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?
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.