I’m a fan of the original books, much less so the ones written by Herbert’s son in the expanded universe. Drastically different writing and level of complexity.

I am not a fan of the new films for many reasons. They are not bad, to be clear. However, IMO they stripped out the most important and driving aspects of the Dune universe which is the politics, maneuvering, manipulation, and insane wealth of the Great Houses. The new films are primarily action flicks with invented parts that didn’t happen, belabored parts of the story that didn’t need it while ignoring other parts that should have had more impact. I’m also not a great fan of some of the actors. Chalamet IMO can’t seem to be anything other than a whiny, moody goth-y kid like in so many other of his films. He lacks presence in the role. Zendaya just glares and scowls the whole time. Bardem does a great job, though. Walken…looked like he didn’t “get it.” Momoa, really was written poorly and yet was given made-up scenes that weren’t in the book. They gave the guild navigator’s distorted bodies a miss. In a way I think they did a disservice to the importance of the Worms, they are incredibly important in the books, given fair accounting in 1984 Dune, and reduced to pretty much war elephants in New Dune.

Anyway…I have lots of criticism for the new films. Lynch’s 1984 Dune had plenty of weird stuff and really cringy sfx, like the baby sinking in tomato sauce for one, but one thing it nailed was helping the viewer understand the universe, the politics, they why things were they way they were. They also made stuff up like the weirding modules, which were interesting additions, but didn’t exist in the book.

Yeah, I get it, in true Hollywood fashion each director has to put their own take on a story, and unfortunately that “take” means they’re going to make change just for change’s sake. The new movies are visually amazing. The ornithopters are great, they got that right finally instead of the weird gilded boxes from 1984, the worms are far more impressive and scary….but IMO the story just isn’t there other than “action movie”.

I’ve read the series twice, seen 1984 Dune at least a dozen times and the new ones twice. JMO, fwiw.

Dune books are great if you’re more into the political landscape and how that affects the characters over action.

The 80s movie is great if you like shitty over ambitious directing with enough voice overs to last you a lifetime. Oh and Sting.

The new movies were more aligned with the story of the books not exact but more true to the stroy. Better than the David Lynch variant for sure. These movies and the 90s/2000s? Miniseries are the video adaptations that are not really Bad - imo

Eta: there’s a George R. R. Martin quote about what inspired A Song of Ice and Fire - he is talking about Tolkien and the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings series… He mentioned how he was more interested in the politics after the war. Where did the orcs go etc… This is kinda the vein of Dune imo. The main character is Arrakhis IMHO. The stroy is one of politics.

Went on a west coast road trip last summer and started the audio book in the car to see if my kids, 11 & 8 at the time, would be into it. They loved it so much it was pretty much all we listened to for a week. We got trough two and a half books before getting home.

The first three books are really great, and some of the best world building ever. The book is wonderful first person where you get to be in the characters head while the political games-manship plays out. You really understand where character motivation is coming from, probably the biggest difference from the movies.

I thought that the films were identical to the books up until the end. The screenwriter changed the ending. Regardless, I think it was an acceptable change and I thoroughly enjoyed the movies.

Book 4 was my fave :)