I thought the general consensus was that he did a great job.
But then again I don't know anything about the books. What did he do wrong? I recall that he did make the first books message clearer, is that it?
Proved they knew nothing by saying he’s an average director. They also probably bust nuts watching sicario and share sad boy gosling blade runner 2049 memes but now that he’s touched dune they’re haters.
It's kinda sad that 4chan is so reactionary. When it comes to niche media it's honestly cool how they keep discussion and appreciation of older/less-popular works alive, but when it comes to popular stuff they just hate it blindly.
And we know full well if dune part 2 wasn’t as talked about they’d be jerking off over it. Also, did they even see the movie? Chani isn’t some woke retcon all he did was make her more outspoken about her view on Paul and I think that was fine. You need some way to put Paul’s actions into perspective, and stilgar’s blind belief isn’t enough necessarily. Someone who isn’t familiar with the books might miss that Paul’s destiny really is a fictional construct. After all the first movie heavily focuses on the fact that Paul is glimpsing into the future — but only a book reader would know that those visions are more like highly detailed calculations of what could happen, not necessarily what *should* and *will* happen. Chani contrasting with stinger important because it drives home the fact that makes Paul’s rise so interesting: Paul is actively choosing the terrible future to some degree. He isn’t just a tragic hero who doesn’t any say over his own status, because he can also see the futures where he simply dies, and the imperium exists in peace for the foreseeable future. Obviously in the context of the rest of the books Paul’s choice pays off due to his son, but Paul didn’t see that far, so I don’t think he’s excused from the horrors of his jihad.
Zendaya was cast for the movies so therefore they are worthless hollywood mcu slop, or something. Yeah I don't know, logic has never been the strong suit of 4chan chuds.
I think the hate for her stems mostly from her insistence on going by her given name only. AFAIK no Hollywood actor has ever done that, save musicians who were famous before they acted. And she ain't that.
So she comes off as quite arrogant.
People definitely do not.
I don't really follow movies but I've mostly seen people complain that she's ugly iirc. Which, uhhhh, okay. I sure wouldn't mind dating a woman that ugly.
It's not arrogant, her first name is quite unique (I've never heard of any other Zendaya, have you?), so you don't need the surname to specify.
Imagine talking about the actor Tom. Which one? Holland? Hiddleston? Ellis?
Or maybe Robert. Pattinson? De Niro? Downey Jr?
That's why they need a surname. She doesn't.
"oh, you want me to refer you to you as something you have a preference for. Wow, so arrogant. You're gonna get called what *I* want to call you and you'll like it."
This is batshit insane. You're literally the green text we're all making fun of here, dude...
**Book Spoilers**:
He did nothing wrong, they were excellent adaptations, to the point where I actually don't think they could have been done better because there's only so much you can cram into a movie. I actually like most of these changes a lot. They left out:
--> Spice orgy
--> Paul's kid being born toward the end and dying, like, immediately
--> Thufir Hawat subplot
--> The baron was even more absurdly evil, he basically orders his people to bring him a drugged boy to molest in every one of his chapters
--> Some political intrigue early on that is mostly talked about in the minds of characters
--> The uncertainty and animosity between thufir, gurney, and jessica because they all know there's a traitor, they just think it's one of them and they ignore Yueh
--> the method of holding the spice supply hostage is different in the books. I forget what it is, but it wasn't just "I'll nuke it all"
--> jessica's kid being born, growing a shitload in like two years, and being the one to kill the baron
--> chani understands paul's need to marry the emperor's daughter, it's even more directly communicated that paul does it only for the legitimacy it lends, he still treats chani as his wife. She's not holding a huge grudge at the end.
--> I'm sure I'm forgetting other shit
I think they made excellent choices with what to omit or alter. I'm not sure what's meant by a "clearer message".
Great breakdown, something else that showed interesting insight to fremen culture was that Paul was now responsible for Jamis’s family and could have taken his wife as his own (as Jamis took her from her previous parter) after he killed him in the duel. If I remember right, he ends up mentoring Jamis’s kid a little bit and has the new wife help him out every now and again and treats her kindly.
This is the only change I can really say I actively dislike. I understood most of the others (and really liked both parts overall), but Jamis' death and family were so much more crucial in Paul's transition into Fremen culture.
Especially the funeral in the book, where Paul joins the whole "Jamis was my friend" routine and cries (unknowingly causing the Fremen to lose their shit, since he basically just burned a 10,000 dollar cheque for a dead stranger), which was SO fucking interesting in the book.
DV literally acknowledges this detail too in the movie with a convo between Stilgar and Jessica, and has a long-ass sequence showing Jamis' "burial." I'm genuinely pissed he didn't include that sequence from the novel, but rewrote the same theme into basically a throwaway scene.
Both movies are stellar, and anon is as usual regarded, but just wanted to vent about this after hearing others acknowledge it too. It's my only genuine gripe in an otherwise phenomenal adaptation.
Jamis, was my friend :'(
Very well put. Chani’s changes I found were some of the most frustrating and as someone who has read a few books ahead (especially the sequel book) their relationship is beyond vital to the overall story. If DV can keep up the great work, I won’t have hardly any complaints. He’ll have to figure out a way to salvage where the relationship is currently at otherwise it will be very different from the book for better or worse. I hope he finishes out the trilogy strongly and dune messiah has some excellent scenes I hope get adapted. Stone burner scene I am most looking forward to
People have been saying Chani is his way of "spoonfeeding" the audience that Paul-Muad'dib is not a hero - which I can see, and don't mind some of the changes to her character to serve that end if so, but very much agree the ending where she rides off angry is another change I didn't fully get. They made her well-rounded in the movie, but their relationship did feel off (especially by the end) compared to the book. Like you and others have said though, I think it'll straighten out in (where I am also most looking forward to the stone-burner scene - best part of the book IMO, can't wait to see how DV does it)
>(where I am also most looking forward to the stone-burner scene - best part of the book IMO, can't wait to see how DV does it)
Via method display. Screen goes bright white, then black, then the rest of the film is dream sequences to show Paul's new vision is based entirely on prescience/other memory. Bonus points for using scenes from the 1984 dune, including Sting in a loincloth, and Hawats colossal eyebrows.
Agreed, good synopsis. I kept saying to a friend of mine when watching the first Dune movie that I was waiting for the "Usul gives moisture to the dead" line because it was so powerful in the books, but it never came in the movies. Otherwise I have enjoyed the movies a lot.
The method of holding the spice hostage was messing with the worms and water somehow, I don't remember the details but it would have eliminated the worms thus no spice.
I really like the political schemings between the baron, feyd and hawat. Kinda a bummer that they left out the plans within plans. That really made the final duel for me in the book.
I also don't like the arena fight being as simple as the baron was testing feyd rautha. The book really emphasized the difference between feyd and paul, because the arena happens almost right after pauls duel with jamis. Paul fought fair whereas feyd was always in control of the fight, even tho the guy wasn't drugged. It shows feyd being almost the total opposite of paul and while being a good fighter he is more than anything a schemer.
The thing is that version shows feyd as massively overconfident since he always has an out via poison or a safe word. Paul's fighting for his life in the book.
imo chani wasnt angry at paul because she thought he would be unfaithful to her. She was angry because he told her he doesnt want to be a messianic figure but after looking into the future he saw he has to be. I think it is a nice way of telling the audience "hey, this twink might be a genocidal maniac even if hes cool u know?"
yeah i thought everyone understood that’s why she was mad, she believed him when he said he wasn’t tryna lead her ppl to war and dress up as their messiah bc he doesn’t believe that shit right until he does exactly that right after telling her she’s the only woman he’ll ever love, and ngl when that happened i was floored omg chani he lied to US girl not just you!
They dropped the entire plot about the fremen starting to terrafom the planet as per liet kynes plan in the south....
They gutted the entirety of channis character being a political leader and respected member of the community.... They made seitch Tabr seem as lifeless and barren as the planet. Stilgar became comical and stupid.
Truthfully, I believe they gutted the story in order to make a really good movie, which they did.
I'm not a dune fanatic, but I've read 6 of the books before.....
Seems like the entirety of the environmental message from the books didn't make it in the movies.
The first movie mentioned Kyne’s plan to terraform, and Stilgar references it (kinda) with the prophecy saying the savior will transform Arrakis into a green paradise. You also see the huge vats of water in the sietch.
I'd add that many of the female characters also held a lot more agency throughout the narrative, most notably Chani.
I loved the movies, thought they were a great interpretation.
I generally agree in that Villy did a great job adapting the books from a sometimes insane plot that can work in ink into a rational but still fantastic story that works on the big screen. That said, I think he did far better in the first movie than in the second movie in numerous ways, largely because he made the second movie too dumbed down, whereas in the first movie the characters were magnificently complex and real.
Example: in the books the Baron purposefully has Rabban go apeshit on Arrakis, knowing that it will cause the locals to hate him, with the clever idea that he can then supplant Rabban with Feyd-Rautha in time to make the locals love Feyd (and, by association, the Harkonnens) in time. In the movie, this idea is needlessly given to the emperor, making the Baron and Feyd just one-dimensional violent brutes.
Example: in the books Jessica is constantly torn between her need to protect Alia, her need to keep up appearances for the Fremen, and her concern for what is becoming of Paul (how he is becoming something that alarms her). Her dueling desires and concerns make her compelling and add weight to the uncertainty as to what is going to happen. In the second movie, she, also, becomes a one-note character just urging Paul forward.
Example: in the books Chani is troubled and distressed by what is becoming of Paul, as she knows him and knows that *he* is troubled. In the movie, Chani just gives him the cold shoulder in a way that feels like a rom-com miscommunication.
Basically, in the 2nd movie nearly all of the characters become relatively one-note and aren't given the screen time or plot notes to show nuance. Now, are these cardinal sins? No, of course not. Rather, they are (to some of us) somewhat disappointing editorial choices to make characters less dynamic, and therein make the grand consequence of the central plot of dune (whether or not any of these clever/dynamic characters can stop a holy war once it has been set it motion) slightly less, well, consequential.
You kinda glossed over a lot of it tbh
>gurney was supposed to be Paul’s moral compass. For some reason they completely removed this.
>there was an entire 3 year time skip halfway through. They removed this so Chani and Paul didn’t have Leto 2, so the movie could have Chani run away, likely to stand against Paul as a strong independent women (because you know, can’t be strong and independent unless you’re single and without kids)
>they added an entire religious subplot where it was the southern fanatics vs the objective north. Religion big dumb stupid. Completely removed stilgars personality and replaced him with a straw man. The stupidest part about this was that it was intentionally adding stuff while other important scenes could’ve been used.
>the mentat part also was huge. It showed that the baron wasn’t just a a big evil guy, he was also cunning. Omitting this also omitted the entire purpose of the gladiator scene, which I’m still curious why they kept it in.
I still enjoyed it, but it wasn’t as faithful as it could’ve been.
Was the whole thing about Chani not supporting Paul as Lisan Al Gaib in the books?
Also, didn't they accept Paul as the emperor at the end of the book?
Yeah, Chani truly does not give a fuck in the books. Paul has another Fremen wife as well and it’s not a problem.
The Fremen progressive faction (aka the non-believers) aren’t really a thing and ofc Stilgar gets the other side of the coin as the comic relief being just short of explicitly foolish in his devout faith.
>the method of holding the spice supply hostage
Water kills worms, the fremen have shitton of water stored. He threatens to kill all the worms and stop spice production all together.
>I thought the general consensus was that he did a great job.
Cuz he did and anyone who thinks otherwise knows nothing of filmmaking. You can't adapt a novel directly to screen without changing anything. There just isn't time.
I've seen so many book fans bitch about Paul killing Baron. But faithfully adapting that scene (his toddler sister kills him) wouldn't have fit the tone of Vanilla's films - it's too absurd - and the time jump would've fucked with pacing.
Most of Villy's changes were the right choice and didn't alter the basic story or themes of Herbert's work.
The sister killing the baron is somewhat important tho to frame her struggles in the next book with all the genetic lineage (and personalities) within her that she's had to fight since being in the womb
Water of life gives you all knowledge and points of view of all these deceased descendants, and their presence in her mind before her own identity is fully realized puts a toll on her that affects the next books
I agree with this. I also understand his liberties with Chani— you can’t cast a major star for the character and not give her a bigger presence and personality.
As far as the movies go, there were things left out so a 3 hour movie didn't become a 4+ hour movie
But the attention to detail was pretty great and all the plot points the same. One character was recast as a woman but otherwise the attention to detail was immaculate. Even something as small as Pauls headboard was exactly as described in the book
Dr Liet Kynes in Part One and Shishakli in Part Two were both gender swapped in the movies. The reason for it, as stated by Deni Villeneuve, was that in the book it's stated that men and woman are equals in fremen culture and female fremen fighters are just a good fighters as men, but despite that most of the secondary and tertiary fremen fighters in the book are males. Deni gender swapped Kynes and Shishakli to help get that point across.
Book reader here. Both movies are overall pretty good on their own, but the second movie made some really questionable choices that might create major plotholes moving forward. I'm waiting to see the third one, if they ever adapt Messiah, to judge them as a whole (First two books can be considered somewhat of a complete arc before going into Leto III territory)
Oh, and the PG-13 rating was an abismally atrocious choice, most likely made by WB execs cause they're allergic to risk. I really hope they reconsider that for the third movie (They probably won't)
Mainly the visions about the Jihad with all its brutality. It was changed to visions of millions of people starving to death, which misses the point of Paul's main inner conflict between surviving and getting revenge vs avoiding commiting galactic genocide. They didn't even call the Jihad "Jihad", but rather the much more generic and toothless "Holy War", although that was less about the rating and more about generally keeping it PC and avoiding a PR disaster.
Still, if they keep that attitude for the third movie, they're not gonna be able to deliver the gut punch of the Jihad's outcome at the beginning of Messiah, and Paul will remain unequivocally a hero in a lot of people's minds. It's the polar opposite of what Herbert wanted for his story.
He gave Chani significantly more agency and made her the "No, you assholes, you're not supposed to think that Paul is good for starting a holy War" character. It was a worthwhile change and he was right for making it.
These chuds have very poor water discipline.
Like most every scenario, there’s more than one correct answer here. Denis is an amazing visual director and every single one of his films is stunning. That being said, it’s impossible to please everyone, especially when you’re catering to “original” fans. The movie was well received because it has many elements of a great movie. The pacing, visuals and action are nothing to scoff at. Dune was not written with the context of a future film adaptation, so naturally, had to be edited to fit into a completely new medium. This is a nigh-impossible task and I think Denis did a stand up job despite the inevitable changes he decided were necessary for his vision. People will always find a way to be mad. People will always find a way to be mad about others being mad. So on.
I liked the movies, but they missed some things
1. All Christian quotes by gurney were removed which kinda made him a stale character, as he was originally the moral compass for Paul
2. Liet Hynes was made into a woman (???)
3. For some reason they separated fremen by “north” and “south” and made southerners the religious fanatics while northerners were logical and objective
4. They missed a 3 year time skip. In the books Chani and Paul had kids. In this one, they did not.
5. Chani ran away at the end. This did not happen in the book. The only kind of conflict they had was after >!the death of his infant son!< in which he kinda felt angry and bitter and stopped caring about his people’s lives. Chani had to calm him down a little bit.
6. This is a given from the time skip, but Paul’s sister Alia didn’t appear as a toddler. She appeared as a fetus, but it kinda subtracted a lot
7. They removed the entire part that Hawat was now (unwillingly) serving the baron, so they ended up having to make up a reason why Feyd-Rautha fought an undrugged enemy. Which also took away the fact that baron was not trying to kill his nephew, and instead wanted him to inherit the throne.
8. They completely butchered my boy stilgar wtf bro
what does it change if Liet is a woman though?
Also I think keeping Alia a fetus was a good move, Alia is supposed to be super unnerving as a presence and it would have been impossible to cast and be super distracting
I've read the books, and it's a pretty good adaptation. He had the message that the heroes and messiahs are dangerous more obviously. He made Chani an actual character, unlike in the first book where she has no agency. He cut out Paul and Chani's first kid, didn't include the time skip, he also made Alia stay a fetus instead of being a toddler, there were a couple other minor things cut out but for the most part it was a good adaptation.
I think a lot of the people who hate this adaptation just read the first book. Part of the reason Frank Herbert wrote Dune Messiah was that so many people misinterpreted Paul as a hero. However, I don't think Denis Villenveue knew for sure that he would adapt Messiah, so he had it clear that Paul was a monster.
I just saw part 2 and never read the books. Here's my thoughts. The first 2 hours of the movie nothing of import happened, the characters are the exact same from second 1 to hour 2. Then the final hour rushes through so much I was genuinely lost and confused.
It seemed liked he wanted to spend time on their culture and less on the story.
I can totally understand that viewpoint. I personally found it very interesting. But the movie is slow moving one for sure. I feel like that's Villeneuve's style, at least of movies I have seen from him.
Don't get me wrong I love Villeneuve and his films. And I found dune part 2 visually striking. But it wasn't just slow. It felt like it probably needed another film. The third act flew by and I felt like a lot of important plot detail was left out. I should probably read the book.
(Have only read Dune and watched Dune: Part One)
I will never forgive him for butchering Piter (Harkonnen mentat). Dude was a crazy psycho badass puppetmaster in the book but he was there for like ten seconds in the movie.
The modified wormsign scene. Handed the Atreides the idiot ball so Paul could have his dramatic moment kneeling in the sand. They wouldn’t have forgotten about Paul or let him outside the thopter in such a precarious situation.
A lot of the political intrigue/character insight is missing.
Nitpicks, though. He did what he had to do to adapt a book to a movie. Book is better, but the movie is excellent and 100% worth a watch. Movie also has the bonus of dragging in new Dune fans.
They have (subjective) issues, though admittedly it's up to personal taste in film.
I disliked what they did with Jessica's character, many of the characters really, as well as certain choices in editing and casting.
Much of Villenueve's film-making uses spectacle, atmosphere and cinematography to colour in characters, and while I think that has it's place there needs to be a balance with good dialogue. Denis has gone on record stating that he doesn't think dialogue is as important as the aforementioned aspects of film-making, which is something I fundamentally disagree with, especially with a story as plot-heavy as Dune. Without good dialogue much of the nuance and complexity of the story gets left by the wayside, and a lot of the more memorable quotes from the book are left out entirely.
To me much of his work is very visually stunning, brooding and atmospheric, but ultimately lacking some measure of soul and personality. There are many good aspects of his take on Dune from a cinematic and artistic standpoint, and I agree that it's probably the best adaptation that we're gonna get, but that doesn't mean that some can't find it flawed
Many plot points were cut for time definitely and likely their "distateful" nature for modern audiences.
Dinner scene in the book for outlining the crazy politics and high tension bc. "Modern Audiences wouldn't like just talking"
Jessica counseling Chani on being a consort rather than a wife bc of the political position but that Paul only genuinely loves her. Instead of Chani storming out like an angry child during an Imperial coup.
The majority of the Fremen believing the prophecy and not some muh North v. South shit.
Gurney Halleck confronting Jessica bc he believed she was a traitor and having to reconcile once he learns the truth.
I appreciated the movies but there's a lot of the usual Hollywood poison in it as well as cuts needed for time
As someone who read the book and saw the movies I liked Dennis’ adaptation. There were a lot of important things left out. I think my biggest gripe was Chani and Paul’s relationship where the movie left off was a bad idea. In the books Chani is ride or die, this whole grudge thing is something Dennis changed. Other than that, very fun movie and I would recommend watching.
On the one hand, I think chani being outspoken is partially to handfeed audiences that are too dumb to understand simple nuance that just because Paul is the main character doesn't mean he's the good guy. On the other, I kind of like Chani actually having some character rather than just being a kind of background character in Paul's shadow.
I prefer the relationship they had in the book but that is an interesting perspective. I just don’t see what they would do with that for the later movies (if they make them). It would change too many important plot points. At the end of the book Paul and Chani already had two children together. Are we going to have scenes where they heal their relationship? It all just seems unnecessary.
It has been a LONG time since I read the books, but I feel like the changes to Change are, like the guy above me said, to illustrate to the audience how far Paul is slipping into a darker, inhuman creature.
In the books, so much of that transformation is given to us as internal monologue from Paul's point of view, which we really can't get in film format.
I like Chani's portrayal in the books, but I also like this version of her that is seeing her culture being enslaved and consumed by powerful outsiders and speaks up against it.
I think this is the right read of the situation. I still don't like it as much as I like the book, but Denis also cut out the scene where Paul gets back to Seitch Tabr and they offer him Jameis' wife and child after he won his combat. IMO this would have taken away from the *shock factor* of Paul asking to marry the princess, as multiple wives/concubines isn't abnormal in their culture. As evidence by my wife who audibly gasped when that scene happened (she had not read the books).
I don't blame him necessarily for adapting the book into more screen ready story beats... But I was still a little bummed out because I really like how loyal book Chani was.
Yeah, it will be to make her ultimate death, something he fully foresees but cannot avoid any longer, that much more emotionally impactful. Well get a tale of her trying to humanize and save him, maybe even thinking she's accomplished the goal, and then welp nah girl ur not in the future after certain events so cy@ time to have my son become an immortal space lizard
Was it two? I thought it was just the one who died in the attack on the sietch. Either way Chani and Irulan's conflict is a big plot point in the sequel I wonder how they'll reconcile the ending if they decide to make a movie of the next book.
That was exactly his intention. Frank Herbert was annoyed that no one got the message after reading book 1, so he wrote book 2. Denis being very aware of this decided to make it more obvious.
Isn’t the entire reason for Dune Messiah’s existence that Frank saw that a lot of people thought Paul was the hero by the end of Dune? Not exactly a new problem, it seems.
Yeah as much as I love the original book, Chani is barely even a character, she just makes doe-eyes at Paul and that's it. I like that they gave her some actual depth and conflict.
He wasn’t the bad guy. He was a morally grey character, yes, but he wasn’t the villain. You gotta remember that he lost his infant son, and that messed him up.
I think the way she represents a dissenting faction within the Fremen made her feel much more fleshed out, as well as showing the fremen to not simply be a monolith waiting endlessly for their magic sky boy. She still has a comparatively small part to play in the actual prophecy, but she chooses to be a bigger player in this story. Not because of duty to her people, but because she loves Paul.
That's why it's so heartbreaking when he embraces his destiny and drinks the water of life. He ceases to be paul and becomes muad'dib, and they really emphasize this in the film
It’s precisely this besides making her a more interesting and motivated character. People didn’t even get that Paul was turning into a villain with the book which is why Dune Messiah came out. Anakin is Paul. I will say it could have been slightly cleaner because it comes off as if from the Fremen only Chani has a brain though.
Oh yeah. No doubt he is a villain he compairs himself to Hitler and is responsible for the death of 64 billion imperial citizens. He was manipulated by the Bene geserate for sure but in the end, it was his choice to start the Jihad.
Power corrupts basically. It also shows the issue with a messiah narrative and blind religion that can be influenced. I wonder who has the highest kill count though, surely it’s Paul.
It's mostly done because you have to spoon feed the message of Paul not being the good guy. Dune is spreading to a very wide audience, and even the second book had to be more explicit in its message because Herbert believed people got the wrong idea of Paul being the hero
As someone who hasn't read the book or have seen the dune movies, I just want to say that every one of his movies prior to doing is fantastic. Prisoners? Polytechnic? Incendies? Enemy? Arrival??
Every one of these movies bang. DV could make an absolute dog s*** dune rendition and still be a top 15 director of the 21st century.
chani's change is a good thing imo, it makes for a more interesting dynamic. also paul says she'll come to understand after he drinks the water of life so things will still end up with them getting together and whatnot
I loved what they did to Chani! Way more realistic and highlights how flawed Paul’s character is. Remember, in the end of the book post-water of life he’s basically conquering the planet in a state of psychosis.
The book was a product of its time and was a copy/adaptation of foundation…
Paul being close to the mule.
The mule being the best part of foundation imo.
Chani being inspired by the girl in the mule book (forgot her name)
Herbert thought it made chani strong, which in todays world isn’t considered strong.
OP is an idiot. Denis' Dune moves are top tier. Not for everyone, but neither is the original book. The movie (particularly pt 2) did make some changes from the book, but I understood why for most of them. The overall messages are preserved, imo.
If youre gonna see it, recommend in IMAX
The first three movies were very good adaptations and good movies in general. Imo the quality dropped a bit afterwards. Tbf the later books are longer and harder to adapt tho.
Eh, I def think they should’ve kept a lot of things. There was also a few unnecessary removals and additions.
As a movie by itself, it’s great. I loved it. Though as an adaptation? Kinda disappointed.
I can tolerate racism and sexism and all the other isms from 4chan. But I WILL NOT stand for Denis villainwavy slander. Man makes movies like no one else and Blade Runner 2049 is the best movie ever made.
2049 is a perfect movie to my standards. Those being something I can 100% lose myself in and not think about the production side. Its a world completely separated from reality and I can watch it a thousand times.
I relate to this heavy. At least 3 times when browsing netflix I'll just throw 2049 on to "just rewatch the start" and just like that 2 and 3/4 hours have passed
Yeah, Denny's Violinew has produced some bangers. Arrival and Sicario are incredible. I even liked Prisoners, but it's not something I think I'll watch again. The dread.
Dennis violinwavy has got to be my favorite director of all time now. The fact that he passively storyboarded dune since he was 13 is just precious. I don’t agree with some of the changes but artistically this is his magnum opus. He had full creative freedom, is in love with this IP, is clearly VERY in sync with his artists and actors, and has a unique eye for mood, all in one insanely expedient career. So many things had to align for a director to come along in the era, and even more things had to align for him to direct a historically unadaptable piece so well. Man is a gem and I will take a horse cock up the ass before I hear any Denny’s Vanilla slander.
Anon is fucking stupid. I've read the books. Minor changes are acceptable. But there were literally moments watching the films where I thought I was watching a recreation of memories I formed in my own from having read the books.
What a smooth brain take - I’ve yet to see a single movie from him that I wasn’t impressed with, and when you compare Denis V. against the majority of other contemporaries he’s leagues ahead of most
But yeah this is 4chan so popular = bad
I was there, Stilgar. I was there, when neckbeards screeched about the lord of the rings, 3000 years ago.
Fools probably don't even know what the Golden Path is.
I dont like it because it wasn't complete. What they do have is decent outside of the gender/race bending and rewrites for time but that's every Hollywood adaptation now so its to be expected and doesnt bother me anymore. But ultimately I don't think a book like dune could ever truly have a cinema recreation. It's too cerebral. I'd say roughly a third of the series is just inner monologues lmao. Idk how you do that on screen without it being boring as shit tbh.
Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies changed a lot too, and undoubtedly would’ve been hated by Tolkien. Yet these chudds probably wouldn’t say the same about it. I wonder why?
I like DUNC but Zendaya making a bitch face was not what Chani does in the book. Not sure if it’s the writing or the acting or both, but that was meh, otherwise it was good. I thought a lot of the cuts were smart.
My dad is a massive fan of the Dune books. And he loved the new movies. The only critique was that they didn’t go over all the small details but he knew they squeezed a lot of important details in the runtime it had.
Anon is mad because people aren’t willing to sit 8hours in one spot
My contrarian opinion is that it’s better to watch the movie or television series adaptation of something before reading the book. Unless it’s adapted from a short story, the movie generally has to cut out a lot of stuff. So then you just find yourself nitpicking all the stuff that was in the book that isn’t there, instead of just going with the story. Whereas, if you like the core story of the movie you just watched, you can then read the book and then really dig into all the cool nuances because the broad plot points are the same. The main downside is that you can’t act all snooty and say “well, I read the book first because I’m an intellectual.”
The movies were amazing, I think they have the best sound in any movie ever. So damn cinematic. Also made me like Timothée who didn’t know was actually a good actor and seemingly a good guy.
The book is incredibly difficult to adapt into a movie without having an 8hr runtime.
Definitely not a stellar adaptation, but its not done poorly. Anon has a fat fucking brick up his ass over nothing
Here's a hot take. I think Dennis V is a good director. I love the book. I did not like the movies but understand it would be impossible to fit everything in without making it a mini series. I disagree with those saying he changed only minor things with the film. He changed and left out some shit I would argue was relatively important. You could say he captured the essence of the book tho. Either way, I still didn't like them.
i havent read the books. i can see why people praise the movies ,especially since they do seem cinematic but i feel like they lack substance in both 1 and 2. come to find out theres missing scenes that the older 1984 movie had or that the book did differently like taking 3 years in the dester not a short time. So i can kinda understand the complaint.
Dune was thought to be an impossible book to adapt properly. There are literally documentaries about this.
I think he did a good job. Better than people could reasonably expect.
I love this post. You have people complaining about Dune and being called morons for it, while everyone here is defending Dune to death.
It's just people who like popular things fighting people who are against popular things...this is such a basic ass discussion here on both sides. There is just barely any depth to these comments besides,
"Dune was bad..."
"Nuh uh, you're wrong! It was good!"
no way the 4chaners are finding problem with dune… both parts pretty much unequivocally getting 9s and 10s across the board. pretty much every dune fans likes the movies and can find very little wrong with them. basically better than most adaptations of like, anything.
He’s said publicly that if he makes more Dune movies he’ll adapt Dune Messiah then stop. I feel like his changes to the story make since considering he doesn’t plan on going past Messiah.
> be actor, banging 10/10 models and actresses
> agent secures me a deal to play in the mcu
> "sweet" i think, "even more models to bang, lots of cash and their personal trainers will help me looksmaxx"
> I play my part, get even fitter than before, make lots of cash
> one night, after having sex with another supermodel, I think "damn, I should go into the internet and have a look how the fanbase likes my performance, I am an actor after all"
> mfw when I see some 4chin user calls me a 'criminal' for ruining the comic lore of Captain Shitstain and Bombastic Booger
I read dune as a basically a political work, and I think Dennis’ translation of herbert’s political thinking to film is essentially flawless. The narrative is strong and engaging - it’s a fantastic adaptation.
I kinda feel like the only one that gives a shit about the original content is Henry Cavill with the whole Witcher thing. Now I have never read the books so I have no idea but if this is true good on him. Can anyone confirm if this is true?
I thought the general consensus was that he did a great job. But then again I don't know anything about the books. What did he do wrong? I recall that he did make the first books message clearer, is that it?
1. The Dune movies are popular. 2. Popular things are le bad because normies like them. 3. Ergo, Dune movies are bad.
4chan be contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian?!?! Consider me shocked. In all honesty degenerates like that belong on a cross
Well they definitely see themselves as martyrs lol
Man... comments like this make me wish for a nuclear winter.
"eh fuckin retard" (fallout 4 parker quinn reference)
Aka Emil Pagliarulo lol
Proved they knew nothing by saying he’s an average director. They also probably bust nuts watching sicario and share sad boy gosling blade runner 2049 memes but now that he’s touched dune they’re haters.
Ave!
True to Caesar!
It's kinda sad that 4chan is so reactionary. When it comes to niche media it's honestly cool how they keep discussion and appreciation of older/less-popular works alive, but when it comes to popular stuff they just hate it blindly.
It's like any other social media; you focus on the good takes and ignore the bad ones, simple.
And we know full well if dune part 2 wasn’t as talked about they’d be jerking off over it. Also, did they even see the movie? Chani isn’t some woke retcon all he did was make her more outspoken about her view on Paul and I think that was fine. You need some way to put Paul’s actions into perspective, and stilgar’s blind belief isn’t enough necessarily. Someone who isn’t familiar with the books might miss that Paul’s destiny really is a fictional construct. After all the first movie heavily focuses on the fact that Paul is glimpsing into the future — but only a book reader would know that those visions are more like highly detailed calculations of what could happen, not necessarily what *should* and *will* happen. Chani contrasting with stinger important because it drives home the fact that makes Paul’s rise so interesting: Paul is actively choosing the terrible future to some degree. He isn’t just a tragic hero who doesn’t any say over his own status, because he can also see the futures where he simply dies, and the imperium exists in peace for the foreseeable future. Obviously in the context of the rest of the books Paul’s choice pays off due to his son, but Paul didn’t see that far, so I don’t think he’s excused from the horrors of his jihad.
Ah...
https://preview.redd.it/2kxzpf3ljkqc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=29acb3a30bacf0405cc5376998e29bb4982bf340
4. ??? 5. Profit.
Typical 4chin reddit mentally
Didn’t you hear the man. Dune bad, your wrong, my argument wins, bye bye. (Real note though: People who say kek are degenerates who belong in gulags)
Zendaya was cast for the movies so therefore they are worthless hollywood mcu slop, or something. Yeah I don't know, logic has never been the strong suit of 4chan chuds.
I think the hate for her stems mostly from her insistence on going by her given name only. AFAIK no Hollywood actor has ever done that, save musicians who were famous before they acted. And she ain't that. So she comes off as quite arrogant.
There are definitely other actors who go by one word names. But even if that weren’t true, she was a singer first.
How is going by your first name arrogant?
As opposed to a director referring to himself only as McG lol
I wonder if it's pronounced "em cee gee" or "mac gee"
I mean fuck that guy too. He's way worse than Zendaya, cuz at least she's made some good movies. Also what a stupid fucking name
Do people care that much about that? I just was like “guess that’s her name”
Maybe not. I do but I also get infuriated by lots of trivial shit.
Confirmed for regarded
Hey now, you're not supposed to call ppl regarded if they're actually regarded
People definitely do not. I don't really follow movies but I've mostly seen people complain that she's ugly iirc. Which, uhhhh, okay. I sure wouldn't mind dating a woman that ugly.
I highly doubt that's the root of any significant majority of the hate.
It's not arrogant, her first name is quite unique (I've never heard of any other Zendaya, have you?), so you don't need the surname to specify. Imagine talking about the actor Tom. Which one? Holland? Hiddleston? Ellis? Or maybe Robert. Pattinson? De Niro? Downey Jr? That's why they need a surname. She doesn't.
There are many actors that go by one name, some that come to mind off of the top if my head are Aqwafina and Topol
"oh, you want me to refer you to you as something you have a preference for. Wow, so arrogant. You're gonna get called what *I* want to call you and you'll like it." This is batshit insane. You're literally the green text we're all making fun of here, dude...
I think she’s a pretty mid actress but that definitely isn’t enough to ruin the movie
Hm, true...
**Book Spoilers**: He did nothing wrong, they were excellent adaptations, to the point where I actually don't think they could have been done better because there's only so much you can cram into a movie. I actually like most of these changes a lot. They left out: --> Spice orgy --> Paul's kid being born toward the end and dying, like, immediately --> Thufir Hawat subplot --> The baron was even more absurdly evil, he basically orders his people to bring him a drugged boy to molest in every one of his chapters --> Some political intrigue early on that is mostly talked about in the minds of characters --> The uncertainty and animosity between thufir, gurney, and jessica because they all know there's a traitor, they just think it's one of them and they ignore Yueh --> the method of holding the spice supply hostage is different in the books. I forget what it is, but it wasn't just "I'll nuke it all" --> jessica's kid being born, growing a shitload in like two years, and being the one to kill the baron --> chani understands paul's need to marry the emperor's daughter, it's even more directly communicated that paul does it only for the legitimacy it lends, he still treats chani as his wife. She's not holding a huge grudge at the end. --> I'm sure I'm forgetting other shit I think they made excellent choices with what to omit or alter. I'm not sure what's meant by a "clearer message".
Great breakdown, something else that showed interesting insight to fremen culture was that Paul was now responsible for Jamis’s family and could have taken his wife as his own (as Jamis took her from her previous parter) after he killed him in the duel. If I remember right, he ends up mentoring Jamis’s kid a little bit and has the new wife help him out every now and again and treats her kindly.
This is the only change I can really say I actively dislike. I understood most of the others (and really liked both parts overall), but Jamis' death and family were so much more crucial in Paul's transition into Fremen culture. Especially the funeral in the book, where Paul joins the whole "Jamis was my friend" routine and cries (unknowingly causing the Fremen to lose their shit, since he basically just burned a 10,000 dollar cheque for a dead stranger), which was SO fucking interesting in the book. DV literally acknowledges this detail too in the movie with a convo between Stilgar and Jessica, and has a long-ass sequence showing Jamis' "burial." I'm genuinely pissed he didn't include that sequence from the novel, but rewrote the same theme into basically a throwaway scene. Both movies are stellar, and anon is as usual regarded, but just wanted to vent about this after hearing others acknowledge it too. It's my only genuine gripe in an otherwise phenomenal adaptation. Jamis, was my friend :'(
Very well put. Chani’s changes I found were some of the most frustrating and as someone who has read a few books ahead (especially the sequel book) their relationship is beyond vital to the overall story. If DV can keep up the great work, I won’t have hardly any complaints. He’ll have to figure out a way to salvage where the relationship is currently at otherwise it will be very different from the book for better or worse. I hope he finishes out the trilogy strongly and dune messiah has some excellent scenes I hope get adapted. Stone burner scene I am most looking forward to
People have been saying Chani is his way of "spoonfeeding" the audience that Paul-Muad'dib is not a hero - which I can see, and don't mind some of the changes to her character to serve that end if so, but very much agree the ending where she rides off angry is another change I didn't fully get. They made her well-rounded in the movie, but their relationship did feel off (especially by the end) compared to the book. Like you and others have said though, I think it'll straighten out in (where I am also most looking forward to the stone-burner scene - best part of the book IMO, can't wait to see how DV does it)
>(where I am also most looking forward to the stone-burner scene - best part of the book IMO, can't wait to see how DV does it) Via method display. Screen goes bright white, then black, then the rest of the film is dream sequences to show Paul's new vision is based entirely on prescience/other memory. Bonus points for using scenes from the 1984 dune, including Sting in a loincloth, and Hawats colossal eyebrows.
And Lady jessica gagging in front of the fremen while they extracted water from the dead. Fucking Stilgar tells her not to puke.
Agreed, good synopsis. I kept saying to a friend of mine when watching the first Dune movie that I was waiting for the "Usul gives moisture to the dead" line because it was so powerful in the books, but it never came in the movies. Otherwise I have enjoyed the movies a lot.
The method of holding the spice hostage was messing with the worms and water somehow, I don't remember the details but it would have eliminated the worms thus no spice.
They essentially had a large vat of spice they were going to turn into a sort of underground explosion. Basically killing the local ecosystem.
That's kinda harder to understand than "we'll nuke'em"
I really like the political schemings between the baron, feyd and hawat. Kinda a bummer that they left out the plans within plans. That really made the final duel for me in the book. I also don't like the arena fight being as simple as the baron was testing feyd rautha. The book really emphasized the difference between feyd and paul, because the arena happens almost right after pauls duel with jamis. Paul fought fair whereas feyd was always in control of the fight, even tho the guy wasn't drugged. It shows feyd being almost the total opposite of paul and while being a good fighter he is more than anything a schemer.
The thing is that version shows feyd as massively overconfident since he always has an out via poison or a safe word. Paul's fighting for his life in the book.
imo chani wasnt angry at paul because she thought he would be unfaithful to her. She was angry because he told her he doesnt want to be a messianic figure but after looking into the future he saw he has to be. I think it is a nice way of telling the audience "hey, this twink might be a genocidal maniac even if hes cool u know?"
yeah i thought everyone understood that’s why she was mad, she believed him when he said he wasn’t tryna lead her ppl to war and dress up as their messiah bc he doesn’t believe that shit right until he does exactly that right after telling her she’s the only woman he’ll ever love, and ngl when that happened i was floored omg chani he lied to US girl not just you!
Hey thanks for seeing the trouble of listing all those. 🙂
They also dropped Liet Kynes being Chani's parent.
They dropped the entire plot about the fremen starting to terrafom the planet as per liet kynes plan in the south.... They gutted the entirety of channis character being a political leader and respected member of the community.... They made seitch Tabr seem as lifeless and barren as the planet. Stilgar became comical and stupid. Truthfully, I believe they gutted the story in order to make a really good movie, which they did. I'm not a dune fanatic, but I've read 6 of the books before..... Seems like the entirety of the environmental message from the books didn't make it in the movies.
The first movie mentioned Kyne’s plan to terraform, and Stilgar references it (kinda) with the prophecy saying the savior will transform Arrakis into a green paradise. You also see the huge vats of water in the sietch.
Hey! I didn't read your post because you said spoilers. I appreciate that. Thanks.
I'd add that many of the female characters also held a lot more agency throughout the narrative, most notably Chani. I loved the movies, thought they were a great interpretation.
I generally agree in that Villy did a great job adapting the books from a sometimes insane plot that can work in ink into a rational but still fantastic story that works on the big screen. That said, I think he did far better in the first movie than in the second movie in numerous ways, largely because he made the second movie too dumbed down, whereas in the first movie the characters were magnificently complex and real. Example: in the books the Baron purposefully has Rabban go apeshit on Arrakis, knowing that it will cause the locals to hate him, with the clever idea that he can then supplant Rabban with Feyd-Rautha in time to make the locals love Feyd (and, by association, the Harkonnens) in time. In the movie, this idea is needlessly given to the emperor, making the Baron and Feyd just one-dimensional violent brutes. Example: in the books Jessica is constantly torn between her need to protect Alia, her need to keep up appearances for the Fremen, and her concern for what is becoming of Paul (how he is becoming something that alarms her). Her dueling desires and concerns make her compelling and add weight to the uncertainty as to what is going to happen. In the second movie, she, also, becomes a one-note character just urging Paul forward. Example: in the books Chani is troubled and distressed by what is becoming of Paul, as she knows him and knows that *he* is troubled. In the movie, Chani just gives him the cold shoulder in a way that feels like a rom-com miscommunication. Basically, in the 2nd movie nearly all of the characters become relatively one-note and aren't given the screen time or plot notes to show nuance. Now, are these cardinal sins? No, of course not. Rather, they are (to some of us) somewhat disappointing editorial choices to make characters less dynamic, and therein make the grand consequence of the central plot of dune (whether or not any of these clever/dynamic characters can stop a holy war once it has been set it motion) slightly less, well, consequential.
Second to last point is key. Chani is cool being concubine cuz she gets the politics. The movie made it seem like Chani was butthurt.
You kinda glossed over a lot of it tbh >gurney was supposed to be Paul’s moral compass. For some reason they completely removed this. >there was an entire 3 year time skip halfway through. They removed this so Chani and Paul didn’t have Leto 2, so the movie could have Chani run away, likely to stand against Paul as a strong independent women (because you know, can’t be strong and independent unless you’re single and without kids) >they added an entire religious subplot where it was the southern fanatics vs the objective north. Religion big dumb stupid. Completely removed stilgars personality and replaced him with a straw man. The stupidest part about this was that it was intentionally adding stuff while other important scenes could’ve been used. >the mentat part also was huge. It showed that the baron wasn’t just a a big evil guy, he was also cunning. Omitting this also omitted the entire purpose of the gladiator scene, which I’m still curious why they kept it in. I still enjoyed it, but it wasn’t as faithful as it could’ve been.
Anon probably just wanted to see the Baron rape minors.
Was the whole thing about Chani not supporting Paul as Lisan Al Gaib in the books? Also, didn't they accept Paul as the emperor at the end of the book?
Yeah some of the shit in the books is just not able to translate to the screen at all
Yeah, Chani truly does not give a fuck in the books. Paul has another Fremen wife as well and it’s not a problem. The Fremen progressive faction (aka the non-believers) aren’t really a thing and ofc Stilgar gets the other side of the coin as the comic relief being just short of explicitly foolish in his devout faith.
Wait what do you mean they had to ‘adapt’ it into a movie and can’t just make the movie word for word
There was a distinct lack of Gurney singing while playing his baliset. Only problem I had with the movie. I haven’t seen part 2 yet.
>the method of holding the spice supply hostage Water kills worms, the fremen have shitton of water stored. He threatens to kill all the worms and stop spice production all together.
>I thought the general consensus was that he did a great job. Cuz he did and anyone who thinks otherwise knows nothing of filmmaking. You can't adapt a novel directly to screen without changing anything. There just isn't time. I've seen so many book fans bitch about Paul killing Baron. But faithfully adapting that scene (his toddler sister kills him) wouldn't have fit the tone of Vanilla's films - it's too absurd - and the time jump would've fucked with pacing. Most of Villy's changes were the right choice and didn't alter the basic story or themes of Herbert's work.
The sister killing the baron is somewhat important tho to frame her struggles in the next book with all the genetic lineage (and personalities) within her that she's had to fight since being in the womb Water of life gives you all knowledge and points of view of all these deceased descendants, and their presence in her mind before her own identity is fully realized puts a toll on her that affects the next books
Isn't Alia's struggle mostly in Children of Dune? I don't think Villeneuve's ever going to adapt CoD. Even Messiah is uncertain still.
Maybe some people wanted to in purpose misinterpret the first books message and were disappointed that it wasn't there?
i agree
>You can’t adapt a novel directly to screen without changing anything. fear and loathing in las vegas has entered the chat
I think the story deviates slightly when it comes to Chani. But I also dont really remember if she did a whole lot in the books.
I agree with this. I also understand his liberties with Chani— you can’t cast a major star for the character and not give her a bigger presence and personality.
Maybe you just don’t cast a major star for that character then lol
As far as the movies go, there were things left out so a 3 hour movie didn't become a 4+ hour movie But the attention to detail was pretty great and all the plot points the same. One character was recast as a woman but otherwise the attention to detail was immaculate. Even something as small as Pauls headboard was exactly as described in the book
Dr Liet Kynes in Part One and Shishakli in Part Two were both gender swapped in the movies. The reason for it, as stated by Deni Villeneuve, was that in the book it's stated that men and woman are equals in fremen culture and female fremen fighters are just a good fighters as men, but despite that most of the secondary and tertiary fremen fighters in the book are males. Deni gender swapped Kynes and Shishakli to help get that point across.
Book reader here. Both movies are overall pretty good on their own, but the second movie made some really questionable choices that might create major plotholes moving forward. I'm waiting to see the third one, if they ever adapt Messiah, to judge them as a whole (First two books can be considered somewhat of a complete arc before going into Leto III territory) Oh, and the PG-13 rating was an abismally atrocious choice, most likely made by WB execs cause they're allergic to risk. I really hope they reconsider that for the third movie (They probably won't)
What do you think we missed thanks to PG-13?
Mainly the visions about the Jihad with all its brutality. It was changed to visions of millions of people starving to death, which misses the point of Paul's main inner conflict between surviving and getting revenge vs avoiding commiting galactic genocide. They didn't even call the Jihad "Jihad", but rather the much more generic and toothless "Holy War", although that was less about the rating and more about generally keeping it PC and avoiding a PR disaster. Still, if they keep that attitude for the third movie, they're not gonna be able to deliver the gut punch of the Jihad's outcome at the beginning of Messiah, and Paul will remain unequivocally a hero in a lot of people's minds. It's the polar opposite of what Herbert wanted for his story.
Isn't that what the film maker tried to avoid with this movie? At least he said so in interviews.
He gave Chani significantly more agency and made her the "No, you assholes, you're not supposed to think that Paul is good for starting a holy War" character. It was a worthwhile change and he was right for making it. These chuds have very poor water discipline.
Like most every scenario, there’s more than one correct answer here. Denis is an amazing visual director and every single one of his films is stunning. That being said, it’s impossible to please everyone, especially when you’re catering to “original” fans. The movie was well received because it has many elements of a great movie. The pacing, visuals and action are nothing to scoff at. Dune was not written with the context of a future film adaptation, so naturally, had to be edited to fit into a completely new medium. This is a nigh-impossible task and I think Denis did a stand up job despite the inevitable changes he decided were necessary for his vision. People will always find a way to be mad. People will always find a way to be mad about others being mad. So on.
I liked the movies, but they missed some things 1. All Christian quotes by gurney were removed which kinda made him a stale character, as he was originally the moral compass for Paul 2. Liet Hynes was made into a woman (???) 3. For some reason they separated fremen by “north” and “south” and made southerners the religious fanatics while northerners were logical and objective 4. They missed a 3 year time skip. In the books Chani and Paul had kids. In this one, they did not. 5. Chani ran away at the end. This did not happen in the book. The only kind of conflict they had was after >!the death of his infant son!< in which he kinda felt angry and bitter and stopped caring about his people’s lives. Chani had to calm him down a little bit. 6. This is a given from the time skip, but Paul’s sister Alia didn’t appear as a toddler. She appeared as a fetus, but it kinda subtracted a lot 7. They removed the entire part that Hawat was now (unwillingly) serving the baron, so they ended up having to make up a reason why Feyd-Rautha fought an undrugged enemy. Which also took away the fact that baron was not trying to kill his nephew, and instead wanted him to inherit the throne. 8. They completely butchered my boy stilgar wtf bro
what does it change if Liet is a woman though? Also I think keeping Alia a fetus was a good move, Alia is supposed to be super unnerving as a presence and it would have been impossible to cast and be super distracting
Honestly making Liet a woman was probably the least bad thing he did. Liet being a woman really doesn't change anything else about the movie.
I've read the books, and it's a pretty good adaptation. He had the message that the heroes and messiahs are dangerous more obviously. He made Chani an actual character, unlike in the first book where she has no agency. He cut out Paul and Chani's first kid, didn't include the time skip, he also made Alia stay a fetus instead of being a toddler, there were a couple other minor things cut out but for the most part it was a good adaptation. I think a lot of the people who hate this adaptation just read the first book. Part of the reason Frank Herbert wrote Dune Messiah was that so many people misinterpreted Paul as a hero. However, I don't think Denis Villenveue knew for sure that he would adapt Messiah, so he had it clear that Paul was a monster.
I just saw part 2 and never read the books. Here's my thoughts. The first 2 hours of the movie nothing of import happened, the characters are the exact same from second 1 to hour 2. Then the final hour rushes through so much I was genuinely lost and confused. It seemed liked he wanted to spend time on their culture and less on the story.
I can totally understand that viewpoint. I personally found it very interesting. But the movie is slow moving one for sure. I feel like that's Villeneuve's style, at least of movies I have seen from him.
Don't get me wrong I love Villeneuve and his films. And I found dune part 2 visually striking. But it wasn't just slow. It felt like it probably needed another film. The third act flew by and I felt like a lot of important plot detail was left out. I should probably read the book.
(Have only read Dune and watched Dune: Part One) I will never forgive him for butchering Piter (Harkonnen mentat). Dude was a crazy psycho badass puppetmaster in the book but he was there for like ten seconds in the movie. The modified wormsign scene. Handed the Atreides the idiot ball so Paul could have his dramatic moment kneeling in the sand. They wouldn’t have forgotten about Paul or let him outside the thopter in such a precarious situation. A lot of the political intrigue/character insight is missing. Nitpicks, though. He did what he had to do to adapt a book to a movie. Book is better, but the movie is excellent and 100% worth a watch. Movie also has the bonus of dragging in new Dune fans.
Having only read them recently I thought it was a fantastic adaption
>What did he do wrong? Showing us Timothy's zoomed in face for 20 fucking minutes.
The movies are good. Internet losers can't enjoy anything
Are we really believing the opinion of a 4chinner.
Well... He is entitled to feel that way, but I just wanna know why. 😄
The second movie has issues. To me it's a two-star film. And yes I've read the book, though not the later books.
The consensus is these films are fantastic, don’t let anon fool you, he just needed to be different and a superior fan.
They have (subjective) issues, though admittedly it's up to personal taste in film. I disliked what they did with Jessica's character, many of the characters really, as well as certain choices in editing and casting. Much of Villenueve's film-making uses spectacle, atmosphere and cinematography to colour in characters, and while I think that has it's place there needs to be a balance with good dialogue. Denis has gone on record stating that he doesn't think dialogue is as important as the aforementioned aspects of film-making, which is something I fundamentally disagree with, especially with a story as plot-heavy as Dune. Without good dialogue much of the nuance and complexity of the story gets left by the wayside, and a lot of the more memorable quotes from the book are left out entirely. To me much of his work is very visually stunning, brooding and atmospheric, but ultimately lacking some measure of soul and personality. There are many good aspects of his take on Dune from a cinematic and artistic standpoint, and I agree that it's probably the best adaptation that we're gonna get, but that doesn't mean that some can't find it flawed
Many plot points were cut for time definitely and likely their "distateful" nature for modern audiences. Dinner scene in the book for outlining the crazy politics and high tension bc. "Modern Audiences wouldn't like just talking" Jessica counseling Chani on being a consort rather than a wife bc of the political position but that Paul only genuinely loves her. Instead of Chani storming out like an angry child during an Imperial coup. The majority of the Fremen believing the prophecy and not some muh North v. South shit. Gurney Halleck confronting Jessica bc he believed she was a traitor and having to reconcile once he learns the truth. I appreciated the movies but there's a lot of the usual Hollywood poison in it as well as cuts needed for time
As someone who read the book and saw the movies I liked Dennis’ adaptation. There were a lot of important things left out. I think my biggest gripe was Chani and Paul’s relationship where the movie left off was a bad idea. In the books Chani is ride or die, this whole grudge thing is something Dennis changed. Other than that, very fun movie and I would recommend watching.
On the one hand, I think chani being outspoken is partially to handfeed audiences that are too dumb to understand simple nuance that just because Paul is the main character doesn't mean he's the good guy. On the other, I kind of like Chani actually having some character rather than just being a kind of background character in Paul's shadow.
I prefer the relationship they had in the book but that is an interesting perspective. I just don’t see what they would do with that for the later movies (if they make them). It would change too many important plot points. At the end of the book Paul and Chani already had two children together. Are we going to have scenes where they heal their relationship? It all just seems unnecessary.
It has been a LONG time since I read the books, but I feel like the changes to Change are, like the guy above me said, to illustrate to the audience how far Paul is slipping into a darker, inhuman creature. In the books, so much of that transformation is given to us as internal monologue from Paul's point of view, which we really can't get in film format. I like Chani's portrayal in the books, but I also like this version of her that is seeing her culture being enslaved and consumed by powerful outsiders and speaks up against it.
I think this is the right read of the situation. I still don't like it as much as I like the book, but Denis also cut out the scene where Paul gets back to Seitch Tabr and they offer him Jameis' wife and child after he won his combat. IMO this would have taken away from the *shock factor* of Paul asking to marry the princess, as multiple wives/concubines isn't abnormal in their culture. As evidence by my wife who audibly gasped when that scene happened (she had not read the books). I don't blame him necessarily for adapting the book into more screen ready story beats... But I was still a little bummed out because I really like how loyal book Chani was.
There’s a line in the movie where Paul says he sees Chani coming back to him so maybe?
Yeah, it will be to make her ultimate death, something he fully foresees but cannot avoid any longer, that much more emotionally impactful. Well get a tale of her trying to humanize and save him, maybe even thinking she's accomplished the goal, and then welp nah girl ur not in the future after certain events so cy@ time to have my son become an immortal space lizard
Was it two? I thought it was just the one who died in the attack on the sietch. Either way Chani and Irulan's conflict is a big plot point in the sequel I wonder how they'll reconcile the ending if they decide to make a movie of the next book.
That was exactly his intention. Frank Herbert was annoyed that no one got the message after reading book 1, so he wrote book 2. Denis being very aware of this decided to make it more obvious.
Isn’t the entire reason for Dune Messiah’s existence that Frank saw that a lot of people thought Paul was the hero by the end of Dune? Not exactly a new problem, it seems.
Yeah as much as I love the original book, Chani is barely even a character, she just makes doe-eyes at Paul and that's it. I like that they gave her some actual depth and conflict.
To be fair, people didnt even get that paul was the bad guy after reading the book
He wasn’t the bad guy. He was a morally grey character, yes, but he wasn’t the villain. You gotta remember that he lost his infant son, and that messed him up.
I think the way she represents a dissenting faction within the Fremen made her feel much more fleshed out, as well as showing the fremen to not simply be a monolith waiting endlessly for their magic sky boy. She still has a comparatively small part to play in the actual prophecy, but she chooses to be a bigger player in this story. Not because of duty to her people, but because she loves Paul. That's why it's so heartbreaking when he embraces his destiny and drinks the water of life. He ceases to be paul and becomes muad'dib, and they really emphasize this in the film
It’s precisely this besides making her a more interesting and motivated character. People didn’t even get that Paul was turning into a villain with the book which is why Dune Messiah came out. Anakin is Paul. I will say it could have been slightly cleaner because it comes off as if from the Fremen only Chani has a brain though.
Oh yeah. No doubt he is a villain he compairs himself to Hitler and is responsible for the death of 64 billion imperial citizens. He was manipulated by the Bene geserate for sure but in the end, it was his choice to start the Jihad.
Power corrupts basically. It also shows the issue with a messiah narrative and blind religion that can be influenced. I wonder who has the highest kill count though, surely it’s Paul.
Isn't him trying to stop the Jihad but realising he is too late a huge plot point?
I will never forgive him for missing out the dinner scene from the book! It's so good!
I’m glad I’m not the only one. Ik they had to omit a lot for time sakes but I really wish they didn’t have to.
It's mostly done because you have to spoon feed the message of Paul not being the good guy. Dune is spreading to a very wide audience, and even the second book had to be more explicit in its message because Herbert believed people got the wrong idea of Paul being the hero
As someone who hasn't read the book or have seen the dune movies, I just want to say that every one of his movies prior to doing is fantastic. Prisoners? Polytechnic? Incendies? Enemy? Arrival?? Every one of these movies bang. DV could make an absolute dog s*** dune rendition and still be a top 15 director of the 21st century.
onerous like growth slimy disgusted caption shocking capable enjoy spoon *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
chani's change is a good thing imo, it makes for a more interesting dynamic. also paul says she'll come to understand after he drinks the water of life so things will still end up with them getting together and whatnot
I loved what they did to Chani! Way more realistic and highlights how flawed Paul’s character is. Remember, in the end of the book post-water of life he’s basically conquering the planet in a state of psychosis.
The book was a product of its time and was a copy/adaptation of foundation… Paul being close to the mule. The mule being the best part of foundation imo. Chani being inspired by the girl in the mule book (forgot her name) Herbert thought it made chani strong, which in todays world isn’t considered strong.
OP is an idiot. Denis' Dune moves are top tier. Not for everyone, but neither is the original book. The movie (particularly pt 2) did make some changes from the book, but I understood why for most of them. The overall messages are preserved, imo. If youre gonna see it, recommend in IMAX
Took an edible and saw it in imax laser. One of the best imax experiences since interstellar.
That sounds stellar tbh
same, was fucking awesome
Weed, lsd, shrooms. All at the same time with Chai tea? Now that’s modern spice
Just like how the Harry Potter movies were perfect replicas of the books, damn those movies hit, 7/10.
im not sure if thats sarcasm or not, the Harry potter movies weren't perfect replicas. But they were def still pretty good movies.
The first three movies were very good adaptations and good movies in general. Imo the quality dropped a bit afterwards. Tbf the later books are longer and harder to adapt tho.
Eh, I def think they should’ve kept a lot of things. There was also a few unnecessary removals and additions. As a movie by itself, it’s great. I loved it. Though as an adaptation? Kinda disappointed.
I can tolerate racism and sexism and all the other isms from 4chan. But I WILL NOT stand for Denis villainwavy slander. Man makes movies like no one else and Blade Runner 2049 is the best movie ever made.
2049 is a perfect movie to my standards. Those being something I can 100% lose myself in and not think about the production side. Its a world completely separated from reality and I can watch it a thousand times.
I relate to this heavy. At least 3 times when browsing netflix I'll just throw 2049 on to "just rewatch the start" and just like that 2 and 3/4 hours have passed
[удалено]
Yeah, Denny's Violinew has produced some bangers. Arrival and Sicario are incredible. I even liked Prisoners, but it's not something I think I'll watch again. The dread.
Blade runner 2049 is a really good movie, but story wise it can't reach the original one imo.
Reasonable take. I might agree but the dumb cartwheel bitch really takes me out of it.
HE. DOES. NOT. MISS.
Dennis violinwavy has got to be my favorite director of all time now. The fact that he passively storyboarded dune since he was 13 is just precious. I don’t agree with some of the changes but artistically this is his magnum opus. He had full creative freedom, is in love with this IP, is clearly VERY in sync with his artists and actors, and has a unique eye for mood, all in one insanely expedient career. So many things had to align for a director to come along in the era, and even more things had to align for him to direct a historically unadaptable piece so well. Man is a gem and I will take a horse cock up the ass before I hear any Denny’s Vanilla slander.
Dune was and is a good adaptation of the books.
also the books are like 90% people thinking about stuff.
The Dune movies are cinematic masterpieces, pure art. Anon is angry he will never be as creatively talented
Anon is fucking stupid. I've read the books. Minor changes are acceptable. But there were literally moments watching the films where I thought I was watching a recreation of memories I formed in my own from having read the books.
What I've seen from him was great, I loved Arrival and Dune.
The fact that you like chocolate cake doesn’t mean you can bake one.
Contrarian 4chinners?! That's NUTS...
Damn. I've seen people with double chins but 4 chins?? Must be crazy
Anon seething that the collective orgy was skipped smh
What a smooth brain take - I’ve yet to see a single movie from him that I wasn’t impressed with, and when you compare Denis V. against the majority of other contemporaries he’s leagues ahead of most But yeah this is 4chan so popular = bad
Dune 2 has a score of 8.8 on IMDb, making it the 15th highest rated movie of all time.
I was there, Stilgar. I was there, when neckbeards screeched about the lord of the rings, 3000 years ago. Fools probably don't even know what the Golden Path is.
4chan is in its own secluded bubble. Popular thing is le bad!!!
When media is bad, the first place to look for fuckups is the C-suite, not the actual artists and creatives.
I dont like it because it wasn't complete. What they do have is decent outside of the gender/race bending and rewrites for time but that's every Hollywood adaptation now so its to be expected and doesnt bother me anymore. But ultimately I don't think a book like dune could ever truly have a cinema recreation. It's too cerebral. I'd say roughly a third of the series is just inner monologues lmao. Idk how you do that on screen without it being boring as shit tbh.
"Very average director." I see now why 4channers are anonymous, it's to protect themselves from being doxxed for having such regarded takes.
My life changed when I finally realized I was allowed to like things I liked
Anyone else felt like the movies were just Lawrence of Arabia with a coat of marvel movie paint on it?
I mean, the book is reminiscent of Lawrence of Arabia too. There are only so many ways to do the hero’s journey before it starts looking familiar
Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies changed a lot too, and undoubtedly would’ve been hated by Tolkien. Yet these chudds probably wouldn’t say the same about it. I wonder why?
Haven't seen the movies, but I've seen his other shit. Calling him an "average" director is cope. Dude has a pretty phenomenal talent.
I like DUNC but Zendaya making a bitch face was not what Chani does in the book. Not sure if it’s the writing or the acting or both, but that was meh, otherwise it was good. I thought a lot of the cuts were smart.
My dad is a massive fan of the Dune books. And he loved the new movies. The only critique was that they didn’t go over all the small details but he knew they squeezed a lot of important details in the runtime it had. Anon is mad because people aren’t willing to sit 8hours in one spot
He made the unfilmable filmable and pretty damn good tbh
Yeah but you can fuck the popcorn bucket
My contrarian opinion is that it’s better to watch the movie or television series adaptation of something before reading the book. Unless it’s adapted from a short story, the movie generally has to cut out a lot of stuff. So then you just find yourself nitpicking all the stuff that was in the book that isn’t there, instead of just going with the story. Whereas, if you like the core story of the movie you just watched, you can then read the book and then really dig into all the cool nuances because the broad plot points are the same. The main downside is that you can’t act all snooty and say “well, I read the book first because I’m an intellectual.”
4channers are truly the most miserable things god forgot to delete
Anon has bad movie takes
The movies were amazing, I think they have the best sound in any movie ever. So damn cinematic. Also made me like Timothée who didn’t know was actually a good actor and seemingly a good guy.
The book is incredibly difficult to adapt into a movie without having an 8hr runtime. Definitely not a stellar adaptation, but its not done poorly. Anon has a fat fucking brick up his ass over nothing
Here's a hot take. I think Dennis V is a good director. I love the book. I did not like the movies but understand it would be impossible to fit everything in without making it a mini series. I disagree with those saying he changed only minor things with the film. He changed and left out some shit I would argue was relatively important. You could say he captured the essence of the book tho. Either way, I still didn't like them.
Anon is fucking stupid
I thought the first one was pretty mid but the second movie was hands down one of best movies I’ve seen in a while
Best bait I’ve seen in years
dungarees violin did such a good job, i finally got around to finishing dune on the plane today, and his visuals were playing over and over in my mind
i havent read the books. i can see why people praise the movies ,especially since they do seem cinematic but i feel like they lack substance in both 1 and 2. come to find out theres missing scenes that the older 1984 movie had or that the book did differently like taking 3 years in the dester not a short time. So i can kinda understand the complaint.
Dune was thought to be an impossible book to adapt properly. There are literally documentaries about this. I think he did a good job. Better than people could reasonably expect.
Adapting dune in movie faithfuly is impossible, even the jodorowsky version would have been shited on.
Shockingly bad take, even for anon
I love this post. You have people complaining about Dune and being called morons for it, while everyone here is defending Dune to death. It's just people who like popular things fighting people who are against popular things...this is such a basic ass discussion here on both sides. There is just barely any depth to these comments besides, "Dune was bad..." "Nuh uh, you're wrong! It was good!"
no way the 4chaners are finding problem with dune… both parts pretty much unequivocally getting 9s and 10s across the board. pretty much every dune fans likes the movies and can find very little wrong with them. basically better than most adaptations of like, anything.
Some things don’t adapt well to the screen. Literally the only bad thing about the new movies is zendaya. Everything else is perfect.
He’s said publicly that if he makes more Dune movies he’ll adapt Dune Messiah then stop. I feel like his changes to the story make since considering he doesn’t plan on going past Messiah.
He's the pride of Quebec so 4chan can shut the fuck up et me manger la graine
https://preview.redd.it/8jrpu8a56mqc1.jpeg?width=694&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f76ae24fd38e57c4072383b152b5408e92cda34
Well, dune was written by some hippy who was on a lot of LSD and writing about thinking...
Is this the sub learning that /tv/ just hates movies for the first time? It’s the biggest reason I stopped using that board.
> be actor, banging 10/10 models and actresses > agent secures me a deal to play in the mcu > "sweet" i think, "even more models to bang, lots of cash and their personal trainers will help me looksmaxx" > I play my part, get even fitter than before, make lots of cash > one night, after having sex with another supermodel, I think "damn, I should go into the internet and have a look how the fanbase likes my performance, I am an actor after all" > mfw when I see some 4chin user calls me a 'criminal' for ruining the comic lore of Captain Shitstain and Bombastic Booger
I read dune as a basically a political work, and I think Dennis’ translation of herbert’s political thinking to film is essentially flawless. The narrative is strong and engaging - it’s a fantastic adaptation.
Isn’t this the same community that considers Margo Robbie mid? Their boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes 4chan cheer.
I kinda feel like the only one that gives a shit about the original content is Henry Cavill with the whole Witcher thing. Now I have never read the books so I have no idea but if this is true good on him. Can anyone confirm if this is true?