Lilac
Luci ain't got nothin' on me.
Reading your response got me thinking, and I can see the validity of your arguments.Archibald Nixon said:The miniseries is a more faithful adaptation of the book, I'll give it that (I read all six Herbert books about a year before it came out --never got to his son's prequels). I also admired how they didn't feel the need to throw some cooked up techno-gimmick (the "weirding modules" in the Lynch film) to liven it up or as a substitute for the complex political intrigue. Some of the actors, especially the woman who played Chani, were fun to watch. The sandworms were much better and looked a lot less like humungous schlongs than they did in the original (I used to defend them by explaining that hey: They're giant worms. How the hell are they not going to look like enormous peckers?)
That's about all the nice things I have to say about the miniseries, though. It truly had some of worst direction I've ever seen (and I mean horrible; almost on par with 'Battlefield Earth'). The pacing was tedious, the performances wooden, even from William Hurt. For all that was wrong with Lynch's film, as someone who's read the book more than once I, for one, thought his casting was terrific (yes, even Sting fit his role very well --better than those fucked-up skivvies he wore). In the miniseries many of the casting decisions truly buggered description, like the Fremen: This sinewy, weatherbeaten desert race were played by a bunch of fat shits, led by Stilgar: a pasty, balding lardass. I remember watching it with the growing impression that the film looked like it got hijacked during into pre-production by my dissipated Uncle Burt, who directed it half in the bag and peppered the cast & crew with his drinking buddies.
I could cite & elaborate many examples, but I'd have to watch the fucking thing again. Suffice it to say: The Lynch film left me befuddled and disappointed with an half-perfect movie, something that might have been great on it's own (even with the minor changes from the book) but for the budget & time constraints. The miniseries, on the other hand, not only made me cringe but actually made me angry: They had a much better opportunity to get it right, get a truer feel for the novel and they pissed it away with some incredibly stupid decisions.
But you're right: If I'm going to nitpick, perhaps elsewhere. Hopefully this didn't derail things too badly (and thanks for the sober response --refreshing compared to the avalanche of shit I get whenever I get into this with your typical sci-fi fan.)
Comparing Dune 84 to Dune 00, and I prefer 00 to 84 for the faithfulness to the book, and I felt some of the casting was better (Alec Newman as Paul, Julie Cox as Irulan, Ian McNeice as the Baron and Giancarlo Gianini as the Emporer).
On the other hand, 84 had some better choices-- Patrick Stewart as Gurney, for example. 84 also 'preserved' the characteristics of Irulan from the book, that of a blonde with barely any role in the story (aside from a historian), but I felt that 00 gave Irulan a more compelling role, and Julie Cox had one of the better performances.
00's casting on the Fremen side could have been much better, instead of relying on the Czech actors like they did (Barbora Kodetova as Chani was probably the best choice in the lot, and I don't think she 'proved' herself until the Children of Dune series.
I think that neither movie did a great job of doing Dune justice, and some of the actors that were in both Dune 00 and Children of Dune didn't really deliver until Children or the last third of Dune 00. Ian McNeice was probably the only one that really ran off with the role in 00, dragging Matt Keisler (Feyd) along with him. I personally didn't care for the psychotic-insane Baron in 84, as it bit off the dangerous edge of coniving conspiracy about him.