I just finished part 1 and, well, I’m kinda disappointed. It’s not bad, I think it’s actually pretty solid, but compared to the book it’s much worse in terms of story progression and characters. Some parts felt really rushed. I didn’t expect it to be better than the book, but I still expected better adaptation considering that (at least as far as I know) it was well received and I knew that it didn’t adapt whole book so I expected it to don’t skip too much. Is part 2 any better?
As an avid Dune books reader (all of them), I think Villeneuve did the best adaptation possible. As a character, Chani is much more fleshed out in the films and Rebecca Ferguson CRUSHED it as Jessica. Oscar Isaac also was a very good Leto.
My big gripe is with Stilgar and Paul. Stilgar in the second movie was almost relegated to comic relief. Yes, he is also portrayed as a believer in the books, but it felt like a caricature in Dune Part 2.
As for Paul, I had hoped for more focus on why he actually went to drink the water of life. In the books he wanted to avoid it. But events he couldn’t foresee and put people he loved in danger pushed him over the edge. In the film I didn’t get any of that.
Still, loved both parts. Definitely worth a watch.
I agree first and foremost. I personally strongly disliked Chani’s representation in the films, however. Especially the second film. Part of it was the writing, part of it was the acting. I think Zendaya is a good actor, but I don’t think she was a good fit for the role. I feel the same way about Bardem in his role as Stilgar, but to a lesser degree.
I agree with you about Chanis character. It felt like they butchered her character and motivations to make her more palatable to modern audiences.
In the film iirc daughter in womb asked him to drink the water, and Paul didn’t want to because it’d lead to mass bloodshed.
The second is watchable but is worse as an adaption.
The events in the first book are concluded in it. It’s not a trilogy adaption of Dune the book. Many of the characters have their actions and motivations swapped onto other characters. The ending changes some significant points. Feels like the third movie might end up being a freestyle attempt to start a “Dune Universe” IP rather than caring about the source material.
It’s kind of a mess but still fun in some bits. Not sure if I’ll bother to watch the third when it comes out.
Can you elaborate on how the 2nd movie didn’t follow the book well? Because in my opinion it was pretty damn close to the book…i did think that the ending in the movie was a bit rushed and not as clearly explained as in the book, and they clearly pushed off Paul’s demon sister baby to the 3rd movie, but other than that, it was pretty damn close? As far as book adaptations go, I felt this was easily top tier. It’s impossible to capture every single thing from the book. There’s just way too much shit that happened. Compared to adaptations that just straight up say “fuck you” to the books (witcher/3 body problem/silo) this felt very faithful to me.
I think the choice to set up Aliyah but ultimately leave her arrival for another time was a smart one, just as it was smart to not introduce Feyd until the second movie. Doing so really let him arrive in a big way, like “Oh shit, this guy is important.”
(Also good lord, Austin Butler steals the second movie so hard)
Yea for sure. Also having a demon baby cgi monster would have been weird on screen.
Not OP, but I didn’t like what they did to Chani. Kinda felt like that character got done dirty.
In the books, she was pretty much ride or die. The movie, not so much.
I think that’s a significant improvement. Chani being “ride or die” in the books is an awfully charitable way of saying that she basically has no purpose to her existence outside of Paul. The movie choosing to have her really show some resistance to the shitty / crazy stuff he’s doing gives her more inner life as a character. It also nicely sets up for Messiah where there’s definitely some tension between her and Paul (though never sufficiently explored IMO) over his choice to make Irulan his wife.
Yea she was pretty pro-Paul in the books I think.
The movie is basically “guy gets cast as Messiah by evil cabal machinations and is too big a baby to do anything about it”. The end.
Leaving aside for a moment the sheer complexity of the themes and the plot and the universe in the book —that didn’t make it through— the movie doesn’t even stay faithful to itself. Every single person who’s had any influence on Paul gets discarded just so he can fulfill his ultimate destiny of being a sad, wet blanket with a “welp, I guess we’re doing that” attitude.
But seriously, how do you manage to make two movies and have nothing important from the rich Dune universe make it through? This could have just as easily been set in the Star Wars universe with only minor alterations and nobody among the general public would have batted an eye.
Yeah, sorry man. I just disagree. I only read the first dune book and half of messiah so far. But I really think the movie did a great job with it. Agree to disagree
Also the two movies look gorgeous on 4k HDR Blu-ray, but I digress.
There’s more to a movie adaptation than good casting, nice imagery, good music and loosely following the events.
There are huge plot holes, for example. To mention just one, how can a bunch of savages on a backwater planet win against the resources of the entire Empire? They might pull off a victory here and there, in carefully planned condition, on their own planet, but how can they win a war against a space-faring enemy with entire fleets at their disposal?
Even on home turf they’re outgunned, the movie actually shows what happens if the Harkonnen were to use conventional weapons in earnest, they bomb the shit out of them because the Fremen have no shields. But its only done once then conveniently never again. There’s a limit to how far hand-to-hand combat will go, especially in a high-tech future war. It’s suited to guerilla warfare, assassinations, but not all-out war.
There are of course answers to all of the above but they’re not in the movies.
The war for Arrakis is the classic tale of a small number of colonizers against a larger, motivated, native population. The Harrkonens drastically underestimate the total number of Fremen, and try to fight stand-up battles while the Fremen simply ambush less protected targets. I thought this came across fine in the movie.
The more problematic undertone come directly from Frank Herbert, who had this theory that military prowess only comes from hardship (that’s why the Sardaukar are so tough - because the prison planet they are trained on is so harsh), and the Fremen are nigh-invincible fighters because Arrakis is so hard to survive on. This is a misconception that repeats across earlier anthropological study (e.g. ancient Sparta) and is closely tied to the ‘Noble Savage’ trope.
Also, there never was a fight against the ‘resources of the entire empire’, Paul and the Fremen fought and defeated the Harkonnens in months-long (movie) or years-long (book) guerilla campaign aimed at lowering spice production. Eventually the Emperor brought his personal forces planetside to restore order. Detachments from the other houses remained in orbit and were not permitted to make planetfall. This is when the Fremen play their trump card of surprise worm attack.
It’s impossible to adapt, see all previous adaptations. I think you’ve pretty accurately summed up the shortcomings of the medium for that story. Watch the movie to marvel at the setting brought to life with a nice soundscape, ideally see it on a big screen. If you read the book you’ll have some attachment to the characters and universe anyway so pacing and skipped detail shouldn’t be too much of a problem for you. Just don’t expect it to be perfect. IMO the second part is a bit stronger, maybe because the scope is tighter.
IDK, the mini series honestly did a pretty good job staying faithful to the source. Too bad they didn’t have a bigger budget is all
And the worst costume design ever committed to film.
Hey now, the hats were amazing!
Having not read the books but watched someone’s very long YouTube video about them, I think the new movies did a pretty darn good job of doing a ton of crazy world building without being 3 hours of exposition. I certainly didn’t understand everything but I got the rough idea of pretty much everything and I think they did a really good job in particular of relaying the “mind over machines” motif. Certainly not a perfect adaptation but I think it’s a damn good example of one
I really enjoyed them too, which I guess I could have made clearer. I felt like my enjoyment was heightened by my knowledge and nostalgia for the books, but interesting yto hear another positive perspective without that aspect. I suppose what I’m trying to say is not that they aren’t or can’t be good, but that they aren’t and can’t be a faithful and complete adaptation.
The world building aspect is why I tend to think TV series are generally the better screen medium for scifi than feature film, having more space to explore the causes and consequences of a fantasy premise. But yeah, I love a spectacle. The setting and soundscape of the new movies are top. Like I can’t rember feelings like that in the cinema since Lord of the rings.
Since you are a fan of the books and you have already seen the first one, you should watch it, even you were disappointed with part one. You may find you like or you might be just as disappointed. Either way, it’s about a 3 hour commitment. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it again. If you do, you’ve found a movie you enjoy.
100% agree with this. Dune 1 sets up the world, Dune 2 gets to tell more of a story.
It is, even just for the spectacle alone. It’s impossible to adapt everything in the book to a 2 or 3 movie series, so there will always be changes and things that will be left out when translated to the big screen. Having said that, Villenueve was the best person for the job and he delivered what he intended: a film that reflects the spirit of the book as much as possible while at the same time making it mainstream enough for general audiences to appreciate.
If you’re just going by sticking to the source material as your barometer, then the SyFy series is the “best”.
The pacing was better in part 2, too fast even IMO; since they crammed all the events into less than 9 months since Alia wasn’t born in this version.
I say it’s worth a watch. Also when it comes to movies/tv and books it’s best not to compare them too much and just take them for what they are individually.
If you didn’t care for the first movie I don’t think the second will solve any of your complaints. I say this as someone who really liked both movies. I have criticisms, and I don’t think they’re close to being Villeneuve’s best work, but the worst Villeneuve movie is still better than most directors on their best day. But two is very definitely more of one, and if anything it amplifies the first movie’s flaws rather than diminishing them, so it’s very unlikely to address anything you didn’t like. That said, I will throw it out there that it may be worth watching anyway just to experience Austin Butler’s incredible take on Feyd Rautha, which is easily the best thing about the movie.
I think if you dislike the first movie you will also dislike the second.
I, personally, really liked both (outside of some pacing, as you say and some character changes).
Well … The ending is a little bit less cliffhangery than the first film. The worm scenes were super cool tho.
It’s much like part 1… not horrible, but not great, either.
I liked it well enough. I will definitely watch more movies in this version of the story and characters, year after year, or every few years. That was true of all previous versions as well though.
I found part 2 much more boring then part one. They spent so much time wandering the desert in the center part of the movie I almost fell asleep.
Liked it, think it’s worth it. Haven’t read the books & I’m not very invested in the story, & I’m a fan of the director’s work. Was cool to see lots of Fremen culture
Part 2 is done in the same spirit as 1. The characters and plot don’t get any better, if anything they become outright one-dimensional. Everything (facts, characters) are over-simplified caricatures of themselves — they like to take one thing that’s technically true and run it down into the ground.
The two things that bothered me the most is how Paul is completely robbed of any agency, and becomes this listless puppet with a sad smile, and how the plot revolves around religious fanaticism with only token mentions about prescience. Hell, I don’t remember if they even mentioned why spice is so important.
To be honest it’s killed any interest in me about seeing more movies. I mean I’ll watch them, I liked the image and music, but in a detached way like I’d watch an Avengers movie. I can imagine exactly how they’re going to be, shallow as fuck. Which is going to be completely stupid and pointless because the amount of political and sociological intrigue increases exponentially as you advance in the series.
You won’t like it. I hear Rebel Moon is excellent, though. Powerful stuff from a brilliant, visionary director. A real man’s man. Like, a total dude-bro you’d want to lift with.
