Sci-Fi Dune

I'm not ready to completely **** on the changes Villeneuve has made before I see his Dune Messiah but I think he's altered the story in such a fundamental way (not just Chani's character) that if his third film isn't vastly different from the novel then he doesn't actually understand what he's done with Part 2. Every change has a ripple effect.
 
Denis has been talking about doing Dune Messiah for years now, and he made this movie knowing he wanted to potentially adapt that book as well. So Denis obviously has ideas on doing that, and made the changes he did with that in mind. So that's not writing yourself into a corner. I am very curious to see what he does with the next movie. I expect nothing less than a great film based on his work so far.
 
Last edited:
There's no working around it unless the story is completely changed from the top down.

Completely changed, not really. Enough that it isn't exactly a perfect adaptation, absolutely. The core of the conflict will work.

I'm not ready to completely **** on the changes Villeneuve has made before I see his Dune Messiah but I think he's altered the story in such a fundamental way (not just Chani's character) that if his third film isn't vastly different from the novel then he doesn't actually understand what he's done with Part 2. Every change has a ripple effect.

Considering its clear he has done some work for Messiah already, yeah, he knows what he's done. It won't be a perfect adaptation, but that is fine.
 
Completely changed, not really. Enough that it isn't exactly a perfect adaptation, absolutely. The core of the conflict will work.



Considering its clear he has done some work for Messiah already, yeah, he knows what he's done. It won't be a perfect adaptation, but that is fine.
Exactly. The plot surrounding Chani/Irulan and Paul is going to be different for sure. I would expect Ghanima and Leto II are gonna be born as normal, though. Even if how we get there is a bit different. But much of the Holy War, the Ghola, the assassination attempts, etc. All that is very much I expect is going to be the same. Much of it was already setup here.
 
Yes, he knows what he's done. But does he know what he's doing? I'm not ready to concede on that yet.

I was highly enthralled by Chani in the books, and in this version, I don't really like her all that much. I get what they were doing with her, but IMHO Chani is easily the weakest aspect of Part Two.
 
I've been on this forum for over 16 years, and in that time, I have not read a single post where TheVileOne wasn't highly critical of something :cheeky:

LMAO Kidding!
 
Exactly. The plot surrounding Chani/Irulan and Paul is going to be different for sure. I would expect Ghanima and Leto II are gonna be born as normal, though. Even if how we get there is a bit different. But much of the Holy War, the Ghola, the assassination attempts, etc. All that is very much I expect is going to be the same. Much of it was already setup here.

I don't see how other than trying to completely reverse what's been done with Chani here and angering the people who like this version of Chani.
 
I have complete faith in Villeneuve (I haven't read the books), but he's been popping out masterpiece after masterpiece for a decade. I loved this movie, it was a grand, epic extension of the first one. Butler ate the scenery of every scene, and some of the images in this film are the most striking in the last 25 years. He's superseded Nolan as the contemporary king of big budget storytelling for me.
 
I've been on this forum for over 16 years, and in that time, I have not read a single post where TheVileOne wasn't highly critical of something :cheeky:

LMAO Kidding!

You should've seen this board over 20 years ago when people were going crazy over the Raimi Spider-Man films and how much people were raging about their hatred of Kirsten Dunst as MJ. Also the wars over X-Men 3 and the fake news circulating about its longer, non-existent runtime, characters who show up in the final battle who never appear, etc.

People were downright nasty about Kirsten Dunst.
 
I have complete faith in Villeneuve (I haven't read the books), but he's been popping out masterpiece after masterpiece for a decade. I loved this movie, it was a grand, epic extension of the first one. Butler ate the scenery of every scene, and some of the images in this film are the most striking in the last 25 years.

I like his Dune films a lot, but I can't even call Dune: Part One a masterpiece. It doesn't even have an actual ending. It just abruptly stops.
 
Yes, he knows what he's done. But does he know what he's doing? I'm not ready to concede on that yet.

I was highly enthralled by Chani in the books, and in this version, I don't really like her all that much. I get what they were doing with her, but IMHO Chani is easily the weakest aspect of Part Two.

The problem with Chani in the film is that she's essentially the lone dissenting voice among the Fremen and we never get enough of a reason as to why she's uniquely equipped to see through the Lisan al Gaib prophecy. As a result she becomes more of an author insert than an actual character.
 
The problem with Chani in the film is that she's essentially the lone dissenting voice among the Fremen and we never get enough of a reason as to why she's uniquely equipped to see through the Lisan al Gaib prophecy. As a result she becomes more of an author insert than an actual character.

In the books she literally guts whoever attempts to challenge Paul in trial by combat. That also quieted dissent among the Fremen knowing Chani was capable of doing so.
 
I don't see how other than trying to completely reverse what's been done with Chani here and angering the people who like this version of Chani.
Paul in this movie says she will come around, so they can make it work. I am willing to wait and see what Denis has in mind. First 2 films are amazing works of cinema, so I ultimately trust him and his vision

And again, the other plot lines not surrounding that one can easily be the same.
 
Last edited:
The problem with Chani in the film is that she's essentially the lone dissenting voice among the Fremen and we never get enough of a reason as to why she's uniquely equipped to see through the Lisan al Gaib prophecy. As a result she becomes more of an author insert than an actual character.

I mean, she is the man she loves. That closeness and intimacy shields her from the fire of fanaticism.
 
This was just a lot to take in and I'm still processing it all. I enjoyed it but just not sure how much yet and might not know until I get a second viewing in. I love Denis though and I hope he gets to make Messiah after Rendezvous with Rama
 
This was utterly magnificent. That is all.

View attachment 81843
It was a really well made film, beautifully shot, edited, acted, and scored, but I thought the writing really let it down in terms of both the plotting and as an adaptation of the book.
 
On your point about the changes to the ending and Paul's gambit...
I think it is actually a big plothole and heavily undermines the book's themes about imperial/colonial control of resources like oil.

First off, the idea that Paul can just nuke all of the "spice fields" makes no sense as a gambit since that is nothing different than what anyone else can do. All of the Great Houses have nukes. Second, the reason why he has the power to do that is he and Jessica learned the secret of the how spice is made from the Fremen. No one else knows it except the Bene Gesserit and the Spacing Guild given their reliance on spice. It actually enhances the story's themes of exploitation of the native population if Paul uses this secret information he stole from the Fremen for personal and political gain. He is betraying their trust.

Third, even if the Great Houses wanted to challenge Paul, they can't because the Spacing Guild doesn't dare cross him while he controls Arrakis.
 
Changes work for me; truly.

Denis knows the past and the future, it more than cleans up some stagnation of character moments in Messiah.

Plus, I think some folks here and on twitter don’t get that the use of atomics is upon the refineries, not spice as a whole. It’s not undermining Jessica’s revelation about spice and the worms.

Messiah is the weakest book and I think this helps the complacency of some characters for the future… Messiah for me was always an appendix to Dune.

Now it may have a stronger importance as a stepping stone to Children and a proper climax to Paul/Chani/Jessica’s story.

Pushing Jessica’s morals into the red also play more into where the future books went. Especially concerning Heretics and Chapterhouse.
 
Last edited:
On your point about the changes to the ending and Paul's gambit...
I think it is actually a big plothole and heavily undermines the book's themes about imperial/colonial control of resources like oil.

First off, the idea that Paul can just nuke all of the "spice fields" makes no sense as a gambit since that is nothing different than what anyone else can do. All of the Great Houses have nukes. Second, the reason why he has the power to do that is he and Jessica learned the secret of the how spice is made from the Fremen. No one else knows it except the Bene Gesserit and the Spacing Guild given their reliance on spice. It actually enhances the story's themes of exploitation of the native population if Paul uses this secret information he stole from the Fremen for personal and political gain. He is betraying their trust.

Third, even if the Great Houses wanted to challenge Paul, they can't because the Spacing Guild doesn't dare cross him while he controls Arrakis.

"Nuke the spice fields" is much quicker and easier to get across to the audience than go into the full ecological systems Herbert had set up in the books. And considering that is the canonical end of Arrakis in Heretics, it doesn't bother me too much. Probably should have had a line in there about the Great Convention, but again, adaption.

The Guild definitely should have had a bit of a bigger part to play in the end, if just to show the balance of power a bit better.
 
On your point about the changes to the ending and Paul's gambit...
I think it is actually a big plothole and heavily undermines the book's themes about imperial/colonial control of resources like oil.

First off, the idea that Paul can just nuke all of the "spice fields" makes no sense as a gambit since that is nothing different than what anyone else can do. All of the Great Houses have nukes. Second, the reason why he has the power to do that is he and Jessica learned the secret of the how spice is made from the Fremen. No one else knows it except the Bene Gesserit and the Spacing Guild given their reliance on spice. It actually enhances the story's themes of exploitation of the native population if Paul uses this secret information he stole from the Fremen for personal and political gain. He is betraying their trust.

Third, even if the Great Houses wanted to challenge Paul, they can't because the Spacing Guild doesn't dare cross him while he controls Arrakis.

Thy don't mention the spacing guild even once in this movie.
And you have to wonder how would the war between Paul and the Great Houses even play out in this version of the story. Paul threatens them with destroying the spice and while that apparently keeps them from attacking Arrakis, it doesn't make them accept Paul's rule. So now Paul sends the Fremen to destroy them. Surely, the Great Houses would quikcly realize that they will get slaughtered if they stand against the Fremen and that the only way to defeat Paul is to attack Arrakis. Yes, they risk Paul destroying the spice but if it's that or the death of them all (and with Paul controlling Arrakis they won't have any access to spice anyway) then why wouldn't they take the risk?
 
"Nuke the spice fields" is much quicker and easier to get across to the audience than go into the full ecological systems Herbert had set up in the books. And considering that is the canonical end of Arrakis in Heretics, it doesn't bother me too much. Probably should have had a line in there about the Great Convention, but again, adaption.

The Guild definitely should have had a bit of a bigger part to play in the end, if just to show the balance of power a bit better.
No, I get that it is a more expedient explanation, I just think it loses a lot of thematic subtext and doesn't quite work in the context of the story. I think there is a way of balancing simplifying it for the general audience without losing the great gotcha moment from the book.

I'm not a purist by any means, I think the novel needed to be updated to give the female characters more agency and similar things. I'm also a guy who did an undergraduate degree in political history and international relations, so I really love the book's commentary on imperialism, colonialism, demagoguery, organized religion, etc. and it bums me out that those elements got cut a ton in this adaptation.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,290
Messages
22,081,126
Members
45,881
Latest member
lucindaschatz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"