I have a few nits to pick, which is standard for most adaptations. I had one major concern:
Spoiler!
My biggest complaint was that Chani came on too strong, that she turns her back on Paul, and the last shot is of her — which intimates that she’s going to oppose Paul. That would be a disastrous rewrite of Messiah. I trust Villeneuve won’t turn Chani into the next Rey.
Originally Posted by siberian khatru:
I thought it was fantastic.
I have a few nits to pick, which is standard for most adaptations. I had one major concern:
Spoiler!
My biggest complaint was that Chani came on too strong, that she turns her back on Paul, and the last shot is of her — which intimates that she’s going to oppose Paul. That would be a disastrous rewrite of Messiah. I trust Villeneuve won’t turn Chani into the next Rey.
I guess I'll still spoiler my reply, although I'm rapidly running out of fucks to give about this overrated turd.
Spoiler!
Well, that's exactly what they did, except there was no way to actually make her the lead. If I had never read the book, or more to the point, if the book wasn't my FAVORITE NOVEL OF ALL TIME, I would have probably enjoyed it. But the more I think about it, the angrier I get. Honestly, the level of butchery here is just as bad as the '84 abomination, if not worse. Adding stupid shit like weirding modules and heart plugs aren't as bad as turning a minor character into a nasty Fedaykin warrior bitch who actively works against Paul. And devoting so much of the run time to that, which was not only NOT in the book but completely ran contrary to it, was just unforgiveable.
Originally Posted by Bowser:
It's been decades since I read the book, but it felt like they skipped a ton of shit in this movie. Is that accurate?
Incredible visual movie, but it just felt disjointed from the start.
The main things that were missed:
Spoiler!
First and foremost: completely omitting the Guild from the ending. It was their fear of the destruction of the spice that cemented Paul's ascendancy to the throne. Without the Guild, the other great houses couldn't do shit.
The Baron was not only evil, but also a child molesting queer. Big shock that modern Hollywood left that part out. The alphabet people would never have approved.
Chani was the daughter of Liet Kynes (a man in the book) and the niece of Stilgar, who was Liet's brother. And as I've mentioned before, she was a minor character who was never anything but loving and supportive of Paul. She was also not a front line fighter, although she did kill one Fremen who sought to challenge Paul for leadership.
Thufur Hawat survived the Harkonnen attack, and actually went into service to the Baron later. It was Hawat who masterminded the plot to have the slave Feyd killed in the arena to not be drugged. He died at the end of the book, refusing to assassinate Paul.
In the book, two or three years pass between the events of Part 1 and Part 2. Alia is born and is toddler aged, fully possessing the knowledge and life experiences of generations of her female ancestors but trapped in a young child's body. She is considered to be an abomination, straight up creeps people out and enjoys it. And it is her who kills the Baron, not Paul.
There is no "Northern" versus "Southern" Fremen in the books. They are just Fremen. They do get progressively tougher to deal the farther away they are from the settled areas. Paul becomes their leader by conducting numerous successful campaigns against the Harkonnens, utilizing his advanced Atreides tactical training. The prophecy thing played a big part as well, but that was just a part of it.
Jessica is the daughter of the Baron and the Reverend Mother who first gives Paul the gom jabbar test.
The official story about the defeat of the Atreides was that it was Jessica, not Yueh, who betrayed them. The Baron did not want it known that he had turned a doctor with Suek conditioning into a traitor. Halleck was convinced of this, and actually tried to kill Jessica later. Paul had to talk him down.
Lady Fenring's husband was the emperor's best friend. He was completely omitted from the book. Also omitted is Harah, the widow of Jamis who Paul takes on as a servant. That's kind of minor, though, since they didn't really do anything.
There are more, but I'm tired of typing.
This was Avatar in the desert. A beautifully giftwrapped box of shit. Fuck you, Villeneuve. [Reply]
Feyd tries to assassinate the Baron by hiding a poisoned needle on the thigh of one of his boy toys. The only reason the Baron survives is because Hawat warns him about it. Hawat still hates the Harkonnens, and actively but subtly pits them against each other. The Baron rightly never trusts him, and poisons Hawat early on, while having the antidote to the poison added to his meals to keep him alive. At the end of the book, the Baron has withdrawn the antidote, and the poison kills him. He dies in Paul's arms.
Felt the first Dune was better and told a better story. I don't have the book to compare it to do I'll leave that to Frazod but this movie felt too much like a set-up. Even knowing there was going to be a part 3, I just didn't feel like the story was moved along well and it wasn't paced right. First one felt slow because they were trying to tell an epic story right. This one felt slow because they knew they had a 3rd movie to do. [Reply]
Saw this yesterday at the Liberty B&B Screen X. THAT WAS AMAZING. See it that way if possible. The best film I’ve watched in theaters going back 20 years to the LOTR series. It lived up the the hype and then some
What a masterpiece. Wish I had read the source material a long time ago but this film fucking ruled. Will likely see it again soon [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pablo:
Because you were exposed to Stars Wars people like Clay your whole life but there wasn't a Dune subculture?
You know that definitely could be it I guess. The special effects I feel like were not good enough to make a movie like the original Star Wars so it just looked and felt way, way too corny for me.
I imagine if I watched 1984 Dune it would be super duper cheese. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
You know that definitely could be it I guess. The special effects I feel like were not good enough to make a movie like the original Star Wars so it just looked and felt way, way too corny for me.
I imagine if I watched 1984 Dune it would be super duper cheese.
I'm sure it sucks. Trying to create great Sci-Fi without the processing power we have this century is a tall task.
Oh look, their ship is just hurdling thru space right now!!
*shakes shoebox spray painted silver with strobe lights in the background*
Originally Posted by Pablo:
Lololol I posted first then went back and read this thread. fraz not a fan eh?
Guess I’m a little glad I didn’t fall in love with the source material first
It's kind of like Starship Troopers. I hadn't read the book when I first saw the movie, and despite it being rather silly, I loved it. To this day it's one of my favorites. My friend Russ (who used to post here as KCWolfman) loved the book, and hated the movie the same way I hate every adaption of Dune. I did eventually read the book, and I definitely understand why he feels that way. Paul Verhoeven (who also did Robocop and Total Recall) absolutely raped the source material, far worse than Lynch or Villeneuve did Dune. Thank God I didn't read the book first - I may well have set fire to the theater. :-)
It's the curse of being old, I guess. I predate Star Wars, and remember what science fiction movies were like before that. Even the ones with good stories had usually special effects you could duplicate by hanging toys from strings and setting them on fire. But at this point, pretty much anything you can imagine can be presented on screen like it's real, and it's been that way for decades now. Younger generations just don't get that, and never will. Especially the ones who never read a book that didn't have pictures in it. [Reply]
"Dune 2(IMAX)": an audiovisual spectacle the likes of which not seen since "1917", featuring an uncompelling pair of leads and a forgettable script [Reply]