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?
I tried to watch part 1 again tonight and I’m putting it down with about an hour left. 4k on a theatre screen with headphones and popcorn and I laughed out loud when Jessica and Paul were whispering to each other 20’ away in the mist, when the gang strode off the ship accompanied by bagpipes (“shields up!”) and that one time the Sardukar shouted “Sardukar” during the invasion. I’m done trying to understand what some people see in these movies. Absolute garbage as far as I can tell.
I’m a bit surprised at a lot of the criticisms for the movies here, and I say this as a huge fan of the Dune novels too.
Villeneuve has a particular film style like blade runner 2049, and Arrival.
If you don’t like his style you won’t like the 2nd movie.
But on the other hand part 1 sets the stage for everything that happens in part 2, and overall I think it is an excellent adaption. Dune is not an easy book to adapt to film, and some changes had to be made, but they’re aren’t any glaring changes that make me go “why the hell did you change it that way?”
It’s extremely faithful to the book, and in cases where it’s not, I can see the reasoning for the change.
Honestly Chani is so much better in the movies. Her character makes zero sense in the first book. She’s a strong capable warrior but just follows Paul around like a puppy and accepts his every decision as if she has no choice or will of her own.
lol Zendaya brought the personality of a cinder block to that role.
It’s still an upgrade from the books, sadly.
Honestly given how Frank Herbert wrote other female characters in the books, I interpreted chani as a satirization of settler/colonizer wife.
It’s rather subtle, and would not likely come across well with a movie audience.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Watching dune 2 in the IMAX theatre with my buds was perhaps one of the greatest movie experiences in my life
I can imagine the sandworm ride was a blast on the big screen and with the big speakers. I haven’t felt so much being blown into my seat since Fury Road…
i took my kids to see it in IMAX and they came out calling it the best sci fi movie of all time haha. it was a ton of fun
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.
One of the best movies of this year. Almost as good as Godzilla minus one.
Yes
I think any story that has so much inner dialogue, thinking, tripping, and goes on for 6 volumes is impossible to communicate in the medium of film, but I loved these movies just because they were visually stunning, and the story kept my interest. I don’t think you will feel like your time was wasted, just accept the film is its own thing, and be entertained.
I never read the source material, so I can’t speak to the quality of adaptation. But I could not get past the casting and felt like the number of extremely famous faces detracted from the plot. The first movie I was somewhat able to be emersed in the world despite the main characters being the two most popular young stars of the year. But the second movie, I felt actors were cast in small parts they hardly got a chance to act in. Not that Christpher Walken can’t absolutely nail a small part. It just didn’t feel like some exotic Sci-fi world when every character was famous from 100 other movies.
The 2nd movie is very rushed story wise but was better than the first. I hate the choice of Timothee and I hate some unnecessary stroy decisions they took but it’s hollywood.
The mini series from 2000 did a better job, apart from some Harkonnen costume choices.
apart from some Harkonnen costume choices.
Oh, man, I forgot about those. 😄 The miniseries is good, though.
It’s much like part 1… not horrible, but not great, either.
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.
