I love each versions interpretation of the sandworms. 1984: This version is seen like a legendary being, grand & majestic. It must be viewed with respect and fear. Villeneuve: This depiction is almost like a force of nature, unstoppable & unpredictable. You must flow with its direction.
I think my main issue with the 84 version of this scene is that its just so...easy. They see the worm move along (slowly), Paul does a mild jog up to it, then prys open the scale, moves up, and then does everything while walking around casually on top. Basically, it looks so easy, that I'm confident that I could probably do it first try. Meanwhile, 24 actually conveys it as a challenge that he could die from. I'd die trying to ride that thing, so its impressive to see him come out successful.
I find it kind of contradictory that the Fremen worship the worms (hail the maker and his water, hail the coming and going of him, may his passage cleanse the world) but at the same time they feel it’s okay to shove giant hooks into him and ride him across the desert like a beast.
It really does. I know the Lynch version is flawed, and Villeneuve's version kinda makes doing another version pointless because it's too good. But the miniseries was awful. It was all so lifeless and dull.
While the visual effects and the musical score of the 2024's version are unmatchable, I think Lynch's approach makes more sense in terms of logic ans the laws of physics. In other words, it's more credible. Imagine if he had been given the appropriate resources.
@@yuhrodriguez7633 Thanks for your comment Yuh. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie, and I appreciate the visual impact and dramatism, but for instance, nobody could be able to ride and control a beast like that just with their bare hands. It would break his wrists in seconds. Besides, how does he get to stay on top of the creature all the time without any harness or anything?... With that powerful wind and sand coming onto him, he would be thrown back if he lose his grip just for a moment, and it would be over. Cheers!!!
@@pimentoso In both movies, Paul uses those claws. Him standing on top without falling or tripping is the same in both movies. Both use the hook for the first attachment and wait for the worm to turn in the right position. The difference is getting on. In one, he just runs up to it because it's moving so slow. In the other, he slides down the sand wave and lands on the worm because it's moving so much faster. Both are as logical and as credible. Secondly, If Lynch had today's resources but the same constraints from the studio, the movie would still be terrible. It would just look really cool. I'd much rather see his version if he had full freedom, because I can easily forgive bad special effects.
They tried to keep it as realistic as possible...sandworms don't normally come out unless they engulf something and they really wanna show how hard it is to do it
@@brettskinner5824 yes and we see them when they attack emperor's army...I just think not seeing something makes it lot scarier...hell we didn't see sauron in whole LOTR trilogy and it made him more scary
Garbage take. It has its flaws, but overall it's a great experience. In fact I think it handles some aspects of the story better than the Villeneuve Dune. For instance the new adaptation didn't even include the guild navigator scene. Also the campiness only adds to its value as a film. On the same note the performances are great especially Kyle Maclachlan as Paul. It's a visually rich and experimental movie. Is it as good as the Villeneuve Dune..? Probably not, but I think that it has a lot to offer if you decide not to act like a dork for a few seconds. If that is even possible for you > 🤓
@@jacobneil135 Kyle Maclachlan's performance was garbage. He has the some of the most surface level acting I seen. Every expression is the most obvious one.
@@paragonproductions6322 your brain must be smoother than Persian cat. Kyle Maclachlan brings a level of personality to the role that is perfectly presented by Lynch's expert direction. You can tell that the two of them have a great working relationship. Also Kevin McMillan's portrayal of the Baron is actually peak. You are obviously a person who has no appreciation for the nuance of the craft.
@@jacobneil135Campiness would def not add value to a film Villeneuve wanted to make. The way he wanted to envision dune. It would shit on all the epicness people praise the movie for.
@@jacobneil135Sorry to break your tinted glasses, but acting in the beggining years of film was just terrible by today's standards, the craft moved on in so many ways to the one dating back. I don't say the actors didn't take as much time to prepare for the role, or get into the character, but compare cinematography and emotions on actors seen in old and new movies (Movies of high caliber ofc) and it is deluding oneself if one does not see the obvious winner. Method acting changed a lot in the industry, before that actors pretended, and it's visible that they pretend.
1984: What the Fremen said happened that day
2024: What Paul remembers happened that day
I love each versions interpretation of the sandworms.
1984: This version is seen like a legendary being, grand & majestic. It must be viewed with respect and fear.
Villeneuve: This depiction is almost like a force of nature, unstoppable & unpredictable. You must flow with its direction.
I think my main issue with the 84 version of this scene is that its just so...easy. They see the worm move along (slowly), Paul does a mild jog up to it, then prys open the scale, moves up, and then does everything while walking around casually on top. Basically, it looks so easy, that I'm confident that I could probably do it first try.
Meanwhile, 24 actually conveys it as a challenge that he could die from. I'd die trying to ride that thing, so its impressive to see him come out successful.
I find it kind of contradictory that the Fremen worship the worms (hail the maker and his water, hail the coming and going of him, may his passage cleanse the world) but at the same time they feel it’s okay to shove giant hooks into him and ride him across the desert like a beast.
YESSS!!…AWESOME!!!
I love both versions.
The SyFy one though sucks so much ass.
It really does. I know the Lynch version is flawed, and Villeneuve's version kinda makes doing another version pointless because it's too good. But the miniseries was awful. It was all so lifeless and dull.
While the visual effects and the musical score of the 2024's version are unmatchable, I think Lynch's approach makes more sense in terms of logic ans the laws of physics. In other words, it's more credible. Imagine if he had been given the appropriate resources.
the new one makes more sense, the worm is traveling super fast across sand, he wouldn’t really just be able to walk on it and chill like the og
@@yuhrodriguez7633 Thanks for your comment Yuh. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie, and I appreciate the visual impact and dramatism, but for instance, nobody could be able to ride and control a beast like that just with their bare hands. It would break his wrists in seconds. Besides, how does he get to stay on top of the creature all the time without any harness or anything?... With that powerful wind and sand coming onto him, he would be thrown back if he lose his grip just for a moment, and it would be over.
Cheers!!!
@@pimentoso In both movies, Paul uses those claws. Him standing on top without falling or tripping is the same in both movies. Both use the hook for the first attachment and wait for the worm to turn in the right position. The difference is getting on. In one, he just runs up to it because it's moving so slow. In the other, he slides down the sand wave and lands on the worm because it's moving so much faster. Both are as logical and as credible.
Secondly, If Lynch had today's resources but the same constraints from the studio, the movie would still be terrible. It would just look really cool. I'd much rather see his version if he had full freedom, because I can easily forgive bad special effects.
While good visual i wanna see more worm then just a bunch of sand
They tried to keep it as realistic as possible...sandworms don't normally come out unless they engulf something and they really wanna show how hard it is to do it
@@gohilravirajsinh5212 ok but some of us wanna see the damn worm teeth and all
@@brettskinner5824 yes and we see them when they attack emperor's army...I just think not seeing something makes it lot scarier...hell we didn't see sauron in whole LOTR trilogy and it made him more scary
It is a lot more menacing in the way Dune 2024 did
You missed the entire point. The point of the shot is to show what Paul is going through. This isn't Godzilla.
Paul uses hooks in both movies, but it's not approached the same way. That's my point. Lynch's version is more credible.
I may have to disagree
1984 Dune is a shitty movie, and nobody can convince me otherwise.
Garbage take. It has its flaws, but overall it's a great experience. In fact I think it handles some aspects of the story better than the Villeneuve Dune. For instance the new adaptation didn't even include the guild navigator scene. Also the campiness only adds to its value as a film. On the same note the performances are great especially Kyle Maclachlan as Paul. It's a visually rich and experimental movie. Is it as good as the Villeneuve Dune..? Probably not, but I think that it has a lot to offer if you decide not to act like a dork for a few seconds. If that is even possible for you > 🤓
@@jacobneil135 Kyle Maclachlan's performance was garbage. He has the some of the most surface level acting I seen. Every expression is the most obvious one.
@@paragonproductions6322 your brain must be smoother than Persian cat. Kyle Maclachlan brings a level of personality to the role that is perfectly presented by Lynch's expert direction. You can tell that the two of them have a great working relationship. Also Kevin McMillan's portrayal of the Baron is actually peak. You are obviously a person who has no appreciation for the nuance of the craft.
@@jacobneil135Campiness would def not add value to a film Villeneuve wanted to make. The way he wanted to envision dune. It would shit on all the epicness people praise the movie for.
@@jacobneil135Sorry to break your tinted glasses, but acting in the beggining years of film was just terrible by today's standards, the craft moved on in so many ways to the one dating back. I don't say the actors didn't take as much time to prepare for the role, or get into the character, but compare cinematography and emotions on actors seen in old and new movies (Movies of high caliber ofc) and it is deluding oneself if one does not see the obvious winner. Method acting changed a lot in the industry, before that actors pretended, and it's visible that they pretend.