Interesting. I was going to say that when it came out, I liked it, but felt that the first half of the movie took up 9/10 of the movie, and they suddenly realized they were almost out of film, so everything went into fast motion, and armies zipped from left to right, then right to left, and Little Sis says, “He IS the Kwisatz Haderach!”
It’s been long enough since I read the book, but if that sudden compression was part of the book as well, then I should apologize to the movie.
It’s horses for courses, 5th made and impact, Dune, I’ve I seen it, I don’t remember. The former maybe a bag of bollocks but watchable it is.
Have you heard about the extended six hour version of Dune Without Words?
Actually one thing came up in this thread that maybe someone can answer.
A friend of mine, and at least one person in this thread, have claimed to have seen 3 or 4 hour long extended cuts of Dune. I’ve even heard of a 5 hour long cut.
But if you go googling for it, the internet says that the longest version was 4 hours long before any effects or editing, and the rough director’s cut was barely 3 hours long. And the only broadcast version was 138 minutes long.
So if anyone’s seen these mythical super long versions of Dune, what were they? Do they actually exist, or is it one of those “a friend of a friend knew a guy who showed them a 5 hour long Dune in his van” type of things?
JFYI: That was the version that Lynch did not want any part of, hence the credits showing the fictitious pseudonym, Alan Smithee, as the director. Lynch had good reason to disown the extended version. Notwithstanding his own version’s issues for some, it did have a logical ‘filmic’ flow to it. The extended version “filled in the gaps”, but clumsily, and in a way that, for me, interrupted the flow of the narrative. Even with all the opportunities that were lost in Lynch’s version, I still think it’s watchable and kind of trippy in a kind of Lynchian way (which isn’t necessarily bad).
I remember looking into this a while back, and the long and short of it is:
“I saw a >3 hour version of Dune” = “worked for Dino Di Laurentiis in the 1980s” or “lies”
Or maybe was alive in 19A4.
To be fair, if I’m watching a David Lynch film I’m not expecting it to make sense.
It does not suck. It is flawed but it does not suck. There are more even science fiction movies but there aren’t many (any?) this beautiful.
I’ve read the series over a bunch of times and I love David Lynch’s Dune. So, fans of the books can like the movie.
First, asking that the design be cohesive is beside the point. Dune is one of the few science fiction movies where the world actually feels alien. Not just fantastic or shocking or awesome. Alien. The disturbing nature of the imagery and their beauty is exactly what makes this worth watching. That’s why you can watch it without the words.
On the design, Dune is a series about history and David Lynch’s design choices are specifically historical. And he juxtaposes strange combinations of history with strange ideas and strange sets and strange artifacts. It’s not “what looks cool”.
Something tens of thousands of years in the future shouldn’t be easy to swallow in one shot. Jodorowsky was taking a similar mishmash approach.
I’m a fan.
I do understand the sentiment behind such statements, if not the logic.
Compare it to a similar taste controversy, a vegetable of controversial taste…
For example, I happen to make excellent brussel sprouts. I’ve tried lots of different ways to make them, and I can confidently say ‘these are crappy brussel sprouts’ or ‘these are excellent brussel sprouts’. I also know a few folks who have tried brussel sprouts the way their grandma made them, overcooked, mushy, bitter, drowning in greasy water, and confidently say ‘I hate brussel sprouts’. If they had learned to cook brussel sprouts, they could avoid that category error, and say ‘grandma’s brussel sprouts were terrible, but not all brussel sprouts are terrible’.
Similarly, someone who has some experience with filmmaking could say ‘these parts of the movie were badly done’, rather than making the categorical judgement that the movie as a whole sucked.
Saw Fifth Element on the big screen and rushed back to see it again a couple days later. (And once more in the dollar theatre!)
I thought the 4 hour-cut was the “Judas Booth”* version, which was 4 hours when padded out with commercials.
*Judas Booth was the name Lynch insisted be used for his directorial credit for the re-edited version.
ETA: Judas Booth was the screenwriting credit actually, not director’s. Director’s credit was, as said above, Alan Smithee.
I knew I liked you for a good reason.
How can one tell that one is posting something that will be blocked?
It’s always been a sign of Gary Oldman’s amazing versatility that he could go from a tragic Sid Vicious to joyously overacting the shit out of Space Hitler Bad Guy and more recently play a weary, dutiful George Smiley even better than Alec Guinness. Not to mention his Rosencratz. Or Guidenstern. Not sure.
How did he feel about them in Stalker?
Seeing as how he’s the Emperor and all, he probably doesn’t get into a whole lot of knife fights himself. It’s a ceremonial blade.
As I recall, he didn’t mind them in Stalker because Stalker’s sci-fi-ness was purely conceptual. What Tarkovsky wasn’t keen on was all the rockets, and air locks, and radiation beams, etc. that came with Lem’s tale. Stalker fit more in with Tarkovsky’s “mystical” approach.
There are a couple of longer versions - one made by a tv channel and the other by a fan that do improve it on the coherency side and in my opinion make it a much better film.
you’re guess is as good as mine.
weird internet is weird
