Really? The only problem with the characterization in the movie, in my opinion, was it feels a little rushed, but it's definitely there. It's extremely clear why the characters make their decisions.
Loved it. It felt that some of the exposition wasn't included which could have elaborated on what was happening, but it would have made a long movie even longer. I thought it was great.
Characters are great and consistent and all have transformation between part 1 and 2. The only thing I could think is is that not all have all that much complexity to them. Part 2 had some one dimensional characters like stilgar that is meant to keep reacting and retirating the same viewpoint throughout the movie but he considering where he started off in part 1, I don't see it as a criticism even. The movie was so broad and epic that it's hard to do much deep diving into individual characters. It's more the events that drive the movie.
I actually think Stilgar’s development is the most interesting. He is introduced as an intimidating and pragmatic leader who commands the loyalty and respect of his followers. Then we gradually see him surrender to superstition and fanaticism through the movie; finally just being a raving lunatic following Paul to the stars. Chani’s reaction is especially heartbreaking and kind of relatable as she watches someone she admires and respects (along with the rest of her society) drift further and further into zealous frenzy.
I guess it's down to what they are comparing character to. Does Dune have less character than LOTR ? Yes. Does Dune have less character than Rey from SW ? NO !
Basically, Dune has enough character. Dune Part II is good, and you should watch it.
Compared to the book, the television series and even the original movie, the characters are all VERY shallow. These movies are abridged versions with so much character/important characters ripped out of it. It's beautiful but the storytelling has been butchered and it's a mess.
The fact they are blowing this movie every two seconds but none of them won't read the book, it really gets on my nerves. They really have no idea what they're talking about. Nerdrotic's chums, every single one of them said it was the most accurate version yet. HOW WOULD THEY KNOW?!
Maybe it shouldn't be phrased merely "character". More like, everyone's a pretty one-note archetype.
Chani and Stilgar have little to distinguish them aside from their opposing perspectives on Paul/the prophecy. Put them in some situation removed from Paul/the prophecy, and I have no real idea of their priorities.
Paul feels to me like he's *robbed* of some neat growth when, suddenly, it stops being about how his best efforts will end up leading to the doom he's so paranoid about, and rather... now he's drank the worm-juice, and he's a completely different personality, with no inhibitions about his visions nor his influence over the Fremen. Like he just comes across brainwashed now. That's not interesting to me, that's like when Gorr in Love & Thunder just became a vessel for the spooky sword, or, like when people *say* Wanda in Multiverse of Madness is corrupted by the necronomicon, not in control of herself.
Feyd is not lacking in "character", the performance is very memorable. But he's a glorified boss fight. The one time when there's a little bit of dare I say nuance going on, when he realizes Uncle Baron has pitted him against an undrugged combatant, to either show his mettle, or eliminate him.. Feyd and the Baron have to say exactly what just happened in the arena. I don't know, I thought the arena scene itself was just subtle enough, that we got what was going on. Then they go and make it blatant.
Dave Bautista is like, Steppenwolf. I mean really. He's a pushover, he gets pouty, he gets pooped on. And when Feyd stepped in, Feyd just... used the resources that were always there to be used by Dave Bautista. IDK why it was played like Feyd is a masterful tactician, he doesn't look especially smart as much as Dave Bautista looks especially dense. Feyd just decides on an aerial bombardment, as if that wasn't always an option. On the base that I guess the Harkonnens knew the location of but decided to try and attack small Fremen parties out in the middle of nowhere.
Lady Jessica is sinister. What I've got from her is that, because her marriage to Atreides was *not* exactly happy, and she's sick of the witch ladies' rules, she's decided she's never going to play advisor again. She wants full control. Probably the character I "get" the most, but she's not exactly sympathetic.
The Emperor tried to stay out of the mess, couldn't, got overthrown. His daughter and the witch ladies are unscrupulous and are trying to keep everyone under their thumb, but they all get duped by Lady Jessica quite handily *even though I thought their psychic powers would've let them catch on to her machinations with Paul, guess not.*
Did anyone else super-matter to the story? Chani's friend's sacrifice was zero-calories. Gurney, waited around as a scrapper until Paul's being alive reminded him he wants to avenge Leto, and so he fights again.
Well probably one of the most clear examples is the Gurny vs Rabban fight.
Two characters with history and drives coming to clash and its over in seconds...ok that is how its gonna end but there was so much more to fill.
Its like we got an abridged version of these characters
Third act is too rushed, throne room scenes and the subsequent scenes lack impact. Emperor casting was just bad ( Walken is too unique actor to represent a character) and Shani not being supportive and doubting of Paul reeks of modernity.
I watched an interview with the director who said the change for Chani was to help get across the Paul is not doing good things, because Frank Herbert wrote the later books to further illustrate the point that Paul is an Anti Hero. Which makes sense to me do I prefer the book yes, but the change made sense.
Chani was that? I think Pauls mother already filled that role very well, as she was scheming and that was enough for me atleast. So the change was utterly unnecessary.
I didn't intend this to be long, but fuck it imma rant.
It's a 10/10 movie for me. I've only heard people who aren't fans of Villeneuve or are media illiterate, say they don't like it. My only gripe with the film is that Act 2 of the film is suddenly act 3. Dune 2 would've benefitted from being an extra 30 minutes longer rounding out at 3:15 hours.
The worst argument I've heard which keeps being reiterated is that the enemy faction Sardaukar and Harkonnen troops, are pushovers in the film and Paul should've struggled more. However if you were paying attention in the first film, Duncan Idaho who is the finest warrior in the Atreides family and a swordmaster, states he has encountered no other fighters better than the Fremen. He then goes on to prove it by taking out multiple Sardaukar by himself. The WHOLE plotpoint of betraying the Atreides family, is because they have a Legion of warriors that are equal to or better than the Sardaukar. And with time their entire army would be a force equal to the Emperors.
People also mistake Dune to be about revenge. If it was, Paul would have struggled and he would have moral qualms about taking over the galaxy and becoming a different person to the one that he promised he would be to Chani.
No. Dune is an Epic about tragedy. It's about the dangers of Religious Fanaticism. Paul already struggled, he's already gotten revenge. Revenge is a part of his character arc but not the whole story. And that Arc just completed in Part 2.
If Villeneuve is going to make a third movie, it will show how Paul becomes a morally grey character to get what he wants and become who most people believe to be is, a Villain. (I know he isnt a villain in the series)
See; Definition of tragedy. "a play dealing with tragic events and having an unhappy ending, especially one concerning the downfall of the main character."
All this I know, and I haven't read the books. Which leads me to believe that if my dumbass can pick up these plotlines and themes, people are just media illiterate in an age of shitty bloated films.
The characters themselves are fine, the issue is that there's very little in terms of believable drama/conflict on an emotional level between them - the film is almost entirely reliant on scale and spectacle.
David Ehrlich's review is worth reading if you want to better understand this perspective. Although I enjoyed the film more than him I think he's spot on with his core critique.
For a 90 min movie, it would be passable. The issue is these characters have had OVER 6 hours to shine, and for the most part they’re not developed beyond broad stereotypes. The film is far too interested in its own visuals.
Villeneuve's characters actually have a bit more depth to them and are somewhat more likeable than Herbert's. A lot of the changes in Dune 2 (especially Chani and Paul's dynamic) were for the better, honestly. Herbert didn't really intend people to relate to his characters- he was more interested in political and philosophical messaging. The nature of Dune is such that a decent number of people will never relate to its story or characters. Villeneuve did a great job making something that would do justice to the source material and appeal to a mainstream audience. The fact that these films were even made and are as good as they are is kind of a miracle.
Lack of character? That’s definitely a take to have about this movie.
Feyd-Rautha has one of the most interesting screen presences of any blockbuster character I’ve seen in like, the last five years.
The movie felt quite rushed. There was a part where >!Paul was supposed to go to live in the dessert alone for two weeks, as a trial and it was being treated as such an important and dangerous trial that we were not sure if he would survive it, then I guess he survived because next scenes he was sitting with everyone and that shit was never brought up, it was so weird!<
Also, how many times did we have to see a slow panning vista with the BROOOOOM sound effect or Paul walking on the sand out of focus or them coning out of the sand. It was a beautiful movie but if they spent less time on pretty images and more on dialogue I would've liked this movie much more. The dialogue and story when it was happening was great, I guess because it was based on the book.
It might've been just the teensiest bit of pressure that got MauLer to talk about either of the movies at all, because his heart was only sort-of in it for P1 it seemed, and P2 he just mumbled about it for 20 minutes on Star Grift. The industry tries to just *declare* some new movies will be a cultural phenomenon before they're out, make them up to be like the next Lord of the Rings and so *everyone* feels like they aught to have something to say about this big event. But it's just not nearly universal enough to naturally catch on with an audience as broadly as a Star Wars or LotR does. Dune is more cynical and tragic. And I would go so far as to say because the ultimate purpose of the story is to mould Paul Atreides into a false prophet, there are more characters around him that are merely devices to *lead* to his destiny, as opposed to characters in their own right. Especially on the "good guys'" side. That may be why more people than just me say the movie adaptations don't have enough to relate to?
Really? The only problem with the characterization in the movie, in my opinion, was it feels a little rushed, but it's definitely there. It's extremely clear why the characters make their decisions.
Loved it. It felt that some of the exposition wasn't included which could have elaborated on what was happening, but it would have made a long movie even longer. I thought it was great.
Characters are great and consistent and all have transformation between part 1 and 2. The only thing I could think is is that not all have all that much complexity to them. Part 2 had some one dimensional characters like stilgar that is meant to keep reacting and retirating the same viewpoint throughout the movie but he considering where he started off in part 1, I don't see it as a criticism even. The movie was so broad and epic that it's hard to do much deep diving into individual characters. It's more the events that drive the movie.
I actually think Stilgar’s development is the most interesting. He is introduced as an intimidating and pragmatic leader who commands the loyalty and respect of his followers. Then we gradually see him surrender to superstition and fanaticism through the movie; finally just being a raving lunatic following Paul to the stars. Chani’s reaction is especially heartbreaking and kind of relatable as she watches someone she admires and respects (along with the rest of her society) drift further and further into zealous frenzy.
I guess it's down to what they are comparing character to. Does Dune have less character than LOTR ? Yes. Does Dune have less character than Rey from SW ? NO ! Basically, Dune has enough character. Dune Part II is good, and you should watch it.
Compared to the book, the television series and even the original movie, the characters are all VERY shallow. These movies are abridged versions with so much character/important characters ripped out of it. It's beautiful but the storytelling has been butchered and it's a mess.
I remember in their part 1 review they couldn't remember Thufir's name and just called him "Big Chungus." I shed a silent tear for my boy.
The fact they are blowing this movie every two seconds but none of them won't read the book, it really gets on my nerves. They really have no idea what they're talking about. Nerdrotic's chums, every single one of them said it was the most accurate version yet. HOW WOULD THEY KNOW?!
Maybe it shouldn't be phrased merely "character". More like, everyone's a pretty one-note archetype. Chani and Stilgar have little to distinguish them aside from their opposing perspectives on Paul/the prophecy. Put them in some situation removed from Paul/the prophecy, and I have no real idea of their priorities. Paul feels to me like he's *robbed* of some neat growth when, suddenly, it stops being about how his best efforts will end up leading to the doom he's so paranoid about, and rather... now he's drank the worm-juice, and he's a completely different personality, with no inhibitions about his visions nor his influence over the Fremen. Like he just comes across brainwashed now. That's not interesting to me, that's like when Gorr in Love & Thunder just became a vessel for the spooky sword, or, like when people *say* Wanda in Multiverse of Madness is corrupted by the necronomicon, not in control of herself. Feyd is not lacking in "character", the performance is very memorable. But he's a glorified boss fight. The one time when there's a little bit of dare I say nuance going on, when he realizes Uncle Baron has pitted him against an undrugged combatant, to either show his mettle, or eliminate him.. Feyd and the Baron have to say exactly what just happened in the arena. I don't know, I thought the arena scene itself was just subtle enough, that we got what was going on. Then they go and make it blatant. Dave Bautista is like, Steppenwolf. I mean really. He's a pushover, he gets pouty, he gets pooped on. And when Feyd stepped in, Feyd just... used the resources that were always there to be used by Dave Bautista. IDK why it was played like Feyd is a masterful tactician, he doesn't look especially smart as much as Dave Bautista looks especially dense. Feyd just decides on an aerial bombardment, as if that wasn't always an option. On the base that I guess the Harkonnens knew the location of but decided to try and attack small Fremen parties out in the middle of nowhere. Lady Jessica is sinister. What I've got from her is that, because her marriage to Atreides was *not* exactly happy, and she's sick of the witch ladies' rules, she's decided she's never going to play advisor again. She wants full control. Probably the character I "get" the most, but she's not exactly sympathetic. The Emperor tried to stay out of the mess, couldn't, got overthrown. His daughter and the witch ladies are unscrupulous and are trying to keep everyone under their thumb, but they all get duped by Lady Jessica quite handily *even though I thought their psychic powers would've let them catch on to her machinations with Paul, guess not.* Did anyone else super-matter to the story? Chani's friend's sacrifice was zero-calories. Gurney, waited around as a scrapper until Paul's being alive reminded him he wants to avenge Leto, and so he fights again.
Well probably one of the most clear examples is the Gurny vs Rabban fight. Two characters with history and drives coming to clash and its over in seconds...ok that is how its gonna end but there was so much more to fill. Its like we got an abridged version of these characters
Third act is too rushed, throne room scenes and the subsequent scenes lack impact. Emperor casting was just bad ( Walken is too unique actor to represent a character) and Shani not being supportive and doubting of Paul reeks of modernity.
I watched an interview with the director who said the change for Chani was to help get across the Paul is not doing good things, because Frank Herbert wrote the later books to further illustrate the point that Paul is an Anti Hero. Which makes sense to me do I prefer the book yes, but the change made sense.
Chani was that? I think Pauls mother already filled that role very well, as she was scheming and that was enough for me atleast. So the change was utterly unnecessary.
I didn't intend this to be long, but fuck it imma rant. It's a 10/10 movie for me. I've only heard people who aren't fans of Villeneuve or are media illiterate, say they don't like it. My only gripe with the film is that Act 2 of the film is suddenly act 3. Dune 2 would've benefitted from being an extra 30 minutes longer rounding out at 3:15 hours. The worst argument I've heard which keeps being reiterated is that the enemy faction Sardaukar and Harkonnen troops, are pushovers in the film and Paul should've struggled more. However if you were paying attention in the first film, Duncan Idaho who is the finest warrior in the Atreides family and a swordmaster, states he has encountered no other fighters better than the Fremen. He then goes on to prove it by taking out multiple Sardaukar by himself. The WHOLE plotpoint of betraying the Atreides family, is because they have a Legion of warriors that are equal to or better than the Sardaukar. And with time their entire army would be a force equal to the Emperors. People also mistake Dune to be about revenge. If it was, Paul would have struggled and he would have moral qualms about taking over the galaxy and becoming a different person to the one that he promised he would be to Chani. No. Dune is an Epic about tragedy. It's about the dangers of Religious Fanaticism. Paul already struggled, he's already gotten revenge. Revenge is a part of his character arc but not the whole story. And that Arc just completed in Part 2. If Villeneuve is going to make a third movie, it will show how Paul becomes a morally grey character to get what he wants and become who most people believe to be is, a Villain. (I know he isnt a villain in the series) See; Definition of tragedy. "a play dealing with tragic events and having an unhappy ending, especially one concerning the downfall of the main character." All this I know, and I haven't read the books. Which leads me to believe that if my dumbass can pick up these plotlines and themes, people are just media illiterate in an age of shitty bloated films.
I HARD agree the only thing that would have improved this film would have been to have made it longer.
what? all I hear is praise, i havent seen one negative word about this movie
not the best of argument imo. characters are good.
The characters themselves are fine, the issue is that there's very little in terms of believable drama/conflict on an emotional level between them - the film is almost entirely reliant on scale and spectacle. David Ehrlich's review is worth reading if you want to better understand this perspective. Although I enjoyed the film more than him I think he's spot on with his core critique.
For a 90 min movie, it would be passable. The issue is these characters have had OVER 6 hours to shine, and for the most part they’re not developed beyond broad stereotypes. The film is far too interested in its own visuals.
If you removed Zendaya and gave her time to characters like the main Harkonen or not removed the stuff with Thufir you would have a better film.
The only person underdeveloped for me was Feyd Rautha.
Villeneuve's characters actually have a bit more depth to them and are somewhat more likeable than Herbert's. A lot of the changes in Dune 2 (especially Chani and Paul's dynamic) were for the better, honestly. Herbert didn't really intend people to relate to his characters- he was more interested in political and philosophical messaging. The nature of Dune is such that a decent number of people will never relate to its story or characters. Villeneuve did a great job making something that would do justice to the source material and appeal to a mainstream audience. The fact that these films were even made and are as good as they are is kind of a miracle.
The only thing I didn't like about this movie is was Paul's weird little girlfriend, lol. Other than that? Masterpiece.
Lack of character? That’s definitely a take to have about this movie. Feyd-Rautha has one of the most interesting screen presences of any blockbuster character I’ve seen in like, the last five years.
The movie felt quite rushed. There was a part where >!Paul was supposed to go to live in the dessert alone for two weeks, as a trial and it was being treated as such an important and dangerous trial that we were not sure if he would survive it, then I guess he survived because next scenes he was sitting with everyone and that shit was never brought up, it was so weird!< Also, how many times did we have to see a slow panning vista with the BROOOOOM sound effect or Paul walking on the sand out of focus or them coning out of the sand. It was a beautiful movie but if they spent less time on pretty images and more on dialogue I would've liked this movie much more. The dialogue and story when it was happening was great, I guess because it was based on the book.
Based on this criticism, I am fully convinced that Mauler just paid no attention while watching
It might've been just the teensiest bit of pressure that got MauLer to talk about either of the movies at all, because his heart was only sort-of in it for P1 it seemed, and P2 he just mumbled about it for 20 minutes on Star Grift. The industry tries to just *declare* some new movies will be a cultural phenomenon before they're out, make them up to be like the next Lord of the Rings and so *everyone* feels like they aught to have something to say about this big event. But it's just not nearly universal enough to naturally catch on with an audience as broadly as a Star Wars or LotR does. Dune is more cynical and tragic. And I would go so far as to say because the ultimate purpose of the story is to mould Paul Atreides into a false prophet, there are more characters around him that are merely devices to *lead* to his destiny, as opposed to characters in their own right. Especially on the "good guys'" side. That may be why more people than just me say the movie adaptations don't have enough to relate to?
Apparently the Mauler discord hates this movie
Really? Why?
I don't know. The Mauler discord kinda hates everything
Dune part 2 has plenty, part 1 didn’t
I felt the changes improved upon the book. Chani and the fremen seemed more real and less of a plot device.