WARNING: The following contains spoilers for Dune, now playing in theaters and on HBO Max

Denis Villeneuve’s new version of Dune has arrived to strong critical acclaim and robust box office. The film is also being praised for its bold reimagining of the vaunted Frank Herbert classic while evoking ready comparisons to the previous theatrical release: 1984’s Dune, directed by David Lynch. Both films had big budgets behind them and were designed to make a splash. Yet both were received very differently, and upon analysis, they tell their story in singular ways.

That comes as no surprise. Though both directors garnered respect over their careers for their respective cinematic visions, those visions diverge deeply. When combined with Herbert’s sci-fi epic -- with its rich political machinations and exploration of religious themes -- it made for two different takes on the same story. Both directors approached the novel with great respect, but beyond that, how do they match up?

RELATED: Dune's Cliffhanger Ending, Explained

dune liet-kynes

The book itself is considerably challenging as a source for adaptation, and it says volumes about both directors that they got anything onto the screen at all. But the biggest difference between the two -- at least thus far -- is most likely their initial reception. The new version currently holds an 83 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with high praise for its ambition and visual scope. The Lynch version, conversely, holds a rating of 45 percent, and reviews at the time of its release were mostly far worse. It failed to recoup its production costs at the box office and was labeled a major cinematic disaster, so much so that Lynch reportedly refuses to discuss it in interviews. Yet over time, Lynch's adaption has developed a following who praise what it accomplished and cite the impressive visuals and unique tone as reasons to celebrate it.

Lynch had to contend with a much shorter running time than Villeneuve, which accounts for at least some of its negative reception. An original cut of over three hours was severely truncated for its release, forcing the director to cut a number of sequences and concentrate key world-building. The 1984 Dune covers the entire novel in two hours and 16 minutes. Villeneuve has two hours and 36 minutes to cover about half as much material. In and of itself, that provides the new version with an edge, though with only half the story yet told, it's still very much a work in progress.

RELATED: Step Aside Tremors, Dune’s Sandworms Are Perfectly Epic

Dune

That gives the Lynch Dune a sense of feeling unduly rushed, though the quick pacing helps ease it past some of the more obtuse passages. The new version takes advantage of the expanded length, largely by developing supporting characters such as Duncan Idaho and Gurney Halleck more completely. For example, Villeneuve’s version details Idaho’s efforts to keep Paul and his mother safe after the Harkonnens retake Arrakis. Lynch eliminates that sequence, largely to save time, and Idaho’s story is shortened accordingly. That tends to favor Villeneuve’s version in direct comparisons, and yet the abrupt end to his film, with a sequel still not guaranteed, has been one of the few criticisms leveled against it. Lynch encompassed the entire story in a shorter running time, and though severely streamlined, it still provides a solid approximation of the novel's storytelling.

The look of each film differs significantly as well, and with it comes a more abiding distinction in tone. Lynch’s films are famously surreal and alienating. His Dune focused on the strange and unreal qualities of its far future, such as Spacing Guild’s monstrous mutations or the tumor-laden body of Baron Harkonnen. His Paul Atreides was similarly detached, a messiah who often struggled to understand the humanity he would lead. Villeneuve, conversely, keeps his universe surprisingly relatable, with natural tones in much of the special effects, and simple, timeless fashions that could come from any era. It allows the audience to connect with the characters more readily, though it leaves the film more meditative and less intense. Similarly, his Paul is far less sure of himself than Lynch’s version and thus more relatable.

Neither approach is wrong, and while Villeneuve’s take is more readily accessible, Lynch’s version carries pleasures of its own that are not lightly dismissed. The new version does better on several levels, which accounts for its warmer reception. But the older film carries its own strengths, which aren’t readily duplicated even from a production like 2021’s. Cinema is a richer place for the Lynch version, and its legacy is its own. Villeneuve's take is often to a much stronger start, but its legacy still has very much to be written.

To take in Dune's massive scale, the film is in theaters now and streaming on HBO Max.

KEEP READING: The Spice Must Flow: Dune's Drug, and Its Importance, Explained