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

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

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.

Aging makeup can work very well. You don't even need CGI for this.

I agree with most of the rest of Antonio's take on this movie, although I think that Children of Dune is a weak enough book outside of the stuff with Paul that I'd rather Villeneuve just move the Preacher to the end of Part Three.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I agree with most of the rest of Antonio's take on this movie, although I think that Children of Dune is a weak enough book outside of the stuff with Paul that I'd rather Villeneuve just move the Preacher to the end of Part Three.

Oh, interesting. I'm planning to read the first three books over the next year or so in order to find out for myself, but the way I've seen it described, Children of Dune felt like it had maybe the most compelling story. Not just for Paul but for Alia's tragedy and just the sheer terrifying ominous note of Leto II going further than even Paul at his worst never could. Of course, there's concept and then there's execution. Gonna be fun to see how all three books hold on on that level.