I would imagine Lynch's only recourse would be to have his name removed, like he did with the TV edit, but that's assuming the same rules apply in Germany as they did in the US when it was released. I'd think otherwise the studio could do whatever they wanted with it. My guess is Koch put it on there and hoped no one would raise any fuss. The guy who did the edit was asking people on some fan edit forum I found to not talk about it so much prior to release, like he was afraid someone would put the hammer down if it got out the edit was on there.
Dune
Moderator: yoloswegmaster
-
J Wilson
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:26 am
- Contact:
Re: Dune
-
The Fanciful Norwegian
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
- Location: Teegeeack
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Re: Dune
It's far more than just that. It's actually a thorough reconceptualization of the film's structure and flow. As far as I'm concerned it's the single best version of the movie and I say that as a huge fan (it's probably my favorite Lynch). Significantly it also "fixes" the ending as well as a few other technical inconsistencies. I think I ultimately prefer the Spicediver ending though I really don't mind either way (he makes it less jarring at least). Lynch's own many declarations of this as a deeply compromised project seem to make this film in particular fair game for such revisions/improvements.therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 1:23 pmThat's pretty cool- I imagine that's just splicing the deleted scenes into the finished film?
-
therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Dune
Can we expect the Koch set to get broken up and not cost hundreds of dollars at some point? I'd like to hold out for it, but I don't like the film nearly enough to splurge like that- the Spicediver upscale is definitely the big draw for me
-
therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Dune
It's pretty amazing how conditions for watching a film can completely change your perception- I never liked Lynch's film, but watched the Arrow UHD tonight and the pristine clarity of HRD etc. provided the correct conditions for me to fall in love with it as a piece of half-knowing camp taken seriously in all the right places, and indulging in its sci-fi eccentricities appropriately. This approach strikes a near-perfect balance of conscious absurdity and sincere engagement within that internal logic. The Baron's initial scene, and how its escalating textures arrive at his gruesome kill, combines these tones in the most fluid and commanding cocktail. I was floored by how something so cartoonish could also be exhibited as so respectfully tense.
Especially when compared to Villeneuve's overly-dour and vacuous effort, it's surprising how economical this film is at telling its story and inviting us into its world. Villeneuve felt like he had to overstuff his film and continually race through plotting at an exhaustive pace, which is only theoretically economical. Lynch's film never feels forced, and manages to effortlessly grace us with doses of slight characterization -via a wonderful array of lively character actors and performances that contain genuine spark- on its road ahead with a strong thrust of forward momentum. It's strange to see how, in hindsight, the remake barely changes its approach to the material in terms of its mindful progression moving through it (something I had thought was the core intention of its existence), with the main difference being that Villeneuve focused on special effects and bombastic setpieces while cooling all colorful 'fun' elements with an unearned austerity -including failing to breathe and meditate on significant scenes that emphasize character development and narrative stakes.
Okay, so Lynch's version also has some choppy sections that speed up the propulsion of plot (Paul and Chani's relationship, for example, or Paul's ascension within the Fremen collective), but even without the excuse of studio interference, this seems to be the only suitable method to adapting such a dense but ultimately thinly-veiled piece of shlock; one where the dullest subsection of the book is fast-forwarded, and the mythology is oversimplified and sidelined as secondary to the aesthetic and tonal pleasures. MacLachlan is wonderfully-balanced as the engaging protagonist, anchoring the film so much better than Chalamet's insipid Paul, and this is only one of the many key distinctions that contribute to Lynch's film pulsating with flavor, both comparatively and independently. I doubt Jodorowsky's vision would have transpired much differently than this, had it been actualized. Lynch's film is plenty ambitious and entertaining, a gonzo-blockbuster that manages to be abnormal and mainstream at once. I imagine that was the goal for all parties here, so mission accomplished.
Especially when compared to Villeneuve's overly-dour and vacuous effort, it's surprising how economical this film is at telling its story and inviting us into its world. Villeneuve felt like he had to overstuff his film and continually race through plotting at an exhaustive pace, which is only theoretically economical. Lynch's film never feels forced, and manages to effortlessly grace us with doses of slight characterization -via a wonderful array of lively character actors and performances that contain genuine spark- on its road ahead with a strong thrust of forward momentum. It's strange to see how, in hindsight, the remake barely changes its approach to the material in terms of its mindful progression moving through it (something I had thought was the core intention of its existence), with the main difference being that Villeneuve focused on special effects and bombastic setpieces while cooling all colorful 'fun' elements with an unearned austerity -including failing to breathe and meditate on significant scenes that emphasize character development and narrative stakes.
Okay, so Lynch's version also has some choppy sections that speed up the propulsion of plot (Paul and Chani's relationship, for example, or Paul's ascension within the Fremen collective), but even without the excuse of studio interference, this seems to be the only suitable method to adapting such a dense but ultimately thinly-veiled piece of shlock; one where the dullest subsection of the book is fast-forwarded, and the mythology is oversimplified and sidelined as secondary to the aesthetic and tonal pleasures. MacLachlan is wonderfully-balanced as the engaging protagonist, anchoring the film so much better than Chalamet's insipid Paul, and this is only one of the many key distinctions that contribute to Lynch's film pulsating with flavor, both comparatively and independently. I doubt Jodorowsky's vision would have transpired much differently than this, had it been actualized. Lynch's film is plenty ambitious and entertaining, a gonzo-blockbuster that manages to be abnormal and mainstream at once. I imagine that was the goal for all parties here, so mission accomplished.