I was recently on Quora and was a part of a discussion about The Flash, which someone thought was ‘awesome.’

The problem was the I’ve also seen the movie and while it had its moments, by no means deserved such praise.

And I get it. Everyone has their own opinion but objectively speaking? Not so much. Among many issues, the special effects were fairly wonky, no matter how much Andy Muschietti says they were intentional.

Never mind the Flash too often felt like a guest in his own movie.

Though I can relate. For instance, I prefer David Lynch’s Dune over Denis Villenueve’s version.

Is Villeneuve’s version, as a movie, better? No doubt. It came out earlier this year and has the benefit of more modern special effects technologies.

It’s also more subtle. There’s a pretentiousness to the dialog of Lynch’s movie that can be tiring.

And the voiceovers in David Lynch’s movie?

So. Many. Voiceovers.

It’s almost as if the director though that Frank Herbert’s novel was too complex, too dense to get across to viewers that they had to be spoon-fed what characters are thinking or maybe he didn’t think too highly of the actors he hired.

I don’t know, but David Lynch does some things in his movie that are fascinating, never mind the whole visual esthetic, which is weighty and ornate, while production design in Villeneuve’s movie is more understated.

Is Lynch’s movie more faithful to the novel?

I’ve read Dune many years ago, so I can’t say definitively, though I doubt it.

Though the thing is, Lynch’s interpretation is so damn fascinating so while Villeneuve’s movie is definitely better, though just not as interesting.

Though you’ll notice I don’t treat David Lynch’s movie as if it’s better than Villeneuve’s, mainly because it isn’t.

The same logic applies to The Flash.