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

[Blair]

I am enjoying seeing the beef between people like me who read the books and are amazed someone managed to adapt the source material into a commercial success, and the diehards who remain upset at various parts of it.

I think the success of the director really should be seen through the prism of how difficult the books are to work with although god knows how Messiah will go. There’s a good argument to just take the ending and allow him to work out how to get there himself.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

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.

It was a boring snoozefest that butchered the character of Napoleon and seemed like something that William Pitt would commission if he had a movie studio. Josephine isn't even in the movie all that much and it frankly fails to understand what makes napoleon so interesting. You have no sense that this creepy weirdo managed from a relatively humble origins change the face of Europe or inspire such intense devotion that he was able to raise an army simply from his physical presence in France. I will die on this hill.



On the topic of Dune 2; I've never been a big fan of the Dune books with the Foundation always being my favourite( though an almost impossibly hard show to adapt to a visual medium as can be seen from the latest apple tv show) but I loved the movie. There's a great sense of aesthetics here that makes the place Arkharis feel much more real and not just another cookie-cutter desert world. Paul himself is a rather boring character IMO but I do enjoy his narrative arc and the struggle with coming to terms with the messiah. The firemen themselves are interesting, a very traditional orientalist depiction that doesn't try to pretend to be something that it isn't.

Still, the primary appeal of the movie is in the spectacle itself; The Harraken and their cruelty come across incredibly well in the depiction of their planet as well as the shots we have of them. so too do the Fremen and their own harsh lifestyle, which we can see reflected even in the smallest details of their behaviour.

[MasterJedi]

While both movies are very good I still say the best version is the television miniseries. Sometimes the acting can be a bit lacking and due to the medium the visuals aren’t the best but it’s still the most book actuate.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

I think scott should have been gently suggested to do a film on Nelson instead which would have satisfied his urges (large battle setpieces interspersed with scenes straight from a sex farce).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.

The Ridley Scott-Dune nexus persists!

 • Apparently Scott was at one point considered a possible director for a 1980s Dune.
 • Sean Young plays the love interest in both Bladerunner and 1984's Dune.
 • Denis Villeneuve directed both the Bladerunner sequel and the Dune reboot.

[Torrain]

It was a boring snoozefest that butchered the character of Napoleon and seemed like something that William Pitt would commission if he had a movie studio. Josephine isn't even in the movie all that much and it frankly fails to understand what makes napoleon so interesting. You have no sense that this creepy weirdo managed from a relatively humble origins change the face of Europe or inspire such intense devotion that he was able to raise an army simply from his physical presence in France. I will die on this hill.

100% this.

Something felt really off from the start, and I wasn't quite sure what was wrong until Wellington showed up, and exhibited more charisma and pathos in two minutes of screentime, than Napoleon had throughout his entire rise to power. Immediately started rooting for him, and suddenly realised that Ridley had, intentionally or not, written a film about French history, from the British perspective, and seemingly for a British audience.

Josephine was really disappointing. They ascribe some of Napoleon's major decisisons to his obsession with/love for her, even when there's clearly other motivators. And yet, she feels really flat. Aging her down, rather than exploring the rather... Macron-esque dynamic they shared, just feels wrong, and flattens her into a far more conventional character.

[HisGrace]

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.

Agree, I'm one of the only ones who likes the new Napoleon. Made on such a great scale and I thought the satiric element of it worked perfectly. So many of the criticisms are irrelevant (not historically accurate, no French accents, not enough battle scenes)

It was a boring snoozefest that butchered the character of Napoleon and seemed like something that William Pitt would commission if he had a movie studio. Josephine isn't even in the movie all that much and it frankly fails to understand what makes napoleon so interesting. You have no sense that this creepy weirdo managed from a relatively humble origins change the face of Europe or inspire such intense devotion that he was able to raise an army simply from his physical presence in France. I will die on this hill.

100% this.

Something felt really off from the start, and I wasn't quite sure what was wrong until Wellington showed up, and exhibited more charisma and pathos in two minutes of screentime, than Napoleon had throughout his entire rise to power. Immediately started rooting for him, and suddenly realised that Ridley had, intentionally or not, written a film about French history, from the British perspective, and seemingly for a British audience.

Josephine was really disappointing. They ascribe some of Napoleon's major decisisons to his obsession with/love for her, even when there's clearly other motivators. And yet, she feels really flat. Aging her down, rather than exploring the rather... Macron-esque dynamic they shared, just feels wrong, and flattens her into a far more conventional character.

I thought Wellington came off like a smug prig and the movie bends over backwards to show how comfortable he was with wasting life (goes on and on about not shooting Napoleon and ending the battle but has no problem sending tens of thousands of men out to be cannon fodder). I don't think it was pro British so much as depicting the Napoleonic Wars as a bunch of egomaniacs moving their toy soldiers around with mass loss of life as the consequence. Which I'd say sums it up pretty well.

I agree a younger actor as Napoleon + an older actress as Josephine (maybe Marion Cotillard or Rachel Weisz) would have captured the dynamic better.

[ProudModerate2]

I recently saw part 2.
I did not enjoy it as much as the first part, but it was good.
There is now talk of a possible part 3.

[GoTfan]

I recently saw part 2.
I did not enjoy it as much as the first part, but it was good.
There is now talk of a possible part 3.

The plan all along easy for Villeneuve to conclude with Dune: Messiah. It is a logical endpoint.

[Progressive Pessimist]

After two weeks of a lot getting in the way, I was able to see the film.

By Shai Hulud! F***ing Denis Villeneuve is a genius at directing science-fiction. Give him 'Alien.' Give him 'Star Wars!' Let him direct every science-fiction franchise!

Seriously, it cannot be said enough how much of a feat it was for him to bring 'Dune,' a previously considered unadaptable property, to modern audiences while also being able to competently articulate the complicated concepts and ideas of the franchise, and for it to also be commercially successful!

He also successfully made me finally enjoy a performance by not just Timothee Chalamet, but Hollywood's other new golden boy, Austin Butler. They were excellent in this. I think vengeful Timothee is my preferred Timothee. Him leading the Fremen rebellion, and embracing his status as their leader kind of disturbed me. As did Lady Jessica, perhaps even more. And I loved just about everything with the Harkonnens and their creepy asses (I wish they'd still pronounce the name "Har-cone-in" though).

Part two was more than worth the three year wait, and I'm sure 'Dune Messiah' will be worth it too.

The only downside is that while Villeneuve is concentrating on this franchise we aren't going to get that 'Blade Runner 2049' sequel I've been clamoring for! I also was kind of disappointed not to see his interpretation of the guild navigators. Maybe in the next one.

Until then I will wage a holy war in Villeneuve's name. Lisan al-Denis! LISAN AL-DENIS!

[Rand]

Going for my second viewing of Part 2 today, this time in IMAX 70MM at the Metreon in San Francisco. Might even buy a whole row of tickets for the homeless.

[Mopsus]

Reminded me of Marvel movies, but with a slower pace and no inane quips. Which makes them better than any Marvel movie, but still more spectacle than substance.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Saw Part 2 this weekend. Really impressive movie. I was wondering if Villeneuve Got the thematic essence of the books and the answer is clearly yes. There are some significant changes of course, but that's inevitable in an adaptation, and there are some reasonable reasons for those changes, so there's no reason to get hung up on that. But he really Gets these characters and I love that Paul is getting his own gaslight gatekeep girlboss moment (alongside the many other gaslight gatekeep girlbosses this universe is chock full of). This is a villain origin story through and through, and it's a damn strong one, coupled with an actually nuanced depiction of colonial dynamics (not the whitewashed bullsh*t you get from Avatar and whatnot).

I do think the pacing was a bit too slow (though not nearly as bad as the first movie). I kinda wish instead of two 3-hour movies we got one 4-hour one, though I guess most spectators wouldn't follow me on that. Still, the slow moments do add their value, and Villeneuve is the absolute master at setting up an atmosphere. Overall feels like a 9/10 (maybe 8.5 if I want to be a jerk).

I am incredibly psyched for Dune Messiah because in many ways I feel like that's a more interesting story to adapt (the original Dune was so culturally influential that any modern adaptation will inevitably get compared to films that were inspired by it, like Star Wars, which makes it impossible it experience it fresh). And heck, I really hope Villeneuve will be dragged kicking and screaming into adapting Children of Dune too, that's where sh**t really gets to the next level. But I'll take anything I can get.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

My impression was that Herbert pointedly not a fan of the hyper-hierarchical feudalism he depicts in his books. In fact, the extended lore makes it pretty explicit that lying behind the superficial veneer of aristocratic values that legitimize the Empire, in reality it's effectively just a giant space megacorporation whose dukes and barons are its shareholders. While he does go out of his way to show characters who (at least at first) genuinely seem to live by and embody these values, the fall of House Atreides shows pretty early on that the overall social order is neither sustainable nor desirable. And the centuries-long oppression of the Fremen ultimately renders their uprising inevitable, and with it the fall of the Empire and the brutal dictatorship of Paul and then Leto II. Pretty much every political system depicted in the books comes off extremely negatively.

Of course, what Herbert doggedly refuses to do is actually show us how he would have a complex, galaxy-spanning society be organized politically. To me, that strikes me as more evidence that Herbert's political values amount to a vague and somewhat incoherent libertarianism. He is fundamentally opposed to the idea of Power, and like many left- and right-libertarians today, unable to cope with the reality that Power is an inevitable outgrowth of complex society, and the question of who ought to wield it and how is not one that can be sidestepped. And yes, Herbert is probably closer to the right- end of the spectrum and his views on gender and sexuality have certainly not aged well. But reading his work as an endorsement of feudalism feels weird to me.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Saw Part 2 this weekend. Really impressive movie. I was wondering if Villeneuve Got the thematic essence of the books and the answer is clearly yes. There are some significant changes of course, but that's inevitable in an adaptation, and there are some reasonable reasons for those changes, so there's no reason to get hung up on that. But he really Gets these characters and I love that Paul is getting his own gaslight gatekeep girlboss moment (alongside the many other gaslight gatekeep girlbosses this universe is chock full of). This is a villain origin story through and through, and it's a damn strong one, coupled with an actually nuanced depiction of colonial dynamics (not the whitewashed bullsh*t you get from Avatar and whatnot).

I do think the pacing was a bit too slow (though not nearly as bad as the first movie). I kinda wish instead of two 3-hour movies we got one 4-hour one, though I guess most spectators wouldn't follow me on that. Still, the slow moments do add their value, and Villeneuve is the absolute master at setting up an atmosphere. Overall feels like a 9/10 (maybe 8.5 if I want to be a jerk).

I am incredibly psyched for Dune Messiah because in many ways I feel like that's a more interesting story to adapt (the original Dune was so culturally influential that any modern adaptation will inevitably get compared to films that were inspired by it, like Star Wars, which makes it impossible it experience it fresh). And heck, I really hope Villeneuve will be dragged kicking and screaming into adapting Children of Dune too, that's where sh**t really gets to the next level. But I'll take anything I can get.

I'm wondering how Villeneuve handles the time-jump in 'Messiah.' Will he condense the timeline down like he did in part two?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Saw Part 2 this weekend. Really impressive movie. I was wondering if Villeneuve Got the thematic essence of the books and the answer is clearly yes. There are some significant changes of course, but that's inevitable in an adaptation, and there are some reasonable reasons for those changes, so there's no reason to get hung up on that. But he really Gets these characters and I love that Paul is getting his own gaslight gatekeep girlboss moment (alongside the many other gaslight gatekeep girlbosses this universe is chock full of). This is a villain origin story through and through, and it's a damn strong one, coupled with an actually nuanced depiction of colonial dynamics (not the whitewashed bullsh*t you get from Avatar and whatnot).

I do think the pacing was a bit too slow (though not nearly as bad as the first movie). I kinda wish instead of two 3-hour movies we got one 4-hour one, though I guess most spectators wouldn't follow me on that. Still, the slow moments do add their value, and Villeneuve is the absolute master at setting up an atmosphere. Overall feels like a 9/10 (maybe 8.5 if I want to be a jerk).

I am incredibly psyched for Dune Messiah because in many ways I feel like that's a more interesting story to adapt (the original Dune was so culturally influential that any modern adaptation will inevitably get compared to films that were inspired by it, like Star Wars, which makes it impossible it experience it fresh). And heck, I really hope Villeneuve will be dragged kicking and screaming into adapting Children of Dune too, that's where sh**t really gets to the next level. But I'll take anything I can get.

I'm wondering how Villeneuve handles the time-jump in 'Messiah.' Will he condense the timeline down like he did in part two?

I don't think condensing the timeline would work here - are we supposed to believe Paul's jihad killed billions in the space of what, 6 months? A year? Two years? Even with the technological capabilities of the Dune universe that strains credulity. And even if you could make it believable, it would still make the story feel smaller.

To be honest, I would just recast Paul. Chalamet has been superb in the role, but we really need someone who can credibly portray an older, hopelessly jaded Paul who has been thoroughly consumed by his role a the leader of a genocidal war of conquest. He needs to be different from the dashing Paul in his prime we've gotten to know in Dune, and that difference can only be believable if we get the sense of what years of disillusion have done to him.

[John Dule]

Saw Part 2 this weekend. Really impressive movie. I was wondering if Villeneuve Got the thematic essence of the books and the answer is clearly yes. There are some significant changes of course, but that's inevitable in an adaptation, and there are some reasonable reasons for those changes, so there's no reason to get hung up on that. But he really Gets these characters and I love that Paul is getting his own gaslight gatekeep girlboss moment (alongside the many other gaslight gatekeep girlbosses this universe is chock full of). This is a villain origin story through and through, and it's a damn strong one, coupled with an actually nuanced depiction of colonial dynamics (not the whitewashed bullsh*t you get from Avatar and whatnot).

I do think the pacing was a bit too slow (though not nearly as bad as the first movie). I kinda wish instead of two 3-hour movies we got one 4-hour one, though I guess most spectators wouldn't follow me on that. Still, the slow moments do add their value, and Villeneuve is the absolute master at setting up an atmosphere. Overall feels like a 9/10 (maybe 8.5 if I want to be a jerk).

I am incredibly psyched for Dune Messiah because in many ways I feel like that's a more interesting story to adapt (the original Dune was so culturally influential that any modern adaptation will inevitably get compared to films that were inspired by it, like Star Wars, which makes it impossible it experience it fresh). And heck, I really hope Villeneuve will be dragged kicking and screaming into adapting Children of Dune too, that's where sh**t really gets to the next level. But I'll take anything I can get.

I'm wondering how Villeneuve handles the time-jump in 'Messiah.' Will he condense the timeline down like he did in part two?

I don't think condensing the timeline would work here - are we supposed to believe Paul's jihad killed billions in the space of what, 6 months? A year? Two years? Even with the technological capabilities of the Dune universe that strains credulity. And even if you could make it believable, it would still make the story feel smaller.

To be honest, I would just recast Paul. Chalamet has been superb in the role, but we really need someone who can credibly portray an older, hopelessly jaded Paul who has been thoroughly consumed by his role a the leader of a genocidal war of conquest. He needs to be different from the dashing Paul in his prime we've gotten to know in Dune, and that difference can only be believable if we get the sense of what years of disillusion have done to him.

I think this is not the plan. Pugh signed onto this movie partially due to Villeneuve's assurances that her character would have a bigger part to play in the next film. It would make no sense to recast Paul but not her.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Can't wait to watch Pt 2 when I get home from the bush.

The first one was the best sci-fi since Blade Runner 2.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Saw Part 2 this weekend. Really impressive movie. I was wondering if Villeneuve Got the thematic essence of the books and the answer is clearly yes. There are some significant changes of course, but that's inevitable in an adaptation, and there are some reasonable reasons for those changes, so there's no reason to get hung up on that. But he really Gets these characters and I love that Paul is getting his own gaslight gatekeep girlboss moment (alongside the many other gaslight gatekeep girlbosses this universe is chock full of). This is a villain origin story through and through, and it's a damn strong one, coupled with an actually nuanced depiction of colonial dynamics (not the whitewashed bullsh*t you get from Avatar and whatnot).

I do think the pacing was a bit too slow (though not nearly as bad as the first movie). I kinda wish instead of two 3-hour movies we got one 4-hour one, though I guess most spectators wouldn't follow me on that. Still, the slow moments do add their value, and Villeneuve is the absolute master at setting up an atmosphere. Overall feels like a 9/10 (maybe 8.5 if I want to be a jerk).

I am incredibly psyched for Dune Messiah because in many ways I feel like that's a more interesting story to adapt (the original Dune was so culturally influential that any modern adaptation will inevitably get compared to films that were inspired by it, like Star Wars, which makes it impossible it experience it fresh). And heck, I really hope Villeneuve will be dragged kicking and screaming into adapting Children of Dune too, that's where sh**t really gets to the next level. But I'll take anything I can get.

I'm wondering how Villeneuve handles the time-jump in 'Messiah.' Will he condense the timeline down like he did in part two?

I don't think condensing the timeline would work here - are we supposed to believe Paul's jihad killed billions in the space of what, 6 months? A year? Two years? Even with the technological capabilities of the Dune universe that strains credulity. And even if you could make it believable, it would still make the story feel smaller.

To be honest, I would just recast Paul. Chalamet has been superb in the role, but we really need someone who can credibly portray an older, hopelessly jaded Paul who has been thoroughly consumed by his role a the leader of a genocidal war of conquest. He needs to be different from the dashing Paul in his prime we've gotten to know in Dune, and that difference can only be believable if we get the sense of what years of disillusion have done to him.

I think this is not the plan. Pugh signed onto this movie partially due to Villeneuve's assurances that her character would have a bigger part to play in the next film. It would make no sense to recast Paul but not her.

Yeah, if they stuck with the time-jump Zendaya would have to be recast older too. I don't think they're going to replace the big names in their impressive cast.

But then there's also the matter of Alia and Anya Taylor Joy being cast as her.

They could always just lower the number of casualties from the holy war, I guess?

[Alben Barkley]

I dismissed Dune as lame nerd s—t before, but a friend wanted to see Dune 2 with me so I went back and watched Dune 1 before. I thought it was OK at best on that initial viewing. So I went into the second one expecting it to be overhyped and overrated and walk out of it rolling my eyes.

I have never been more wrong.

HOLY S—T THIS MOVIE ROCKED MY F—KING WORLD!!!

It is literally the most epic and exciting experience I’ve had in a theater since Return of the King, over 20 years ago.

This is a once in a generation movie, and watching it made me appreciate the first part more because everything it set up paid off PERFECTLY.

I was on the edge of my seat the whole time, loved every second and everything about it: The music, the cinematography, the action, it all just floored me.

I not only thought about action/fantasy epics like LOTR watching it, but also old masterful Westerns like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. (Not to mention, of course, Lawrence of Arabia.) It was THAT good. It was THAT satisfying. And the best part is it can be enjoyed on multiple levels, both as a visceral, aesthetic experience and as a deeply profound film that has a lot to say about religion, philosophy, politics, etc.

So after being relatively underwhelmed with the first part, I walked out of the second like:



Oh also I realized George Lucas totally ripped the source material off, even more than he did stuff like Flash Gordon. It’s clear now this was Star Wars for grown-ups, and it’s easily the best Star Wars movie in at least four decades.

Cannot recommend this film highly enough, a truly once in a generation cinematic experience.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I dismissed Dune as lame nerd s—t before, but a friend wanted to see Dune 2 with me so I went back and watched Dune 1 before. I thought it was OK at best on that initial viewing. So I went into the second one expecting it to be overhyped and overrated and walk out of it rolling my eyes.

I have never been more wrong.

HOLY S—T THIS MOVIE ROCKED MY F—KING WORLD!!!

It is literally the most epic and exciting experience I’ve had in a theater since Return of the King, over 20 years ago.

This is a once in a generation movie, and watching it made me appreciate the first part more because everything it set up paid off PERFECTLY.

I was on the edge of my seat the whole time, loved every second and everything about it: The music, the cinematography, the action, it all just floored me.

I not only thought about action/fantasy epics like LOTR watching it, but also old masterful Westerns like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. (Not to mention, of course, Lawrence of Arabia.) It was THAT good. It was THAT satisfying. And the best part is it can be enjoyed on multiple levels, both as a visceral, aesthetic experience and as a deeply profound film that has a lot to say about religion, philosophy, politics, etc.

So after being relatively underwhelmed with the first part, I walked out of the second like:



Oh also I realized George Lucas totally ripped the source material off, even more than he did stuff like Flash Gordon. It’s clear now this was Star Wars for grown-ups, and it’s easily the best Star Wars movie in at least four decades.

Cannot recommend this film highly enough, a truly once in a generation cinematic experience.

Part two really made me question why I ever liked 'Star Wars' in the first place. I feel like it's been rendered irrelevant, even as it is more commercial and crowd-pleasing than 'Dune,' which is so much smarter and better thought out in some ways.

Having said that, it also made me appreciate George Lucas' business savvy more, oddly enough. He took a complicated, intricate, weird property like 'Dune' and fused it with other genre-based influences to essentially take everything 'Dune' did well, but more easily digestible for mainstream audiences. It's kind of brilliant and opened my eyes more to why 'Star Wars' became the phenomena it still is today as a franchise. Say what you will about Lucas as a director, but he did more than just stumble into his gold mine.

I certainly hope in the future that the Villeneuve 'Dune' series ends up better regarded than everything post-'Return of the Jedi' at least. I think there is even potential for 'Dune' spin-offs and TV shows in time. Hopefully their quality is more consistent than 'Star Wars' though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Saw Part 2 this weekend. Really impressive movie. I was wondering if Villeneuve Got the thematic essence of the books and the answer is clearly yes. There are some significant changes of course, but that's inevitable in an adaptation, and there are some reasonable reasons for those changes, so there's no reason to get hung up on that. But he really Gets these characters and I love that Paul is getting his own gaslight gatekeep girlboss moment (alongside the many other gaslight gatekeep girlbosses this universe is chock full of). This is a villain origin story through and through, and it's a damn strong one, coupled with an actually nuanced depiction of colonial dynamics (not the whitewashed bullsh*t you get from Avatar and whatnot).

I do think the pacing was a bit too slow (though not nearly as bad as the first movie). I kinda wish instead of two 3-hour movies we got one 4-hour one, though I guess most spectators wouldn't follow me on that. Still, the slow moments do add their value, and Villeneuve is the absolute master at setting up an atmosphere. Overall feels like a 9/10 (maybe 8.5 if I want to be a jerk).

I am incredibly psyched for Dune Messiah because in many ways I feel like that's a more interesting story to adapt (the original Dune was so culturally influential that any modern adaptation will inevitably get compared to films that were inspired by it, like Star Wars, which makes it impossible it experience it fresh). And heck, I really hope Villeneuve will be dragged kicking and screaming into adapting Children of Dune too, that's where sh**t really gets to the next level. But I'll take anything I can get.

I'm wondering how Villeneuve handles the time-jump in 'Messiah.' Will he condense the timeline down like he did in part two?

I don't think condensing the timeline would work here - are we supposed to believe Paul's jihad killed billions in the space of what, 6 months? A year? Two years? Even with the technological capabilities of the Dune universe that strains credulity. And even if you could make it believable, it would still make the story feel smaller.

To be honest, I would just recast Paul. Chalamet has been superb in the role, but we really need someone who can credibly portray an older, hopelessly jaded Paul who has been thoroughly consumed by his role a the leader of a genocidal war of conquest. He needs to be different from the dashing Paul in his prime we've gotten to know in Dune, and that difference can only be believable if we get the sense of what years of disillusion have done to him.

I think this is not the plan. Pugh signed onto this movie partially due to Villeneuve's assurances that her character would have a bigger part to play in the next film. It would make no sense to recast Paul but not her.

Yeah, if they stuck with the time-jump Zendaya would have to be recast older too. I don't think they're going to replace the big names in their impressive cast.

But then there's also the matter of Alia and Anya Taylor Joy being cast as her.

They could always just lower the number of casualties from the holy war, I guess?

Maybe. I don't know, I personally would rather Villeneuve take some risks here for the sake of conveying the scale of the story than condense it for the sake of working with a certain cast. But oh well, he's earned enough goodwill at this point that I have to trust his judgment either way.

[DaleCooper]

Saw Part 2 this weekend. Really impressive movie. I was wondering if Villeneuve Got the thematic essence of the books and the answer is clearly yes. There are some significant changes of course, but that's inevitable in an adaptation, and there are some reasonable reasons for those changes, so there's no reason to get hung up on that. But he really Gets these characters and I love that Paul is getting his own gaslight gatekeep girlboss moment (alongside the many other gaslight gatekeep girlbosses this universe is chock full of). This is a villain origin story through and through, and it's a damn strong one, coupled with an actually nuanced depiction of colonial dynamics (not the whitewashed bullsh*t you get from Avatar and whatnot).

I do think the pacing was a bit too slow (though not nearly as bad as the first movie). I kinda wish instead of two 3-hour movies we got one 4-hour one, though I guess most spectators wouldn't follow me on that. Still, the slow moments do add their value, and Villeneuve is the absolute master at setting up an atmosphere. Overall feels like a 9/10 (maybe 8.5 if I want to be a jerk).

I am incredibly psyched for Dune Messiah because in many ways I feel like that's a more interesting story to adapt (the original Dune was so culturally influential that any modern adaptation will inevitably get compared to films that were inspired by it, like Star Wars, which makes it impossible it experience it fresh). And heck, I really hope Villeneuve will be dragged kicking and screaming into adapting Children of Dune too, that's where sh**t really gets to the next level. But I'll take anything I can get.

I'm wondering how Villeneuve handles the time-jump in 'Messiah.' Will he condense the timeline down like he did in part two?

I don't think condensing the timeline would work here - are we supposed to believe Paul's jihad killed billions in the space of what, 6 months? A year? Two years? Even with the technological capabilities of the Dune universe that strains credulity. And even if you could make it believable, it would still make the story feel smaller.

To be honest, I would just recast Paul. Chalamet has been superb in the role, but we really need someone who can credibly portray an older, hopelessly jaded Paul who has been thoroughly consumed by his role a the leader of a genocidal war of conquest. He needs to be different from the dashing Paul in his prime we've gotten to know in Dune, and that difference can only be believable if we get the sense of what years of disillusion have done to him.

I actually thought Chalamet was bad in Dune 2, easily the weakest link and the only real problem with the whole movie. I'd love it if they recast him.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Saw Part 2 this weekend. Really impressive movie. I was wondering if Villeneuve Got the thematic essence of the books and the answer is clearly yes. There are some significant changes of course, but that's inevitable in an adaptation, and there are some reasonable reasons for those changes, so there's no reason to get hung up on that. But he really Gets these characters and I love that Paul is getting his own gaslight gatekeep girlboss moment (alongside the many other gaslight gatekeep girlbosses this universe is chock full of). This is a villain origin story through and through, and it's a damn strong one, coupled with an actually nuanced depiction of colonial dynamics (not the whitewashed bullsh*t you get from Avatar and whatnot).

I do think the pacing was a bit too slow (though not nearly as bad as the first movie). I kinda wish instead of two 3-hour movies we got one 4-hour one, though I guess most spectators wouldn't follow me on that. Still, the slow moments do add their value, and Villeneuve is the absolute master at setting up an atmosphere. Overall feels like a 9/10 (maybe 8.5 if I want to be a jerk).

I am incredibly psyched for Dune Messiah because in many ways I feel like that's a more interesting story to adapt (the original Dune was so culturally influential that any modern adaptation will inevitably get compared to films that were inspired by it, like Star Wars, which makes it impossible it experience it fresh). And heck, I really hope Villeneuve will be dragged kicking and screaming into adapting Children of Dune too, that's where sh**t really gets to the next level. But I'll take anything I can get.

I'm wondering how Villeneuve handles the time-jump in 'Messiah.' Will he condense the timeline down like he did in part two?

I don't think condensing the timeline would work here - are we supposed to believe Paul's jihad killed billions in the space of what, 6 months? A year? Two years? Even with the technological capabilities of the Dune universe that strains credulity. And even if you could make it believable, it would still make the story feel smaller.

To be honest, I would just recast Paul. Chalamet has been superb in the role, but we really need someone who can credibly portray an older, hopelessly jaded Paul who has been thoroughly consumed by his role a the leader of a genocidal war of conquest. He needs to be different from the dashing Paul in his prime we've gotten to know in Dune, and that difference can only be believable if we get the sense of what years of disillusion have done to him.

I actually thought Chalamet was bad in Dune 2, easily the weakest link and the only real problem with the whole movie. I'd love it if they recast him.

Huh, what didn't you like about him? I thought he did a great job conveying Paul's conflict and his eventual descent. I thought he was a bit over the top at some points in Part 1, but in Part 2 he's subdued when he needs to be, and when he starts hamming it up we can tell it's a deliberate act on his part.

[Progressive Pessimist]

To me, Chalamet was boring in part one. In part two he basicaly became a supervillain and his character developed more, giving him more character. I said it before, but it was probably the first thing Chalamet stood out in to me. He is a good actor, but he always bores me with the characters he plays. Paul was finally a differentiation to that, as far as I'm concerned.