The new Dune movies (part 1, and now part 2!)

[Antonio the Sixth]

It was a good movie. Deeply impressive on a visual level, and from everything I've heard very accurate to the source material. I do agree that the characters feel a bit distant and hard to really connect with on an emotional level, though afaik this is very much accurate to the book, so it's hard to call it a flaw. The main problem is that it's just adapting the first half, and it very much feels incomplete narratively. All in all, this was probably still the best possible adaptation, but I'm not quite as blown away with it as I was with Arrival or Blade Runner 2049. Still very excited about Part 2 though!

[ProudModerate2]

Has anyone seen part 2 yet?
I have not, but looking forward to it maybe next week.
(No spoilers, please.)

[Progressive Pessimist]

I look forward to seeing it this week, maybe.

Until then, I am rewatching the first one to get refreshed.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Finished watching it an hour ago. Deeply impressed, a bit disappointed. I will try to lay out my notes later. Jonesing to reread the book.

[Blue3]

SPOILERS











I really liked it, and I think it’s more accessible to the general audience than the first part, but it’s still not the usual popcorn blockbuster kind of film like Star Wars or even Lord of the Rings. Very high-quality though, and very cinematic, while also keeping some Dune quirkiness/weirdness.

My theater audience really liked Stilgar and his new comic relief aspect, and I think that was a smart choice to do since the movie is all about the dangers of fundamentalism and charismatic leaders becoming messiahs.

Lady Jessica was super creepy after the water of life, along with the Alia stuff.

The Bene Gesserit stuff was great, especially with the one who went to the Harkonnen homeworld.

The Harkonnens continued to be despicable and grossing everyone out, Feyd especially utterly psychotic.

Princess Irulan was very good.

Paul and Chani were very believable and strong as a couple. Some lines were surprisingly borrowed from Anakin/Padme PT scenes very surprisingly… but it worked here.

The theme/message was strong, and I think it should come through to the general audience that Paul and especially Jessica have become their own sort of villain (if sympathetic and still protagonists), with Chani being the protagonist to actually morally root for.



My criticisms:

- I don’t feel like Paul was as transformed by the water of life as his mother was, and his gained understanding/power didn’t seem as consequential or visible as Jessica’s.

- It seemed like Paul adapted to the Fremen a little too quickly, and without that much struggle. Overall his plot seemed quite inevitable and not that suspenseful. Even the storming of the stronghold, killing the Baron, and capturing the Emperor, seemed too easy and without much suspense.

- I know it was clear that Paul felt if he went south then his trajectory would be locked. But even after he went south, I feel there should have been more internal conflict and him needing more pressure to drink from it, and maybe even a little more pressure after that for him to so easily embrace his role as a religious savior to the gathering in the south.

- I also feel revealing Paul as Muadib there should have been a little vocal and gotten more of an announcement and reaction from the Harkonnens at least.

- Gurney vs Raban, and Paul vs Feyd, also seemed to lack some suspense. Especially Gurney vs Raban. Feyd was built up but had no sense of being a true potential alternative to Paul.

- the Emperor should have had a little more screentime and projected more strength. I know they portrayed him as intelligent, and showed how even the Baron continued to fear him. But, both physically and politically, he came across as too weak, like it should have been easy for someone else to have overthrown him by now and not that only Paul had a real chance at it.

- while they intentionally decided to focus on Paul/Chani as the core relationship of this film, I think they still should have shown a little more of Paul and how his relationship with his mother has changed, and even Paul thinking and talking more about his father.












END SPOILERS

[Landslide Lyndon]

The first Dune is one of those movies which while I initially enjoyed the more I was thinking about it the less I liked.
Considering the fact that I also strongly disliked the same director's Blade Runner 2049, I'm in no hurry to see Dune 2. Maybe when it comes to streaming.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I presume that the general politics of the films are rather less right-wing than the novel (not that that's hard!) and that the homophobic elements of the story are largely excised?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I presume that the general politics of the films are rather less right-wing than the novel (not that that's hard!) and that the homophobic elements of the story are largely excised?

I saw the whole thing thing as an extended anti-colonial metaphor, the aesthetic of the Harkonnens was clearly similar to space Nazis (although that likely has more to do with imitating previous works that were imitating Nazis for the villains rather than a direct link), and the Fremen are like the scrappy indigenous peoples battling for their undeveloped homeland. In the vein of Avatar.

There are some undertones implying some of the villains are homosexual or at least bisexual, but nothing explicit or in a homophobic way.

[afleitch]

I presume that the general politics of the films are rather less right-wing than the novel (not that that's hard!) and that the homophobic elements of the story are largely excised?

While I think both new films are actually amazing aesthetically, particular leaning into the Arab/Islamic visuals, the overlapping religious allegories have been sanitised to the point it's effectively been 'Christianised'. At parts it was like Life of Brian but without any sense of irony with Chani effectively reduced to scenes of non verbal head shaking and side eye.

I get it. Accessibility. And being some sixty years removed from ethno-religious pressure points that are pretty much alien. But that's where it did fall flat for me.

The homophobia was out of the movie thankfully, other than a 'fraternal kiss' between Vladimir and Feyd, leaning into the authoritarian aesthetic more than anything else.

[RI]

Dune 2 was phenomenal, of course. The Geidi Prime and Paul-in-the-South sequences were simply on another level. I generally don't like Chalamet that much as an actor, and was pretty neutral on him in the first one, but he absolutely nailed Paul's turn to the darker side. He was legitimately frightening.

I presume that the general politics of the films are rather less right-wing than the novel (not that that's hard!) and that the homophobic elements of the story are largely excised?

I saw the whole thing thing as an extended anti-colonial metaphor, the aesthetic of the Harkonnens was clearly similar to space Nazis (although that likely has more to do with imitating previous works that were imitating Nazis for the villains rather than a direct link), and the Fremen are like the scrappy indigenous peoples battling for their undeveloped homeland. In the vein of Avatar.

It's pretty clear the Fremen liberation is not exactly a good thing, though, unlike most "anti-colonial" movies. Their liberation requires mass genocide across the entire galaxy. Not that the Harkonnens or the Imperium are correct either.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Dune 2 was phenomenal, of course. The Geidi Prime and Paul-in-the-South sequences were simply on another level. I generally don't like Chalamet that much as an actor, and was pretty neutral on him in the first one, but he absolutely nailed Paul's turn to the darker side. He was legitimately frightening.

I presume that the general politics of the films are rather less right-wing than the novel (not that that's hard!) and that the homophobic elements of the story are largely excised?

I saw the whole thing thing as an extended anti-colonial metaphor, the aesthetic of the Harkonnens was clearly similar to space Nazis (although that likely has more to do with imitating previous works that were imitating Nazis for the villains rather than a direct link), and the Fremen are like the scrappy indigenous peoples battling for their undeveloped homeland. In the vein of Avatar.

It's pretty clear the Fremen liberation is not exactly a good thing, though, unlike most "anti-colonial" movies. Their liberation requires mass genocide across the entire galaxy. Not that the Harkonnens or the Imperium are correct either.

In what way? They weren't opposed outright to the Spice mining.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I can't really write my thoughts more effectively than when I texted my brother right after the movie finished, so here goes:

• Villeneuve risks going down as this generation's greatest director. Period.
• The movie has two key distinctions: being in no way a shot-for-adaptation of the book while at the same time more firmly displaying the grandeur and alienness of the Imperium and of the Harkonnens (as a fairly unique but still exemplary Great House). The Emperor's and the Harkonnen's ships being the prime example. Part I was too bereft of genuinely ambitious architecture and of imperial machinations.
• Irulan's ornate outfits were 10/10. [Redacted]
• Geidi Prime as a place where color cannot exist in the naked atmosphere was incredibly unique. Feyd Rautha was a joy to have on screen.
• The movie is too sincerely anti-colonial, something on which I blame Villeneuve's Frenchness and "modern sensibilities". This results in a book inaccurate but fairly interesting display of two different types of "anti-colonial" movement we've seen in the 20th century--religious fanaticisms and secular nationalism (Stilgar vs Chani).
• I think Villeneuve' secularism and/or desire for a "true good guy" results in him rendering Chani as a disappointed secular nationalist. We simply can't have an ally of Paul who is neither a manipulating villain nor a duped fanatic (Halleck as the exception). It is perhaps the story of many a revolution (good), and a symbol of what Paul loses by winning (good), but deprives us of a true, pious, ride-or-die Chani and creates obvious problems if Denis wants to do a trilogy. In this scenario, I'd prefer a genuine Paul-Irulan partnership instead.

Beyond what I sent my brother, the more I think about it, the more disappointed I am by the Life of Brian-ing of Stilgar, as well as his being rendered as simple comic relief for many scenes when he is the reason Paul lives, and in book canon remains one of his most trusted (if flawed) advisers and the guardian of his children until the end. (I have actually been uncomfortable with humor in both of the Villeneuve Dunes--it feels canned and Marvel-esque, as though it were only included to assure studio executives that the movie is acceptable to modern audiences) I will nevertheless say that the movie left me deeply awed and I am glad it was made. Given the difficulties in bringing these books to the screen, I don't think we'll see anything with this level of effort and skill ever again. I am eager to find out how Villeneuve repairs the rift in the plot if he makes it to a Dune Messiah movie. I also have to credit the director for being the man that brought me to Dune. It was my love of his Bladerunner 2049 that made me at last relent and buy a copy of the book once I heard he would be directing a new movie adaptation.

[T'Chenka]

Dune Part Two was VERY good. Not a flawless movie and I have criticisms. Overall, it's a cinematic achievement and I have it ranked as a top 100 film of all time... based only on the films that I have personally seen, or course.

[Blue3]

I presume that the general politics of the films are rather less right-wing than the novel (not that that's hard!) and that the homophobic elements of the story are largely excised?

It’s not political? If anything, it’s left-wing.

Frank Herbert said his books are about the dangers of charismatic leaders and religious movements. Paul Atreides was written to be a villain - there are worse villains, but he’s still the villain. He made that very clear.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I presume that the general politics of the films are rather less right-wing than the novel (not that that's hard!) and that the homophobic elements of the story are largely excised?

It’s not political? If anything, it’s left-wing.

Frank Herbert said his books are about the dangers of charismatic leaders and religious movements. Paul Atreides was written to be a villain - there are worse villains, but he’s still the villain. He made that very clear.

Al has not read Dune Messiah, which is where Herbert does the course-correction away from much less ironic and critical presentation of Paul in the first book. Even then I wouldn't describe the series as either apolitical or left-wing, only as non-authoritarian (or less-authoritarian). Herbert himself was, at least for much of his life, a partisan Republican in the Mountain West libertarian-conservative mold, only with much more of an environmentalist streak than that normally implies.

I thought Part Two was excellent and, while I agree entirely with Cath's analysis of Chani, I think she could function well in Part Three/Messiah (the script for which is supposedly finished as of a few days ago!) if her secular nationalism is presented as eventually motivating her to unironic support for the jihad after all, just not for the same reasons as most of the other Fremen. In other ways Part Two seems to me to deliberately set up Messiah early. We have politically active Irulan (agreed on what I'm pretty sure Cath is redacting; it helps that Irulan is a longstanding favorite character of mine), Alia kept in reserve for later rather than being crammed into her book-canonical Dune ending position in a way that would seem very weird even for this story onscreen, and of course the more jaded/disenchanted approach to Paul and Jessica on which the movie's leaning so heavily. I also agree with Cath that Stilgar's characterization might end up suffering for it--and that arguably it already has--but in general I think Villeneuve knows what he's doing. It's just not exactly what Herbert was doing.

[Rand]

I liked the scene in the tent where Chani rode Paul’s worm.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyone else catch that Timothée Chalamet is only 12 years younger than Rebecca Ferguson who plays his mother?

Like this promo pic...if without context you told me these characters are supposed to be related I would've instantly assumed they're brother and sister.

https://ew.com/thmb/LMUsamqMT4DYtGxZXQpWBfcFKos=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/Dune_6-4cc223cde0fa4d999d7066840f6821a2.jpg

[Middle-aged Europe]

Anyone else catch that Timothée Chalamet is only 12 years younger than Rebecca Ferguson who plays his mother?

Like this promo pic...if without context you told me these characters are supposed to be related I would've instantly assumed they're brother and sister.

https://ew.com/thmb/LMUsamqMT4DYtGxZXQpWBfcFKos=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/Dune_6-4cc223cde0fa4d999d7066840f6821a2.jpg

Considering that Paul was 15 in the book, or something, I guess Chalamet is supposed to play a character who is younger... maybe not 15, but younger.

And the consumption of Spice prolongs your life, so I guess Ferguson is supposed to play a character who is in fact ten years older than her.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It’s not political? If anything, it’s left-wing.

The moral universe of Dune rests on two basic principles, neither of which Herbert questions (quite the contrary). The first of these is an organic sense of order, in both a biological and sociological sense. Everything ought to be in its place and nothing out of it: there is a direct link between the novel's unironic championing of rank and duty and the natural order of the planet Arrakis, and an obvious belief that to disturb either greatly would be a grievous sin. The second, which flows directly and logically from the first, is the endorsement of feudalism as the only morally legitimate form of governance. The galactic polity of Dune is a feudal one in which social position and economic privileges are granted by a liege in exchange for military services or their equivalent. These bonds are shown as being of greater value than mere familial relationship, and it is notable that the only powerful actors who are shown to frequently act outside of this feudal framework are Baron Harkonnen and the Spacing Guild. Harkonnen is, of course, the book's moral black hole and is representative of everything that Herbert detested, while the latter is depicted as a corrupt, morally bankrupt and ultimately pathetic entity. Moreover, it happens that the central drama of the book is triggered by the dishonest attempt of the Padishah Emperor to covertly undermine the power of the planetary feudal lords in order to maintain a vestige of centralized imperial power. Now it happens that while this is very right-wing it is right-wing in a broadly harmless way: what emerges is the sense of Herbert as being a sort of Kubrickesque reactionary who found postwar American society to be distasteful, both for its consumerist excesses and the power of the New Deal era State, rather than, say, a fascist or even a Bircher. Crankish rather than dangerous, but still not that in keeping with Hollywood in the 2020s, thus my curiosity as to how the film dealt with the matter.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It’s not political? If anything, it’s left-wing.

The moral universe of Dune rests on two basic principles, neither of which Herbert questions (quite the contrary). The first of these is an organic sense of order, in both a biological and sociological sense. Everything ought to be in its place and nothing out of it: there is a direct link between the novel's unironic championing of rank and duty and the natural order of the planet Arrakis, and an obvious belief that to disturb either greatly would be a grievous sin. The second, which flows directly and logically from the first, is the endorsement of feudalism as the only morally legitimate form of governance. The galactic polity of Dune is a feudal one in which social position and economic privileges are granted by a liege in exchange for military services or their equivalent. These bonds are shown as being of greater value than mere familial relationship, and it is notable that the only powerful actors who are shown to frequently act outside of this feudal framework are Baron Harkonnen and the Spacing Guild. Harkonnen is, of course, the book's moral black hole and is representative of everything that Herbert detested, while the latter is depicted as a corrupt, morally bankrupt and ultimately pathetic entity. Moreover, it happens that the central drama of the book is triggered by the dishonest attempt of the Padishah Emperor to covertly undermine the power of the planetary feudal lords in order to maintain a vestige of centralized imperial power. Now it happens that while this is very right-wing it is right-wing in a broadly harmless way: what emerges is the sense of Herbert as being a sort of Kubrickesque reactionary who found postwar American society to be distasteful, both for its consumerist excesses and the power of the New Deal era State, rather than, say, a fascist or even a Bircher. Crankish rather than dangerous, but still not that in keeping with Hollywood in the 2020s, thus my curiosity as to how the film dealt with the matter.

Not sure if this happens in the book, but the movies especially the second kind of sidestep these themes by just going out of the way to make the Harkonnens really REALLY cartoonishly evil, like something out of a parody.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Everything ought to be in its place and nothing out of it

A (very) small prize for anyone who gets this reference, incidentally.

[Electric Circus]

There are some funny parallels with Ridley Scott's Napoleon: Man with a sense of destiny, and a psychology shaped by a harsh mother and the early death of his father, emerges from the desert and rises to power as a charismatic hero with oddball characteristics, succeeding in both war and politics. He eventually becomes emperor, leading to widespread change and countless deaths, but struggles with love.

The funny part is that there are so many possible ways to tell both stories (especially taking as many liberties with the source material as both do), and the two movies don't really have that much in common. But there's something about the zeitgeist that both directors are channeling.

[GoTfan]

There are some funny parallels with Ridley Scott's Napoleon: Man with a sense of destiny, and a psychology shaped by a harsh mother and the early death of his father, emerges from the desert and rises to power as a populist hero, succeeding in both war and politics. He eventually becomes emperor, leading to widespread change and countless deaths, but struggles with love.

The funny part is that there are so many possible ways to tell both stories (especially taking as many liberties with the source material as both do), and the two movies don't really have that much in common. But there's something about the zeitgeist that both directors are channeling.

The other obvious difference is that one movie is very good. The other is Napoleon.

[Electric Circus]

The other obvious difference is that one movie is very good. The other is Napoleon.

Napoleon is fine if you didn't embarrass yourself by showing up in period military costume.* I've listened to too many historians carp and criticize it without realizing that, like Dune, it's been made as a romance movie. Josephine/Chani aren't just prominent characters with their own stories elevated to co-leads; their romance is the focus. And, let's be honest, half of the people doing public history on this era are in Napoleon's thrall and in denial about it.

It's like putting on Peter Jackson's LOTR adaptations and failing to get (not necessarily appreciate the choice, but at least understand) that they are action movies.

*edit: If this sounds bilious, it's because there is a worse mistake to be made here: Taking your dad.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I rather enjoyed Napoleon as a sort of utterly demented historical fantasia. Though I do suspect that Scott may have been rather hungry when he made it: all those references to and depictions of breakfast.