Sci-Fi Dune

[TheVileOne]

Seeing Chani in his visions is fine and consistent with the books. But a bad ending is still a bad ending.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Two things I didn't like about the ending of Dune part 1 is worm-riding shot, which looked underwhelming as hell and "this is only the beginning", which felt like an awkward replacement for "to be continued" subtitle...

Overall, the ending supports the narrative of the first part of the movie adaptation and I don't have any other problems with it.

 

[Predator jp]

WB considers Villeneuve as replacement for Nolan. he can do whatever he wants now.

 

[TheVileOne]

Two things I didn't like about the ending of Dune part 1 is worm-riding shot, which looked underwhelming as hell and "this is only the beginning", which felt like an awkward replacement for "to be continued" subtitle...

Overall, the ending supports the narrative of the first part of the movie adaptation and I don't have any other problems with it.

I was also underwhelmed by that moment.

 

[moviefreak]

It's 2hrs and 35 minutes long and there's long stretches where literally the view is sand dunes. Or Zendaya walking on sand dunes. Or a desert mouse on sand dunes.

How about this... This 2hr and 35min slow burn to nowhere doesn't take the attential span of the audience into account because if it did Denis would have done something with this setting and characters after 2hrs and 35min.

If this had been written and conceieved to attract my attention I wouldn't mind watching a three or four hour cut. Alas, he would rather "Create a dream like state" or whatever auteur BS people will use to cover for this movie, it's story and plot being done and performed in the dullest manner possible with the emptiest allusions to anyting of depth.

I think that it's down mainly to Villeneuve's stylistic sensibility. IMO, he's a very good director with eyes for details but rather a weak filmmaker especially in the big budget 'blockbuster' department. I feel that Villeneuve performs better on a smaller scale, hence why I rated 'Arrival', 'Prisoners' & 'Sicario' highly.

As others have mentioned, Villeneuve made a mistake in the final bit of the film. It was weak, did not engaged me and that bit telegraphing 'Part I' is a big no to me. You're supposed to make me invested in the first film before I think about the sequel. I am old school in that regard.

Villeneuve should have concentrated on making the audience engaged right through the end, and not making it like reading a book and putting a bookmark on it to come back later. He should have approached it in a similar way as Peter Jackson did with The Lord of the Rings where he put emphasis on cinematography, costumes, action & music at the expense of characters.

Villeneuve should have treated Herbert’s book as a separate medium from the visual one, with more emphasis on cinematography, costumes, music & action than what he currently did. I mean David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia cinematography was and is still unrivalled - one of the best piece of cinematic art I ever saw in the pre-1980s period. Villeneuve should have done something similar to that.

 

[Weather Witch]

(...) with more emphasis on cinematography, costumes, music & action than what he currently did.

You make a couple of good points that, in many cases I have a different view on, but I still totally understand and respect, but this one confuses me. You are arguing that he should've focused less on character development, and more on music and visuals (which are the main things the movie is being praised for)?

The costumes are a matter of taste of course. Personally I think these are miles ahead of the other adaptations, with the Bene Gesserit, everything Jessica, stillsuits, and Atredies armor being highlights, but that highly depends on what you're looking for in the costumes. I can see that both ways.

Since the movie already added onto action beats and had a lot more tension than the book, I'm curious what and how you would've expanded on this. I've actually read the opposite, that some people would've liked some slower and more quiet scenes in the second and third acts.

 

[Filmfreak]

I think that it's down mainly to Villeneuve's stylistic sensibility. IMO, he's a very good director with eyes for details but rather a weak filmmaker especially in the big budget 'blockbuster' department. I feel that Villeneuve performs better on a smaller scale, hence why I rated 'Arrival', 'Prisoners' & 'Sicario' highly.

I don't know if he makes better low budget or big budget movies, but I'd say that he, like Nolan, is amongst the very few that deliver huge scale quality blockbusters. Films that combine thought provoking ideas with spectacle and relatively profound themes. Depends on one's definition of entertainment and requirements, of course.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I guess I've just become so much a fan of the Dune universe, after reading the book for the first time this year and now seeing the movie, that I don't care where Villeneuve left the story at the end of Part One. I just want to see him finish it. His adaptation is better even than what I imagined while reading the novel.

Maybe general audiences or those who haven't read the book feel differently, but these are my personal thoughts.

 

[Comicbookguy339]

Well this is a real bummer.

 

[Weather Witch]

Figured about the ratio and deleted scenes, but I was still hoping for director commentary.

 

[Marvolo]

I'm not sure if you read Dune or it's sequels. The way you speak about it, it sounds like you read the cliff notes version. But let's do a basic lesson in storytelling.

The sisterhood didn't trap Paul into anything. Paul isn't suppose to exist. He's come before his time, because of Jessica, who went against he sisterhood by not only having him, but teaching him their ways. Because of this, Paul has dreams. Dreams he can't control. Their order, like most dreams, fluid. Their meaning, unclear to him.

You say his visions are of the Jihad, yet fail to grasp that his first step on that Jihad is Chani handing him that knife. Chani, who in Paul's visions, represents the Fremen, his army. His first kill. His entrance into manhood and acceptance into a sietch. It is why those visions are all jumbled together. The path Paul is walking becomes more clear as the book(s) go on, and we learn of the concept of the Golden Path and takes the water of life, to see more clearly. But at that point of the story, Paul is a scared, moody teen who just lost everything, who lashes out at his mom. He's scared and frustrated by these dreams he does not understand, dreams he only has because of his mother.

It's really not that hard, no matter how much a lot of what is written in here tries to make it so. Thankfully, audiences are on the whole seem to grasp basic storytelling and we will get Part 2.

I've read up to Heretic. And this is the film. An adaption. So anything in the books isn't canon if it wasn't established in this film.

As the film presents it the BG set things up on Arakkis for a messiah figure. Jessica's child could be that figure. Jessica has been training Paul in the ways of the BG. Paul is having visions. Paul knows the visions could be linked to his BG training and abilities. The visions worsen on Arakkis. Paul is confused and scared. Hence Paul screaming at Jessica that she made him a freak.

The film had already established Chani and did so when Chani was the focus of his visions. I said in the tent scene the Jihad was the focus. So the Jihad should have been shown or nothing at all leaving the focus on Paul and Chalamet's acting. Chani didn't belong in that scene.

And I've said before in this thread that I think Denis simplified the story quite a bit. Nothing about this film is difficult or hard. The theatrical cut is just undercooked, lacking character development, poorly adapted, too loyal to the source, and poorly paced.

 

[Weather Witch]

Dune 2 Will Include Feyd-Rautha, Confirms Denis Villeneuve (screenrant.com)

"Definitely. That's a choice that I personally brought on. There was enough characters that were introduced in this first part, and it will be more elegant to keep Feyd for Part Two. It will be definitely a very, very important character in the second part."

 

[TheVileOne]

Dune 2 Will Include Feyd-Rautha, Confirms Denis Villeneuve (screenrant.com)

Not sure this is something that needed confirmation. But if they did cut Feyd, I'd start to highly doubt Denis Villeneuve as a filmmaker.

 

[Weather Witch]

Not sure this is something that needed confirmation. But if they did cut Feyd, I'd start to highly doubt Denis Villeneuve as a filmmaker.

I've definitely seen "imagine if he's not included" and the like in this thread, so I'm happy we have a confirmation.

 

[TheVileOne]

I've definitely seen "imagine if he's not included" and the like in this thread, so I'm happy we have a confirmation.

Not including him in the first movie was a misstep.

 

[Drizzle]

Not including him in the first movie was a misstep.

Would it have made much of a difference anyway? Even though the Baron left a memorable impression in the movie, the Harkonnens were barely in it as is. Their roles should be greatly expanded in Part Two.

 

[TheVileOne]

Would it have made much of a difference anyway? Even though the Baron left a memorable impression in the movie, the Harkonnens were barely in it as is. Their roles should be greatly expanded in Part Two.

Yes.

 

[Sithborg]

Not sure this is something that needed confirmation. But if they did cut Feyd, I'd start to highly doubt Denis Villeneuve as a filmmaker.

I can see a version of Part 2 that focuses more on Fenring than Feyd. Pretty certain Fenring is getting cut, though.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

That was a very dense 2 hours and 30 mins. I enjoyed what I understood though.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

 

[Weather Witch]

Not including him in the first movie was a misstep.

Including him in the first movie would've just meant less screentime for everyone. Feyd barely does anything relevant in the parts of the book that this adapts. Now they can properly flesh him out in the second movie, rather than him being a glorified cameo.

 

[TheVileOne]

Including him in the first movie would've just meant less screentime for everyone. Feyd barely does anything relevant in the parts of the book that this adapts. Now they can properly flesh him out in the second movie, rather than him being a glorified cameo.

Not so. Also, it would've Rabban seem less like a bit character. Rabban is the bungling screw-up of the Harkonnens.

It also deepens the Baron's machinations and goals, But Feyd is ambitious and devious himself.

 

[Weather Witch]

Not so. Also, it would've Rabban seem less like a bit character. Rabban is the bungling screw-up of the Harkonnens.

It also deepens the Baron's machinations and goals, But Feyd is ambitious and devious himself.

Yes, so it's going to be great being able to make those comparisons in part 2, rather than not having time for either of the characters. We can really flesh out that ambition. I'm looking forward to it tbh.

 

[TheVileOne]

Yes, so it's going to be great being able to make those comparisons in part 2, rather than not having time for either of the characters. We can really flesh out that ambition. I'm looking forward to it tbh.

I would've rather have had Feyd in the film than all the extra material they gave dude bro Duncan.

 

[Weather Witch]

I would've rather have had Feyd in the film than all the extra material they gave dude bro Duncan.

Oh, I understand the preference, but I think realistically we would've ended up with four pretty interchangeable Harkonnen characters if he was in there. I'm just curious at this point who they'll cast and we'll see what they do with him in part 2. The ink is already dry anyway.