Dune may finally get its proper film treatment

[subtle plague]

Bigger

I thought bone(r) vibrating?

[neckdeep]

First film, a bit underrated. Second film, a bit overhyped.

Compared to the first, the second film is surprisingly unfaithful to the book. 4 years is compressed into 4 months. There is a major character omission. Huge! So big it really changes the story.

The final act is weighed down by a vague sense of anticlimax and one of the worst casting decisions in the history of film...other than that, a its good film but I kinda liked the first one a bit more.

As for his choices, I guess the director must really hate working with children or something cuz I can't see another good reason for the big changes. Too bad.

[Kevo]

First film, a bit underrated. Second film, a bit overhyped.

Compared to the first, the second film is surprisingly unfaithful to the book. 4 years is compressed into 4 months. There is a major character omission. Huge! So big it really changes the story.

The final act is weighed down by a vague sense of anticlimax and one of the worst casting decisions in the history of film...other than that, a its good film but I kinda liked the first one a bit more.

As for his choices, I guess the director must really hate working with children or something cuz I can't see another good reason for the big changes. Too bad.

So...no Alia? She's pretty integral to the climax of the first book.

Also worth noting that Paul is supposed to be 15 in the first movie, but was played by someone 25 at the time of filming at Chani is supposed to be 12 in the first movie but was played by someone 24 at the time of filming. The second movie should be 3-4 years ahead of the first if it was loyal to the book, which means that had the director actually cast a 12 and 15 year old they would have appropriately aged in time for the filming of the second part.

[Woodsy]

Looking forward to Deunce

[PB]

Say what?

So .... Dune II is NOT the SF Lawrence of Arabia?!?!?!?

[neckdeep]

So...no Alia? She's pretty integral to the climax of the first book.

Also worth noting that Paul is supposed to be 15 in the first movie, but was played by someone 25 at the time of filming at Chani is supposed to be 12 in the first movie but was played by someone 24 at the time of filming. The second movie should be 3-4 years ahead of the first if it was loyal to the book, which means that had the director actually cast a 12 and 15 year old they would have appropriately aged in time for the filming of the second part.

It's easier to overlook that change in age, in terms of narrative.

The difference between a precocious 4 year old and a telepathic fetus ....yep, you won't be overlooking that one. That's a game changer. Perhaps "omission" was the wrong word for it.

[Kevo]

It's easier to overlook that change in age, in terms of narrative.

The difference between a precocious 4 year old and a telepathic fetus ....yep, you won't be overlooking that one. That's a game changer. Perhaps "omission" was the wrong word for it.

Damn. Alia is such a great character and leaving her out is such a bummer.

[MarcusBrody]

My wife and I are going this afternoon to see it. We re-watched Part 1 yesterday and are pumped. I've managed to avoid almost all the promotional material.

[PB]

Damn. Alia is such a great character and leaving her out is such a bummer.

Hey, 2 cell embryos are people too, ya know.

[MarcusBrody]

First film, a bit underrated. Second film, a bit overhyped.

Compared to the first, the second film is surprisingly unfaithful to the book. 4 years is compressed into 4 months. There is a major character omission. Huge! So big it really changes the story.

The final act is weighed down by a vague sense of anticlimax and one of the worst casting decisions in the history of film...other than that, a its good film but I kinda liked the first one a bit more.

As for his choices, I guess the director must really hate working with children or something cuz I can't see another good reason for the big changes. Too bad.

I saw it last night and while I enjoyed the movie, I agree with you on almost all your points. I thought the first had great pacing. The second's pacing wasn't nearly as solid. I don't understand why they couldn't just have suggested a time jump to make it at least not seem excessively compressed in Paul's rise with the Fremen, but I guess that would have necessitated the inclusion of the omitted character. I also didn't get the sense from the movie what exactly changed Paul's decision on his path at the very end of the film. I want to re-read the book (which I haven't read in many years) and see if it helps, but given the divergence, it might not.

Still, definitely worth seeing in theaters on the biggest screen you can.

[neckdeep]

I also didn't get the sense from the movie what exactly changed Paul's decision on his path at the very end of the film.

It's the beginning of the "Golden Path" storyline.

After he drinks the water of life, Paul gains the ability to see not just the future but a "quantum" vision of the future where he sees all the possibilities. He already knows the outcome before he confronts the emperor. Beyond his personal quest for revenge, however, he sees humanity goes extinct in another 10,000 years. That's what the Reverend Mothers have been doing for thousands of years; breeding a savior who can see the future and navigate the return of Mankind's vanquished mortal enemy, Omnius, the thinking machine.

Unfortunately, Paul is not the chosen one; the Reverend Mother was correct about that. So, he can't see the golden path clearly. But he sees that he must win at all costs and gain dominion over all planets or else humanity goes extinct.

Paul is literally forced into being humanity's flawed savior. He's not up the task because he's a generation too soon to be the chosen one. That's his tragic story arc.

[dookeyXXX]

From The Los Angeles Times:

”Why Dune Will Satisfy Sci-Fi Skeptics”

“ If you’ve made it this far without seeing “Dune” (Max), you likely share the same trepidation over high fantasy and science fiction that I do. After all, such stories are liable to lose their ideal balance of narrative drive, character development and world-building in the translation from page to screen. But fear not: Denis Villeneuve’s adaptation of Frank Herbert’s landmark 1965 novel, the second part of which arrives in theaters this week, reaches into the director’s and the author’s respective arsenals of literary, religious, historical and cinematic allusions to craft a transporting, multi-layered epic.

Indeed, though it bears the unmistakable imprint of films from “Lawrence of Arabia” to “Blade Runner,” Villeneuve’s exacting vision of an interstellar society 20,000 years in the future establishes an internal logic all its own. As Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) watches his father (Oscar Isaac) inherit control of the unforgiving desert planet Arrakis — where the lucrative trade in a hallucinogenic spice called melange has led to the oppression of the native population — the moan of ships blurs into that of sandworms and the dragonfly shape of military “ornithopters” is repeated, in miniature, in the form of deadly “hunter-seekers.” And with local Fremen, reformist House Atreides, rapacious House Harkonnen and the distant Imperium all vying for control, “Dune” offers an allegory for the imposition of and resistance to colonial power as thorny as any portrait of our terrestrial past (or present), where would-be saviors, outright villains and their collaborators profit from the extraction of natural resources at immense human and ecological cost.

Perhaps most compellingly, though, Villeneuve’s film offers the rare onscreen portrait of a mother-son relationship that doesn’t reduce the bond to sentimentality. Rather, the skills Paul learns from his mother Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), a member of the secretive order of the Bene Gesserit — such as masking his emotions, focusing his mind and using the Voice to compel others’ actions — prove central to the action, and to his survival; if he is to emerge as the prophesied figure known variously as Kwisatz Haderach, Lisan al Gaib or mahdi, it will be down to her influence as much as his father’s.

And if you can’t find a handhold in all of that? Well, “Dune’s” mix of genres may not be the problem. “
— Matt Brennan

[MarcusBrody]

It's the beginning of the "Golden Path" storyline.

After he drinks the water of life, Paul gains the ability to see not just the future but a "quantum" vision of the future where he sees all the possibilities. He already knows the outcome before he confronts the emperor. Beyond his personal quest for revenge, however, he sees humanity goes extinct in another 10,000 years. That's what the Reverend Mothers have been doing for thousands of years; breeding a savior who can see the future and navigate the return of Mankind's vanquished mortal enemy, Omnius, the thinking machine.

Unfortunately, Paul is not the chosen one; the Reverend Mother was correct about that. So, he can't see the golden path clearly. But he sees that he must win at all costs and gain dominion over all planets or else humanity goes extinct.

Paul is literally forced into being humanity's flawed savior. He's not up the task because he's a generation too soon to be the chosen one. That's his tragic story arc.

Thanks. I read and loved the first book, but it was long ago. My criticism of the movie version was that I didn't understand that from the film. He has the vision of what will happen if he goes south. Eventually he is convinced to go south. It's somewhat clear why, but drinking the water of life and embracing being seen as the messiah figure isn't well explained in my mind. And he's still clearly into Channi, but basically stops explaining things. I thought that was one of the potential interesting tensions, but it was left visual. I don't necessarily mind that (and I give credit for over explaining), but without some clearer framing, I thought the end seemed out of character.

All that being said, I still really liked the movie. I think the two films comprise maybe the best "epic" films in years (i was never as sold on the later Thanos line avengers films as some, though I enjoyed them).

[neckdeep]

Thanks. I read and loved the first book, but it was long ago. My criticism of the movie version was that I didn't understand that from the film. He has the vision of what will happen if he goes south. Eventually he is convinced to go south. It's somewhat clear why, but drinking the water of life and embracing being seen as the messiah figure isn't well explained in my mind. And he's still clearly into Channi, but basically stops explaining things. I thought that was one of the potential interesting tensions, but it was left visual. I don't necessarily mind that (and I give credit for over explaining), but without some clearer framing, I thought the end seemed out of character.

All that being said, I still really liked the movie. I think the two films comprise maybe the best "epic" films in years (i was never as sold on the later Thanos line avengers films as some, though I enjoyed them).

Yea, there's no coddling the folks who haven't read the books. Bare minimum exposition. I have a friend who watched the first film and never even noticed or wondered why a future culture with miraculous technology would be purely analog.

The absolute prohibition on digital technology isn't even mentioned or dirctly referenced, just inferred. Which is kind of odd seeing as how that's a key piece of the setting. We're shown how important religion still is in the future but it's never explained how or why all that ties into the culture and history.

[Woodsy]

Saw it Saturday and loved every minute of it.

Paul; also "sees" how much carnage he and a band of extremist warriors can do to the other planets of the Galaxy and that gives him pause.

Honsetly been waiting for this movie for 25 years

[MontuckyFried]

Snuck in a morning IMAX screening today. LOVED IT!!! Is it just me or did a couple of the tunes seem like a nod to the OG Toto soundtrack? Even a scene or two seemed a bit reminiscent of some of the best moments in the Lynch version. Once again, Stellan Skarsgård absolutely crushed it as the Baron, but all in all I thought the casting was superb.

My only real beef with the film was its lack of an intermission for obvious reasons. Just like last time, my eyeballs were floating by the final scenes which proved a bit distracting. Didn't dare slip out for a bathroom break though lest I miss something important. And I really would've each time I contemplated doing so. End credits starting rolling and it was a stampede to the restrooms. Haha. And I even skipped getting a soda and stuff for just that reason! Either way though, a truly great film. See it in IMAX if you can.

[MontuckyFried]

Quick final thought. As is usual with Villeneuve's style, the more leisurely pacing and filming style of both movies really is a breath of fresh air compared to the ADD, shaky-cammed, over-caffeinated frenetic methods of garbage like everything lately in the MCU and so much else from the last decade that Hollywood's puked out. I love it how you can truly soak in most of the movie and will be sitting with you for a while afterward. Good stuff.

[bobz]

Yea, there's no coddling the folks who haven't read the books.

Yeah, I guess so. I haven't read the books, and Dune Part 1 left me cold, not really caring much about any of the characters. Oh well, there isn't time to read everything out there, nor to watch every 8 hour or so film trilogy.

[MontuckyFried]

Had to listen to this amazing track from one of the most beautiful scenes in the film. Hans Zimmer be tapping into his inner-Vangelis for this one.



Once again, this movie was SSSOOOOOOOOO good. Can't stop thinking about it. Hands down going down as one of my personal top 3 films of all time. SEE IT IN IMAX!!! And don't any of you mofos DARE wait for it to stream, watch it on Netflix with some crappy TV speakers on a 40" screen and come back here like "Meh. It wasn't THAT good. Not sure what the fuss is all about."

[pfluffenmeister]

It was good.
Austere palette, good camera angles lacking the frenetic trend of late.
I thought the first had more action and was more exciting and (obviously) tragic.

Definitely see in an IMAX; being in the field with an active Spice Miner is no joke.

[Ski to Be]

Maybe I am in the minority but I saw it twice and have read the novel 3 times. I thought it was visually amazing but they should have called it Chani's Dune. Way too much of her at the expense of nearly nothing about the Guild. No Thufir Hawat , Alia not even being born in their 4 years on Arrakis . Back to Chani . So the Messiah that shall know the desert as if born to it has to have Chani guide him later in the movie. Then she sulks the whole second half of the movie which is not what she did in the novel. Jessica had to use the voice to get her to revive him after he drank the water of life. The Freman were polyamorous and he already inherited Jamis wife after he killed him so this whole jealousy thing really took away from the film. I mean real historical events that will affect the known universe are happening and every scene is panned to see what Chani thinks. She believed in him and knew his path already. Really heavy handed altering of the story by DV. The novel has some amazing world building and intrigue to turn it into how does Chani feel really turned me off. I guess if you didn't know anything about Dune it would be fine but what a wasted chance to be the definitive Dune movie. I know that they had to make cuts to get under 3 hours but remove all of the Chani sulking scenes and replace them with important things from the story would have made all of the difference

[neckdeep]

. The novel has some amazing world building and intrigue to turn it into how does Chani feel really turned me off. I guess if you didn't know anything about Dune it would be fine but what a wasted chance to be the definitive Dune movie. I know that they had to make cuts to get under 3 hours but remove all of the Chani sulking scenes and replace them with important things from the story would have made all of the difference

I agree, Villeneuve sort of misses the point about what distinguishes Dune from the thousands of other science fiction stories. Herbert was THE GUY who approached the genre with the attitude of "the more things change, the more they stay the same". He wanted to build a world 21,000 years in the future that would be recognizable to a medieval person. And he succeeded. Feudalism, religious fanaticism, crusades, guilds, monastic orders, combat with swords, trial by combat, etc....Herbert figured out some great explanations for why his distant future would be full of anachronism. At a core level, that's the heart of Dune.

Villeneuve toyed with some of that in the first film but pretty much ignored it in the second so we could have an extra 20 minutes of Chani being woke. Which is doubly lame because Herbert's Fremen aren't woke. They're brutal, blood feuding fanatics who make the Harkonens look soft. They kill 60 billion people and exterminate entire planets in Paul's name.

[MontuckyFried]

Let the Dune memes flow:





Life of Brian fans will appreciate the similarity to a certain scene in Dune Pt 2. LMAO.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I thought Dune I was pretty good and Dune II was terrible: hours of gratuitous violence that overwhelms the odd lazy attempt at profundity and trite critiques of colonialism that amount to little more than pandering.

[Kevo]

Maybe I am in the minority but I saw it twice and have read the novel 3 times. I thought it was visually amazing but they should have called it Chani's Dune. Way too much of her at the expense of nearly nothing about the Guild. No Thufir Hawat , Alia not even being born in their 4 years on Arrakis . Back to Chani . So the Messiah that shall know the desert as if born to it has to have Chani guide him later in the movie. Then she sulks the whole second half of the movie which is not what she did in the novel. Jessica had to use the voice to get her to revive him after he drank the water of life. The Freman were polyamorous and he already inherited Jamis wife after he killed him so this whole jealousy thing really took away from the film. I mean real historical events that will affect the known universe are happening and every scene is panned to see what Chani thinks. She believed in him and knew his path already. Really heavy handed altering of the story by DV. The novel has some amazing world building and intrigue to turn it into how does Chani feel really turned me off. I guess if you didn't know anything about Dune it would be fine but what a wasted chance to be the definitive Dune movie. I know that they had to make cuts to get under 3 hours but remove all of the Chani sulking scenes and replace them with important things from the story would have made all of the difference

I finally had a chance to see Dune 2 now that it is on streaming. It is one of the most cinematically beautiful films in a very long time, and as someone who read the books I mostly agree with your take.

The plot line of Paul and Chani having a child that is murdered by the Harkonen is taken out. Alia killing the Baron with the Gom Jabbar after voluntarily being captured is taken out. No Thufir Hawat plot line, etc etc. These are all very important plot lines that have an affect on character development and plot in the next book. The movie universe is creating technical debt by departing so far from the books.