I'm 44 and I think Lynch'n Dune is better, because it has soul. The first movie was very sterile and lifeless. I commented about it here a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38980303
Mid-50's here and really didn't like Lynch's version that much, but was quite underwhelmed with Part 1.
That said, I think you nailed the two movies in two sentences.
Of Lynch's version I often quip that it was both good and original - however the parts that were original were not good, and the parts that were good were not original. In short - I did not like the divergences from the source material that much. It did have a soul though.
Part 1 seemed to miss or give short-shrift to beats in the book that always stood out to me. Instead of really conveying the absolutely oppressive lack of moisture on the planet, there was what felt like an interminably long monologue about the palm trees. Mentats with inner eye-lids? Leaned into the mystical side too much for my taste. Yueh's betrayal seemed like a footnote. The end of the movie from when Paul and Jessica met the Freman felt rushed. More time spent on why Jamis was so pissed off, and reflecting on the fact that this was the first man Paul killed, and less on weird alternative time-line future WTF visions would have been time better spent. Sterile and lifeless.
Add to that, did anyone else not know that it was a part one and not a complete movie when they walked in? Definitely seemed like something that they went to lengths to conceal.
That said, I'll watch it again before watching part two, and then try and form an opinion of the complete movie and not just the first half.
The scene that sealed the deal for me was Paul's awakening: I absolutely loved how it was done in Lynch's version, complete with the grand score by Toto, and it was so, so bland and uninspiring in Villeneuve's version.
Mind you, there were great moments in it too, and my ideal Dune movie would take things from both movies (and also from that [0] Dune 1 game!), but overall Lynch's direction was better for me.
Lynch's world building, Captain Picard vs Sting, rather well-acted, Toto's soundtrack, that intro (oh man, that intro).. what's not to like! I see it as completely different takes, I prefer the old one - has soul to it. Kind of same with old Blade Runner vs 2049. Newer films are technically awesome, yet kind of vapid. And, yes - tastes are different, but let's talk in 20 or so years and see which stick. Old ones already stuck. Kind of similar to how people shat on SW prequels, yet they're still with us in popular culture, new ones not very much.
The worldbuilding in the prequels made up for massive deficits in other areas. A masterclass in worldbuilding for sure. Not so much for plot cohesion, characterization, motivation... Whereas the first two Star Wars releases are near-perfect enough movies to still act as templates for new filmmakers.
I love 'em both. Very different takes. Lynch took a lot of liberties but did a great job squeezing it into a single movie. I think Lynch captured the religious aspect quite well. I've read all the books. Villeneuve has made an epic series. The casting is great. The music is awesome. Cinematography stunning.
I would agree that the cinematographic qualities of each movies are debatable, but the old David Lynch one will always be vastly superior for the single fact that Toto's (and Brian Eno) soundtrack is 3.7 thousand times better (give or take) than the uninspired bland soup that Hans Zimmer has been serving.
New is a better/watchable movie for sure, but I do think the David Lynch one really nailed the "this is 10000 years in the future" aesthetic and vibe, especially given the special effects capabilities of 1984. New one does not feel that way to me.
I’m right on the millenial/gen Z divide and an inner selfish purpose for me working on AI/ML is just to enable a creation of Jodorowsky’s 10 hour version of Dune with soundtrack by Pink Floyd.
