I respectfully disagree and think the 2000 version has aged very badly (artistically speaking, it also holds lower value for me).

For example, watch the harvester-eaten-by-worm scene [1] [2]. Which of the two has stood the test of time? I could watch the 1984 version over and over again. Everything about the 2000 version - even the timing of each shot - is uninspired and dated, almost like a Westwood Command and Conquer in-game video. Watch how much more engaging the storytelling is in 1984 in this essentially dialogue-free chapter.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P50b-19_j8c&t=18s

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxDjnSnbNhw&t=1m30s

The 2000 miniseries already looked awful and campy when it came out. I should know -- as a Dune fan I bought it instantly, and was deeply disappointed.

Lynch's version, for all its flaws, is still watchable.

The live play staging in the 2000 version looked really out of place on TV when I watched it. Having everyone retire to a dramatic pose with dramatic lighting at the end of a scene? It just looks amateurish on TV IMHO.

I never noticed it before and TVTropes' Dune page confirms, David Lynch was the voice on the harvester radio in that scene.

He's also the actor. There is a shot of him talking on the radio in the harvester as they decide to evacuate it.

That miniseries is terrible. The acting is wooden as all get out, all of the scenes look like they are shot on a hastily dressed community theater stage and it's boring as hell.

The Lynch movie has, like most Lynch works, a strange atmosphere that in this case helps highlight the changes that Paul is going through as his consciousness expands.

That said the children of dune miniseries fares much better, but maybe because there isn't anything to compare it to.