, but I actu­al­ly appre­ci­at­ed cer­tain scenes more, in par­tic­u­lar, the set pieces, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the throne room. David Lynch basi­cal­ly made a movie that was­n’t sup­posed to have been ATTEMPTED to be made, let alone actu­al­ly made and released. That’s what I think now. I read the books, and while I think they’re great, I’m by no means a purist or any of the hard­core type fans. Per­haps it had some­thing to do with read­ing them as a kid, I nev­er got stuck into one spe­cif­ic sub­ject, sto­ry­line, or author. What­ev­er I read, I fin­ished it, and imme­di­ate­ly look for some­thing else to read. Even when I was young, I just auto­mat­i­cal­ly assumed that if a movie came out that was based upon a book, it was­n’t going to be the same, espe­cial­ly with some­thing like Dune. What’s read and envi­sioned in my mind was­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly going to be the same as how any­one else would see it, if at all. And watch­ing the movie, that’s how some­one else

  • K says:

    .…and watch­ing the movie, that’s how some­one else saw the book in THEIR head. And it was­n’t how I saw it when I read it, but that was OK. I had “seen” my ver­sion already. I want­ed to see some­thing new. And I did. Any­way, maybe I was a weird lit­tle kid and still weird now. I’m gen­er­al­ly not big into remakes, par­tic­u­lar­ly if it’s of some­thing I already enjoyed watch­ing, but I get that a lot of peo­ple had a bug up their ass over Dune(like I need to start talk­ing about that). There’s a good 3 decade and a half gap since the last the­atri­cal ver­sion. Hon­est­ly, I hope it is good. I don’t believe in not lik­ing some­thing ahead of time(that’s lame). I will say one thing though: The remake of Dark Side of the Moon kin­da made me do an eye­roll, because DSOTM ‚the entire album, I usu­al­ly lis­ten to in full at least once a month. Pink Floyd does­n’t need any­thing remade. It’s Pink Floyd. Could­n’t let it go, my one gripe. Any­way, be nice to each other.–K

  • Adrian Knagg-Baugh says:

    I think the Lynch ver­sion isn’t bad. Some of the effects are a bit dat­ed, and as with any adap­ta­tion it’s com­pro­mised by what to include, what to leave out, where to focus. But even the link in the arti­cle about the sup­pos­ed­ly awful depic­tion of the 3rd stage nav­i­ga­tor just con­tains com­ments that say it isn’t incon­sis­tent with the scanty descrip­tions in the books. Per­haps it could have been a lit­tle smoother, per­haps a tiny bit more fish­like, but it was cer­tain­ly a cro­mu­lent imag­in­ing of the crea­ture’s look. I’m look­ing for­ward to see­ing the new ver­sion too.

  • Navin says:

    A Dune movie nev­er will be a bad movie. The sto­ry is too big and enig­mat­ic. A big chal­lenge for the direc­tor to come to terms with the sto­ry in a cin­e­mat­ic medi­um. Jodor­owsky came to the task with his big spir­i­tu­al ego and brought the ideas that lat­er will be exploit­ed suc­cess­ful­ly in Alien and Mad Max Fury Road.A sto­ry like Dune sur­pass­es time so it can be adapt­ed to the cur­rents . Is the direc­tor is too faith­ful to the sto­ry, sor­ry.

  • Navin says:

    A Dune movie nev­er will be a bad movie. The sto­ry is too big and enig­mat­ic. A big chal­lenge for the direc­tor to come to terms with the sto­ry in a cin­e­mat­ic medi­um. Jodor­owsky came to the task with his big spir­i­tu­al ego and brought the ideas that lat­er will be exploit­ed suc­cess­ful­ly in Alien and Mad Max Fury Road.A sto­ry like Dune sur­pass­es time so it can be adapt­ed to the cur­rents Is the direc­tor is too faith­ful to the sto­ry, sor­ry.

Leave a Reply

Quantcast