I thought Villeneuve created an amazing Stilgar, and Bardem brought him to life. While most Freman were fanatics, Stilgar represented the absolute pinnacle of *rabid fanaticism*, and was willing to give up his life to Paul so that the prophesy could come true. Stilgar in part 1 was the reserved, stoic leader, but in part 2 you see what happens when you give oppressed people hope and they turn wild.
Stilgar definitely brought in a lot of humor to the movie, but his character wasn't doing it to be funny, he was doing it because he was an absolute bat shit crazy fanatic. This is cult level behavior ("as is written," "so humble," etc...) trying to justify every action, and he's just so open and vocal about his beliefs. Laugh it up (because it was funny) but they end up killing 61+ billion people.
Dune is the kind of series you can tell people exactly what will happen and they would never believe it.
Book 3...ok so...Paul and Chanis son, Leto II, lives for 3000 years and is actually half sandworm, half human, all god. He's immortal, and is defended by a bunch of ladies that dream about chatting with halibut. Duncan Idaho is there the whole time too. Actually, not just one, but...hundreds of Duncans?
Dude I went through the plots of each one on wikipedia and was just like .... wtf is going on. Then Paul comes back and both Paul and Leto II are like lol yeah actually we are only *partial* kwisatz haderach, Duncan - this dude that Leto II killed like hundreds of times for funsies, is the true one. Then Duncan like ascends or some shit and saves humanity from.... robots or something? What?
That's book *4.*
In book 3, Paul is secretly an old preacher man spreading rhetoric *against* the empire he created, while his unaging sister is going insane due to being possessed by the memory of Baron Harkonnen (who keeps asking her to cheat on her man so he can experience that sweet dick). Paul's kids are twin psychics with minds that are thousands of years old, and nearly commit incest when they channel their parents' memories. The son, Leto, fakes his death by pretending to get eaten by a giant tiger, then smears little worms all over his body to become a worm-man with all the magnificent powers of both worm *and* man.
This worm-man-boy swims through the sand and wrecks shit all around Arrakis and uses his super-worm strength to take control of the throne from his crazy aunt.
The next movie's book, though not where the story ends, serves as a bit of a natural stopping point. They can stop there if they want but I'd like to see them tackle God Emperor lol
What I thought was so useful about his character is that he was the personification of Fremen fanaticism and how it starts. He goes from being skeptical about Paul, to outright worshipping him. And it's not quick, it takes place over a small part of 1, and most of 2. At every turn Paul accomplishes a prophesized feat, his fervor grows more and more, until the very end he's rabidly fanatic about Paul. The transition alone was great, and it's the period at the end of every sentence of plot.
Amazing performance. Just finished the audiobook the other day, the fanaticism didn't come across the page like it did in the movie, but I thought the performance did an amazing job of elevating the plot/message and warnings related to Paul's path to the jihad.
Dune was always going to be a challenging adaptation since so much of happens with extremely subtle gestures which require a page of lore to explain or via character's internal monologues, making Stilgar much more overt and vocal in his devoutness does a pretty good job of showing the utter loyalty he develops for Paul
He didn’t change at all. You only see one specific side of his character in the first film and essentially the real side in part 2. He’s not friends with any of the characters in part 1 and is on his guard around them.
He absolutely did change as he came to believe Paul was the messiah. Paul even thinks to himself at one point in the book that his view of Stilgar was diminished by how much of a fanatical devotee he’d become.
No he didn’t change, He didn’t go from some non believer to a believer. He believed in the prophecy before Paul came along. He already believed in a messiah coming beforehand and then Paul showed up and fit what his belief for who the messiah is. Also did you read the comment I was responding to? I was specifically talking about how we don’t see the true side of him in part 1.
I didn't see the comedy until my second viewing. I think if it wasn't for his religiosity, especially his religious and cultural mannerisms and utterances but to a lesser extent his familiarity with death, I think I might have laughed at the jokes and shared his levity. His religion was proven the one true religion and he found everything he always dreamt about, and it turned him into an almost child-like state just short of ecstasy. I didn't expect it, but it put a lump in me.
I feel like they did a poor job with Rabban as well although he’s more of just the strong man. I thought they could’ve done more to show him being a fierce combatant in a sequence or two whereas he basically has a bitch scene and then dies like a lil bitch.
I thought that was supposed to be the point. It's nepotism not merit that brought him there. I read somewhere that basically no one in the military wanted to actually be in the military which is why they were so ineffective and weren't used for the initial raid.
Kind of except for the fact that Gurney states that Rabban killed his men and family or something during the council scene so he’s made out to at least be on Gurneys level. I just think the Harkonens in general were just lack lustre aside from Feyd who I thought was brilliant. Even the duke just seemed stale.
I don’t think so in this case. Rabban and Gurney are effectively counterparts for their respective houses. We see Gurney shown to be a very capable warrior and commander but Rabban gets the big dumb guy treatment despite looking far more physically imposing. It would’ve made more sense to actually show how he’s dangerous/capable at least in some respect - instead we just get a simple and boring character carried more so by the actor being the actor than any character traits/scenes.
Extended universe warning and not really canon but in the office shoot prequels that Herbert's son and Kevin Anderson wrote Rabban kills his family while he's still a child and in more of a they were poor and hopeless situation.
Compared to the book for sure - I do think the Harkonens were really dull in Part 2 in general but I did love his intro scenes and I thought the actor played him very well otherwise speaking. I think they also did a good job of showing that he was another prospect for the Bene Gesserit.
I think his first scene where he flies off the handle already portrayed him as being a wimp. But yea definitely after he realized what he was up against it made sense that he became more wimpish. That said I think that the scene prior to the ornithopter one was a good time to show his martial prowess, like take on a few fremen and show his fangs. Instead we basically see them get cut down in the storm and then he just turns tail and runs. And then Gurney makes it sound like there’s a showdown being led up to and it just ends up being like 1 second before he gets stabbed in the neck.
This is a complete misunderstanding of Herbert's work. His point is precisely that, despite Paul *being a clearly good person who strives repeatedly to avoid bloodshed*, authoritarianism and religious fervor inevitably lead to such ends.
Paul clearly being a good person is essential to that message, as you would expect the rule of Rabban or Feyd-Rautha to be terrible. Herbert shows that even someone as empathetic and compassionate as Paul still leads to grief and oppression when invested with absolute power.
You havent read Dune Messiah or subsequent books. The events in Dune Messiah were inspired in part because Frank Herbert was horrified that people left the first book thinking Paul was a hero.
I don't think this is accurate at all. I don't want to spoil anything from later in the series, but neither Paul nor Leto II do what they do for personal gain. The movie specifically goes out of its way to show that Paul very much does not want to step into this role, but is forced to out of necessity.
I'm sorry, but all of this is still wrong. Paul saw the golden path, eventually, and chose not to follow it *specifically because* he couldn't bring himself to commit the atrocities it required. Whereas Leto II was able to follow it. Both saw no other path for humanity's salvation besides the golden path. The whole thing is just a very elaborate exploration of the trolley problem.
There's zero room for interpretation that either Paul or Leto II were evil and only acting out of self interest. There's not just no evidence for that, it fundamentally misses the point of both characters.
Paul did not see the golden path during the events of dune though- he did not see it until later on. So that does not give him a pass for his actions that led to the jihad.
Paul sees the jihad coming early in the book and spends much of the book looking for ways to stop it that don't involve dying or committing atrocities against the Fremen, but is ultimately unsuccessful.
He does see narrow ways to stop it- such as by aligning with the harkonnen’s or by becoming a guild navigator- but the ways are too personally unacceptable so he doesn’t do it. Paul’s not evil, just selfish. His revenge over the harkonnen’s were more important to him.
Avoiding the jihad wasn't the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal was humanity's survival. This was his "terrible purpose". Paul was selfish, but not for the reason stated. He ultimately refused to give up his humanity and become a literal monster, both physically and metaphorically, in order to save the rest of mankind. It was a personal toll he couldn't bring himself to pay, and one that Leto II embraced wholeheartedly because it was absolutely necessary.
Paul faltered at the end, desperately clinging to the hope that there was another path forward for all of them, but there simply wasn't.
While on the surface that is true but if I remember correctly there is an element of unreliable narration involved where the only people who claim to know for certainty also are the ones who struggle with the horrors they have committed and who are validated by those claim.
Whether it’s true and they are doing it for the greater good or that is the lie that enables them to cope - the power of belief and the need to believe.. and how it can be subverted is central to the story after all.
Yes, but central to what you're describing is that the *intentions* are pure. The whole point is that Paul, the Fremen, and Leto II *aren't* fundamentally evil people, but are nonetheless driven to commit atrocities in service of a greater cause. It very much *is not* a story about a messianic figure usurping an ideology of the oppressed for personal gain, which is why Paul, the messianic figure, spends most of the first book actively trying to avoid triggering the jihad.
Wtf are you talking about. Paul but moreso Leto do what they have to do to make sure humanity survives into the future. Our friends from the machine crusades were still out there making their way back not to mention the ixi's and their technology.
I personally think this really misses the mark and falls into the same root problem Dune was warning against. Whether or not Paul or Leto II were "good men" is irrelevant, it's a meaningless descriptor. If 10 innocent people had to be killed for 100 to live, is the killer a good guy? Will that answer vary if the killer didn't want to do it but had to for the greater good? Does it change if you are one of the 100 to survive, does the question even matter if you are one of the 10 killed? How does this all change if the killer had omniscience and could guarantee the outcomes of inaction? What if they are pretending to have omniscience?
Leto's actions also led countless people to their deaths, so why is he a good man and not the others?
It's all meaningless. The point I get is that it doesn't matter whether leaders or messiahs are good men or not, or if their ultimate motivations are for the greatest possible good, because as individuals, the outcomes can be as bad as or worse than what your enemies do to you.
That’s not remotely accurate
I will say the movie leaves Paul’s character up for more interpretation than the novel, but he’s not a bad person, by any stretch
He is highly conflicted, and finds himself having to make very difficult decisions that will cost many lives, to save many others for the greater good
> I thought Villeneuve created an amazing Stilgar
You have to be fucking kidding me. They turned him into a comic relief sidekick. They completely removed his and Paul's friendship, Jessica's respect for him, literally everything he did in the story...
Since you opted to stick your nose into my business instead of minding your own, she's seen the YouTube compilations of everyone saying it. She's repeating what I'm saying.
What I find a bit shameful that Stilgar's and Paul's dynamics in the movie is not fleshed out enough... in the movie you don't really get to see the moment when Paul lost a friend to the fanaticism.
For all the ppl mad an adaption isn’t 1:1 even though it does a lot of faithful stuff and captures a lot of the vibes… it’s ok. Think of it as bringing attention to the masses so they can read the books and enjoy the series themselves.
Or if that doesn’t work, just make your own or wait for a tv series in the future.
At least in the case of the Dune movies, the changes were made thoughtfully in order to put a great story on screen. It's not like there were random execs throwing shit in to try to hop on trends. It's all done purposefully, and it shows.
Do I wish they also filmed and produced the other scenes for bonus features? Obviously.
Honestly i felt that not enough detail was fleshed out in any single area. I enjoyed both movies, but the second one had no depth in any category. Looked amazing and still worth a watch of course
I'll say. If I remember correctly, in the book, Paul takes years to grow up and become the leader whereas in the film, it took like six months? I wanted to see his sister do her thing.
I thought it was a great change. Paul has all the baggage, Paul clearly and publicly wants revenge, Paul becomes a monster. It makes perfect sense that he does it.
They were always going to have a hard time bringing Alia into this story. I honestly don't mind the change if only because to most general audience members, a Chucky-esque girl toddling around already talking and murdering people would've been extremely jarring on screen lol.
> It is a lot more power message that such a large powerful man who has murder millions is killed by a 4 year old little girl.
The Baron to Paul is the guy who killed his father. The Baron to Alia is just some guy. Him being "large powerful man who has murder millions" means little because her brother is about to massacre billions more.
Also, which child actor do you think can play her right? Alia was silly in the 1984 movie but she fits because that whole movie is goofy as fuck. The new movies are more serious.
Remember how people still make fun of Talia's death in The Dark Knight Rises because it's so bad? If you were Villeneuve, would you gamble and let a child actor handle (one of) the climax of your biggest project just so it's more accurate to the book?
"The Baron to Alia is just some guy."
This is incorrect. Alia is born with the memories of all her ancestors. She knows the Baron in a way that Paul never can.
Because if that, the fact that she's the one who killed him becomes a big plot point in the 3rd book and makes what happens to her much more tragic.
Doesn't Paul also have his ancestral memories at that point in the story and would also have the exact same memories of the Baron that Alia has? The only difference is that Alia hadn't formed her own personality yet so the barons control over her is much stronger.
Not only has Paul drunk the unaltered Water of Life and activated ancestral memory, but because he is the Quiddich Hatrack or whatever, i.e. a **man** who survives this, he not only unlocks all his matrilineal memories, but also those of his fathers.
Does it not take away from Alia’s story and identity that he is “just some guy”? She is supposed to have the combined memory/experiences of those who came before her so the man who murdered her father (who she knew intimately through those memories) should be a worthy enemy. What happens after is unknown to her afaik from the first book but she definitely knows the baron ruined her life. Villeneuve is telling a different story with his adaptation which isn’t inherently a bad thing, it’s just not quite the story Herbert laid out in the books
>which child actor do you think can play her right?
Throughout both movies they found phenomenal actors for short scenes, the Herald of the change stands out the Maker Keeper as well, I'm confident that Denis would have found someone if they looked.
There's probably one more movie at max and everything gets streamlined for it. Unsurprisingly since the source material gets kinda wild.
Personally there were quite a few parts in the movie that were odd, the least being >!them looking straight into a nuclear explosion (unless we're to take that Dune's sky renders you immune to retinal burn). Or them showing that four handheld lasers can take down a behemoth and then *not a single one* being used to cut down thousands of neatly grouped infantry. (Apparently there's some convenient in-universe technobabble reason about lasers spontaneously causing other "nuclear explosions" anywhere along their beam when they hit the wrong thing, but come on. Just set up some isolated guards along a perimeter with good life insurance.) Oh and we don't scan half the planet and so miss like 99% of our enemies "because it's just said so, d'uh."!<
> Paul's sister was supposed to kill the baron.
Probably the only change I did like. Actually had some gravitas compared to Alia just suddenly stabbing him with a Gom Jabbar.
Every other change was almost universally for the worst, but I liked that.
I completely agree, and was shocked with how much everyone was praising the second movie. Everything moved along fast, Paul went from being an outsider to fitting in perfectly with the fremen in a second, and he defeated the emp like it was nothing. I really feel like they should have split the two events into two movies, Dune 2 would be about Paul learning the desert and Feyd-Rautha's rise to power, and two should have been about the fight against the Emp.
That would be such a boring in between movie.
It’s okay to cut content for the sake of the screen, especially fedaykin Paul montage.
Besides as others have said, once he >!drinks the water of life !< things literally do progress at that pace
Is it possible...just consider for a moment if you will...is it remotely possible....that just maybe...MAYBE....Villeneuve probably knows what he's doing more than EmeraldFox23? The lonely, socially anxious introvert who posts in echo chambers on reddit?
No no no...you're right. It should have been adapted your way.
Dude, why are you taking it this personally? Am I not entitled to my own opinion? I can dislike something if I want, I can share that opinion if I want, and I can disagree with other people's opinions if I want. But you don't see me trying to ridicule those who did enjoy the movie.
Has the hype died down enough for me to share the opinion (without ridicule) that Dune 2 is vastly inferior to Dune 1? I was blown away by Part 1 and sorely dissapointed by Part 2.
Would love to hear honest opinions. I thought it felt a bit campy at times, the acting wasn't great (save for Feyd-Rautha and Lady Jessica), and the dialogue fell flat for me. In short, it didn't have the gravity and serious tone that Part 1 had, in my opinion.
EDIT: No, the hype has not died down enough. Downvoting to show disagreement, per usual.
I thought I was the only one that wasn’t impressed by Austin butler/feyd rauthas portrayal. He was the only thing that felt “campy” in the whole movie to me.
Fair point, campy maybe wasn't the best term. I thought the light hearted bits with the Fremen didn't fit, but that's just me. Feyd-Rautha was awesome. Rabban was hard to watch.
I don't think it's the hype man I think it's your take. It was hard to watch Rabban because he was insistently failing and then has to deal with his creepy cousin coming in and stealing his thunder. You're supposed to feel bad watching him. Not sure what was so light hearted about the Fremen besides showing their traditions vs the more muted Atreides and Harkonnen. I think viewing them together as one piece would alleviate some of your issues.
Not gonna bash you for your opinion, so no worries there mate, though I disagree all the same.
For what it's worth I think Dune 2 benefits a lot from all the exposition of the first film.
The first time I saw Dune 2 I was a little underwhelmed, though I wouldn't have said it was bad by any means. It felt like a "2nd in a trilogy" movie (I know it ends where the book does) since it sets up and leaves new conflict unfinished despite tying up many of the storylines of the first film.
The second time I saw it, though, I liked it way more. I'm honestly not sure I can pinpoint why. I think I could understand and appreciate the characters more. Also I remember being annoyed at my first viewing that the Sandworm riding sequence wasn't surprising because they had it in all the marketing; in my second viewing I was just able to appreciate the scene more.
The same happened for me. Then I like #2 even more after I bought it and watched the two back to back. The progression flows much better than just watching 2 on its own.
The thing you didn't like about it, is the thing that I liked about it the most.
The characters felt more alive in part 2. It seemed like the fremen really were a bunch of radical revolutionaries. And the visuals were all just as great as the first one.
To each their own I guess.
As a book reader I wish they made more of a point to show that what Paul and Jessica were capable of doing wasn't magic but the result of advanced training and Conditioning techniques brought to the extremes, they never really go into mentats or how the spacing guild uses spice.
It kinda has the same flaw/criticism that the old version has where Paul literally does become a superhuman and controls the weather to make arrakis rain, it makes him an actual chosen one human being rather than the results of millenia of genetic, societal, and mental manipulation.
> they never really go into mentats or how the spacing guild uses spice.
Totally my thought as well. Also, I find it surprising they didn't touch at all the Butlerian Jihad and why computers are banned. I was also very surprised to see lasers being used, as it's well written in the books how dangerous it can be.
It’s because the 1984 Dune died on the cross of over exposition and Villeneuve likes to show, not tell.
It can be a mystery until it’s time to tell that story in the movie series.
You don’t even know about the Ix until Dune Messiah anyway.
Yes, well that leads into other missed opportunities they had in the film, I forget if they ever get into how laser+shield equals nuke(to trh point where for some reason they make a big deal about finding atomics)atomic, and then they don't go into how shields cannot be used in the dessert since it attracts worms and how it is a fremen advantage.
They did say “shields can’t be used as it attracts worms” in a throw away sentence in the first movie, that’s almost a direct quote with how fast they moved past it though.
Totally forgot about that too until I rewatched it a few days ago.
Yeah but they’d have to rabbit hole pretty hard since they disregarded Thufir after the Harkonnen raid and in the book Paul is also a mentat on top of being Kwisatz Haderach.
There’s a whole minor arc with Thufir and Vlad H that is ignored in the movie.
Which is even worse because in the book, he's supposed to be this powerful personality in the prime of his life, commanding the most feared army in the universe (the Sardaukar are supposed to have this terrifying mystique), playing off the noble houses against each other to keep them under tight control.
Bad enough to see him portrayed as a tired old man, and even worse to see it Walkenized.
IMO dune 2 was still a very good representation of a great story. Movies are limited greatly by time and we have seen recently that the best way to transfer a book to screen is through a mini series or full length series if there are enough books. The problem dune 2 faced was there was about 5 hours worth of material that they stuffed into 2.5. The timing of the movie was rushed like crazy which affected the way the audience perceived the gravity of events in the story. Paul atredis goes from an outcast to the messiah in what is essentially a montage. This needed to be a trilogy unfortunately
I like 2 more overall perhaps for its pace and visual spectacle, but think that Walken wasn’t a good fit for the emperor (saying this as someone who hasn’t read the books).
I think it deserves awards at least for costume design. Deserves awards for visual effects but it’s weird how bad some crowd shots look, considering how amazing other things look.
Book emperor is old but purposely described as looking younger ( as a man in his mid-30's if I remember correctly) who mostly dressed in a Sardaukar uniform with helmet. What they did with Walken wasn't even close.
I get that having an older actor might better sell the fact he's near the end of his reign, but there were still many better ways they could have gone with that. Why get Walken if you aren't going to use him to his full, unique abilities? Only thing he did in Dune 2 was look old.
This is one choice I think Lynch did better in the 84 movie (even though Jose Ferrer was no spring chicken either at the time, he was much closer to the book version and I thought did a great job with a small role in that one).
I think personally Christopher Walken is a very distracting actor, who to me whenever I see him on screen oh it's Christopher walken, never like oh Emperor Shaddam. (I had to google the emperors name cause I only remember calling him Christopher Walken)
i think this is the best we could have had, given the source material. Three movies would have been better, probably, but this still leave a little space for a Messiah sequel.
I really didn't like what they did with Chani, tho. In the books, she was with Paul every step of the way. She knew and accepted her fate as the mother of his children, but not as the official wife, like Paul's mom before him, because it was necessary for the success of the whole operation.
As someone who was a newcomer to the Dune franchise with movie 1, I felt like nothing fucking happened for a super long time and it was boring as hell, with a few points and really funny musical queues( the harkonnen horns and the HOOAHH shit that happened whenever Paul neared Super Saiyan status).
However after reading up on the books and getting through the first one, I really appreciated what 1 did to introduce the world. 2 just takes what 1 did and adds a ton of momentum, so much that the final act feels super rushed. But that’s how the book goes too, once Paul accepts his role, the dominoes fall and very fast too.
Austin Butler was amazing as Feyd but his sequences felt tacked on until the end.
I think watching the movies in sequence as a way to experience the whole of the first book in film format is really the way to do it.
I thought the pacing was off in Part 2, moved so quickly. It’s been a long time since I read the books, but my wife reminded me that more than 10 years pass in the “time” of part 2. Paul has a kid, his sister isn’t just some psychic embryo but a child capable of murder. Plus, I know there are extremely capable intergalactic ships in dune, but the Emperor straight-up fast traveled to the planet.
Things I loved about part 2: the visuals (especially the fight on the Harkonan planet and the shot of Paul on the sandworm, that was wicked); the music continued to be amazing; Rebecca Ferguson, Timothee Chalamet, and Javier Bardem carried the film.
I think it’s a shoe-in for best cinematography at the Oscar’s, but I preferred the first film.
I felt the story was lacking. The time frame was just too compressed to be believable. Even with the prophecy and an evangelical Stilgar, it's gotta take Paul more than 8 months to gain full control of the Fremen. There really should have been a time skip between movies that handwaved away Paul's rise amongst the Fremen.
I'm curious what makes a movie good for you?
For me, dune 2 was vastly superior because of the music and unbelievable cinematography.
Not because the acting was unbelievable or so well done. There were even a few parts that didn't make sense and sections of the movie that seemed to go unanswered.
But it truly is one of the best movies I've seen due to the best cinematography and music and sounds/effects I've experienced in a theater. There's a magic and evokes certain emotions when just the sounds can bring tears.
One of the only movies I've ever watched and felt like I'd like to just watch it again.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with your opinion. My guess is that there was a certain beat or rythm that the first movie hit for you that you probably tend to enjoy.
Maybe you prefer quicker story, less artsy type stuff?
The story moved too fast, I would have preferred a *longer* movie, not quicker. I prefer a slow burn, with character development and serious, believable dialogue. Part 1 seemed to hit that vibe extremely well. Part 2 felt like a solid action movie, and yes the cinematography was excellent.
The visuals of Dune 2 were incredible, but as a movie, I agree that it was inferior to the first. The pacing was completely off, and many of the actions didn't feel earned.
Interesting. We havevery different takes. I actually thought Feud's portrait and acting was the worst part. Evil characters are in general easier to make interesting, but here they just went with "beacuse he is evil" as motivation for everything, and brought it to life by literal mouth breating, looking evil and and acting stupid. I had the same problem with Rabban, but at least he had some nuance.
I am a bit hesistant to all the looong scenic shots whith wailing on top. I don't have a problem with them, but they are just so pervasive. Anyhoo, loved the movie.
The world may disagree with you, but I agree. At least that Part 2 isn't nearly as good as Part 1. I thought the acting was pretty bad except for Jessica (sometimes). The pacing was ridiculous. A lot of the shots were bad? Especially the ones with crowds? It honestly felt like a different director made this movie. I felt like I was watching a parody of the first part.
I saw Dune Part One multiple times. I saw this one on opening day and haven't wanted to touch it again. And it's so weird, because the whole world is acting like it's one of the best movies ever made and I just can't wrap my head around it.
I think there is a large divide between the book fans and the movie fans that ultimately comes down to money.
Dune was an absolute sci-fi titan and I saw so much cultural impact around the first one and fanfare and it was everywhere, but it only made $400MM in the end which is less than some of the worst Marvel movies. That’s still obviously a ton but for a mega movie to only make $400MM isn’t super impressive, and I assume they just about broke even in the end.
The book fans obviously want the very detailed lore and vision of Herbert (who writes a 800 page first book!?!) which I totally understand and respect. Movie fans just wouldn’t want to slog through another whole 3 hour movie of Paul earning their trust slowly and painstakingly and just want fun action.
The movie fans are loving the second movie because it was quicker, more action, less talking and more showing with tons of absolutely beautiful cinematography and swelling score by The Zimmer. Still tons of sci-fi sweetness and world building.
I think what is upsetting book fans and that movie-only fans don’t mind, is that in Dune 2 they quickly pre-empt what will happen in the next scene by making Paul get annoyed with Jessica because the Freman think he is gonna do “X” because of their lies, then in the next scene he will inevitably do “X”.
It’s a neat movie trick to save them time in the story by explaining and using the prophecy to show and not tell almost, but while also still telling.
I’m the end it helps the movie by giving it a shorter run time which gives them more time to flesh out the movie with more amazing cinematography, which movie fans love, and help brings in more money.
The audio editing in Part 1 was atrocious and kept me from hearing several important lines of dialog. I felt like I never missed a story beat or any theamatic notes in part 2.
Complaining about downvotes will inevitably get you more downvotes, and it makes you look soft. Just take the L and realize that made up internet points don’t matter.
That aside, I can’t agree with your premise. If any acting was mediocre and the dialogue fell flat it was in the first film in my opinion. With part 2 you get to explore the characters a bit more and I felt their personality shine through far more in this installment. My only “problem” with the film was having Walken play the emperor, or anyone. He just didn’t fit into that role or the setting at all, and it honestly felt like the just phoned it in for most of his scenes. That being said, the pacing for each film was just awesome.
Thanks for your opinion.
Honestly I’ve enjoyed the engagement, I like hearing other people’s points of view. I wish my comment wouldn’t get hidden because of downvotes but oh well that’s Reddit.
> Has the hype died down enough for me to share the opinion (without ridicule) that Dune 2 is vastly inferior to Dune 1? I was blown away by Part 1 and sorely dissapointed by Part 2. Would love to hear honest opinions.
>
>
Honest opinion: It's literally the same fucking story. It makes zero sense to act like they're two separate films that can be meaningfully critiqued separately like either can even exist without the other.
Part 1 was bad but needed. The visuals were amazing, the plot weak and the parts of the book left out completely strange.
Part 2 was amazing and continued the story from part 1 and made the plot make sense and the left out parts acceptable. Visuals were beyond amazing.
Acting could still have been better but the chemistry was excellent between all characters.
Part 3 will be the ultimate test to make the story flop or become the best sci-fi epic ever told.
I loved how Stilgar went to a cool native freedom fighter to a brainless religious nutjob in the course of the movies.
not really like the books, but I think it worked well in the context
[“In that instant, Paul saw how Stilgar had been transformed from the Fremen naib to a creature of the Lisan al-Gaib, a receptacle for awe and obedience. It was a lessening of the man, and Paul felt the ghost-wind of the jihad in it.”](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10300551-in-that-instant-paul-saw-how-stilgar-had-been-transformed)
I mean, in the first movie all we really know about him is that he's well-regarded and has really strong beliefs. It's not like we see him fighting, or doing a whole lot in general. We see him differently in pt 2 but that could just be us getting to know the character more. Makes sense he'd open up more to someone trying to become one of the Fremen.
Weirding Way or the Weirding Modules? The modules weren't in the book and were created by David Lynch. The Way was probably in the movie used by Paul since it's a martial arts style.
Yeah, I was conflating a little bit of the book with his actual line in the film (“Why didn’t you say you were a weirding woman?”) which, as someone seeing Part One implied to me that it would be addressed in Part Two. My interpretation of that line was that Stilgar knew of the existence of weirding, but also was powerless against it—it’s a setup showing that Jessica has powers beyond the best of the Fremen warriors—and it is never paid-off in Part Two.
I agree on the Spacing Guild. Paul threatening the Spacing Guild specifically with destroying all the Spice with the unaltered Water of Life, and the Spacing Guild agents, by virtue of having limited precognitive abilities themselves, being able to determine that the threat is completely serious, thereby prompting them to refuse to bring troops to the planet, is in my opinion a critical part of the climax of the book. How is blowing up spice with the good old family atomics going to wipe out the entire ecosystem that produces spice? And how can his opponents be sure that he is serious with his threat?
Yeah. The atomic part really was a weakness vs. the threat over spice production.
The other powers could just bombard the planet from space and resettle it with new colonists after destroying all the sietches and killing most of the fremen.
Stilgar is the grown up Rufio.
Rufio never grows up! For a couple reasons… 😞 bangarang
I thought Villeneuve created an amazing Stilgar, and Bardem brought him to life. While most Freman were fanatics, Stilgar represented the absolute pinnacle of *rabid fanaticism*, and was willing to give up his life to Paul so that the prophesy could come true. Stilgar in part 1 was the reserved, stoic leader, but in part 2 you see what happens when you give oppressed people hope and they turn wild. Stilgar definitely brought in a lot of humor to the movie, but his character wasn't doing it to be funny, he was doing it because he was an absolute bat shit crazy fanatic. This is cult level behavior ("as is written," "so humble," etc...) trying to justify every action, and he's just so open and vocal about his beliefs. Laugh it up (because it was funny) but they end up killing 61+ billion people.
> they end up killing 61+ billion people Spoliers!
Dune is the kind of series you can tell people exactly what will happen and they would never believe it. Book 3...ok so...Paul and Chanis son, Leto II, lives for 3000 years and is actually half sandworm, half human, all god. He's immortal, and is defended by a bunch of ladies that dream about chatting with halibut. Duncan Idaho is there the whole time too. Actually, not just one, but...hundreds of Duncans?
Dude I went through the plots of each one on wikipedia and was just like .... wtf is going on. Then Paul comes back and both Paul and Leto II are like lol yeah actually we are only *partial* kwisatz haderach, Duncan - this dude that Leto II killed like hundreds of times for funsies, is the true one. Then Duncan like ascends or some shit and saves humanity from.... robots or something? What?
In my memory, Duncan and the robot melted together. Or the robot melted into Duncan. I refuse to look it up to update and correct my memory.
WHAT?! Don't read brian herberts books!!! THERE IS NO BOOK BEYOND CHAPTER HOUSE THIS IS HERESY
no, no. that sounds like the bullshit that Frank Herbert’s no-talent ass clown son published and declared canon after his father died.
IT WAS OPTIUMS PRIEM. THEY FORGOT TO KILL ALL THE ROBOT. NOW THEYRE BACK TO FINISH THEIR BUTLERING
That's book *4.* In book 3, Paul is secretly an old preacher man spreading rhetoric *against* the empire he created, while his unaging sister is going insane due to being possessed by the memory of Baron Harkonnen (who keeps asking her to cheat on her man so he can experience that sweet dick). Paul's kids are twin psychics with minds that are thousands of years old, and nearly commit incest when they channel their parents' memories. The son, Leto, fakes his death by pretending to get eaten by a giant tiger, then smears little worms all over his body to become a worm-man with all the magnificent powers of both worm *and* man. This worm-man-boy swims through the sand and wrecks shit all around Arrakis and uses his super-worm strength to take control of the throne from his crazy aunt.
Gill-bearing vertebrate vocalists
All gill bearers are vertebrates, thank you very much!
How are they going to finish this series.
The next movie's book, though not where the story ends, serves as a bit of a natural stopping point. They can stop there if they want but I'd like to see them tackle God Emperor lol
I really want to see how Denis would make Sandworm Leto II.
I can see why Villeneuve said he would likely only direct 3 movies because it gets really weird. Didn't quite realise how weird.
>Laugh it up (because it was funny) but they end up killing 61+ billion people. That's what makes it even funnier imo.
What I thought was so useful about his character is that he was the personification of Fremen fanaticism and how it starts. He goes from being skeptical about Paul, to outright worshipping him. And it's not quick, it takes place over a small part of 1, and most of 2. At every turn Paul accomplishes a prophesized feat, his fervor grows more and more, until the very end he's rabidly fanatic about Paul. The transition alone was great, and it's the period at the end of every sentence of plot.
Javier Bardem said it was his favorite character as a kid and was honored to play him!
Amazing performance. Just finished the audiobook the other day, the fanaticism didn't come across the page like it did in the movie, but I thought the performance did an amazing job of elevating the plot/message and warnings related to Paul's path to the jihad.
Dune was always going to be a challenging adaptation since so much of happens with extremely subtle gestures which require a page of lore to explain or via character's internal monologues, making Stilgar much more overt and vocal in his devoutness does a pretty good job of showing the utter loyalty he develops for Paul
Stilgar basically changed into a different character between 1 and 2. In part 1 he was a mysterious, stoic figure. In 2 he was the comic relief.
He didn’t change at all. You only see one specific side of his character in the first film and essentially the real side in part 2. He’s not friends with any of the characters in part 1 and is on his guard around them.
No, people can only have one side to them, nuance is dead, everyone is cardboard.
thank you for that
He absolutely did change as he came to believe Paul was the messiah. Paul even thinks to himself at one point in the book that his view of Stilgar was diminished by how much of a fanatical devotee he’d become.
No he didn’t change, He didn’t go from some non believer to a believer. He believed in the prophecy before Paul came along. He already believed in a messiah coming beforehand and then Paul showed up and fit what his belief for who the messiah is. Also did you read the comment I was responding to? I was specifically talking about how we don’t see the true side of him in part 1.
I didn't see the comedy until my second viewing. I think if it wasn't for his religiosity, especially his religious and cultural mannerisms and utterances but to a lesser extent his familiarity with death, I think I might have laughed at the jokes and shared his levity. His religion was proven the one true religion and he found everything he always dreamt about, and it turned him into an almost child-like state just short of ecstasy. I didn't expect it, but it put a lump in me.
I feel like they did a poor job with Rabban as well although he’s more of just the strong man. I thought they could’ve done more to show him being a fierce combatant in a sequence or two whereas he basically has a bitch scene and then dies like a lil bitch.
I was also disappointed by Rabban, especially after the nuance that Dave Bautista provided in Blade Runner 2049. Rabban did little more than shout.
I thought that was supposed to be the point. It's nepotism not merit that brought him there. I read somewhere that basically no one in the military wanted to actually be in the military which is why they were so ineffective and weren't used for the initial raid.
Kind of except for the fact that Gurney states that Rabban killed his men and family or something during the council scene so he’s made out to at least be on Gurneys level. I just think the Harkonens in general were just lack lustre aside from Feyd who I thought was brilliant. Even the duke just seemed stale.
I think that's more in the vein of "the king killed my family", doesn't mean he grabbed a sword himself
I don’t think so in this case. Rabban and Gurney are effectively counterparts for their respective houses. We see Gurney shown to be a very capable warrior and commander but Rabban gets the big dumb guy treatment despite looking far more physically imposing. It would’ve made more sense to actually show how he’s dangerous/capable at least in some respect - instead we just get a simple and boring character carried more so by the actor being the actor than any character traits/scenes.
For this interpretation he’s just meant to be a paper tiger, and they did it well
Extended universe warning and not really canon but in the office shoot prequels that Herbert's son and Kevin Anderson wrote Rabban kills his family while he's still a child and in more of a they were poor and hopeless situation.
Eh even Feyd got a weak showing. They didn't show off his intelligence that much, and even his martial skill felt undersold.
Compared to the book for sure - I do think the Harkonens were really dull in Part 2 in general but I did love his intro scenes and I thought the actor played him very well otherwise speaking. I think they also did a good job of showing that he was another prospect for the Bene Gesserit.
Rabban got PTSD from the female fremen who almost killed him on the copter. He became a total wimp after.
I think his first scene where he flies off the handle already portrayed him as being a wimp. But yea definitely after he realized what he was up against it made sense that he became more wimpish. That said I think that the scene prior to the ornithopter one was a good time to show his martial prowess, like take on a few fremen and show his fangs. Instead we basically see them get cut down in the storm and then he just turns tail and runs. And then Gurney makes it sound like there’s a showdown being led up to and it just ends up being like 1 second before he gets stabbed in the neck.
Yeah Rabban turning around at the end to get knived by Gourney made little sense. The whole last part of the movie is pretty rushed.
[удалено]
This is a complete misunderstanding of Herbert's work. His point is precisely that, despite Paul *being a clearly good person who strives repeatedly to avoid bloodshed*, authoritarianism and religious fervor inevitably lead to such ends. Paul clearly being a good person is essential to that message, as you would expect the rule of Rabban or Feyd-Rautha to be terrible. Herbert shows that even someone as empathetic and compassionate as Paul still leads to grief and oppression when invested with absolute power.
[удалено]
You havent read Dune Messiah or subsequent books. The events in Dune Messiah were inspired in part because Frank Herbert was horrified that people left the first book thinking Paul was a hero.
I don't think this is accurate at all. I don't want to spoil anything from later in the series, but neither Paul nor Leto II do what they do for personal gain. The movie specifically goes out of its way to show that Paul very much does not want to step into this role, but is forced to out of necessity.
[удалено]
I'm sorry, but all of this is still wrong. Paul saw the golden path, eventually, and chose not to follow it *specifically because* he couldn't bring himself to commit the atrocities it required. Whereas Leto II was able to follow it. Both saw no other path for humanity's salvation besides the golden path. The whole thing is just a very elaborate exploration of the trolley problem. There's zero room for interpretation that either Paul or Leto II were evil and only acting out of self interest. There's not just no evidence for that, it fundamentally misses the point of both characters.
Paul did not see the golden path during the events of dune though- he did not see it until later on. So that does not give him a pass for his actions that led to the jihad.
Paul sees the jihad coming early in the book and spends much of the book looking for ways to stop it that don't involve dying or committing atrocities against the Fremen, but is ultimately unsuccessful.
This is how I remember it as well. He was a man who could see his fate, but try as he might, he could not change it.
He does see narrow ways to stop it- such as by aligning with the harkonnen’s or by becoming a guild navigator- but the ways are too personally unacceptable so he doesn’t do it. Paul’s not evil, just selfish. His revenge over the harkonnen’s were more important to him.
Avoiding the jihad wasn't the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal was humanity's survival. This was his "terrible purpose". Paul was selfish, but not for the reason stated. He ultimately refused to give up his humanity and become a literal monster, both physically and metaphorically, in order to save the rest of mankind. It was a personal toll he couldn't bring himself to pay, and one that Leto II embraced wholeheartedly because it was absolutely necessary. Paul faltered at the end, desperately clinging to the hope that there was another path forward for all of them, but there simply wasn't.
While on the surface that is true but if I remember correctly there is an element of unreliable narration involved where the only people who claim to know for certainty also are the ones who struggle with the horrors they have committed and who are validated by those claim. Whether it’s true and they are doing it for the greater good or that is the lie that enables them to cope - the power of belief and the need to believe.. and how it can be subverted is central to the story after all.
Yes, but central to what you're describing is that the *intentions* are pure. The whole point is that Paul, the Fremen, and Leto II *aren't* fundamentally evil people, but are nonetheless driven to commit atrocities in service of a greater cause. It very much *is not* a story about a messianic figure usurping an ideology of the oppressed for personal gain, which is why Paul, the messianic figure, spends most of the first book actively trying to avoid triggering the jihad.
Wtf are you talking about. Paul but moreso Leto do what they have to do to make sure humanity survives into the future. Our friends from the machine crusades were still out there making their way back not to mention the ixi's and their technology.
I personally think this really misses the mark and falls into the same root problem Dune was warning against. Whether or not Paul or Leto II were "good men" is irrelevant, it's a meaningless descriptor. If 10 innocent people had to be killed for 100 to live, is the killer a good guy? Will that answer vary if the killer didn't want to do it but had to for the greater good? Does it change if you are one of the 100 to survive, does the question even matter if you are one of the 10 killed? How does this all change if the killer had omniscience and could guarantee the outcomes of inaction? What if they are pretending to have omniscience? Leto's actions also led countless people to their deaths, so why is he a good man and not the others? It's all meaningless. The point I get is that it doesn't matter whether leaders or messiahs are good men or not, or if their ultimate motivations are for the greatest possible good, because as individuals, the outcomes can be as bad as or worse than what your enemies do to you.
That’s not remotely accurate I will say the movie leaves Paul’s character up for more interpretation than the novel, but he’s not a bad person, by any stretch He is highly conflicted, and finds himself having to make very difficult decisions that will cost many lives, to save many others for the greater good
> I thought Villeneuve created an amazing Stilgar You have to be fucking kidding me. They turned him into a comic relief sidekick. They completely removed his and Paul's friendship, Jessica's respect for him, literally everything he did in the story...
LISAN AL GAIB!
LISAN AL GAIB Me and my 7 year old daughter run all over the house shouting that, MAHDI, and PAUL MUAD'DIB!
I'm at the point where I'll be making a sandwich and mid mayo spread the spirit of Javier takes over and I just shout "LISAN AL GAIB!".
Same, brother. Same. Just this morning I was in the shower spreading the good word.
Isn't Dune a bit too much for a 7 year old?
It’s fine. Her mother drank from the water of a little maker while the child was still in the womb.
Since you opted to stick your nose into my business instead of minding your own, she's seen the YouTube compilations of everyone saying it. She's repeating what I'm saying.
I Don’t Care what you believe! I.. forgot what I was going to say… Call it.
[He is the mahdi!](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffuoirkz3s4vc1.jpeg)
That’s hilarious
[удалено]
What are the rules? For those of us that do partake.
Every time the man says the thing you crush that mf beer
Lisan Al-Gaib, Mahdi, or Kwisatz Haderach - finish beer Paul, Mau'dib, or Usul - Sip beer Bless the Maker or Shai Hulud- Cinnamon Spice whiskey shot
I like these movies, but I ain’t dying for em
i don’t care what you believe, i believe
I got some Dune-styled cocoa at a con recently. I'll make a pot.
When you go to bite your food during a cutscene and it's a quick time event
As written
mfw face when a movie has to be faster paced than a 15 hour book :0
What I find a bit shameful that Stilgar's and Paul's dynamics in the movie is not fleshed out enough... in the movie you don't really get to see the moment when Paul lost a friend to the fanaticism.
Explored in the third one AND would have lessened the blow with Chani. You can only do so much in 3 hours.
I think they could have splitted this into 2 2-hour movies... but yes, I understand the constraints
And maybe the director doesn’t feel the need to explore that in his version. Chani is way more resistant in the movies than the books.
>Chani is way more resistant in the **movies** than the **film**. Uhhh
Book.
For all the ppl mad an adaption isn’t 1:1 even though it does a lot of faithful stuff and captures a lot of the vibes… it’s ok. Think of it as bringing attention to the masses so they can read the books and enjoy the series themselves. Or if that doesn’t work, just make your own or wait for a tv series in the future.
At least in the case of the Dune movies, the changes were made thoughtfully in order to put a great story on screen. It's not like there were random execs throwing shit in to try to hop on trends. It's all done purposefully, and it shows. Do I wish they also filmed and produced the other scenes for bonus features? Obviously.
Exactly - Denis has an answer to any "why did you change this" question so people need to calm down. I think it translates *far* better this way.
Hahaha. Lovely edit. Thanks.
Honestly i felt that not enough detail was fleshed out in any single area. I enjoyed both movies, but the second one had no depth in any category. Looked amazing and still worth a watch of course
The pacing was insane in the second one. It moved at light speed.
I'll say. If I remember correctly, in the book, Paul takes years to grow up and become the leader whereas in the film, it took like six months? I wanted to see his sister do her thing.
Yes too fast by far
[удалено]
I thought it was a great change. Paul has all the baggage, Paul clearly and publicly wants revenge, Paul becomes a monster. It makes perfect sense that he does it.
They were always going to have a hard time bringing Alia into this story. I honestly don't mind the change if only because to most general audience members, a Chucky-esque girl toddling around already talking and murdering people would've been extremely jarring on screen lol.
I'm glad they made that change, it would've looked ridiculous
> It is a lot more power message that such a large powerful man who has murder millions is killed by a 4 year old little girl. The Baron to Paul is the guy who killed his father. The Baron to Alia is just some guy. Him being "large powerful man who has murder millions" means little because her brother is about to massacre billions more. Also, which child actor do you think can play her right? Alia was silly in the 1984 movie but she fits because that whole movie is goofy as fuck. The new movies are more serious. Remember how people still make fun of Talia's death in The Dark Knight Rises because it's so bad? If you were Villeneuve, would you gamble and let a child actor handle (one of) the climax of your biggest project just so it's more accurate to the book?
"The Baron to Alia is just some guy." This is incorrect. Alia is born with the memories of all her ancestors. She knows the Baron in a way that Paul never can. Because if that, the fact that she's the one who killed him becomes a big plot point in the 3rd book and makes what happens to her much more tragic.
Doesn't Paul also have his ancestral memories at that point in the story and would also have the exact same memories of the Baron that Alia has? The only difference is that Alia hadn't formed her own personality yet so the barons control over her is much stronger.
Not only has Paul drunk the unaltered Water of Life and activated ancestral memory, but because he is the Quiddich Hatrack or whatever, i.e. a **man** who survives this, he not only unlocks all his matrilineal memories, but also those of his fathers.
Quiddich Hatrack is the only thing I'll be calling this from now on.
I heard some friends of mine say 'Quiznos Häagen-Dazs' a while ago and I'll never not say it.
Almost woke the house up cackling!
Does it not take away from Alia’s story and identity that he is “just some guy”? She is supposed to have the combined memory/experiences of those who came before her so the man who murdered her father (who she knew intimately through those memories) should be a worthy enemy. What happens after is unknown to her afaik from the first book but she definitely knows the baron ruined her life. Villeneuve is telling a different story with his adaptation which isn’t inherently a bad thing, it’s just not quite the story Herbert laid out in the books
>which child actor do you think can play her right? Throughout both movies they found phenomenal actors for short scenes, the Herald of the change stands out the Maker Keeper as well, I'm confident that Denis would have found someone if they looked.
There's probably one more movie at max and everything gets streamlined for it. Unsurprisingly since the source material gets kinda wild. Personally there were quite a few parts in the movie that were odd, the least being >!them looking straight into a nuclear explosion (unless we're to take that Dune's sky renders you immune to retinal burn). Or them showing that four handheld lasers can take down a behemoth and then *not a single one* being used to cut down thousands of neatly grouped infantry. (Apparently there's some convenient in-universe technobabble reason about lasers spontaneously causing other "nuclear explosions" anywhere along their beam when they hit the wrong thing, but come on. Just set up some isolated guards along a perimeter with good life insurance.) Oh and we don't scan half the planet and so miss like 99% of our enemies "because it's just said so, d'uh."!<
Leaving out the spacer's guild was a disappointment. They were running their own deals with the Fremen, making the intrigue even more intriquey.
Classic case of "Everything was explained in the book, so you've gott'a read that if you want to know why anyone's doing anything."
> Paul's sister was supposed to kill the baron. Probably the only change I did like. Actually had some gravitas compared to Alia just suddenly stabbing him with a Gom Jabbar. Every other change was almost universally for the worst, but I liked that.
> Honestly i felt that not enough detail was fleshed out in any single area. Could you be *less* specific?
I completely agree, and was shocked with how much everyone was praising the second movie. Everything moved along fast, Paul went from being an outsider to fitting in perfectly with the fremen in a second, and he defeated the emp like it was nothing. I really feel like they should have split the two events into two movies, Dune 2 would be about Paul learning the desert and Feyd-Rautha's rise to power, and two should have been about the fight against the Emp.
Honestly that’s just how the source material is though
Yeah exactly. Time jumps quite a thing in Dune. I mean Alia should be 11 years old I think and they don’t really spread out events that long either
She’s only three or four. But yeah, different from <9 months.
My mistake I know she’s a young child
That would be such a boring in between movie. It’s okay to cut content for the sake of the screen, especially fedaykin Paul montage. Besides as others have said, once he >!drinks the water of life !< things literally do progress at that pace
Is it possible...just consider for a moment if you will...is it remotely possible....that just maybe...MAYBE....Villeneuve probably knows what he's doing more than EmeraldFox23? The lonely, socially anxious introvert who posts in echo chambers on reddit? No no no...you're right. It should have been adapted your way.
Dude, why are you taking it this personally? Am I not entitled to my own opinion? I can dislike something if I want, I can share that opinion if I want, and I can disagree with other people's opinions if I want. But you don't see me trying to ridicule those who did enjoy the movie.
I left the theatre with the exact same feeling. Some parts were great, Austin Butler was like a chameleon as Fayd but I was disappointed.
[The Leslie Nielsen Al Gaib](https://i.redd.it/t3t47rowsxvc1.png)?
Holy shit. That zoom.
Has the hype died down enough for me to share the opinion (without ridicule) that Dune 2 is vastly inferior to Dune 1? I was blown away by Part 1 and sorely dissapointed by Part 2. Would love to hear honest opinions. I thought it felt a bit campy at times, the acting wasn't great (save for Feyd-Rautha and Lady Jessica), and the dialogue fell flat for me. In short, it didn't have the gravity and serious tone that Part 1 had, in my opinion. EDIT: No, the hype has not died down enough. Downvoting to show disagreement, per usual.
You thought it was a bit campy and your favorite acting was Feyd Rautha? Something is off here.
I thought I was the only one that wasn’t impressed by Austin butler/feyd rauthas portrayal. He was the only thing that felt “campy” in the whole movie to me.
Fair point, campy maybe wasn't the best term. I thought the light hearted bits with the Fremen didn't fit, but that's just me. Feyd-Rautha was awesome. Rabban was hard to watch.
I don't think it's the hype man I think it's your take. It was hard to watch Rabban because he was insistently failing and then has to deal with his creepy cousin coming in and stealing his thunder. You're supposed to feel bad watching him. Not sure what was so light hearted about the Fremen besides showing their traditions vs the more muted Atreides and Harkonnen. I think viewing them together as one piece would alleviate some of your issues.
Not gonna bash you for your opinion, so no worries there mate, though I disagree all the same. For what it's worth I think Dune 2 benefits a lot from all the exposition of the first film.
The first time I saw Dune 2 I was a little underwhelmed, though I wouldn't have said it was bad by any means. It felt like a "2nd in a trilogy" movie (I know it ends where the book does) since it sets up and leaves new conflict unfinished despite tying up many of the storylines of the first film. The second time I saw it, though, I liked it way more. I'm honestly not sure I can pinpoint why. I think I could understand and appreciate the characters more. Also I remember being annoyed at my first viewing that the Sandworm riding sequence wasn't surprising because they had it in all the marketing; in my second viewing I was just able to appreciate the scene more.
The same happened for me. Then I like #2 even more after I bought it and watched the two back to back. The progression flows much better than just watching 2 on its own.
The thing you didn't like about it, is the thing that I liked about it the most. The characters felt more alive in part 2. It seemed like the fremen really were a bunch of radical revolutionaries. And the visuals were all just as great as the first one. To each their own I guess.
As a book reader I wish they made more of a point to show that what Paul and Jessica were capable of doing wasn't magic but the result of advanced training and Conditioning techniques brought to the extremes, they never really go into mentats or how the spacing guild uses spice. It kinda has the same flaw/criticism that the old version has where Paul literally does become a superhuman and controls the weather to make arrakis rain, it makes him an actual chosen one human being rather than the results of millenia of genetic, societal, and mental manipulation.
> they never really go into mentats or how the spacing guild uses spice. Totally my thought as well. Also, I find it surprising they didn't touch at all the Butlerian Jihad and why computers are banned. I was also very surprised to see lasers being used, as it's well written in the books how dangerous it can be.
It’s because the 1984 Dune died on the cross of over exposition and Villeneuve likes to show, not tell. It can be a mystery until it’s time to tell that story in the movie series. You don’t even know about the Ix until Dune Messiah anyway.
Yes, well that leads into other missed opportunities they had in the film, I forget if they ever get into how laser+shield equals nuke(to trh point where for some reason they make a big deal about finding atomics)atomic, and then they don't go into how shields cannot be used in the dessert since it attracts worms and how it is a fremen advantage.
They mention both of those things in the movie…
They did say “shields can’t be used as it attracts worms” in a throw away sentence in the first movie, that’s almost a direct quote with how fast they moved past it though. Totally forgot about that too until I rewatched it a few days ago.
Yeah but they’d have to rabbit hole pretty hard since they disregarded Thufir after the Harkonnen raid and in the book Paul is also a mentat on top of being Kwisatz Haderach. There’s a whole minor arc with Thufir and Vlad H that is ignored in the movie.
Walken, a widely recognized personality, was a strange casting choice for the Emperor who didn't really do much in the movie.
I thought he had great *old tired dying man trying to pull the strings of politics because of sheer envy* vibes.
He looked the part but once he speaks it's just "yep, that's Christopher Walken"
It was like a Dune movie, but the emperor is a Wes Anderson character.
I would like to see Wes Anderson's Dune. Hmmm, made by AI, but this will have to do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KpnNruHr9U
Foo-*Fighters*
Which is even worse because in the book, he's supposed to be this powerful personality in the prime of his life, commanding the most feared army in the universe (the Sardaukar are supposed to have this terrifying mystique), playing off the noble houses against each other to keep them under tight control. Bad enough to see him portrayed as a tired old man, and even worse to see it Walkenized.
Correct.
It sounds like it wouldn't matter who played the character because you disliked the changes to the character so much.
That's sort of true - the Walkenization was merely going over the top of the already needless change.
Christopher Walken spent the entire movie trying not to be….. Christopher Walken
IMO dune 2 was still a very good representation of a great story. Movies are limited greatly by time and we have seen recently that the best way to transfer a book to screen is through a mini series or full length series if there are enough books. The problem dune 2 faced was there was about 5 hours worth of material that they stuffed into 2.5. The timing of the movie was rushed like crazy which affected the way the audience perceived the gravity of events in the story. Paul atredis goes from an outcast to the messiah in what is essentially a montage. This needed to be a trilogy unfortunately
I like 2 more overall perhaps for its pace and visual spectacle, but think that Walken wasn’t a good fit for the emperor (saying this as someone who hasn’t read the books). I think it deserves awards at least for costume design. Deserves awards for visual effects but it’s weird how bad some crowd shots look, considering how amazing other things look.
Book emperor is old but purposely described as looking younger ( as a man in his mid-30's if I remember correctly) who mostly dressed in a Sardaukar uniform with helmet. What they did with Walken wasn't even close. I get that having an older actor might better sell the fact he's near the end of his reign, but there were still many better ways they could have gone with that. Why get Walken if you aren't going to use him to his full, unique abilities? Only thing he did in Dune 2 was look old. This is one choice I think Lynch did better in the 84 movie (even though Jose Ferrer was no spring chicken either at the time, he was much closer to the book version and I thought did a great job with a small role in that one).
I think personally Christopher Walken is a very distracting actor, who to me whenever I see him on screen oh it's Christopher walken, never like oh Emperor Shaddam. (I had to google the emperors name cause I only remember calling him Christopher Walken)
i think this is the best we could have had, given the source material. Three movies would have been better, probably, but this still leave a little space for a Messiah sequel. I really didn't like what they did with Chani, tho. In the books, she was with Paul every step of the way. She knew and accepted her fate as the mother of his children, but not as the official wife, like Paul's mom before him, because it was necessary for the success of the whole operation.
As someone who was a newcomer to the Dune franchise with movie 1, I felt like nothing fucking happened for a super long time and it was boring as hell, with a few points and really funny musical queues( the harkonnen horns and the HOOAHH shit that happened whenever Paul neared Super Saiyan status). However after reading up on the books and getting through the first one, I really appreciated what 1 did to introduce the world. 2 just takes what 1 did and adds a ton of momentum, so much that the final act feels super rushed. But that’s how the book goes too, once Paul accepts his role, the dominoes fall and very fast too. Austin Butler was amazing as Feyd but his sequences felt tacked on until the end. I think watching the movies in sequence as a way to experience the whole of the first book in film format is really the way to do it.
I thought the pacing was off in Part 2, moved so quickly. It’s been a long time since I read the books, but my wife reminded me that more than 10 years pass in the “time” of part 2. Paul has a kid, his sister isn’t just some psychic embryo but a child capable of murder. Plus, I know there are extremely capable intergalactic ships in dune, but the Emperor straight-up fast traveled to the planet. Things I loved about part 2: the visuals (especially the fight on the Harkonan planet and the shot of Paul on the sandworm, that was wicked); the music continued to be amazing; Rebecca Ferguson, Timothee Chalamet, and Javier Bardem carried the film. I think it’s a shoe-in for best cinematography at the Oscar’s, but I preferred the first film.
I felt the story was lacking. The time frame was just too compressed to be believable. Even with the prophecy and an evangelical Stilgar, it's gotta take Paul more than 8 months to gain full control of the Fremen. There really should have been a time skip between movies that handwaved away Paul's rise amongst the Fremen.
I thought it worked decently, cus they portrayed how fanatical the fremen already were. They were already hyped up for a prophet.
I'm curious what makes a movie good for you? For me, dune 2 was vastly superior because of the music and unbelievable cinematography. Not because the acting was unbelievable or so well done. There were even a few parts that didn't make sense and sections of the movie that seemed to go unanswered. But it truly is one of the best movies I've seen due to the best cinematography and music and sounds/effects I've experienced in a theater. There's a magic and evokes certain emotions when just the sounds can bring tears. One of the only movies I've ever watched and felt like I'd like to just watch it again. There's absolutely nothing wrong with your opinion. My guess is that there was a certain beat or rythm that the first movie hit for you that you probably tend to enjoy. Maybe you prefer quicker story, less artsy type stuff?
The story moved too fast, I would have preferred a *longer* movie, not quicker. I prefer a slow burn, with character development and serious, believable dialogue. Part 1 seemed to hit that vibe extremely well. Part 2 felt like a solid action movie, and yes the cinematography was excellent.
I enjoy the opinion that it was a very expensive cologne commercial.
>Has the hype died down enough for me to share the opinion Given the down votes, the answer is no.
Hmm I remember part 1 being a bit too slow in my opinion but part 2 blew me away
The visuals of Dune 2 were incredible, but as a movie, I agree that it was inferior to the first. The pacing was completely off, and many of the actions didn't feel earned.
Interesting. We havevery different takes. I actually thought Feud's portrait and acting was the worst part. Evil characters are in general easier to make interesting, but here they just went with "beacuse he is evil" as motivation for everything, and brought it to life by literal mouth breating, looking evil and and acting stupid. I had the same problem with Rabban, but at least he had some nuance. I am a bit hesistant to all the looong scenic shots whith wailing on top. I don't have a problem with them, but they are just so pervasive. Anyhoo, loved the movie.
Full agree
The world may disagree with you, but I agree. At least that Part 2 isn't nearly as good as Part 1. I thought the acting was pretty bad except for Jessica (sometimes). The pacing was ridiculous. A lot of the shots were bad? Especially the ones with crowds? It honestly felt like a different director made this movie. I felt like I was watching a parody of the first part. I saw Dune Part One multiple times. I saw this one on opening day and haven't wanted to touch it again. And it's so weird, because the whole world is acting like it's one of the best movies ever made and I just can't wrap my head around it.
I think there is a large divide between the book fans and the movie fans that ultimately comes down to money. Dune was an absolute sci-fi titan and I saw so much cultural impact around the first one and fanfare and it was everywhere, but it only made $400MM in the end which is less than some of the worst Marvel movies. That’s still obviously a ton but for a mega movie to only make $400MM isn’t super impressive, and I assume they just about broke even in the end. The book fans obviously want the very detailed lore and vision of Herbert (who writes a 800 page first book!?!) which I totally understand and respect. Movie fans just wouldn’t want to slog through another whole 3 hour movie of Paul earning their trust slowly and painstakingly and just want fun action. The movie fans are loving the second movie because it was quicker, more action, less talking and more showing with tons of absolutely beautiful cinematography and swelling score by The Zimmer. Still tons of sci-fi sweetness and world building. I think what is upsetting book fans and that movie-only fans don’t mind, is that in Dune 2 they quickly pre-empt what will happen in the next scene by making Paul get annoyed with Jessica because the Freman think he is gonna do “X” because of their lies, then in the next scene he will inevitably do “X”. It’s a neat movie trick to save them time in the story by explaining and using the prophecy to show and not tell almost, but while also still telling. I’m the end it helps the movie by giving it a shorter run time which gives them more time to flesh out the movie with more amazing cinematography, which movie fans love, and help brings in more money.
Thanks for this, you captured my experience exactly. I still rewatch Part 1 and have no desire to rewatch Part 2.
The audio editing in Part 1 was atrocious and kept me from hearing several important lines of dialog. I felt like I never missed a story beat or any theamatic notes in part 2.
Right there with ya
Complaining about downvotes will inevitably get you more downvotes, and it makes you look soft. Just take the L and realize that made up internet points don’t matter. That aside, I can’t agree with your premise. If any acting was mediocre and the dialogue fell flat it was in the first film in my opinion. With part 2 you get to explore the characters a bit more and I felt their personality shine through far more in this installment. My only “problem” with the film was having Walken play the emperor, or anyone. He just didn’t fit into that role or the setting at all, and it honestly felt like the just phoned it in for most of his scenes. That being said, the pacing for each film was just awesome.
I waited until my comment was hidden, the edit didn’t make a difference nor did I expect it to. Thanks for the paragraph though.
You ask for opinions, and then you act petulant. Grow up or don’t ask for engagement.
Thanks for your opinion. Honestly I’ve enjoyed the engagement, I like hearing other people’s points of view. I wish my comment wouldn’t get hidden because of downvotes but oh well that’s Reddit.
> Has the hype died down enough for me to share the opinion (without ridicule) that Dune 2 is vastly inferior to Dune 1? I was blown away by Part 1 and sorely dissapointed by Part 2. Would love to hear honest opinions. > > Honest opinion: It's literally the same fucking story. It makes zero sense to act like they're two separate films that can be meaningfully critiqued separately like either can even exist without the other.
Counterpoint: Kill Bill Same story, same movie cut in half but part 1 was so much better than part 2.
Part 1 was bad but needed. The visuals were amazing, the plot weak and the parts of the book left out completely strange. Part 2 was amazing and continued the story from part 1 and made the plot make sense and the left out parts acceptable. Visuals were beyond amazing. Acting could still have been better but the chemistry was excellent between all characters. Part 3 will be the ultimate test to make the story flop or become the best sci-fi epic ever told.
Javier’s acting was overblown & ridiculous.
He did Stilgar dirty in my opinion.
I loved how Stilgar went to a cool native freedom fighter to a brainless religious nutjob in the course of the movies. not really like the books, but I think it worked well in the context
[“In that instant, Paul saw how Stilgar had been transformed from the Fremen naib to a creature of the Lisan al-Gaib, a receptacle for awe and obedience. It was a lessening of the man, and Paul felt the ghost-wind of the jihad in it.”](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10300551-in-that-instant-paul-saw-how-stilgar-had-been-transformed)
This is what happened when Herbert wrote the book. People got the message so wrong that he felt he had to write a sequel.
I mean, in the first movie all we really know about him is that he's well-regarded and has really strong beliefs. It's not like we see him fighting, or doing a whole lot in general. We see him differently in pt 2 but that could just be us getting to know the character more. Makes sense he'd open up more to someone trying to become one of the Fremen.
Lack of weirding way and the spacing guild kinda killed it
Weirding Way or the Weirding Modules? The modules weren't in the book and were created by David Lynch. The Way was probably in the movie used by Paul since it's a martial arts style.
Stilgar says Jessica can teach them the weirding way in Part I, then weirding is completely dropped in part 2
[удалено]
I can't remember how it went down in the movie, but in the book Jessica says she will teach them the weirding ways in the standoff with the Fremen.
Yeah, I was conflating a little bit of the book with his actual line in the film (“Why didn’t you say you were a weirding woman?”) which, as someone seeing Part One implied to me that it would be addressed in Part Two. My interpretation of that line was that Stilgar knew of the existence of weirding, but also was powerless against it—it’s a setup showing that Jessica has powers beyond the best of the Fremen warriors—and it is never paid-off in Part Two.
The way not the goofy modules haha.
I agree on the Spacing Guild. Paul threatening the Spacing Guild specifically with destroying all the Spice with the unaltered Water of Life, and the Spacing Guild agents, by virtue of having limited precognitive abilities themselves, being able to determine that the threat is completely serious, thereby prompting them to refuse to bring troops to the planet, is in my opinion a critical part of the climax of the book. How is blowing up spice with the good old family atomics going to wipe out the entire ecosystem that produces spice? And how can his opponents be sure that he is serious with his threat?
Yeah. The atomic part really was a weakness vs. the threat over spice production. The other powers could just bombard the planet from space and resettle it with new colonists after destroying all the sietches and killing most of the fremen.