Writer-director Denis Villeneuve has done the impossible: in Dune: Part One and Dune: Part Two, he adapted Frank Herbert’s 1965 sci-fi classic in a way that resonated with the masses. Before this, many considered Dune to be unfilmable, in part because the 1984 movie version from director David Lynch is remembered so poorly, including by David Lynch.

Would Lynch’s movie have gone over better if it stayed more faithful to the source material? Which adaptation got closer to the mark? And is there a difference between faithful and good?

Dune: The story so far

What do both versions get wrong?

Both adaptions of Dune share the same outline. Paul Atreides is the scion of a great noble house. His family moves to the desert planet of Arrakis, the source of the all-important spice. The jealous emperor and the vile House Harkonnen conspire to destroy the Atreides family. Paul is forced into exile, where he lives with the native Fremen people and meets Chani, his paramour. He becomes a messiah to the Fremen, and eventually returns to kill the Harkonnens and become the new emperor of the known universe.

That said, both versions change things, sometimes out of necessity and sometimes by choice. For instance, both versions cut a dinner party scene where various factions on Arrakis come together. Both versions cut the character of Count Fenring and minimize the character of Thufir Hawat, the Atreides family Mentat. In the book, Paul and Chani have a toddler son who is killed in a raid near the end of the book. Their son doesn’t appear in either adaptation.

Also, in general, both versions omit a lot of complexity and backstory regarding the Spacing Guild, the ecology of Arrakis, and the economics of this universe. Let’s dig into some specifics.

David Lynch vs. Dune

David Lynch is a talented director known for strange, surreal movies like Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive. He adds several signature touches to his Dune movie, like making over the Baron Harkonnen so he has sickly boils growing all over his body. Lynch also includes an appearance from a Guild Navigator, a mutated human who lives in a tank. No navigator appears in the original Dune book, but Lynch couldn’t pass up a chance to include such a bizarre character.

Thematically, Lynch makes some important changes to Paul’s story. In Frank Herbert’s Dune books, Paul’s transformation from wayward rebel to galactic emperor is a cautionary tale. Through his ascension, Paul unleashes a destructive jihad that kills billions of people, but in Lynch’s movie, his journey is framed as a heroic triumph over evil. At the end of the movie, he even makes it rain on bone-dry Arrakis, which seems like proof of his divinity.

Lynch also adds in sonic-based weapons called “weirding modules,” which are basically sci-fi ray guns. These don’t exist in the books, but the original Star Wars trilogy had just wrapped up, and Lynch may have been under pressure to include some blasters.

Despite these differences, Lynch packs most of the story from the original Dune into his movie, although that’s not necessarily a good thing. Even at two hours and 17 minutes long, the movie feels over-stuffed. Denis Villeneuve tells the story of Dune over two movies, which results in much better pacing.

Denis Villeneuve vs. Dune

Better pacing, still very different

That said, just because Villeneuve’s movies are longer doesn’t mean they’re more faithful. In fact, in some ways, they break from the book more than Lynch’s version does.

For instance, Villeneuve’s movies all but cut Paul’s younger sister Alia, a powerful Reverend Mother born in the body of a young girl. By the end of Dune: Part Two, Paul’s mother, Lady Jessica, is still pregnant with her, whereas in the book (and in Lynch’s movie) she is born and creeping everyone out.

Villeneuve’s movies also change the ending of Dune in a small but crucial way. In the original book, Paul’s armies of Fremen go out into the universe and carry out a jihad in his name despite him never explicitly telling them to; they’re part of a religious movement that he loses control over. But in Villeneuve’s films, Paul gives the order for the jihad to begin, giving him more responsibility.

Which adaptation “gets it right”?

Villeneuve’s movies also change the character of Chani. Lynch’s movie follows the book, which ends with Chani at Paul’s side. But at the end of Dune: Part Two, Chani is angry with Paul for embracing fanaticism, and decides to leave him. Dune: Part Three will continue this narrative and take the story into uncharted territory.

Neither adaptation is entirely faithful to Frank Herbert’s book, although Villeneuve’s movies take a dimmer view of Paul’s journey, which is more in tune with the source text thematically. Also, crucially, Dune: Parts One and Two are better, more entertaining movies, regardless of their textual fidelity, which counts for a lot.

Release Date

February 27, 2024

Runtime

167 minutes

Director

Denis Villeneuve

• 

  Timothée Chalamet

  Paul Atreides

• 

• 

•