Right, thought so. Thanks.
Film Dune
- Thread starter duffer
- Start date
Just bought tickets to watch this in IMAX again. Can't remember the last time I watched a movie twice in the cinema.
I’m sorry for bumping my own post but still really interested in hearing people’s thoughts on this, especially book readers.
A bit of everything I think. Or at least, based on the book...
He feels he has a duty as an Atreides and the new Duke to avenge his dad and people, and to claim power where he can (including the imperial throne, through marriage with the princess). Then as an adoptive Fremen, he wants what's best for them and Dune. He also feels a need to live up to the Kwisatz Haderach prophecy, given he clearly seems to be that person. But then by being able to foresee futures (there is not necessarily a fixed future path), he does worry about the moral impact of going all-in as a God-Emperor of Dune and the empire.
That's a tangle of contradicting goals which he tries to navigate. In the book, he remains uneasy about it all and feels mostly driven by obligation to his role and position. This is then worked out much further in the second book, which is basically all about that dilemma and its consequences.
That's a tangle of contradicting goals which he tries to navigate. In the book, he remains uneasy about it all and feels mostly driven by obligation to his role and position. This is then worked out much further in the second book, which is basically all about that dilemma and its consequences.
Just a thought about the thing which happens at the end of movie with Paul and the big fat fella.
Paul killing Baron Harkonnen and revealing his lineage is probably Villeneuve's decision to assert the idea he's now taking ownership of that house too. Jessica should technically inherit the role given her lineage precedes Paul's but I think it's heavily implied she won't be doing it. Doing it this way means that House Atreides and Harkonnen are subsumed into each other.
In the novel Alia is alive and it's her who kills him Baron Harkonnen. That's a pretty big change so I assume it was written this way for a reason.
In the novel Alia is alive and it's her who kills him Baron Harkonnen. That's a pretty big change so I assume it was written this way for a reason.
Just came out of an IMAX screening of 2, and enjoyed it! Liked both films, although I never read the books. Villeneuve is really on a roll here. The only thing that threw me off watching this was Walken....we all love Walken, but it was his voice. 
So from some of the responses it looks like you book readers are happy with the film adaptions. Question, why did he Paul take the Emperors daughter? Why turn his back on Chani? Also, above it was said someone named Alia killked that fat feck, was she in the movie?
Just came out of an IMAX screening of 2, and enjoyed it! Liked both films, although I never read the books. Villeneuve is really on a roll here. The only thing that threw me off watching this was Walken....we all love Walken, but it was his voice.
So from some of the responses it looks like you book readers are happy with the film adaptions. Question, why did he Paul take the Emperors daughter? Why turn his back on Chani? Also, above it was said someone named Alia killked that fat feck, was she in the movie?
Alia is Paul's sister, the one Jessica is pregnant with when the Atreides get done in by the Harkonnens. I'm yet to see Part 2 but from what I've read she's played by Anya Taylor-Joy, presumably not during contemporary events. Also the best bit of Dune '84.
Just came out of an IMAX screening of 2, and enjoyed it! Liked both films, although I never read the books. Villeneuve is really on a roll here. The only thing that threw me off watching this was Walken....we all love Walken, but it was his voice.
So from some of the responses it looks like you book readers are happy with the film adaptions. Question, why did he Paul take the Emperors daughter? Why turn his back on Chani? Also, above it was said someone named Alia killked that fat feck, was she in the movie?
Your first question was explained by the movie, I think. It was a purely strategical marriage designed to legitimise him as ruler.
Alia is Paul’s little sister, who spends the film in Lady Jessica’s womb. In the book, Paul and Lady Jessica spend years with the Fremen before attacking the Harkonnens and the Emperor, allowing Alia to be born. As I understand it, she is born with highly developed cognitive and physical abilities due to consuming the Water of Life (through her mother doing it).
Alia is Paul’s little sister, who spends the film in Lady Jessica’s womb. In the book, Paul and Lady Jessica spend years with the Fremen before attacking the Harkonnens and the Emperor, allowing Alia to be born. As I understand it, she is born with highly developed cognitive and physical abilities due to consuming the Water of Life (through her mother doing it).
Thanks. Does the book explain why
there’s seemingly no better possible future than a war which will kill billions? I can buy that the other Great Houses refusing to recognize him essentially makes a war inevitable, and that the Fremen’s fanaticism means even the death of Paul would only have made him a martyr and spawned a war as well. But it seems a bit far-fetched that an Emperor and God-like figure would not have the sway to at least limit the catastrophic losses and destruction.
the marriage makes very little sense given the other houses refuse to recognise his claim to the throne and they’re about to wage war. The marriage would solve nothing
Yeah, and I think she is actually the one that kills Baron Harkonnen in the book, with a Gom Jabbar.
Yeah, I guess. As I understand it they recognize him in the books but that makes the idea of the inevitable holy war a little far-fetched as it is then instigated by the Fremen rather than provoked. Which is probably why Villeneuve changed it.
I mean, it's not black and white. While they don't recognise it as of now, I guess he believes that once the war has been won, his claim should be reinforced by the alliance. Also, as Emperor, will he now have control over the Sardaukar? Or have they all been killed?
Not sure why we're still using spoilers, can't remember exactly what the rules are, but the film's been out several days, surely people know that there would be spoilers discussed in here?
My man
It's hard to answer this without knowing what the (potential) third movie looks like. Chani is not really the same character as in the books.
In the book,
Paul does not turn his back on Chani. She will be his concubine and 'real' wife, Irulan is just a wife in name.
Book talk as it is related to the movies should still be in spoilers, right? That is where one of those convos originated.
Ultimately the plot of the series involves the idea that you have some prophetic vision that tells you X path is the best possible path so they can always justify anything weird (like Paul marrying Irulan in the movie) as "HE HAD TO DO IT."
I think the idea is that
it is inevitable that the Fremen, seeing him as their Messiah and basically a good, will want to unleash a holy war of conquest on the empire in his name. They've proven to be much better than even the Sardaukar, so they're basically an unstoppable force. Paul needs to adopt this persona to be able to fulfill his ambitions/obligations as the new Duke of the Atreides, and I think he wants to also to bring the fremen power and pride, but once he does that, the consequence of holy war (I think it's actually called jihad in the book) is unavoidable.
Really good movie, just like the first one. Not 5/5 on every aspect, but best in class for enthralling sci-fi.
Cheers. Are the books good as a pure reading experience or mainly interesting for the story and lore? And is Messiah as good as the first?
Really good film, saw it in IMAX over the weekend. 8.5 or 9/10.
I like Denis Villeneuve and the cinematography is great...but it's also a bit much. There's a fine line between letting a scene breath and needless overindulgence...I think this one (and it's predecessor) are verging on the latter.
Austin Butler was chilling, but in a much more limited role than I was expecting given the hype.
I just can't buy Timothee Chalamet as any kind of physical combatant. I also found the conclusion hard to buy...it all seemed a bit easy for the good guys. Excited to read the books and see how the story there compares.
I like Denis Villeneuve and the cinematography is great...but it's also a bit much. There's a fine line between letting a scene breath and needless overindulgence...I think this one (and it's predecessor) are verging on the latter.
Austin Butler was chilling, but in a much more limited role than I was expecting given the hype.
I just can't buy Timothee Chalamet as any kind of physical combatant. I also found the conclusion hard to buy...it all seemed a bit easy for the good guys. Excited to read the books and see how the story there compares.
So I re-read those two recently and I do think they're good. They're much slower than the film and much less action-oriented; it's not a swashbuckling adventure. (And I know the first film was pretty slow and pensive!) I would also say Messiah isn't a must-read: the first book is a good stand-alone. Messiah is interesting though, and a very good companion, so I think I would recommend it as well. (It's also much shorter than the first book!)
I really enjoyed the books. Lots of politics and 4D chess type stuff.
I just saw it and loved it. I really enjoyed the pacing and introductory cinematography of the first film and the greater action of this one. I can't wait to go and see it again to pick up details I always seem to miss first time around.
I love how you can tell Villeneuve was really into the source material ("a longstanding dream of mine is to adapt Dune").
I love how you can tell Villeneuve was really into the source material ("a longstanding dream of mine is to adapt Dune").
Villeneuve is an excellent director, but these Dune films didn't really connect with me, even though they're brilliantly made.
Saw it in IMAX yesterday and it was brilliant. Highly recommended for cinema viewing.
Just came home from the cinema. Generally loved it.
My memory of the books is a bit vague, so two things I'm unsure about:
My memory of the books is a bit vague, so two things I'm unsure about:
From the books, I remembered Stilgar to be a wise and intelligent man, with a big focus on traditions. The movie makes him seem like a fanatic idiot at times.
Also Chani was way more supportive of Paul's motives and actions in the book, right?
Also Chani was way more supportive of Paul's motives and actions in the book, right?
They deffo used Stilgar as a little comic relief in the film (which wasnt present in the books at all).
Chani was totally supportive in the books. I think the change in the films is for the better, especially to show that Paul is not really a hero of the story.
As a big fan of the books, I am fine with the Stilgar change and think the Chani change is an improvement (but will be interesting to see what they do when they make the next film, if she and Paul are not together, there's going to be even more changes).
Chani was totally supportive in the books. I think the change in the films is for the better, especially to show that Paul is not really a hero of the story.
As a big fan of the books, I am fine with the Stilgar change and think the Chani change is an improvement (but will be interesting to see what they do when they make the next film, if she and Paul are not together, there's going to be even more changes).
If I'm not mistaken, in the book, a lot of that opposition is part of Paul's inner monologue or in those quotations at the start of chapters. That obviously wouldn't work in the film (there's far too much inner monologue in Lynch's film, and it's awful), so the screenwriters might have decided to externalize those ideas by giving them to Chani. And yes, it does also strengthen the character, which actually fits the book. Or at least, in Villeneuve's interpretation (based on an interview I read), female agency is an important theme in Dune.
That's what I figured, externalising the internal conflict is a good way to put it
I've re-watched the early 2000s Sci Fi channel mini-series in the last few days.
It's absolutely terrible. I can forgive the crappy CGI special effects but the acting and casting is shockingly bad.
The bloke playing Paul looks older than the woman playing his mum. The bloke playing the Baron is camper than Christmas, the Emperor has a thick Italian accent and the guy playing Feyd-Rautha is as menacing as a labradoodle puppy.
Also the costume choices are utterly mental.
It's absolutely terrible. I can forgive the crappy CGI special effects but the acting and casting is shockingly bad.
The bloke playing Paul looks older than the woman playing his mum. The bloke playing the Baron is camper than Christmas, the Emperor has a thick Italian accent and the guy playing Feyd-Rautha is as menacing as a labradoodle puppy.
Also the costume choices are utterly mental.
Just back from watching MAXX screening. Hell of a spectacle. Throughly enjoyed myself but I preferred the first film. Almost too much going on in this one. It felt as though they were trying to cram in too much narrative at the expense of character development. Still a hell of a double bill. Can’t wait for the next one.
Something I’m a bit confused about though is guns. In the first movie they make a big deal about having special armour that stops bullets but gets pierced by blades. Hence they all fight with swords and knives.
In this movie there’s a bunch of inconsistencies
In the first scene of this movie a load of Harkonnen get sniped. Why doesn’t their armour protect them?
When the Freimen ambush a spice mining vehicle a load of them get wasted by a machine gun in a helicopter. So they obviously don’t have the special armour. In which case, why don’t the Harkonnen/emperor’s troops line up for the final battle with a shitload of those machine guns?
When bald Elvis is fighting in the colloseum his armour does protect him against a blade. He has to turn it off to make it a fair fight. What’s that all about?
In this movie there’s a bunch of inconsistencies
In the first scene of this movie a load of Harkonnen get sniped. Why doesn’t their armour protect them?
When the Freimen ambush a spice mining vehicle a load of them get wasted by a machine gun in a helicopter. So they obviously don’t have the special armour. In which case, why don’t the Harkonnen/emperor’s troops line up for the final battle with a shitload of those machine guns?
When bald Elvis is fighting in the colloseum his armour does protect him against a blade. He has to turn it off to make it a fair fight. What’s that all about?
I'm not sure I can account for every choice of weapon in the movie, but the general idea is that the shields attract the worms, so they are not used in worm territory and fremen generally don't use them. Also, if one of the lasers (they are called lasguns in the universe) hit a shield it creates a massive explosion that would be enough to kill everyone in the vicinity. So that's why they can use lasguns against the fremen, but they were not really used in the first movie, because the Atreides troops would have shields.
Edit: Regarding Bald Elvis, I think he just turns his shield off as a big dick move. His shield would have protected him against fast blows, but the slow blade would have penetrated it regardless.
The gun/shield stuff is pretty inconsistent.
In the books at least, the shields attract sandworms (and send them wild) so that's why nobody wears them when on the desert.
If a laser hits a shield there's a nuclear sized reaction so that's why nobody uses lasers.
As for Baldy turning his shield off, the shields will protect from knives or swords unless the blade is very slowly passed through (which takes a lot of skill). So him going into a knife fight with a shield against unshielded opponents was more or less an execution rather than a duel.
Ok, cool. The sand worms is a good explanation for no shields in the desert (he might have let us non book readers know this important detail!)
There is a few things that's not explained, or only explained visually, where you have to be a genious to work it out without book knowledge.
A good example of this, is that the worms are kept on the surface level by lifting their scales and exposing whatever is underneath, which the worm doesn't want to have underground (for whatever reason). It's also how they steer. The movie shows the hooks lifting the scales a bunch of times, but it's never explained.
Aha! That was something else I just sort of accepted. Ok, so worms don’t go underground now. To be fair, when he lifted the scales you could see some sort of breathing hole beneath it.
I still need an explanation for how they manage to a) Get a bunch of people on the same worm, including those palaquins, and b) How they manage to safely dismount.
But hey, it's a sci-fi movie. They are allowed some wiggle room.