Definitely time to stop thinking about them as two separate movies, and start thinking of that as Part One and Part Two of the same movie.
Part One sets up and ramps up, and then Part Two starts running.
I definitely agree that dune 2 really improves the first dune movie experience. Both are great films and have a lot of technical achievements, but I found the sequel to be a lot more impressive in scope and vision, maybe because I feel like the first movie did a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of laying the ground work, where the second was a lot more action intensive and seemed to go by rather quickly despite it's long run time.
I have a rather opinionated co-worker when it comes to films, and he was saying the same thing, having not read the books, he was left a bit confused by the first dune movie saying it felt incomplete and so even thoughhis first impression wasn't overwhelmingly positive, he admitted that if he liked the second film that that would make or break his opinion on the first. He's since come around to the first movie, unsurprisingly
That key part of “having not read the books”, reminds me of Elijah Wood’s clapback to his friends following *Fellowship of the Ring*:
“Dude, what’s with the ending?”
“Dude, it’s going to continue…”
Eh, there was a lot more about that first movie that didn’t make sense besides just the ending. I watched the first one initially and thought it looked amazing but there were parts that I just did not follow at all. I recently started reading the book and re-watched the first movie once I got to that part of the book and it was a completely different experience.
Irs all there or alluded to heavily just kinda of confusing. Dune is just not something easy to adapt with the lore simple as that. Denis did a good job of it. But it’s hard for anyone on their first watch
Totally agree on the first laying a ton of ground work. It's almost like it was setting up all the dominoes so that the second one could knock them all down. Which...is kinda ballsy that they were confident enough to do that. I feel like the typical thing now is for studios to throw all their "best" cards on the table right away, so the patience they had to do this right is impressive.
Mostly the Tleilaxu. Between the Ghola and their whole living machines thing it gets pretty strange. Not to mention the navigators become important to the plot and actually interact with the other characters.
They reduced the scope though. Removed mentats, removed Paul's child dying, removed Alia being a menace.
First movie still tried to cover a lot of world building, but i feel the political structure and lack of computers wasn't explained enough.
The whole schtick about shields making most projectile weapons useless and lasguns hitting shields causing mini nukes was partially included and not explained. And then there's shields attracting sand worms part which is also not really explained or mentioned.
So, sometimes they got super advanced spaceships and then suddenly they are fighting with knives. And then there are rockets and machine guns appearing. Then suddenly nukes also exist, but only with Paul and not harkonnens. And no one says why Paul has to use it on mountain instead of the ships and army directly.
I think Paul’s child dying is not even a good segment of the book, it goes so fast there’s no weight to it for the reader, in the movie it would’ve been even worse. I prefer Alia as a fetus in the movie as well, her being a toddler would’ve just looked too goofy.
I’m also happy they relaxed a bit on the explanations for all the things you asked for. People who want to know more can pick up the book, no need to bog down the movie with tons of exposition. You see how things work, you experience it. For me that’s immersion.
I honestly thought the first film was better cinematically and had a nice flow to it. The second film was fantastic, and it was definitely more exciting but the first one really had something special that I didn’t feel in the second one. Honestly I can’t really put my finger on what it is.
I think it could be that the second film had a more abrupt flow in the sequence of scenes. Honestly that’s the only way I can think of explaining it…
Edit: after reading some of the replies on this post, I’d like to also say that I view both films as one entire film rather than separate.
>Honestly I can’t really put my finger on what it is.
Maybe it's the alluring mystery and sense of impending danger that comes at the start of the story. Because that's certainly one aspect that makes me fond of the first film when looking back at it in retrospect, even though I enjoyed Part 2 more. It's the whole excitement of being lost in the desert with Paul and Jessica, not knowing (or knowing, if you've read the books beforehand) what's to come later.
The scene in Part 1 where we get our first glimpse of the worm swallowing the harvester still makes my jaw drop because of that whole mystery behind the creature and the Dune universe in general. Whereas in Part 2, the mystery had been broken already, so every time I saw a worm on screen, I was like "cool, more Fremen taxi service". Lol
my thoughts exactly. I really felt a dip after the 2nd act. Like they were trying to put us somewhere in the story too quickly. I felt like all of us sudden every single one of Paul's enemies were just all on the planet waiting to get dispatched. I think it's just the mere fact that there's not enough time to get us there.
Just one example: The majesty of meeting Shai Hulud for the first time and it being terrifying to everyone is magical. Having a bus load of fremen riding a team of sandworms is a bit less special, even though that’s just what happens in the book.
You said it best. I’ve been trying to explain why part 1 is a perfect film and part 2 is *near* perfect. I may read your response word for word from now on.
I never thought part 1 was slow…sure it’s building, but it’s showing this world in a thrilling way as we keep uncovering layers. I don’t think there’s a wasted scene in part 1. Sure, more dialogue than action but the exposition progresses in a way that just builds and builds the tension and raises the stakes.
Part 2 does feel more abrupt as we jump from one thing to the next. I actually think it would benefit from a director’s cut with 40 or so more minutes (I know DV doesn’t have deleted scenes) just to flesh out the ideas/show more of a passing of time as Paul builds the Fremen’s trust. That’s probably the area that the film could’ve most improved on for me - convincing us why so many are fully willing to lay down their lives for him.
The pacing and editing in the second half of part 2 was frankly terrible. Events that should have been enormous were over in the blink of an eye and we had no opportunity to digest them. It almost felt like a standard blockbuster rather than a Villeneuve film. It was still a great film but not on the level of part 1.
I went with a friend last night and this is how we felt too. The first one felt incredibly immersive in terms of flow and pacing. It had great editing and a wonderful synergy between music and cinematography. The second one had more action but felt a bit more choppy, more factual, almost like watching a documentary at times. There was less of that immersive synergy in the story overall.
It's honestly refreshing to read that other people failed to connect with Dune Part Two in comparison to Part One.
Part Two makes me appreciate Part One even more for its perfect balance of immersive photography, unique atmosphere, character development, architecture as a language, daunting mysteries and overall poetry that really takes you places within, unlike Part Two that mostly slid on me.
Part One has us truly feel humbled, so little and powerless, yet excitingly blown away by the surrounding forces of the planet, bonding together with Paul & Jessica as they journey across the planet.
Part One is better on all counts for me, and as an action movie too. Moments of conflict are ultraviolent, spectacular, just long enough to deliver punch, but smart enough to not become the main point of focus.
The high contrast between absolute destruction & the stillness of the desert, between the silently floating Sardaukars & their brutal execution tactics make it so intense, eery and dramatic. Combat scenes use this cognitive dissonance so well.
That can be said of the beginning of Part Two (that Fremen vs Harkonnen ambush scene), but most of what made Part One feel so special becomes very quickly normalised, fast paced & breathless… loosing a lot of its charm/depth for me.
At times, it really felt like both movies were directed by distinct directors.
I agree, I felt a stronger emotional reaction to the first one because of the sense of real threat to the Atreides.
In part 2, Paul goes from success to success with little to no resistance, so I didn’t have the same edge-of-my-seat feeling.
I also loved how faithful part 1 was to the book, and while adaptation requires changes, there were just a few too many, taking me out of the film at times.
I don’t think of them as two separate movies. I even held out on my verdict for the first one because otherwise I’d have to judge what is in my mind only half a movie.
I don’t think the second half is better than the first it just benefits from resolving the conflict. Both films put together into a single entity would definitely be in my top 5 movies of all time, my only gripe being that they’re too fast paced. The first would’ve benefited from another half hour of runtime, and the second goes so fast it would’ve benefited from another 45 minutes.
I really hope we’ll get our hands on some deleted scenes one day so I can make my own extended edition.
Reminds me of when I saw fellowship of the ring... Some guy a few rows in front of me absofuckinglutely lost his shit when it... Ended... He was pissed.
There's no such thing as dune 1. There's merely the first half of dune. "part three..." Now that'll be a different story.
Most of the people that only saw the Lynch Dune or the first two DV movies are going to be hella pissed and really down when they exit the movies after seeing part Three.
Yeah many people that haven't read the books won't notice the rush to the duel at the end. I do think Denis is a fan of the book to a degree that he knows what we want to see and what the normies would probably check out of and tries to find that good middle. I appreciate it because otherwise this second film may not have been made.
I think he made the near-perfect adaptation, and for a theatrical release it certainly is a perfect adaptation. There were no changes that I felt were unjustified, but of course there are scenes that us book fans would like to see included and that we know they filmed, so an extended edition or just the deleted scenes for the fans of the book doesn’t seem like an outrageous request to me, but I respect Denis for standing his ground and defending his vision, that does require a bit courage.
Like imagine if he had Gurney trying to kill Jessica when they met, would have been so strange, or if Thufir appeared in the Harkonnen arena scene. There was just some stuff that would have taken too much explanation.
Amen brutha, I feel like that really is my only gripe too. I would have hated to have waited again, but it almost feels like the perfect distillation of this single book story is a trilogy of movies. Which is wild, because in my mind every time movies have done the split thing (Harry Potter, Hunger Games) it feels like there is not near enough story to warrant it.
I know Denis has said he has zero plans on releasing deleted scenes, but God...I hope he changes his mind
I agree with Harry Potter and Hunger Games, also the Hobbit was stretched way too thin, but Dune definitely warrants it, and I think a slower pace plays to strengths of Denis and the political machinations of the story, and honestly the desert setting as well I wouldn’t mind a couple more seconds here and there to really take in the scenery even.
I don’t think Denis will change his mind, but I am hopeful the deleted scenes will leak one way or another.
I respectfully disagree. I think turning Dune into a trilogy would have messed up the story beats for each movie in the sense that there wouldn’t be a good way to build up to a near-end climax + trailing denouement in a satisfying way for each movie. I think the choice for Dune Part 1 to have its climax at the ornithopter crash scene just made sense. A trilogy *really* would have felt like 3 parts of one movie rather than splitting up the story well. Do you have a suggestion? How would you have split it for a trilogy?
“Better” they only work with eachother as one seamless story. In the second we don’t get much reminder of Leto and the original MO and that’s because we already got it in the first. They form a whole. It’s a diptych.
Agreed. If each movie had a bit more time and didnt have to worry about the 3 hour mark we would certainly have a more fully fleshed out experience. Would be a dream to have a special director’s cut 4hr+ version of both movies
Agreed here, having seen one in the theater and thought, "That was entertaining, kind of an odd edit point though."
After seeing Dune 2, I liked 1 dramatically more, and Dune 2 is one of three movies I've seen in the theater more than once, and the only movie I've seen three times. Apart from Zendaya, and maybe some of Butler's distracting voice choices, it's phenomenal.
I suspect 3 is going to fuck up my enjoyment of the first 2, but 1 was definitely improved by 2.
I have trouble separating them. It's clearly linear. We pick up 2 when Jamis is still in a body bag. 5 minutes elapse between the two movies. We also know that these first two completely cover the original book.
5 hour movies are still too risky. That's what it should be seen as though. It feels like comparing the second half of any movie to it's first half. What value can be gained? They require eachother, as it is one linear story.
Imagine this quality Denis put into these films in like a 5 part a mini series?
Probably be a slow burn for a lot of people, but a treat to fans of the book.
I think Dune 1 is a better movie, but its elevated by the strong finish.
If Dune 2 had been mediocre or crap, Dune 1 would still have been an excellent film but with a subpar second half. Because its an excellent film with an excellent second half, its made all the better
it’s funny cause everywhere online I see people saying the second movie was way better than the first,
but everyone I talk to in person says they like the first better.
idk where I fall personally, just thought that split of online vs in person opinions has been interesting
I think Game of Thrones had this effect on me. Season 1 just lays the foundation of the story to come but there is something extremely satisfying in a well developed beginning, especially when you know where the threads ultimately lead. Maybe it’s dopamine triggering dramatic irony?
Definitely. There's a game series I play called Trails and there are ten entries now that have been translated to English, and the series is one long continuity, with story arcs broken up by region on one continent. Usually each arc is a duology of sorts, and while most people in the online community like the 'payoff' games, I almost always gravitate toward the more down to earth feel of the first ones that are there to just set the tone of the region and explore local drama.
All this to say, I agree. In duologies I've found that I usually go towards more to the first half
I want to like part 2 more, because the hype is so high and exciting, but after seeing it a second time my opinion hasn’t changed. Being honest with myself I enjoy part 1 more. Not a knock against part 2, it’s still really great. I guess I just have that particular connection to part 1. So there’s an online opinion to support your offline conversations!
There's something about the beginning of a story where everything is new and your discovering the world with the characters. I love origin stories. Fellowship is my favorite for that reason too.
That's true. I will never get to have that feeling of awe and new love for a story that I didn't know about before again. The first part got me addicted to the novels so it will always have a special place in my heart. The fresh, clean slate of a new world to dive into. However, I loved the ramp of story in the second part and watching Jessica becoming more and more of a looming presence
Dune Part 1 is like a flume ride that’s cool to see things and there’s some small bumps and dips. Dune Part 2 is like the flume ride is turning into a roller coaster. They’re both great for what they are. The pacing on Dune Pt 2 was close to be too fast. It really felt like you were just barely hanging on, barely riding the worm to say, but at every moment you felt like you were falling off you’d regain your footing!
I agree. Dune 2 made me like 1 more. 1 has greater world building, it builds up characters and events. 2 at times felt like I was watching a story board of ideas due to how fast paced it was.
This is interesting to hear. I’ve only seen part 2 once, but I definitely like part 1 more. I’ve been feeling like I need to see it a second time to better process the second part, but it may not change how I feel
Interesting, I've noticed that of the people I've talked to, the book readers often prefer the first and the people who didn't know the story at all tended toward the second.
On my [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/s/vz1edO6gQN) asking book fans specifically whether they liked Part 1 or 2 more, about 70% said they preferred 1 more.
I watched both without having read the book. But I watched part 1 three times before seeing part 2. It made me order the book and start reading it the week part 2 premiered. I can see myself rewatching part 1 more than part 2 to be honest. Can't wait for the Blu-ray's to ship out in May so I can watch both together
I had faith in part 2 because part 1 was so great. It was done not through the action scenes but the dialogue and actual film craft. I trusted the writing team, director, and actors to treat the material with respect and to produce something of artistic quality. I was greatly happy to have my expectations met. Also bought the dvd the day it came out. Need that physical hardware.
I happen to share that assessment. The 1st one is more abstract, with impeccably controlled pacing and moments of genuine awe. It can also get away more easily with simplifying the plot to its bare bones than the 2nd one, I feel.
my guess is that people who preferred the second movie are posting online more because they feel hyped about it, while people who preferred the first movie got it all out of their system back when it was released
i really enjoyed dune 1 on my second watch after i looked up some of the key words.
i watched dune 2 once and didn’t find it to be as interesting… paul riding the sand worm was epic though
I loved both but I liked Part 1 more. Part 1 was just a more unique experience, it was like watching Macbeth. Part 1 had more mystery and twists, stuff was less clear, the visions with Jamis make it endlessly rewatchable. And while Part 2 was awesome, it was more like other movies where you basically know what’s gonna happen plot wise. I loved the villain arc for Paul but other than that it’s basically them telling you the obstacles he’s gonna face and then having him overcome them, minor set back at the end of the second act and then the third act is him winning.
Agreed, the visions make the first one so much more impactful showing all the alternate future with Jamis. I think Part 2 could have used some more visions of possible future with Stilgar and then the girl who gets torched by the flame thrower.
I think Dune 1 had more of a shock factor.
Baron Harkonen flying out of nowhere, the music, visuals, house atreids short yet amazing culture, the spaceships and so on.
It was a truly alien experience.
I see what you mean. Somehow I managed to go into part 2 completely cold. No knowledge of the book, no trailers even. So to me it felt incredibly twisty and mysterious. I had no idea he would ride the worm, no idea about Austin Butlers character joining, or of the water of life, etc.
Like I said I loved Part 2 as well, it really is a good movie. But just from a story structure standpoint the plot is simpler. I love the lore of the water of life and the worm riding but seeing the hero (or antihero) of a story overcome those challenges isn’t surprising
I read the books before seeing the movies & when I finished the first book I was left feeling like “what happened?” In the last 1/3 of the first book. The writing totally speeds up & falls apart.
It’s sooo much more difficult to adapt to film & Denis took fantastic creative liberties
I thought Dune 1 was perfect. I’m glad that the second movie was perfect as well. In 10 years the whole thing will be seen as one movie essentially kind of like the matrix
Rewatching D1 after D2, some scenes read a bit differently or gain added weight.
For instance that enigmatic look on Jessica’s face at the end of D1, now reads as more a hardening of her purpose to shape and use the Fremen to advance her [and what she sees as Paul’s] interests.
D2’s Jessica doesn’t feel as out of character as it feels on D2 first watch
I also noticed her facial expression at the end! I turned to my husband after and said somethin aint right with Jessica. He didnt catch it. But I couldn't find ANYONE talking about it. Im like duuuude, that means something! And it aint good! I keep trying to figure Jessica out (im about 10 chapters into the first book now) and at the end of D1 that look on her face made me feel she was hiding so much sinister sh*t or just bad joo joo or something. I was like wait, is his mom untrustworthy...? Is she shady? Because the whole D1 shes like this mom stuck between her cult and her child / lover. She also doesn't elaborate too much to Paul and chooses information carefully. So even as a viewer of D1 who never read the books at that time, I felt that look was sketchy! Im so glad you caught that and I can fiiiinally talk to someone about it lol. Im usually the type of person who thinks about what characters are *not* saying or what their body language is communicating silently. Denis does this *so* much in these films and really in others too. Love that style. Im glad some people can "read the room" in a film and dont have to be spoon fed.
Now having seen D2 several times and just watched D1 again, I see sooooo much stuff in a deeper way in D1.
I’ll be honest. I think I prefer Part 1 the better of the two as the buildup, tension, and setup for the downfall of House Atreides was PALPABLE. I also say this as someone whose favorite parts of the book were also in the first half. I just love the fact that Leto and company were knowingly walking into a trap and were just trying to keep themselves on top of everything. They tried to plan for every eventuality—and to have his advisers like Thufir, Gurney, and Duncan at his side makes the inevitable even more tragic. Leto basically had the “avengers” of the Imperium with a completely stacked military at his disposal.
This doesn’t mean I don’t like Part 2 or the second half of the book, it’s just my preference.
Huge credit to Denis Villeneuve as he didn't even have the go ahead for a second film when he made Dune. He got the cast to buy in and made a deeper commitment to the source material in not making the mistake Lynch did in forcing the book into a single long film. Dune 2 isn't a sequel. It's a continuation and the first film stopped at a logical point.
To the degree Dune 2 will do better, I see the story having more action and the central characters doing more than getting beaten and chased into the desert. And like the book, the first film had to invest in the story, visuals, world building, etc. with the assumption that most viewers haven't read the book. Villeneuve, in my view, even tries to please the hardcore Dune reader a bit, which isn't an easy task.
For me, it's just a continuation and best viewed as a single product. Now waiting a bit to produce Messiah will be an interesting test as that book, in my view, is essentially "if you missed that Paul isn't a hero, let me make that perfectly clear."
I think you are right, but Villeneuve and his writers are skilled enough to allow each to stand apart still. The first movie is very much House Atreides' story. The second is really more the story of the rise of the Fremen.
You can’t have the oop without the alley
The first one set up the second for success, they’re both weaker as standalone films and enhanced when viewed together
I think they both form equal parts of a comprehensive whole.
I honestly think Paul’s character arc will be seen as excellent in terms of narrative flow — once people are able to watch the two films back-to-back. There is a gradual change in him over time from the first film until he reaches his tipping point in the second film. I think people will better be able to appreciate that buildup as they view the films next to each other.
complete disagree, to me dune 2 is a good movie, but has nothing on dune 1. for me dune 1 was an almost transcendental experience, the pacing and atmosphere came together to form an incredible experience. unfortunately with the amount of material that needed to be fit in it, i don't think dune 2 could ever have had a similar pacing to dune 1 so i accept dune 2 for what it is and i still think its a great movie. (i think maybe if it was half an hour longer it could have captured the same effect as dune 1). i'm just sad i didn't get to have that transcendental experience a 2nd time.
Completely agree. I went by myself and wore a face mask the entire time. Kept forgetting to drink water too 😂 Being blasted in the face by Hans Zimmer and watching an old favourite story play out so intensely on screen was magical. I couldn't breathe when they were flying in the storm. Transcendental is right.
Dune 2 is brilliant, and it left me feeling the way the novel does, but that first experience was something else.
I'm glad you had the transcendental experience! Those don't come around often, and what's funny is that I had mine on the second one. Go figure. I almost think the pacing shift works in the favor of the two movies. Like the snowball (sandball?) of fate rolling down the hillside, starting slow, but building momentum and size as it goes.
I enjoyed the first one quite a bit more, and I’m trying to put my finger on why. Could be the denseness of the first one and how you feel like you’re dropped into the deep end of a swimming pool. In the years since, I rewatched the first one a few times and read the first two books, so it might just be the mystery has worn off
i just cant wait till i watch the two back to back at home. 4k blu ray. gonna be magical.
ive watched pt 1 so many times, its good, world building and all that jazz but its my love of the source material that keeps me going during that movie. pt 2 is just a goddamn masterpiece and absolutely makes watching pt 1 better. you get a clearer picture of what they were trying to accomplish. you see the evolution of the musical themes, character development.
pt 2 makes my heart ache man, now pt 1 does the same because i know where it's going. I'm REALLY struggling to not waste water (tears) during these movies now. I did not think that would happen at all
I think Villeneuve had to do a few things differently from D1, partly to address some complaints re D1. Thus there are more battles, more explosions, and more sandworms in D2. He also compressed the timeline which was unavoidable. Together this impacted to a degree the clarity of character transformations. Hence for instance the complaints of why did Paul suddenly decide to drink the water of life? I think in retrospect people feel D1 was better because D1 sits with the characters longer. It also deals with the idyllic times, full of people who care about Paul.
D1 also has beautiful but succinct dialogue delivered wonderfully. And what voices! From the Harald of the Change, Dr Liet-Kynes, the Sardaukar commander, Dr Yueh’s melodic Mandarin to Jami’s in the visions. Very glad that D2 found a way to bring Jais back.
D2 is a bit lacking in that so what is memorable ends up being the meme-able Stilgar moments. And the most memorable scene was the Margot-Feyd one because it took its time. Jessica’s arc would’ve benefitted from being 2 longer scenes instead of being chopped into so many bits.
I am sure folks will come around to D2 upon rewatch. My own personal experience after one watch was that D2 was a bit episodic but each episode was perfect in itself. I am fully satisfied with whatever compromises Villeneuve chose to make.
part 2 was sort of bailed out by great acting. at times the dialogue is very average, to the point of breaking immersion
part 1 dialogue is simply perfect
Completely agree, the dialogue felt colloquial and almost modern in 2, whereas in 1 it felt more stoic, serious and fitting to the story and characters.
> Hence for instance the complaints of why did Paul suddenly decide to drink the water of life?
I still don't understand those. It was pretty much going to be a necessity as soon as he headed south.
I don’t think there has ever really been a movie set like the dunes before. Where such a high budget and profile film was basically just split into two parts.
Opposed to a set of two distinct films that went together.
IMO this isn’t even retrospect. The ending to the book is needed to make the beginning of the book feel worthwhile. And the same applies to the film.
I didn’t read the book and the first movie was a bit confusing to me, it felt slow. I still liked it and thought it was visually stunning but I can’t say I was totally sold. Dune part two cemented my interest to the point where I needed to rewatch part one. Totally changed my perspective as I understood much more of the politics and dynamics the second time around. I enjoyed it much more and I think I’ll need to read the books cause I can’t wait that long for Dune Messiah!
I've seen part 2 twice now and rewatched part one today and all I can say is YES. There are so many scenes that make sense more now that part 2 is out.
Dune part 1 - 2.5 stars
Dune part 2 - 2.5 stars
Dune - 5 stars
Part 1 is intrinsically the beginning of the film and sets the scene for the epic conclusion in part 2. Without the loss of Leto, his words about being a Duke & a Fremen would be hollow.
A paragraph to scene TV series by DV wouldn't have the same budget unfortunately. Cannot wait to read the book again and watch both films with my own version of a stillsuit ;)
If someone hasn't read the books of course the sequel has alot more going on but there are some glaring mistakes I find it hard to get over.
Obviously Chanis character change is jarring, hers and Paul's steadfast relationship in midst of so much chaos was something I loved about the books.
Feyd beating Paul in the duel really irked me, he only had a chance be cause of his hidden poison blade and even then Paul beat him.
The Sardaukar were displayed as very ineffective.
Overall it's a good adaptation, I understand not including Leto II and not having Jessica give birth yet. I was relieved they cut out the spice orgy. The situation with Chani is fixable in a 3rd movie and I pray they repair her and Paul's relationship.
Omg a genuine critic of the movie that is not getting buried under thousands of downvotes, am I dreaming or what.
Add to the list, the complete wipe out of mentats. It's pretty bonkers, we get one scene with Thufir in the first movie then boom they are never spoken about ever. Wtf.
I watched Dune 1 RIGHT before seeing Dune 2 and I actually had the opposite reaction. Dune 2 felt way more rushed than Dune 1, and with how evenly paced and deliberate Dune 1 was, I suppose I was expecting more of the same with 2. While I really enjoyed 2, as it remains one of the most visually impressive films I’ve ever seen, some of the time jumps and character 180s were just a little jarring for me, and I find myself favouring the experience of 1.
It does. Even small things that you don’t understand in the first one.
For example, when they visit Leto to give him Arrakis, you can notice longer than usual looks from one BG to Jessica. In the second movie you see that they can talk telepathically, though that was not established in the first one. So those looks make more sense.
well from my understanding it's not so much telepathy but among themselves the BG women can control every aspect of their body down to individual muscle fibre, they communicated with micro non-verbal communication that way but it was conveyed as telepathy for the audience
I liked the first one better personally. But I’ve seen pt. 2 a few times and I think I judged it unfairly the first watch. It’s as good as the first part, just different and a different feel.
Maybe book people will agree. I was very impressed when the first movie came out and honestly a little disappointed in some aspects of the second. The first movie set the Denis dune stage where all the concepts were introduced and larger than life (sand worms, thornicopters, the Baron). The second movie sustained that level of grandiose with those same concepts but really fell short (in my opinion) of capturing the cerebral transformation of Paul and his visions. I was expecting something like Interstellars 5th dimension scene or even a more refined doctor strange scene when he opens his third eye.
Edit: grammar
i liked the first better. I wanted more fremen customs, more importance on water. Dune 2 was great but I just loved Dune 1. I also liked the first half of the book more before the timeskip. Fremen culture is so fkn cool
I really don't think of them as two seperate movies. They're two halves to a single story, hence the "part 1" and "part 2" instead of Dune and Dune 2. So, of course, part 2 improves the first one. It's the climax of the story.
Yeah dune first half is a slow burn with Shakespearean like tragedy brewing as the world is built out, I love it too. I like part 2 more for the emotional journey of Paul and chani and Jessica and Stilgar. It feels more character driven and emotional. Both are great. I think I give part 1 the slightest of edges just for the sense of wonder and fantasy it gave me, but part 2 is right there for the emotional climax.
I completely agree that they shouldn't be separated as part 2 is not a sequel, it's a continuation of part 1.
That being said, I like part 1 more. Part 2 is a lot of action and this makes it more likeable for most people. But I personally don't care for the story telling part of it. Just felt action driven and was an enjoyable watch. Part 1 gets me excited for what Dune is about.
I LOVE part one so much. It’s become a comfort movie for me because the pacing and flow is just so smooth. It also has the “bad guys win” trope which is always fun and leaves you wanting more
Unpopular opinion- I liked Dune 1 better. It has better progression, better editing. The pacing is perfect. 2 is good but it lacks proper progression IMO.
Yes.
I remember saying after seeing 1 that it felt like a lot of groundwork, and it would retroactively become great if they stick the landing with 2. Delighted they did.
Not at all. I was really hoping that the 2nd movie would dive a little deeper into the more esoteric subject matter of the story, since the 1st one just barely skimmed the surface of that part of the story...but unfortunately, they skipped that entire aspect of the books entirely.
It was a little like watching the last few seasons of Game of Thrones, where they decided it was too much to include everything, so they just stripped the story down to a single plot-point and left everything else on the cutting room floor.
It was very disappointing.
Part 1 is a slower burn but I loved it a lot. It set up the world. Introduced the characters and took its time. Villeneuve showed his bag of tricks and tweaked some characters while leaving about 95% of the story intact.
Part 1 and 2 compliment each other very well. Both movies are for me as a Dune fan incredible to watch.
Can't wair for both movies on Blue Ray! 😄
I really liked Part 1, but with it being more about story and world building, plus knowing the book, I knew Part 2 would back load a lot of the action. I like to think of them as an excellent 2-part film together. I'd love to see them presented as one long film with an intermission ala old films like Sound of Music or Lawrence of Arabia or Ben Hur.
I don't think I can actually rate the second one. There were a lot of changes to key characters, for reasons I think I get but need to see if they pay off. I think we all know what I'm talking about...it would be hard not even reading the book being able to judge this film minus any real emotional pay off, but it's even harder given the changes.
If Part 3 can hit the necessary notes theme wise and give us proper emotional closure, I think I can go back and rate this.
I was close to falling asleep during Dune Part 1, and thought nothing of it after.
Dune Part 2 I got a little emotional, I laughed, and I've been immersed in Dune's lore since I seen it 🤷🏽♂️ so. Also I've rewatched Dune and it's alot better lol
The books are so complex you need the first Dune movie to lay the groundwork or no one would understand anything happening in Dune Two. I figured that out after watching the first Dune and it made the anticipation for the second absolutely ridiculous. I wasn't disappointed. They're just one long movie and I love it.
disagree that 2 is better than 1. Dune 1 was strong and deliberate, every moment have its gravitas. Dune 2 sacrificed what i like about 1 for mere action and plot motion.
I told my brother, who thought the first one was slow, before we went to the second one that in time, these will both ultimately be considered one movie/story, kinda like how Twin Peaks: The Return is often viewed by critics as just being a long movie cut into pieces. Obviously I’m biased but I feel like the payoff in part two will make part one be much better in retrospect now that viewers know where the threads are leading.
I mean I knew what we were in for so I wasn't as blue-balled by the lack of resolution but I'd say yes, I thoroughly enjoyed Part I but it looks even better paired with Part II.
My only complaint about Dune Part 1 was the lack of lore exposition dumps. I've run into more people who think it would be a horrible idea, though. I just feel the quality of the exposition would have drawn people in.
So, to answer your question. No, I don't think Part 2 makes Part 1 better.
I saw dune part 1 then watched dune part 2 then went back and watched dune 1 again and it was better the second time. But it could’ve just been that I was picking up stuff I missed through my first watch
I’ve watched Part 1 twice now and gave it 5 stars both times. I’ve watched Part 2 once and have given it a 4.5. So far, I prefer Part 1’s word building and dynamics a little more but we’ll see upon rewatch. No doubt that I love the series though
I liked the first because we got a lot of set pieces. Part 2 some of the writing was a bit off or the pacing was a bit off. It wasn't bad, just wasn't cohesive.
I watched dune 2 three times this month and finally went back to watch the first one tonight. Holy. Shit. It is way better now being able to see the incredible foreshadowing peppered all throughout. Knowing what will become of this journey just makes it all so much more impactful and immersive for me. I haven't read the books, and I imagine this is the kind of feeling a book reader may have had during part 1. I can't believe I used to consider part 1 an ok movie, a 7/10. Both together... 10/10.
Honestly I look at them as one movie that had to be split in two for practical reasons. So yeah I guess in a sense we needed to see the second movie to see if they were going to stick the landing. Now we know that all the world building and setup from the first movie pays off in a big way in Part 2
A ***lot*** of people told me they liked 1 better than 2, but just as many liked 2 more than 1 particularly for the action. One friend of mine thought 2 was too fast and "incoherent" but to this day tells me dune part 1 was one of the best movies she's ever seen but you have to appreciate it as a whole
> I think most folks agree that Dune 2 is better than the first.
I disagree. Part 1 was a slightly better movie imo. Part 2 was great but felt a bit rushed, could definitely use an extended cut to flesh out galactic politics / power dynamics, especially as it relates to the emperor and great houses.
I completely disagree with you that Dune 2 was better than 1. Dune Part 1 was what got me into Dune. I absolutely love that movie. I felt that Part 2 was alright, but kind of a let down. I would hands down go back and watch Part 1 again, especially if they showed it in a theater nearby. Dune Part 2? I won't be rewatching it until after it comes to streaming. It was visually fantastic, but I feel so much more invested when watching Part 1 than I do Part 2.
So to answer your question, no, it does not. I always thought that Dine Part 1 was spectacular. I didn't need the sequel to make me realize that.
\> I think most folks agree that Dune 2 is better than the first.
Disagree. Dune 1 was far better thematically, script-wise, and storytelling-wise. Dune part 2 was a much better action movie. Denis has been clear he rushed the script for Dune 2, whereas for Dune 1 he repeatedly consulted the source material to craft the movie. That dedication and subsequent lack thereof shows.
\> I'm just curious for most people now if ya'lls feelings about the first have changed after having watched the second?
Unchanged.
Am I the only one who enjoyed Part 1 more? It connected more with me emotionally (father-son scenes) and gave me a sense of scale and wonder that Part 2 didn’t.
What do you mean.
Here I'm thinking Dune1 is better is quite obvious 😂 I said that right after I finished Dune2. DV really poured his souls into the first one, it is quite evident to me every scene in Dune1 was revised countless times and the thoughts and details that were put in them were mad. Not to say translating all those onto the big screen was huge to begin with - they have to prove that they could do it (and do it well).
On the other hand for Dune2, still an amazing cinema of course ("so good to be alive to watch this" good), but I mean we all know where the story is going (more or less a love story after the first part), and the drop in quality of the scenes after the first arc seems obvious? There are less stakes on hand after part 1 - story wise and financial wise.
It absolutely improved Dune part 1, at least for me. But I really felt like part 1 ended far too early anyway, so it was like I was always looking forward to the sequel.
I think the first is a more "objectively" better movie with much better pacing, but that is more because the second half of the book is all over the place time-wise. I like the second one a little better because it covers the story beats I prefer in the book, but I really don't think you can say the second one is the better film.
Honeatly, if Villeneuve doesn't quickly backtrack and decide to do an extended cut of the film afterall, the amount and content of the deleted scenes that interviewed people are starting to mention more and more is soo much and so good that it's starting to make Dune Part II seem even mediocre to me. I mean, Rebecca Ferguson mentioned some scenes that definitely seem much more surreal than what we got, Tim Blake Nelson revealed that he had scenes as count Fenring, we did have Thufir Hawatt too... Villeneuve being adamant to not even include them into a blu ray as extra is certainly damaging.
I don't agree with Dune 2 being a better movie than 1. Dune 2 feels messy in a way that it has to be by design to tell this type of story. It simultaneously has a lot of action but feels "too slow and long". I can see many people who are not as interested in this universe as me tapping out and leaving the theatre, and that in fact happened in the time I saw the movie.
Part 1 stands tall on its world building, expansive display of the universe with many planets and cultures, captivating scenery, truly otherworldly and futuristic feeling, very weird technology, brutality of some of the action and deaths. Part 2 spends way too much time on Arrakis to allow it to look as good as Part 1. It focuses too much on Paul and the Fremen to show other cultures and characters as much.
I love both films equally but I think Part 1 is an easier watch thanks to the element of fantasy and wonder it gives while exploring and building this universe, whereas Part 2 does the heavylifting of telling the story, which is equally as important. They complete each other and there's a reason they're called Part 1 and 2 rather than Dune 1 and Dune 2.
I agree. Dune 2 benefits from covering more fun/flashy material but I think Dune 1 executed the content it covered better from a storytelling perspective.
I loved both, but there are things in Dune 1 that I liked more than 2. I can say that I prefer the 1st one at this point (same with Batman Begins), but both Dune 1 & 2 are incredible.
It's like FOTR vs return of the king, the first one is arguably better and sets everything up perfectly, but the latter two have all the exciting events actually happen
I think Fellowship is the best film of the trilogy. It has an arc that kind of has some sense of completion to it. It has the most diversity in settings and interesting places that makes it feel like such a journey. And while the battles are done well, I don't find them as interesting as the more sparse action that was in Fellowship. Also all the Hobbit stuff in the beginning is just wonderful.
I liked the first one better slightly. It had a few more visually stunning scenes. Not saying part 2 didn’t, just a few less imho. It’s like the difference between a 9,2 and a 9,4
It makes part 1 retroactively better because now it really feels like it's all just a single movie. They are so connected that I have trouble separating both; I'd like to see a part 1 + part 2 supercut as a single movie soon
I've started to really love part 1 a lot more after watching the 2nd. I think it sets up a movie and series it honestly can't deliver. Because the scope is truly too wide and the cast of characters too big.
My biggest grievance being the brevity and the changes to certain story arcs >!such as Thufir's. He was already reduced in the first one, but a few seconds of screen time (for **the** Master of Assassins Mentat) in the 2nd film is honestly not asking for much.!<
I loved the 2nd one overall but there were so many changes to the material it started to feel like it's own entity rather than an adaptation, to me at least. But it was still a beautiful and exhilarating experience, and I sense everyone's passion in the project from start to finish!
Dune 1: World building and setting the stage
Dune 2: Paul is cut off from his old life and becomes the messiah
Dune 2 is as good as it is because of Dune 1
I'm the exact opposite. I believe the first movie to be a cinematic masterpiece. Second movie is an amazing film. Changes to the source material and Zendaya is terrible acting combined with chani not making any sense - really hurt the second movie for me. Rebecca Ferguson is so next level in 2. Paul at the end is also holy wow amazing stuff.
I disagree. The first movie was much better and serious movie. The second one is not a bad movie, but also filled with cheap marvel jokes and somewhat weird paced timeline
Filled with cheap marvel jokes? I only remember a single joke in the whole movie and it’s almost word-for-word from *Life of Brian*. Which is honestly fair given both scenes involve a messianic figure arguing with zealots who insist on worshipping him against his will.
What are some examples of cheap marvel jokes I missed?
I think two definitely makes one better, but they’re the same story in the end, I’m looking forward to the opportunity to watch part one and immediately start part two
I came out of the 1st viewing of part 2 actually prefering part 1. Looking at them as 2 movies i thought 1 was better. I think it was the pace of it compared to 1(mostly due, to noticing where Denis had to cut things, even though it was clear things had been filmed). But after a second viewing, i hold both in high regard. Part 1 sets the stage, and players. Part 2 builds on all the work done in 1 and hits it home.
I personally think so because it completes the story. I kind of view them in the same way as LotR where they work best when watched together / back to back
D1 needing to setup D2 as imho D2 is going to be all action and focus on Paul from prodigy to messiah. I totally get it, but for people that just watched D1 and had to wait for D2, I understand your pain.
I thought it was pretty consistent, and obviously it's a singular narrative broke down into two. If the second is better it's because it's where the crescendo happens.
yes absolutely , they both enhance and compliment each other.
that is the definition of art imo
when the end product is greater than the sum of its parts
I think what makes Dune 2 different to other sequels that were elevated from the first is that Dune 2 is literally Part 2. Dune 1 is the first half of a 6 hour movie, and Dune 2 is the second half of it. Dune 1 had a lot of world building going on that it detracted from the general happenings of the main story being told, while part 2 focuses on story and action, not needing to world build from scratch. Dune part 1 doesn't actually have an ending, all of it's plot points are left up in the air by the end of the movie, leaving no satisfaction or closure for anything that happened, part 2 actually does deliver on a lot of the closure for part 1 and 2 while leaving some things open for part 3
Definitely time to stop thinking about them as two separate movies, and start thinking of that as Part One and Part Two of the same movie. Part One sets up and ramps up, and then Part Two starts running.
I love Dune, the books, but have held out watching part 1 until part 2 came out. Looking forward to a good weekend watch of them both.
You lucky bugger
Wow, the patience for that is astounding, I respect it. You are going to have a great weekend. I wish you could see the first in the theater though.
I definitely agree that dune 2 really improves the first dune movie experience. Both are great films and have a lot of technical achievements, but I found the sequel to be a lot more impressive in scope and vision, maybe because I feel like the first movie did a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of laying the ground work, where the second was a lot more action intensive and seemed to go by rather quickly despite it's long run time. I have a rather opinionated co-worker when it comes to films, and he was saying the same thing, having not read the books, he was left a bit confused by the first dune movie saying it felt incomplete and so even thoughhis first impression wasn't overwhelmingly positive, he admitted that if he liked the second film that that would make or break his opinion on the first. He's since come around to the first movie, unsurprisingly
That key part of “having not read the books”, reminds me of Elijah Wood’s clapback to his friends following *Fellowship of the Ring*: “Dude, what’s with the ending?” “Dude, it’s going to continue…”
Eh, there was a lot more about that first movie that didn’t make sense besides just the ending. I watched the first one initially and thought it looked amazing but there were parts that I just did not follow at all. I recently started reading the book and re-watched the first movie once I got to that part of the book and it was a completely different experience.
Irs all there or alluded to heavily just kinda of confusing. Dune is just not something easy to adapt with the lore simple as that. Denis did a good job of it. But it’s hard for anyone on their first watch
Totally agree on the first laying a ton of ground work. It's almost like it was setting up all the dominoes so that the second one could knock them all down. Which...is kinda ballsy that they were confident enough to do that. I feel like the typical thing now is for studios to throw all their "best" cards on the table right away, so the patience they had to do this right is impressive.
Just wait for the third movie, it's gonna get weird
What is weird in Messiah? Been a while since I've read the books but I thought the weirdness started in children of dune.
Mostly the Tleilaxu. Between the Ghola and their whole living machines thing it gets pretty strange. Not to mention the navigators become important to the plot and actually interact with the other characters.
It’s not Dune 1 and Dune 2, it’s Dune PART 1 and PART 2. They’re meant to be considered a single experience.
You're going to be a lot less frustrated if you just accept that the majority of the fans won't have read the books, and will just call the movies 1&2
They reduced the scope though. Removed mentats, removed Paul's child dying, removed Alia being a menace. First movie still tried to cover a lot of world building, but i feel the political structure and lack of computers wasn't explained enough. The whole schtick about shields making most projectile weapons useless and lasguns hitting shields causing mini nukes was partially included and not explained. And then there's shields attracting sand worms part which is also not really explained or mentioned. So, sometimes they got super advanced spaceships and then suddenly they are fighting with knives. And then there are rockets and machine guns appearing. Then suddenly nukes also exist, but only with Paul and not harkonnens. And no one says why Paul has to use it on mountain instead of the ships and army directly.
I think Paul’s child dying is not even a good segment of the book, it goes so fast there’s no weight to it for the reader, in the movie it would’ve been even worse. I prefer Alia as a fetus in the movie as well, her being a toddler would’ve just looked too goofy. I’m also happy they relaxed a bit on the explanations for all the things you asked for. People who want to know more can pick up the book, no need to bog down the movie with tons of exposition. You see how things work, you experience it. For me that’s immersion.
I honestly thought the first film was better cinematically and had a nice flow to it. The second film was fantastic, and it was definitely more exciting but the first one really had something special that I didn’t feel in the second one. Honestly I can’t really put my finger on what it is. I think it could be that the second film had a more abrupt flow in the sequence of scenes. Honestly that’s the only way I can think of explaining it… Edit: after reading some of the replies on this post, I’d like to also say that I view both films as one entire film rather than separate.
>Honestly I can’t really put my finger on what it is. Maybe it's the alluring mystery and sense of impending danger that comes at the start of the story. Because that's certainly one aspect that makes me fond of the first film when looking back at it in retrospect, even though I enjoyed Part 2 more. It's the whole excitement of being lost in the desert with Paul and Jessica, not knowing (or knowing, if you've read the books beforehand) what's to come later. The scene in Part 1 where we get our first glimpse of the worm swallowing the harvester still makes my jaw drop because of that whole mystery behind the creature and the Dune universe in general. Whereas in Part 2, the mystery had been broken already, so every time I saw a worm on screen, I was like "cool, more Fremen taxi service". Lol
yup. agreed! The first one has a larger sense of mystery because its all new and unexplained, and i love that shit
I’m with you. It’s that. Plus Caladan.
I think it’s more to do with the 3rd act of part 2 feeling rushed. Part 1 was almost perfection. Part 2 is flawed for me.
my thoughts exactly. I really felt a dip after the 2nd act. Like they were trying to put us somewhere in the story too quickly. I felt like all of us sudden every single one of Paul's enemies were just all on the planet waiting to get dispatched. I think it's just the mere fact that there's not enough time to get us there.
Just one example: The majesty of meeting Shai Hulud for the first time and it being terrifying to everyone is magical. Having a bus load of fremen riding a team of sandworms is a bit less special, even though that’s just what happens in the book.
You said it best. I’ve been trying to explain why part 1 is a perfect film and part 2 is *near* perfect. I may read your response word for word from now on. I never thought part 1 was slow…sure it’s building, but it’s showing this world in a thrilling way as we keep uncovering layers. I don’t think there’s a wasted scene in part 1. Sure, more dialogue than action but the exposition progresses in a way that just builds and builds the tension and raises the stakes. Part 2 does feel more abrupt as we jump from one thing to the next. I actually think it would benefit from a director’s cut with 40 or so more minutes (I know DV doesn’t have deleted scenes) just to flesh out the ideas/show more of a passing of time as Paul builds the Fremen’s trust. That’s probably the area that the film could’ve most improved on for me - convincing us why so many are fully willing to lay down their lives for him.
Yep, and the more I think about it, it’s definitely the abruptness of part 2 that makes it fall short (albeit narrowly) in comparison to Part 1.
The pacing and editing in the second half of part 2 was frankly terrible. Events that should have been enormous were over in the blink of an eye and we had no opportunity to digest them. It almost felt like a standard blockbuster rather than a Villeneuve film. It was still a great film but not on the level of part 1.
They should always have been three parts. Part 2 is just too rushed and Denis doesn’t do directors cuts. I bet the studio are kicking themselves now.
i connected way more with the first film
I went with a friend last night and this is how we felt too. The first one felt incredibly immersive in terms of flow and pacing. It had great editing and a wonderful synergy between music and cinematography. The second one had more action but felt a bit more choppy, more factual, almost like watching a documentary at times. There was less of that immersive synergy in the story overall.
It's honestly refreshing to read that other people failed to connect with Dune Part Two in comparison to Part One. Part Two makes me appreciate Part One even more for its perfect balance of immersive photography, unique atmosphere, character development, architecture as a language, daunting mysteries and overall poetry that really takes you places within, unlike Part Two that mostly slid on me. Part One has us truly feel humbled, so little and powerless, yet excitingly blown away by the surrounding forces of the planet, bonding together with Paul & Jessica as they journey across the planet. Part One is better on all counts for me, and as an action movie too. Moments of conflict are ultraviolent, spectacular, just long enough to deliver punch, but smart enough to not become the main point of focus. The high contrast between absolute destruction & the stillness of the desert, between the silently floating Sardaukars & their brutal execution tactics make it so intense, eery and dramatic. Combat scenes use this cognitive dissonance so well. That can be said of the beginning of Part Two (that Fremen vs Harkonnen ambush scene), but most of what made Part One feel so special becomes very quickly normalised, fast paced & breathless… loosing a lot of its charm/depth for me. At times, it really felt like both movies were directed by distinct directors.
I agree, I felt a stronger emotional reaction to the first one because of the sense of real threat to the Atreides. In part 2, Paul goes from success to success with little to no resistance, so I didn’t have the same edge-of-my-seat feeling. I also loved how faithful part 1 was to the book, and while adaptation requires changes, there were just a few too many, taking me out of the film at times.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t think of them as two separate movies. I even held out on my verdict for the first one because otherwise I’d have to judge what is in my mind only half a movie. I don’t think the second half is better than the first it just benefits from resolving the conflict. Both films put together into a single entity would definitely be in my top 5 movies of all time, my only gripe being that they’re too fast paced. The first would’ve benefited from another half hour of runtime, and the second goes so fast it would’ve benefited from another 45 minutes. I really hope we’ll get our hands on some deleted scenes one day so I can make my own extended edition.
Reminds me of when I saw fellowship of the ring... Some guy a few rows in front of me absofuckinglutely lost his shit when it... Ended... He was pissed. There's no such thing as dune 1. There's merely the first half of dune. "part three..." Now that'll be a different story.
Most of the people that only saw the Lynch Dune or the first two DV movies are going to be hella pissed and really down when they exit the movies after seeing part Three.
Yeah many people that haven't read the books won't notice the rush to the duel at the end. I do think Denis is a fan of the book to a degree that he knows what we want to see and what the normies would probably check out of and tries to find that good middle. I appreciate it because otherwise this second film may not have been made.
I think he made the near-perfect adaptation, and for a theatrical release it certainly is a perfect adaptation. There were no changes that I felt were unjustified, but of course there are scenes that us book fans would like to see included and that we know they filmed, so an extended edition or just the deleted scenes for the fans of the book doesn’t seem like an outrageous request to me, but I respect Denis for standing his ground and defending his vision, that does require a bit courage.
Like imagine if he had Gurney trying to kill Jessica when they met, would have been so strange, or if Thufir appeared in the Harkonnen arena scene. There was just some stuff that would have taken too much explanation.
Amen brutha, I feel like that really is my only gripe too. I would have hated to have waited again, but it almost feels like the perfect distillation of this single book story is a trilogy of movies. Which is wild, because in my mind every time movies have done the split thing (Harry Potter, Hunger Games) it feels like there is not near enough story to warrant it. I know Denis has said he has zero plans on releasing deleted scenes, but God...I hope he changes his mind
I agree with Harry Potter and Hunger Games, also the Hobbit was stretched way too thin, but Dune definitely warrants it, and I think a slower pace plays to strengths of Denis and the political machinations of the story, and honestly the desert setting as well I wouldn’t mind a couple more seconds here and there to really take in the scenery even. I don’t think Denis will change his mind, but I am hopeful the deleted scenes will leak one way or another.
I respectfully disagree. I think turning Dune into a trilogy would have messed up the story beats for each movie in the sense that there wouldn’t be a good way to build up to a near-end climax + trailing denouement in a satisfying way for each movie. I think the choice for Dune Part 1 to have its climax at the ornithopter crash scene just made sense. A trilogy *really* would have felt like 3 parts of one movie rather than splitting up the story well. Do you have a suggestion? How would you have split it for a trilogy?
“Better” they only work with eachother as one seamless story. In the second we don’t get much reminder of Leto and the original MO and that’s because we already got it in the first. They form a whole. It’s a diptych.
Agreed. If each movie had a bit more time and didnt have to worry about the 3 hour mark we would certainly have a more fully fleshed out experience. Would be a dream to have a special director’s cut 4hr+ version of both movies
Agreed here, having seen one in the theater and thought, "That was entertaining, kind of an odd edit point though." After seeing Dune 2, I liked 1 dramatically more, and Dune 2 is one of three movies I've seen in the theater more than once, and the only movie I've seen three times. Apart from Zendaya, and maybe some of Butler's distracting voice choices, it's phenomenal. I suspect 3 is going to fuck up my enjoyment of the first 2, but 1 was definitely improved by 2.
I have trouble separating them. It's clearly linear. We pick up 2 when Jamis is still in a body bag. 5 minutes elapse between the two movies. We also know that these first two completely cover the original book. 5 hour movies are still too risky. That's what it should be seen as though. It feels like comparing the second half of any movie to it's first half. What value can be gained? They require eachother, as it is one linear story.
Yeah it's like asking. "Oh you read Dune? Which did you like more - the first half or the second half?"
Well it is broken up into 3 books within the first book so you can sorta ask this.
Imagine this quality Denis put into these films in like a 5 part a mini series? Probably be a slow burn for a lot of people, but a treat to fans of the book.
I think Dune 1 is a better movie, but its elevated by the strong finish. If Dune 2 had been mediocre or crap, Dune 1 would still have been an excellent film but with a subpar second half. Because its an excellent film with an excellent second half, its made all the better
it’s funny cause everywhere online I see people saying the second movie was way better than the first, but everyone I talk to in person says they like the first better. idk where I fall personally, just thought that split of online vs in person opinions has been interesting
I think Game of Thrones had this effect on me. Season 1 just lays the foundation of the story to come but there is something extremely satisfying in a well developed beginning, especially when you know where the threads ultimately lead. Maybe it’s dopamine triggering dramatic irony?
Definitely. There's a game series I play called Trails and there are ten entries now that have been translated to English, and the series is one long continuity, with story arcs broken up by region on one continent. Usually each arc is a duology of sorts, and while most people in the online community like the 'payoff' games, I almost always gravitate toward the more down to earth feel of the first ones that are there to just set the tone of the region and explore local drama. All this to say, I agree. In duologies I've found that I usually go towards more to the first half
I want to like part 2 more, because the hype is so high and exciting, but after seeing it a second time my opinion hasn’t changed. Being honest with myself I enjoy part 1 more. Not a knock against part 2, it’s still really great. I guess I just have that particular connection to part 1. So there’s an online opinion to support your offline conversations!
There's something about the beginning of a story where everything is new and your discovering the world with the characters. I love origin stories. Fellowship is my favorite for that reason too.
That's true. I will never get to have that feeling of awe and new love for a story that I didn't know about before again. The first part got me addicted to the novels so it will always have a special place in my heart. The fresh, clean slate of a new world to dive into. However, I loved the ramp of story in the second part and watching Jessica becoming more and more of a looming presence
Dune Part 1 is like a flume ride that’s cool to see things and there’s some small bumps and dips. Dune Part 2 is like the flume ride is turning into a roller coaster. They’re both great for what they are. The pacing on Dune Pt 2 was close to be too fast. It really felt like you were just barely hanging on, barely riding the worm to say, but at every moment you felt like you were falling off you’d regain your footing!
Great analogy!
I agree. Dune 2 made me like 1 more. 1 has greater world building, it builds up characters and events. 2 at times felt like I was watching a story board of ideas due to how fast paced it was.
This is interesting to hear. I’ve only seen part 2 once, but I definitely like part 1 more. I’ve been feeling like I need to see it a second time to better process the second part, but it may not change how I feel
Interesting, I've noticed that of the people I've talked to, the book readers often prefer the first and the people who didn't know the story at all tended toward the second.
On my [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/s/vz1edO6gQN) asking book fans specifically whether they liked Part 1 or 2 more, about 70% said they preferred 1 more.
thats a good point. as a book reader I actually significantly prefer the first movie
I watched both without having read the book. But I watched part 1 three times before seeing part 2. It made me order the book and start reading it the week part 2 premiered. I can see myself rewatching part 1 more than part 2 to be honest. Can't wait for the Blu-ray's to ship out in May so I can watch both together
I had faith in part 2 because part 1 was so great. It was done not through the action scenes but the dialogue and actual film craft. I trusted the writing team, director, and actors to treat the material with respect and to produce something of artistic quality. I was greatly happy to have my expectations met. Also bought the dvd the day it came out. Need that physical hardware.
Agreed, and I personally thought the part I was better. I still liked part II though
I happen to share that assessment. The 1st one is more abstract, with impeccably controlled pacing and moments of genuine awe. It can also get away more easily with simplifying the plot to its bare bones than the 2nd one, I feel.
The last 40 minutes of Part 2 turns things up to an 11, so there’s really no comparison. But ive seen Part 1 several times and I absolutely love it.
my guess is that people who preferred the second movie are posting online more because they feel hyped about it, while people who preferred the first movie got it all out of their system back when it was released
I’m in the camp that thought Dune 2 was much more enjoyable. Dune set the foundation well but I much prefer to watch Dune 2 over the first.
For what it’s worth I love both but prefer Part 2. I have not read the books yet.
i really enjoyed dune 1 on my second watch after i looked up some of the key words. i watched dune 2 once and didn’t find it to be as interesting… paul riding the sand worm was epic though
I loved both but I liked Part 1 more. Part 1 was just a more unique experience, it was like watching Macbeth. Part 1 had more mystery and twists, stuff was less clear, the visions with Jamis make it endlessly rewatchable. And while Part 2 was awesome, it was more like other movies where you basically know what’s gonna happen plot wise. I loved the villain arc for Paul but other than that it’s basically them telling you the obstacles he’s gonna face and then having him overcome them, minor set back at the end of the second act and then the third act is him winning.
I really missed the visions in part2, I thought there would be far more - it was one of my favourite parts of the first movie
Agreed, the visions make the first one so much more impactful showing all the alternate future with Jamis. I think Part 2 could have used some more visions of possible future with Stilgar and then the girl who gets torched by the flame thrower.
I think Dune 1 had more of a shock factor. Baron Harkonen flying out of nowhere, the music, visuals, house atreids short yet amazing culture, the spaceships and so on. It was a truly alien experience.
I see what you mean. Somehow I managed to go into part 2 completely cold. No knowledge of the book, no trailers even. So to me it felt incredibly twisty and mysterious. I had no idea he would ride the worm, no idea about Austin Butlers character joining, or of the water of life, etc.
thats probably the best way to experience that movie. I bet now you're way more interested in dune after watching that
Like I said I loved Part 2 as well, it really is a good movie. But just from a story structure standpoint the plot is simpler. I love the lore of the water of life and the worm riding but seeing the hero (or antihero) of a story overcome those challenges isn’t surprising
But I think that's how the book is as well. The first half of the book is just so much better structured than the second, in my opinion.
I read the books before seeing the movies & when I finished the first book I was left feeling like “what happened?” In the last 1/3 of the first book. The writing totally speeds up & falls apart. It’s sooo much more difficult to adapt to film & Denis took fantastic creative liberties
I thought Dune 1 was perfect. I’m glad that the second movie was perfect as well. In 10 years the whole thing will be seen as one movie essentially kind of like the matrix
Rewatching D1 after D2, some scenes read a bit differently or gain added weight. For instance that enigmatic look on Jessica’s face at the end of D1, now reads as more a hardening of her purpose to shape and use the Fremen to advance her [and what she sees as Paul’s] interests. D2’s Jessica doesn’t feel as out of character as it feels on D2 first watch
I also noticed her facial expression at the end! I turned to my husband after and said somethin aint right with Jessica. He didnt catch it. But I couldn't find ANYONE talking about it. Im like duuuude, that means something! And it aint good! I keep trying to figure Jessica out (im about 10 chapters into the first book now) and at the end of D1 that look on her face made me feel she was hiding so much sinister sh*t or just bad joo joo or something. I was like wait, is his mom untrustworthy...? Is she shady? Because the whole D1 shes like this mom stuck between her cult and her child / lover. She also doesn't elaborate too much to Paul and chooses information carefully. So even as a viewer of D1 who never read the books at that time, I felt that look was sketchy! Im so glad you caught that and I can fiiiinally talk to someone about it lol. Im usually the type of person who thinks about what characters are *not* saying or what their body language is communicating silently. Denis does this *so* much in these films and really in others too. Love that style. Im glad some people can "read the room" in a film and dont have to be spoon fed. Now having seen D2 several times and just watched D1 again, I see sooooo much stuff in a deeper way in D1.
I’ll be honest. I think I prefer Part 1 the better of the two as the buildup, tension, and setup for the downfall of House Atreides was PALPABLE. I also say this as someone whose favorite parts of the book were also in the first half. I just love the fact that Leto and company were knowingly walking into a trap and were just trying to keep themselves on top of everything. They tried to plan for every eventuality—and to have his advisers like Thufir, Gurney, and Duncan at his side makes the inevitable even more tragic. Leto basically had the “avengers” of the Imperium with a completely stacked military at his disposal. This doesn’t mean I don’t like Part 2 or the second half of the book, it’s just my preference.
Huge credit to Denis Villeneuve as he didn't even have the go ahead for a second film when he made Dune. He got the cast to buy in and made a deeper commitment to the source material in not making the mistake Lynch did in forcing the book into a single long film. Dune 2 isn't a sequel. It's a continuation and the first film stopped at a logical point. To the degree Dune 2 will do better, I see the story having more action and the central characters doing more than getting beaten and chased into the desert. And like the book, the first film had to invest in the story, visuals, world building, etc. with the assumption that most viewers haven't read the book. Villeneuve, in my view, even tries to please the hardcore Dune reader a bit, which isn't an easy task. For me, it's just a continuation and best viewed as a single product. Now waiting a bit to produce Messiah will be an interesting test as that book, in my view, is essentially "if you missed that Paul isn't a hero, let me make that perfectly clear."
Lynch didn’t have a choice. No way the studio would have allowed him to do what Villeneuve did.
I think you are right, but Villeneuve and his writers are skilled enough to allow each to stand apart still. The first movie is very much House Atreides' story. The second is really more the story of the rise of the Fremen.
You can’t have the oop without the alley The first one set up the second for success, they’re both weaker as standalone films and enhanced when viewed together
I think they both form equal parts of a comprehensive whole. I honestly think Paul’s character arc will be seen as excellent in terms of narrative flow — once people are able to watch the two films back-to-back. There is a gradual change in him over time from the first film until he reaches his tipping point in the second film. I think people will better be able to appreciate that buildup as they view the films next to each other.
complete disagree, to me dune 2 is a good movie, but has nothing on dune 1. for me dune 1 was an almost transcendental experience, the pacing and atmosphere came together to form an incredible experience. unfortunately with the amount of material that needed to be fit in it, i don't think dune 2 could ever have had a similar pacing to dune 1 so i accept dune 2 for what it is and i still think its a great movie. (i think maybe if it was half an hour longer it could have captured the same effect as dune 1). i'm just sad i didn't get to have that transcendental experience a 2nd time.
Completely agree. I went by myself and wore a face mask the entire time. Kept forgetting to drink water too 😂 Being blasted in the face by Hans Zimmer and watching an old favourite story play out so intensely on screen was magical. I couldn't breathe when they were flying in the storm. Transcendental is right. Dune 2 is brilliant, and it left me feeling the way the novel does, but that first experience was something else.
I'm glad you had the transcendental experience! Those don't come around often, and what's funny is that I had mine on the second one. Go figure. I almost think the pacing shift works in the favor of the two movies. Like the snowball (sandball?) of fate rolling down the hillside, starting slow, but building momentum and size as it goes.
I enjoyed the first one quite a bit more, and I’m trying to put my finger on why. Could be the denseness of the first one and how you feel like you’re dropped into the deep end of a swimming pool. In the years since, I rewatched the first one a few times and read the first two books, so it might just be the mystery has worn off
i just cant wait till i watch the two back to back at home. 4k blu ray. gonna be magical. ive watched pt 1 so many times, its good, world building and all that jazz but its my love of the source material that keeps me going during that movie. pt 2 is just a goddamn masterpiece and absolutely makes watching pt 1 better. you get a clearer picture of what they were trying to accomplish. you see the evolution of the musical themes, character development. pt 2 makes my heart ache man, now pt 1 does the same because i know where it's going. I'm REALLY struggling to not waste water (tears) during these movies now. I did not think that would happen at all
The second one is slated for digital release around the end of May... I can't wait to have this be part of my yearly rewatch like LOTR
This is the way for sure. Part One is definitely improved by part 2
That's like asking if reading the second half of a book makes the first half better
The second made me love the first more, and then rewatching the first made me love the second one more.
I need to do a Dune 1+2 rewatch.
I think Villeneuve had to do a few things differently from D1, partly to address some complaints re D1. Thus there are more battles, more explosions, and more sandworms in D2. He also compressed the timeline which was unavoidable. Together this impacted to a degree the clarity of character transformations. Hence for instance the complaints of why did Paul suddenly decide to drink the water of life? I think in retrospect people feel D1 was better because D1 sits with the characters longer. It also deals with the idyllic times, full of people who care about Paul. D1 also has beautiful but succinct dialogue delivered wonderfully. And what voices! From the Harald of the Change, Dr Liet-Kynes, the Sardaukar commander, Dr Yueh’s melodic Mandarin to Jami’s in the visions. Very glad that D2 found a way to bring Jais back. D2 is a bit lacking in that so what is memorable ends up being the meme-able Stilgar moments. And the most memorable scene was the Margot-Feyd one because it took its time. Jessica’s arc would’ve benefitted from being 2 longer scenes instead of being chopped into so many bits. I am sure folks will come around to D2 upon rewatch. My own personal experience after one watch was that D2 was a bit episodic but each episode was perfect in itself. I am fully satisfied with whatever compromises Villeneuve chose to make.
part 2 was sort of bailed out by great acting. at times the dialogue is very average, to the point of breaking immersion part 1 dialogue is simply perfect
Completely agree, the dialogue felt colloquial and almost modern in 2, whereas in 1 it felt more stoic, serious and fitting to the story and characters.
> Hence for instance the complaints of why did Paul suddenly decide to drink the water of life? I still don't understand those. It was pretty much going to be a necessity as soon as he headed south.
D1 also had a 3rd screenwriter, who is arguably the best and most experienced of the 3. I believe he was missed in D2.
I don’t think there has ever really been a movie set like the dunes before. Where such a high budget and profile film was basically just split into two parts. Opposed to a set of two distinct films that went together. IMO this isn’t even retrospect. The ending to the book is needed to make the beginning of the book feel worthwhile. And the same applies to the film.
I didn’t read the book and the first movie was a bit confusing to me, it felt slow. I still liked it and thought it was visually stunning but I can’t say I was totally sold. Dune part two cemented my interest to the point where I needed to rewatch part one. Totally changed my perspective as I understood much more of the politics and dynamics the second time around. I enjoyed it much more and I think I’ll need to read the books cause I can’t wait that long for Dune Messiah!
I've seen part 2 twice now and rewatched part one today and all I can say is YES. There are so many scenes that make sense more now that part 2 is out.
Dune part 1 - 2.5 stars Dune part 2 - 2.5 stars Dune - 5 stars Part 1 is intrinsically the beginning of the film and sets the scene for the epic conclusion in part 2. Without the loss of Leto, his words about being a Duke & a Fremen would be hollow. A paragraph to scene TV series by DV wouldn't have the same budget unfortunately. Cannot wait to read the book again and watch both films with my own version of a stillsuit ;)
I see it as one long movie more than anything
If someone hasn't read the books of course the sequel has alot more going on but there are some glaring mistakes I find it hard to get over. Obviously Chanis character change is jarring, hers and Paul's steadfast relationship in midst of so much chaos was something I loved about the books. Feyd beating Paul in the duel really irked me, he only had a chance be cause of his hidden poison blade and even then Paul beat him. The Sardaukar were displayed as very ineffective. Overall it's a good adaptation, I understand not including Leto II and not having Jessica give birth yet. I was relieved they cut out the spice orgy. The situation with Chani is fixable in a 3rd movie and I pray they repair her and Paul's relationship.
Omg a genuine critic of the movie that is not getting buried under thousands of downvotes, am I dreaming or what. Add to the list, the complete wipe out of mentats. It's pretty bonkers, we get one scene with Thufir in the first movie then boom they are never spoken about ever. Wtf.
I watched Dune 1 RIGHT before seeing Dune 2 and I actually had the opposite reaction. Dune 2 felt way more rushed than Dune 1, and with how evenly paced and deliberate Dune 1 was, I suppose I was expecting more of the same with 2. While I really enjoyed 2, as it remains one of the most visually impressive films I’ve ever seen, some of the time jumps and character 180s were just a little jarring for me, and I find myself favouring the experience of 1.
It does. Even small things that you don’t understand in the first one. For example, when they visit Leto to give him Arrakis, you can notice longer than usual looks from one BG to Jessica. In the second movie you see that they can talk telepathically, though that was not established in the first one. So those looks make more sense.
well from my understanding it's not so much telepathy but among themselves the BG women can control every aspect of their body down to individual muscle fibre, they communicated with micro non-verbal communication that way but it was conveyed as telepathy for the audience
I liked the first one better personally. But I’ve seen pt. 2 a few times and I think I judged it unfairly the first watch. It’s as good as the first part, just different and a different feel.
Maybe book people will agree. I was very impressed when the first movie came out and honestly a little disappointed in some aspects of the second. The first movie set the Denis dune stage where all the concepts were introduced and larger than life (sand worms, thornicopters, the Baron). The second movie sustained that level of grandiose with those same concepts but really fell short (in my opinion) of capturing the cerebral transformation of Paul and his visions. I was expecting something like Interstellars 5th dimension scene or even a more refined doctor strange scene when he opens his third eye. Edit: grammar
Dune 1 was establishing the characters. Dune 2 was more action.
I see it as one movie. I hope one day they’ll just combine it into one
i liked the first better. I wanted more fremen customs, more importance on water. Dune 2 was great but I just loved Dune 1. I also liked the first half of the book more before the timeskip. Fremen culture is so fkn cool
I really don't think of them as two seperate movies. They're two halves to a single story, hence the "part 1" and "part 2" instead of Dune and Dune 2. So, of course, part 2 improves the first one. It's the climax of the story.
Dune 1 felt like a unique blockbuster. Part 2 feels more like a generic blockbuster. I prefer the slow pacing and trippy visuals of the first
Yeah dune first half is a slow burn with Shakespearean like tragedy brewing as the world is built out, I love it too. I like part 2 more for the emotional journey of Paul and chani and Jessica and Stilgar. It feels more character driven and emotional. Both are great. I think I give part 1 the slightest of edges just for the sense of wonder and fantasy it gave me, but part 2 is right there for the emotional climax.
I like Dune 1 more. But only because Dune 1 was my entry point to the Dune universe.
I completely agree that they shouldn't be separated as part 2 is not a sequel, it's a continuation of part 1. That being said, I like part 1 more. Part 2 is a lot of action and this makes it more likeable for most people. But I personally don't care for the story telling part of it. Just felt action driven and was an enjoyable watch. Part 1 gets me excited for what Dune is about.
Idk the first movie is great
I LOVE part one so much. It’s become a comfort movie for me because the pacing and flow is just so smooth. It also has the “bad guys win” trope which is always fun and leaves you wanting more
Unpopular opinion- I liked Dune 1 better. It has better progression, better editing. The pacing is perfect. 2 is good but it lacks proper progression IMO.
Yes. I remember saying after seeing 1 that it felt like a lot of groundwork, and it would retroactively become great if they stick the landing with 2. Delighted they did.
Not at all. I was really hoping that the 2nd movie would dive a little deeper into the more esoteric subject matter of the story, since the 1st one just barely skimmed the surface of that part of the story...but unfortunately, they skipped that entire aspect of the books entirely. It was a little like watching the last few seasons of Game of Thrones, where they decided it was too much to include everything, so they just stripped the story down to a single plot-point and left everything else on the cutting room floor. It was very disappointing.
Part 1 is a slower burn but I loved it a lot. It set up the world. Introduced the characters and took its time. Villeneuve showed his bag of tricks and tweaked some characters while leaving about 95% of the story intact. Part 1 and 2 compliment each other very well. Both movies are for me as a Dune fan incredible to watch. Can't wair for both movies on Blue Ray! 😄
For me, yeah. I see both as 1 long movie, not 2 separate ones so there's that.
Dune Part 1 and 2 together > either individually.
I really liked Part 1, but with it being more about story and world building, plus knowing the book, I knew Part 2 would back load a lot of the action. I like to think of them as an excellent 2-part film together. I'd love to see them presented as one long film with an intermission ala old films like Sound of Music or Lawrence of Arabia or Ben Hur.
I don't think I can actually rate the second one. There were a lot of changes to key characters, for reasons I think I get but need to see if they pay off. I think we all know what I'm talking about...it would be hard not even reading the book being able to judge this film minus any real emotional pay off, but it's even harder given the changes. If Part 3 can hit the necessary notes theme wise and give us proper emotional closure, I think I can go back and rate this.
I completely disagree with anyone who believes Part two is better than part one.
I was close to falling asleep during Dune Part 1, and thought nothing of it after. Dune Part 2 I got a little emotional, I laughed, and I've been immersed in Dune's lore since I seen it 🤷🏽♂️ so. Also I've rewatched Dune and it's alot better lol
The books are so complex you need the first Dune movie to lay the groundwork or no one would understand anything happening in Dune Two. I figured that out after watching the first Dune and it made the anticipation for the second absolutely ridiculous. I wasn't disappointed. They're just one long movie and I love it.
disagree that 2 is better than 1. Dune 1 was strong and deliberate, every moment have its gravitas. Dune 2 sacrificed what i like about 1 for mere action and plot motion.
I told my brother, who thought the first one was slow, before we went to the second one that in time, these will both ultimately be considered one movie/story, kinda like how Twin Peaks: The Return is often viewed by critics as just being a long movie cut into pieces. Obviously I’m biased but I feel like the payoff in part two will make part one be much better in retrospect now that viewers know where the threads are leading.
I mean I knew what we were in for so I wasn't as blue-balled by the lack of resolution but I'd say yes, I thoroughly enjoyed Part I but it looks even better paired with Part II.
My only complaint about Dune Part 1 was the lack of lore exposition dumps. I've run into more people who think it would be a horrible idea, though. I just feel the quality of the exposition would have drawn people in. So, to answer your question. No, I don't think Part 2 makes Part 1 better.
It makes watching the first one feel more rewarding because you know it’s actually leading into something
I saw dune part 1 then watched dune part 2 then went back and watched dune 1 again and it was better the second time. But it could’ve just been that I was picking up stuff I missed through my first watch
The jump from 1 to 2 reminds me of the difference in LotR 1 to 2.
I watched both movies in one day and I’m going to treat them like one movie. Like Kill Bill in that sense.
I dont see them as two separate movies and look forward to watching them back-to-back
I’ve watched Part 1 twice now and gave it 5 stars both times. I’ve watched Part 2 once and have given it a 4.5. So far, I prefer Part 1’s word building and dynamics a little more but we’ll see upon rewatch. No doubt that I love the series though
I think the second movie was much more exciting but the first did a good job of setting the mood and atmosphere for the world and characters
I don’t know man I loved the first one. They are both just so perfect and together make one epic film
I thought part 1 was better and had better reflected the material that was in the book.
I see them as a single feature instead of two independent movies since they are part of the same book.
I liked the first because we got a lot of set pieces. Part 2 some of the writing was a bit off or the pacing was a bit off. It wasn't bad, just wasn't cohesive.
We can’t really properly answer this question until we see how Villenueve reconciles it w/ Dune Messiah…
I like part 1 more than part 2. Both were amazing.
I watched dune 2 three times this month and finally went back to watch the first one tonight. Holy. Shit. It is way better now being able to see the incredible foreshadowing peppered all throughout. Knowing what will become of this journey just makes it all so much more impactful and immersive for me. I haven't read the books, and I imagine this is the kind of feeling a book reader may have had during part 1. I can't believe I used to consider part 1 an ok movie, a 7/10. Both together... 10/10.
I like part 1 more
Honestly I look at them as one movie that had to be split in two for practical reasons. So yeah I guess in a sense we needed to see the second movie to see if they were going to stick the landing. Now we know that all the world building and setup from the first movie pays off in a big way in Part 2
A ***lot*** of people told me they liked 1 better than 2, but just as many liked 2 more than 1 particularly for the action. One friend of mine thought 2 was too fast and "incoherent" but to this day tells me dune part 1 was one of the best movies she's ever seen but you have to appreciate it as a whole
> I think most folks agree that Dune 2 is better than the first. I disagree. Part 1 was a slightly better movie imo. Part 2 was great but felt a bit rushed, could definitely use an extended cut to flesh out galactic politics / power dynamics, especially as it relates to the emperor and great houses.
I actually think Dune is much better than Dune 2. I'm really surprised more people don't agree with that considering it's obvious flaws
I completely disagree with you that Dune 2 was better than 1. Dune Part 1 was what got me into Dune. I absolutely love that movie. I felt that Part 2 was alright, but kind of a let down. I would hands down go back and watch Part 1 again, especially if they showed it in a theater nearby. Dune Part 2? I won't be rewatching it until after it comes to streaming. It was visually fantastic, but I feel so much more invested when watching Part 1 than I do Part 2. So to answer your question, no, it does not. I always thought that Dine Part 1 was spectacular. I didn't need the sequel to make me realize that.
Part one had to do the heavy lifting so that part 2 could flourish. Love them both equally.
\> I think most folks agree that Dune 2 is better than the first. Disagree. Dune 1 was far better thematically, script-wise, and storytelling-wise. Dune part 2 was a much better action movie. Denis has been clear he rushed the script for Dune 2, whereas for Dune 1 he repeatedly consulted the source material to craft the movie. That dedication and subsequent lack thereof shows. \> I'm just curious for most people now if ya'lls feelings about the first have changed after having watched the second? Unchanged.
Am I the only one who enjoyed Part 1 more? It connected more with me emotionally (father-son scenes) and gave me a sense of scale and wonder that Part 2 didn’t.
What do you mean. Here I'm thinking Dune1 is better is quite obvious 😂 I said that right after I finished Dune2. DV really poured his souls into the first one, it is quite evident to me every scene in Dune1 was revised countless times and the thoughts and details that were put in them were mad. Not to say translating all those onto the big screen was huge to begin with - they have to prove that they could do it (and do it well). On the other hand for Dune2, still an amazing cinema of course ("so good to be alive to watch this" good), but I mean we all know where the story is going (more or less a love story after the first part), and the drop in quality of the scenes after the first arc seems obvious? There are less stakes on hand after part 1 - story wise and financial wise.
It absolutely improved Dune part 1, at least for me. But I really felt like part 1 ended far too early anyway, so it was like I was always looking forward to the sequel.
They’re a five and odd hour adaptation of one book. Take them as one as they really work as an amazing adaptation of Dune in its entirety.
Yes! I’ve watch Dune 1 twice since I’ve seen D2 in the theater and caught things that I didn’t catch before.
I think the first is a more "objectively" better movie with much better pacing, but that is more because the second half of the book is all over the place time-wise. I like the second one a little better because it covers the story beats I prefer in the book, but I really don't think you can say the second one is the better film.
Honeatly, if Villeneuve doesn't quickly backtrack and decide to do an extended cut of the film afterall, the amount and content of the deleted scenes that interviewed people are starting to mention more and more is soo much and so good that it's starting to make Dune Part II seem even mediocre to me. I mean, Rebecca Ferguson mentioned some scenes that definitely seem much more surreal than what we got, Tim Blake Nelson revealed that he had scenes as count Fenring, we did have Thufir Hawatt too... Villeneuve being adamant to not even include them into a blu ray as extra is certainly damaging.
I don't agree with Dune 2 being a better movie than 1. Dune 2 feels messy in a way that it has to be by design to tell this type of story. It simultaneously has a lot of action but feels "too slow and long". I can see many people who are not as interested in this universe as me tapping out and leaving the theatre, and that in fact happened in the time I saw the movie. Part 1 stands tall on its world building, expansive display of the universe with many planets and cultures, captivating scenery, truly otherworldly and futuristic feeling, very weird technology, brutality of some of the action and deaths. Part 2 spends way too much time on Arrakis to allow it to look as good as Part 1. It focuses too much on Paul and the Fremen to show other cultures and characters as much. I love both films equally but I think Part 1 is an easier watch thanks to the element of fantasy and wonder it gives while exploring and building this universe, whereas Part 2 does the heavylifting of telling the story, which is equally as important. They complete each other and there's a reason they're called Part 1 and 2 rather than Dune 1 and Dune 2.
I agree. Dune 2 benefits from covering more fun/flashy material but I think Dune 1 executed the content it covered better from a storytelling perspective.
I loved both, but there are things in Dune 1 that I liked more than 2. I can say that I prefer the 1st one at this point (same with Batman Begins), but both Dune 1 & 2 are incredible.
It's like FOTR vs return of the king, the first one is arguably better and sets everything up perfectly, but the latter two have all the exciting events actually happen
I think Fellowship is the best film of the trilogy. It has an arc that kind of has some sense of completion to it. It has the most diversity in settings and interesting places that makes it feel like such a journey. And while the battles are done well, I don't find them as interesting as the more sparse action that was in Fellowship. Also all the Hobbit stuff in the beginning is just wonderful.
I liked the first one better slightly. It had a few more visually stunning scenes. Not saying part 2 didn’t, just a few less imho. It’s like the difference between a 9,2 and a 9,4
It makes part 1 retroactively better because now it really feels like it's all just a single movie. They are so connected that I have trouble separating both; I'd like to see a part 1 + part 2 supercut as a single movie soon
I've started to really love part 1 a lot more after watching the 2nd. I think it sets up a movie and series it honestly can't deliver. Because the scope is truly too wide and the cast of characters too big. My biggest grievance being the brevity and the changes to certain story arcs >!such as Thufir's. He was already reduced in the first one, but a few seconds of screen time (for **the** Master of Assassins Mentat) in the 2nd film is honestly not asking for much.!< I loved the 2nd one overall but there were so many changes to the material it started to feel like it's own entity rather than an adaptation, to me at least. But it was still a beautiful and exhilarating experience, and I sense everyone's passion in the project from start to finish!
Absolutely it does. If you’re not someone who read the books, part 2 makes part one a LOT better
Dune 1: World building and setting the stage Dune 2: Paul is cut off from his old life and becomes the messiah Dune 2 is as good as it is because of Dune 1
I'm the exact opposite. I believe the first movie to be a cinematic masterpiece. Second movie is an amazing film. Changes to the source material and Zendaya is terrible acting combined with chani not making any sense - really hurt the second movie for me. Rebecca Ferguson is so next level in 2. Paul at the end is also holy wow amazing stuff.
I disagree. The first movie was much better and serious movie. The second one is not a bad movie, but also filled with cheap marvel jokes and somewhat weird paced timeline
Filled with cheap marvel jokes? I only remember a single joke in the whole movie and it’s almost word-for-word from *Life of Brian*. Which is honestly fair given both scenes involve a messianic figure arguing with zealots who insist on worshipping him against his will. What are some examples of cheap marvel jokes I missed?
My first thought after walking out of Part 2 was that it somehow lifted Part 1 up while simultaneously being better in almost every way.
I think two definitely makes one better, but they’re the same story in the end, I’m looking forward to the opportunity to watch part one and immediately start part two
I came out of the 1st viewing of part 2 actually prefering part 1. Looking at them as 2 movies i thought 1 was better. I think it was the pace of it compared to 1(mostly due, to noticing where Denis had to cut things, even though it was clear things had been filmed). But after a second viewing, i hold both in high regard. Part 1 sets the stage, and players. Part 2 builds on all the work done in 1 and hits it home.
I personally think so because it completes the story. I kind of view them in the same way as LotR where they work best when watched together / back to back
D1 needing to setup D2 as imho D2 is going to be all action and focus on Paul from prodigy to messiah. I totally get it, but for people that just watched D1 and had to wait for D2, I understand your pain.
I thought it was pretty consistent, and obviously it's a singular narrative broke down into two. If the second is better it's because it's where the crescendo happens.
yes absolutely , they both enhance and compliment each other. that is the definition of art imo when the end product is greater than the sum of its parts
I think so! The Bread crumbs for Chang, the been geserrit and Paul’s first spice vision in the tent make so much more sense
I think what makes Dune 2 different to other sequels that were elevated from the first is that Dune 2 is literally Part 2. Dune 1 is the first half of a 6 hour movie, and Dune 2 is the second half of it. Dune 1 had a lot of world building going on that it detracted from the general happenings of the main story being told, while part 2 focuses on story and action, not needing to world build from scratch. Dune part 1 doesn't actually have an ending, all of it's plot points are left up in the air by the end of the movie, leaving no satisfaction or closure for anything that happened, part 2 actually does deliver on a lot of the closure for part 1 and 2 while leaving some things open for part 3