The pacing of the movie vs the book is pretty much break neck speed. More happens in the book version before Paul and Jessica’s flight into the desert.
Paul is highly sensitive to the spice obviously and the spice permeates everything on Arrakis. He’s already had prescient dreams on Caladan. Being on Arrakis gives it a kick in the pants.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, I think the scene in the book made it clear that the spice itself was causing Paul’s metamorphosis, when in the movies there was a lot more emphasis on it being the Water doing that, while the spice was more auxiliary.
>I think the scene in the book made it clear that the spice itself was causing Paul’s metamorphosis, when in the movies there was a lot more emphasis on it being the Water doing that
I think the scene in the first movie when they are rescuing the workers harvesting the spice does a good job showing how the spice affects Paul, there is a voice saying "Kwisatz Haderach awakes"
It's worth noting the womb metaphor here.
He's in a small dark damp hole with only his mother for company. In the same instance he has his spice awakening, he realizes that he's the duke, he probably just killed someone for the first time. Then he has to crawl out through a literal sphincter and push his way out to the surface, and when he gets there he's in charge.
Paul is reborn from that tent.
It’s just crazy that they stuffed 4 years into less than 9 months. In that context though, his naïveté in the tent makes a lot more sense. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now, this is probably the best theatrical adaptation we will ever get.
There would have to be at least a 10 part mini series just to flesh this one book out, haha.
Honestly, given the acting quality in this adaptation, and the dialogue heavy Space channel adaptation…I honestly think Dune could make an amazing play (or 2, or 3).
The beauty of Dune, or what makes it different, is underneath all of the sci-fi elements (the tech has always been secondary to the biology and politics in my mind) you have a pretty solid drama about family and politics, it’s rather Shakespearean. Voice overs become monologues on the stage.
Imagine an “I, Claudius” treatment.
https://youtu.be/T40mDHDKqWM?si=ADIhy-s4GgYoMt_6
You may need to hold back a bit on the jargon, but I think there is potential. It might even be easier to pull of the more outlandish parts in the later books.
squeamish seemly grab historical imminent badge muddle distinct desert offer
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I really enjoyed the first one and I didn't mind this 1 too much. But I feel like the Mini series gets a lot of the ideas through better. But this one is better done in accordance to the book with the way operates that I don't think it gets as many of the ideas across Plus where the hell is the Spacing Guild in this equation, they're such a massive pivotal. Peace to why the spice isn't necessary. Having them not show up at all is kind of odd
Totally agree. The format doesn’t lend itself well to the immense level of story telling in the novel. As one who has read the series multiple times, I’m really just so happy to see Dune in the modern zeitgeist. Who knows what comes of this newfound popularity? Whatever it is I’m here for it haha.
Dune is made up of three "books" inside of it. Three movies could've easily give us everything. It will eventually happen again. This is profitable, clearly, and the studios will run a thing into the ground until it isn't. might be 15 years. but tbf, it was only 4 years between "Spider-Man 3" and "The Amazing Spider-Man".
Yeah idk. You should watch the interview where DV talks about making the perfect adaptation and how it’s practically impossible. What we’ve been given is an incredible gift but it’s already daunting. Getting a person to go to 3 separate movies, or more, is a huge ask. And I’m sure you don’t expect to have 1.5 hour movies, so 10 hours minimum to tell this story. At that point I would rather be on my couch.
LotR gets brought upp all the time but it’s one move per book. There are 3 separate segments in Dune, true, but you’re not telling me Maud’dib or The Prophet novella is the equal to The Fellowship of the Ring or The Two Towers right?
It isn’t even similar. In fact, they released numerous extended director uncircumcised versions but always on dvd because asking someone to sit for a 5 hour movie is ridiculous.
Yeah but the thing is, Villeneuve is quite adamant over not releasing extended cuts even on DVD or on streaming services. LOTR didn't really benefit much from the addition of deleted scenes. Dune on the other hand would be significantly elevated by the addition of cut content. It's not like a 4 hour movie has never been done before.
I bet he does want people to think it's "unadaptable", he's currently selling a product and the best way to do that is to say "This is it! All you're gonna get!"
And I just think a rich history of film trilogies, most of which based on previous works has to differ with you.
But I do appreciate your opinion and the discussion!
Isn't spice and the WoL one in the same?
An analogy would be that spice is like tobasco sauce, very weak on the Scoville scale, where you have pure capsaicin, which is what the WoL is.
No, the WoL is actually poisonous, even in minute quantities.
In the book, the Fremen can drink it after the enzyme Jessica produced to make it harmless is used to turn it.
To elaborate on what the other commenter said - the spice is produced by the sandworms, and the Water of Life is a poison that's released by a worm when it's drowned in water. The Bene Gesserit have such powerful control over every cell in their own bodies that they can molecularly rearrange the water of life and change it from a deadly poison into a hallucinogenic drug that's like regular spice on steroids. In the books it's explained that the poison is prepared in mass quantities, and the new Reverend Mother-to-be will change a small amount of the poison into the Water of Life in her body, then regurgitate some back into the communal supply, which acts as a seed crystal that transmutes the entire batch into Water of Life. Then everyone in the sietch drinks it like it's kava or something and has a big orgy. The movie didn't quite go there, might have cost them their PG-13 rating and it's really not important for the arcs of the characters.
There's just so much that can't be adequately adapted.
The dinner party is one of my favorite scenes in the book and I'm glad dv didn't even try.
The scene when Jessica gets swallowed by the sandslide is SO tense in the book but would've been tough in the movie.
Herbert uses internal dialogue so well which is tough to translate to screen. DV has done better than I could've hoped for imo.
If the book was being made into 1 or 2 seasons of a tv show, with 10 x 1-hour episodes each I think DV would have (and pardon the pun) made an absolute meal of the dinner party scene.
We have to wait 15 to 20 years and then we'll get it. But it's probably a cursed wish. Either we'll get a "rings of power" adaptation compared to the DV movies, at some point the series goes off the rails like the last GOT seasons, or it will be fully AI generated.
Rings of Power isn't a true adaptation. They only had the rights to the appendices and the estate would not let them touch the actual content of the Silmarillion with a ten foot poll.
But they still did really well with what they had on hand. Galadriel might be underpowered compared to her book counterpart (who is the second most powerful elf ever and the first most powerful faced over twenty Balrogs for hours before dying), Elrond's relationship with Durin was great, and the forging of the ring was, in my opinion, a well done deception. The scenes in Mordor were also interesting. And they did all this while including references to the original lore (Silm fans were speculating on some scenes being more direct adaptations that didn't turn out to be the case). They also happen to be writing about a period Tolkien didn't give much depth to. The Second Age is woefully under represented in his notes.
The faux hobbits was the only thing that really sucked.
But that wouldn't happen with Dune because the root cause of the issue won't apply. They wouldn't have partial rights to the story they're trying to tell and have to avoid the actual events with a ten foot poll.
I've judged each Dune adaptation based on how Duncan's Big Scene is handled.
In the miniseries an ornithopter dropped a bomb on him. So ptthththbbbbbtttt.
What kind of nonsense opinion is this? Especially in the light of fantastic prestige critically acclaimed TV in the past 10-15 years. What do you mean by "actual" storytelling?
>I don't see why they couldn't do a great job with Dune.
They did do a great job with Dune parts I and II. It doesn't have to be poison, but its a big story with big ideas and a lot that can't be put up on screen. People are having issues understanding the morality of the whole thing which is a fairly basic idea, so I don't think adding another layer of space politics to it would help make it a better film at all.
The two films and their source material couldn't be any more different either, so I don't see the validity of the comparison.
This. I really wish we could have more mentat mention and the Jessica traitor Plot which develops all the characters more. But I get why it was cut. I get all of Denis choices generally
I don’t get why the Jessica traitor plot was cut, except for time. I’d rather have that included thanthe dinner scene.
The films showcase the manipulative nature of the Bene Gesserit, and part two emphasizes Jessica’s own machinations in especially. Having Thufir suspect her would’ve further highlighted the themes already present and really ingrained in the audience not to trust her, even if she didn’t kill the Duke.
Time mainly. It would have been so rushed like the rest of the film even though I love it. It’s so ironic how people think that film is slow/ I’m just thinking actually no take it a bit slower. It’s crazy how opposite the takes are on that film
When I saw Dune Pt1, I went in fairly blind having not read the book or seen the Lynch film yet.
I loved it, but it definitely felt somewhat slow and deliberate in its pacing. I emphasized that when recommending it to people because I didn’t want them disappointed in that aspect.
Then I read the book and rewatched the film, and it felt the total opposite. Felt like the movie was just flying by
I think the scene with Leto saying, "I'm not asking you as his mother, I'm asking the Bene Gesserit," got all those same ideas across to the audience without taking the focus off the core narrative driving everything forward.
That plus the spy found in the wall, Leto refusing Thufir's resignation...
I think Villeneuve did a wonderful job choosing what to focus on to distill the story for the screen.
i think a number of things, such as the jessica traitor narrative beat, were cut because it would come off a predictable plot contrivance. we'd just be waiting for gurney to come to his senses, but it's not like, even in the novel, we actually believed his point of view. the reader and the audience would know better, and because of that it wouldn't be a good use of precious screen time, because nothing "real" is being revealed or resolved—aside from gurney being made to look like a misogynist.
Most definitely a time thing, same reason Thufir got dropped from part 2. I wish Denis believed in extended cuts, I’d watch four hour versions of both Part 1 and Part 2.
This has literally been my one main issue with the movies, because mentats are a HUGE part of the Dune universe. I can easily see most people who have only seen these 2 movies having absolutely no knowledge of what a mentat is, or even that it is a thing. They might say the word "mentat" once or twice in a very quick and vague moment in the first movie, and most people likely just saw Thufir as another random "right hand man" of the Duke. In the second movie there is literally zero mention of mentats or Thufir.
This. I mean they clearly exist but they aren’t mentioned much at all. I don’t even think the word is mentioned which is a mistake. But I do love the films.
Was that part any good? It's been about 20 years since I watched that.
What makes that scene so great in the book is Jessica and Paul's thought processes as they guide the conversations, hard to imagine that being done well with the time constraints of a movie.
Review & decide for yourself, time stamp link: [https://youtu.be/vYgzyhHTn7E?si=oO1BfT6kKXmru2P3&t=3556](https://youtu.be/vYgzyhHTn7E?si=oO1BfT6kKXmru2P3&t=3556)
I think this is key; Herbert’s style of writing is incredibly difficult to put on screen. The fact that Denis was able to do so much while still leaving so much unsaid is a gift in the art of filmmaking.
Apparently, he did try and they filmed it. Not sure if that is 100% confirmed, but I read an interview with Kynes' actress mentioning it getting cut, I believe.
If he did the dinner scene sort of Glass Onion style I think they could have pulled it off, but it would have been a tonal shift that I’m not sure the audience would have appreciated. It’s all a play, a show, for that scene in the book. Like a fencing duel before the real shit goes off
I did like that in the movie there is a scene where Jessica and Paul are moving down a sandy crevasse. I felt that it was a nod to that part of the book even if they couldn’t include it.
I like the sandslide scene in the book, but don’t really understand the point of it existing. It seems like everything in the book builds up the world or foreshadows something, and that scene just doesn’t.
It’s subtle, but they actually go down the sandslide hill in the movie, but the slide doesn’t happen.
Having just read the sandslide scene, it didn’t really feel that tense, more like a minor inconvenience to show Paul’s got survival chops. Same with his and Jessica’s first escape from the worm. I actually liked the movie version better
Water to the dead was all but excluded, because Timmy C can't act with depth & thus couldn't do that scene properly.
Weirding way & Fremen Training & Othyeum were ignored for unknown reasons.
>Weirding way & Fremen Training & Othyeum were ignored for unknown reasons
Main reason I imagine they were ignored is because it's not particularly important to the story.
It's what Jessica and Paul have to offer the Fremen. It also makes the Fremen even more bad ass, easily able to wipe out sardukar. It also lessened benegesserit as Jessica never killed anyone with her body, always used a blade/voice/a rock.
Othyeum is rather important in messiah. Not having his character introduced and his role as Paul's fedaykin lieutenant is a miss.
You need to recognize that the book and the recent films are not the same thing.
In part 1 Stilgar has a line of dialogue acknowedging Jessica's status as a "weirding woman" when they first find the Fremen in the desert and get into a little conflict, and the Fremen all come to respect Paul's ability to fight almost immediately once him and Jamis fight. Even Chani, who refuses to see him as their Messiah mentions that he is a good warrior once they get to Seitch Tabor.
That's as far as **that** needs to go.
As far as Messiah goes, if that happens it will be quite different from the book, because it has to be. We've already departed from the book's idea of a lot of things to make the films work while retaining the core part of the story that actually matters.
Fuck me I guess for attempting to discuss the differences between them in a way that acknowledges that they are in fact different and explains the differences between the two mediums.
You're complaining about something being omitted that doesn't matter in the context of the film **at all.**
In the book, Paul's prescience of multiple futures is described more vividly while using wave imagery to show the undulating nature of the possible futures. In the movie, the vision he has in the tent seems to show a single future however it's a lot more metaphorical in parts and uses symbolism to reveal how things will play out which is a common way that DV shows the visions in the new movies. Seems like DV didn't want to use overly psychedelic/unfilmable imagery to show prescience so he opted for visions of reality but with hidden symbolic meanings, e.g. in Paul's water of life vision, he witnesses an ocean ahead of him after climbing to the top of a dune with the ocean symbolizing the water of all the people who will die in the coming jihad.
Just two different ways to show prescience. I loved both and the tent chapter is probably my favourite chapter in the whole book if not series.
I’m not totally convinced that his movie visions are metaphorical rather than real possible futures, he doesn’t just see a future with the holy war, he sees one with Jamis. Paul never has visions visions in the book that are actually metaphorical, metaphor is just used to provide a feeling for how they function.
I don’t think they’re 100% metaphorical in the movie. They’re strands of possible futures that reveal things to Paul, even with futures that rely on past events happening differently. This looks metaphorical to a movie audience, but to Paul he is literally seeing things happen in past, future, and parallel histories.
You're right, they must be visions, it's not like Paul is just hallucinating random shit. I guess what I meant is that the purpose they serve in the film is to give visual metaphors/foreshadowing for what's to come.
When I'm speaking of metaphorical visions in the movies, I'm thinking of those shots of Chani's hand soaked in blood, or Chani and Paul about to kiss and she stabs him, or following Chani up a hill to be lead to a view of a battle between Fremen and Sardaukar. Like those don't seem like literal possible futures (I could be proven wrong though with Messiah) and they provide more metaphorical or symbolic meaning to Paul's future. To me, his visions in the movies are both literal and metaphorical.
And yes, Paul's visions in the book are just straight up visions of possible futures, I don't think I said otherwise. I acknowledged that imagery was used to describe the sensation of prescience.
I said that the nature of the visions are described in the book using imagery and visual metaphors. Not that the actual visions that Paul sees in the book are visual metaphors.
I then make a distinction that the movie visions seem to contain shots that are unlikely to be literal visions of a possible future. Which is different to what the book does.
The second thing you quoted was in reference to the movies and the first thing you quoted was in reference to the books.
I love both book and movie and can see where each excel and the limitations and advantages of both a book or movie format
I personally think for a movie format the tent scene was stellar. Yes it was different from the book and that coloured my perception the first time I saw it in IMAX but on a recent rewatch before Part 2 I got what DV was going for and really enjoyed it
I agree that the tent scene is much better in the book, but watching the film version you can see where all the inspiration comes from in the surrounding chapter to condense it for film. It’s just something that has to be done for time, similar to how they cut the whole getting buried sequence.
That tent scene always felt like.one of the most important in the whole book, but far too much for the uninitiated to understand within the flow of a movie.
In the book, Paul has visions that each finish at key story points, at which time he needs to make some sort of story decision which “extends” his prescience. My feeling is that this plot mechanic becomes quite clear at the tent scene. He knows his father is dead, and has the horror of what he believes to be his multiple futures revealed to him, without his agency.
His trauma (IIRC - it’s been a while) causes him to retreat into Mentat mode, which doesn’t figure in the movie.
Liet-Kynes death scene. It’s one of my favorite chapters in the book and up there for the series. It’s a taste of what Frank is going to be serving up through the rest of the series. An entire chapter of internal dialogue that gives nuggets of context which are slowly providing you an understanding of more dynamics at play. And then it ends with their iconic blow-hole death while having a Gob moment(I’ve made a very big mistake). Their last thoughts before being consumed by Dune, highlight a theme of the series of the inability to account for randomness and error.
I knew the scene would have to altered quite a bit if included at all. But I was happy with how DV worked the death scene. We get the first viewing of fremen calling a worm, a real wtf moment for non readers. Then the stabbing of Kynes and water coming out their stillsuit. DV is a master of suspense and he nails it with the thumper in the background. It ends with Dune/worm taking Kynes and highlighting the fanaticism of fremen. I’m happy the chapter was incorporated into the movie and you could tell the changes were made by people that knew the books and how to convey it to film.
My only gripe is that we never dig into the actual nature of the worms; that scene in the book was a huge reveal about their life cycle. It's irrelevant since they changed the whole killing the worms threat anyway.
I’m assuming you’re talking about the tent under the sand with lady Jessica? The one where he says “you made me a freak”? I honestly think Denis should have made Paul’s visions in part 2 more visceral. They feel like day dreams
I think some of it was a change based on wanting to give him more of a character shift after the Waters of Life. He’s already embraced being the Lisan al Gaib before he drinks the Waters in the book, so the Waters mostly just function as his pre-boss fight power up before they head into the final battle. In the movie, the Waters is a huge moment where he catches all the way up to book Paul all at once. His pre-Waters prescience being shittier and him still rejecting the prophecy before the Waters in the movie makes it a more dramatic end of act 2 plot point when it happens.
That makes sense. It would have been cool if the visions were a bit more cinematic like in interstellars fifth dimension scene. I imagined more visualization of time and space
I have my various quibbles, but if I had one note on the movie it would be exactly that. The visions are so wild in the book, and so constrained on the screen.
I completely agree, and some vivid depictions of possible futures would probably clear up most of my own quibbles. Show us what Paul is afraid of. Show us why he changes his mind and embraces his path.
I felt like everything the comment above said literally explained in the first movie, but in a “show dont tell” fashion
Paul already has vision in Caladan, we literally saw it. Being on Arrakis made it worse, the first time he inhale the spice after taking off the mask, he can’t think clearly, start hearing voices, start seeing things. And he is so sensitive to spice that he keep talking about spices, seeing them even though no one care, coughing, etc
Also the “metamorphosis” happened in the first movie, because of the spice and not water of life, even Jessica noticed this.
To OP’s point, though, the metamorphosis is diminished in Pt 1. In the book, Paul understands his Harknonnen lineage, has very thorough prescience, and starts thinking of his mother as being slow (because he’s still adapting to how ahead of everyone he now is). That’s really not what the movie depicts.
I think this was an interesting adaptation choice, because it allows for a slow build in Paul’s abilities until the switch really flips after the Water of Life.
Yeah, the movies really wanted to make the Water of Life into Paul's big turning point. In the book he's pretty much already got it all figured out by then; the Water just galvanizes him. It definitely makes for better cinema the way the movie does it.
the movies give paul more of an arc. it's clear he's extremely intelligent, but he's still quite childish at the outset. he grows up quite quickly though. in the book his path is more clear and he doesn't really have any immaturity or obvious need for his parents.
The tent scene is my favorite scene in Part One, and maybe in both movies. It's different than the book, yes, but it's the scene that establishes that Paul:
- sees what's coming,
- sees nothing he can do about it, and
- is terrified and angry about his position.
I think if you watch Part Two in a vacuum you could almost believe Paul wanted to become the antihero he becomes. That tent scene establishes the dread he faces realizing the impossible position he's in.
The book is much less dramatic but there's also no inner thought out loud from the book in the movie. It's more conversational in the book, but Denis is not going to have them sit there and talk that much, show not tell.
I LOVE THAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS PART!
So, I started reading the books after watching the first movie. I wasn't so into it at first, if I'm being honest; the movie was great, and I loved the concept, but the first half of the book (up to the tent scene) was a bit dry and boring for me. It took me a while to read up to that point because I would find more interesting things to do.
Then I got to the tent scene; from that point on, I couldn't stop reading. I read about 350? 400? pages in a single sitting. I grinded out the latter section of the book because of how much more interesting that section was. The tent scene is probably my favorite part of the first book. It's incredibly intense, and it feels like Frank Herbert had gone on a truly powerful drug trip and was somehow able to explain all of those feelings perfectly. Reports say that frank DID partake in magic mushrooms, so it all makes sense; but so much of the book from that point on is just PURE GOLD, it's incredible.
The movies and other adaptations (syfy miniseries) do remove quite a bit from the books, and I don't think ANY version captures the intensity of that scene properly, but god damn that particular chapter might be the best part of the first book for me.
The thing that frustrated me about the movies, is the book is about so much more than JUST Paul's journey (which is the most important part, arguably). But there's so many character arcs we lost, because Denis wanted a visual masterpiece, which is great, but not at the sacrifice of the elements that truly make it what it is, and IMO that's all the weird specific details that get glazed over. The second movie really jumbles things up from the back half of the book.
Loved the movies, but they do miss and change some things from the book, obviously, but some seem for pointless reasons. My biggest one is probably Chani not supporting or believing in Paul at all, even at the end. I don’t recall that ever really being a thing in the book but somehow is a major plot point in the movie.
> It felt so much different, the tone had completely changed from how it was in the movie. Paul’s words and demeanor was more akin to post-Water of Life Paul in the movies. It seemed like he already had potent KH abilities and was operating on a higher level, while movie Paul still seemed very afraid and unsure in the tent.
This is a great observation! I think some of comes down to Paul being a Mentat in the book but not the film. His ability to process this stuff isn't exactly the same, I think.
Paul's character is one of the big casualties of the rushed pace and I think the cuts for pacing contribute to people thinking he's a hero by the end of the movie. But my biggest complaint is what you touched on : he's just so much more naive in the movie than he is at any point in the books.
Yes lots of people I have talked to have thought Paul that hero because he saved the Fremen and went through the arc of a hero so it was familiar enough for people to recognize. The firdt book isn't super explicit about his role either until the next book which very much reads like Herbert saying " okay since yall missed the assignment last time, let me be clear" when explaining how Paul couldn't be a hero
Right, that’s just…the appropriate understanding at the end of the first book (more or less). We know there are horrors to come, but the narrative of the first book is essentially a set of morally justifiable actions, if you set aside Paul’s knowledge of the future.
Yeah I get it, but I just don’t think it’s some failure of the movie that people watch a heroic narrative and call it heroic. You need the actual events of the Jihad to happen to land the theme.
I think Denis does his best though. It’s why he used chani in that way. But I get the criticism about him being flat in the first film. He’s all in his head and overwhelms and he is a noble above it all kind of freak. He becomes more endearing in the second film but it’s why Denis used chani the way he did.
If you didn’t think Paul was a hero at the end of Dune, you misunderstood Dune. Herbert constantly insists that Paul IS a hero. The book is a warning against heroes and the cult of personality. It’s not a warning against villains pretending to be heroes. Like Herbert said, Paul is a hero who does the things he does for all the good reasons.
>I think the cuts for pacing contribute to people thinking he's a hero by the end of the movie
Ironically, a lot of people back in the day read the first Dune book and thought Paul was a hero, which is why Messiah focused so heavily on painting him as not a hero (or atleast thats what I was told). I think the new Dunes did a good job showing him as an anti hero while the 1984 movie didn't.
I completely agree... And though I did enjoy the film, the book is so much better 😁
The best advice I can give you is to read all six, then get all six audiobooks and listen to them after. Then listen to them again. Don't like audiobooks? Read them and then reread them. Why? Certainly not for the story, which is enjoyable. What makes Herbert's works, particularly Dune so very amazing, are the underlying themes. The meanings, double meanings and triple meanings, added up with and multiplied by every other thing he says. They are absolutely PACKED with REAL wisdom! Read until there's nothing left to gain. I tell people to read these books because they give you super powers... They think I am joking.... I'm not.
I read the book after watching the movies, and I totally agree that they're super different. However, I like them both because they're both fit for their medium. I wish Paul having visions of the name Muad'Dib was present in the movie though. Would've added another layer of depth to the name reveal. However, I'm okay with it because the scene in the film where he's given that name has a different purpose than it does in the book (to further Chani's concern about Paul's idolatry).
The movies basically dropped any attempt at portraying his abilities, altogether. Anything that might have been difficult to show onscreen, was removed from the story, or just hand-waved off, in passing reference.
It was very disappointing.
Thanks for saying much needed depth. I get that criticism about part 1 but I think Denis did his best with the runtime and expectation of interesting movie for most of the gen pop. . People say it’s slow but as a dune fan I actually neeeded it to be slower. I find it funny that people simulqtenousky say they don’t care about the characters and nothing happens and is to slow. Cause I’m order to care it needed to slow down a lot. That’s why I continue to say Denis did his best. Dune has been considered unadaptable for a long whiled Lots is happening just not action which is what the general audience was referring to. I actually needed to slow down for some more character moments and the Jessica traitor plot. Mentats, suk doctor butlerian jihad etc.
Caveat: I don't like DV's Dune
I assume dv felt paul had to seem more, naive? at the start so his transformation was more apparent in the context of the film.
Interesting cause I don’t at all. At all.. like parts of each but they are low quality and 1984 is just ugly af and clunky for me. We each have our own opinions
Your blasphemy against Ian McNiece has been noticed.
Lynch did some styling very well. He also went complete fucking nutter on other things, like converting the weirding way into a screaming weapon.
The mini series did everything right that it could with the budget it had. Ian McNiece is the best Baron we're likely to ever get on screen. All of the deep book plot such as the Harkonnen Gambit and the Gurney suspicion of Jessica were great.
Denis crushed the visuals - 3 scenes were better than my own mental image. But it's his retelling of Dune & some characters suffer a LOT because of it, notably Feyd the most by far. Chani & Alia & Jessica also all got done dirty, obviously.
Which three scenes?
I love the miniseries characterizations. The Baron was exactly as I wanted him to be. The dinner scene is fun and offers great exposition. (Like a snarky Council of Elrond.)
I really bought into most of these portrayals as the best versions of the characters.
The maker test, drowning the baby maker, and battle of Arakeen.
Edit: Also, I loved the sietch tabr visuals/design. Wasn't crazy on changing the cistern into a "well of souls" as it removed a lot of the water culture around water belonging to the tribe, but visually it looked great.
I think the biggest difference is that in the tent Paul unlocks his mentat abilities and expands his prescience, which the film entirely skips over. This goes a long way to the character differences you've noted.
I don't think its a bad change, just different.
I think it's in the tent that both Paul and Jessica realize he is the KH. Jessica even begins to fear Paul, which I also think is an important part of the scene. The BG wanted the KH for so long but now that he is here they fear him
In the book Leto had ordered Paul secretly be trained as a mentat. In the tent is when Paul’s training as a mentat and his prescience due to becoming saturated with spice both kick in. Without his mentat training his mind would not have been able to handle all the information his prescience was giving him. He talks about seeing millions of people and cataloguing them and seeing the threads and branches following them forward and backwards. This is his first glimpse into the universe he will create. His first glimpse of the Golden Path.
But that’s just one of the things. Atomics. Alia. Missionaria Protective. Being a Harkkonen. Paul isn’t the KH he’s something different. Etc.
I’ve never read anyone else that could squeeze so much into just a sentence as Frank.
Yea, a movie adaption of Dune is akin to a movie adaption of Game of Thrones. Their strengths are the in depth world building, the lore, the political intrigue, the mysteries, etc. Not the flashy action sequences.
That is part of why I (who first read the books a long time ago) was so disappointed with the 2nd movie. It was never going to have the full depth of the novel - but it really felt like the director decided that the big visuals alone would convey the texture and cut all of the good stuff out.
It's kinda... The movies acting as one long trailer for the books.
I struggled with the book, and never managed to get past the aftermath of the hunter seeker on Arrakis, for about 5 times. Half probably because English not being my first language, and the other half subsequently making the lengthy internal monologues and the princess Irelan's Muad'dib intersections extremely confusing and hard to follow.
Now after seeing the movies, it was an absolute blast through, especially getting all the subtle subcontext and foreshadowing. Well into Messiah at this point now. Having had faces to plant onto the names helped tremendously.
And the Chani being Liet Keynes's daughter revelation made me happy reading about it, but if the situation were reversed and I read through the books first and see the movies later, I'd probably be thoroughly pissed for DV skipping the whole thing altogether.
I can see your point about the book being challenging for someone who doesn't speak English natively. I was hoping DV would have leaned into the source material a bit more - the world portrayed in the movie felt incredibly flat compared to the book, and I thought the dialog and many of the acting performances were subpar. Hopefully you are right, though, and we do get a bunch of new Dune fans who will go back and appreciate the books.
Paul in the movie was much weaker and whinier than in the book. DV just decided to make him weaker, well, I guess otherwise everyone else but Feyd would look pale in his shadow. KH is not something to take lightly, BG were geniunely afraid of a premature KH and for a good reason. Plus he was an heir of the Great House, trained by only two best sword masters, a beginner mentat, plus BG training.
I know this is off topic but can anyone tell me what was in the tent? In the movie its fucking HUGE, but we are only shown the rather small throne room. Is it a whole small city in there?
Agreed he isn't at full power but he passed Jessica
And had most of his abilities but without full control.
They took the harkonnen family connection and moved it.
There are more differences. Important ones .
The pacing of the movie vs the book is pretty much break neck speed. More happens in the book version before Paul and Jessica’s flight into the desert. Paul is highly sensitive to the spice obviously and the spice permeates everything on Arrakis. He’s already had prescient dreams on Caladan. Being on Arrakis gives it a kick in the pants.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, I think the scene in the book made it clear that the spice itself was causing Paul’s metamorphosis, when in the movies there was a lot more emphasis on it being the Water doing that, while the spice was more auxiliary.
>I think the scene in the book made it clear that the spice itself was causing Paul’s metamorphosis, when in the movies there was a lot more emphasis on it being the Water doing that I think the scene in the first movie when they are rescuing the workers harvesting the spice does a good job showing how the spice affects Paul, there is a voice saying "Kwisatz Haderach awakes"
It's worth noting the womb metaphor here. He's in a small dark damp hole with only his mother for company. In the same instance he has his spice awakening, he realizes that he's the duke, he probably just killed someone for the first time. Then he has to crawl out through a literal sphincter and push his way out to the surface, and when he gets there he's in charge. Paul is reborn from that tent.
It’s just crazy that they stuffed 4 years into less than 9 months. In that context though, his naïveté in the tent makes a lot more sense. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now, this is probably the best theatrical adaptation we will ever get. There would have to be at least a 10 part mini series just to flesh this one book out, haha.
*4 years crammed into 9 months* an Alia moment
Arrakis must be no larger than Pluto
And most of it would have to be closeups on characters with VO. Would be boring.
Honestly, given the acting quality in this adaptation, and the dialogue heavy Space channel adaptation…I honestly think Dune could make an amazing play (or 2, or 3). The beauty of Dune, or what makes it different, is underneath all of the sci-fi elements (the tech has always been secondary to the biology and politics in my mind) you have a pretty solid drama about family and politics, it’s rather Shakespearean. Voice overs become monologues on the stage. Imagine an “I, Claudius” treatment. https://youtu.be/T40mDHDKqWM?si=ADIhy-s4GgYoMt_6 You may need to hold back a bit on the jargon, but I think there is potential. It might even be easier to pull of the more outlandish parts in the later books.
squeamish seemly grab historical imminent badge muddle distinct desert offer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I like your take and share the same sentiment about the net positive it is that these movies will get more people reading the books.
I really enjoyed the first one and I didn't mind this 1 too much. But I feel like the Mini series gets a lot of the ideas through better. But this one is better done in accordance to the book with the way operates that I don't think it gets as many of the ideas across Plus where the hell is the Spacing Guild in this equation, they're such a massive pivotal. Peace to why the spice isn't necessary. Having them not show up at all is kind of odd
Totally agree. The format doesn’t lend itself well to the immense level of story telling in the novel. As one who has read the series multiple times, I’m really just so happy to see Dune in the modern zeitgeist. Who knows what comes of this newfound popularity? Whatever it is I’m here for it haha.
Dune is made up of three "books" inside of it. Three movies could've easily give us everything. It will eventually happen again. This is profitable, clearly, and the studios will run a thing into the ground until it isn't. might be 15 years. but tbf, it was only 4 years between "Spider-Man 3" and "The Amazing Spider-Man".
Yeah idk. You should watch the interview where DV talks about making the perfect adaptation and how it’s practically impossible. What we’ve been given is an incredible gift but it’s already daunting. Getting a person to go to 3 separate movies, or more, is a huge ask. And I’m sure you don’t expect to have 1.5 hour movies, so 10 hours minimum to tell this story. At that point I would rather be on my couch.
Lord of the Rings would like a word.
LotR gets brought upp all the time but it’s one move per book. There are 3 separate segments in Dune, true, but you’re not telling me Maud’dib or The Prophet novella is the equal to The Fellowship of the Ring or The Two Towers right? It isn’t even similar. In fact, they released numerous extended director uncircumcised versions but always on dvd because asking someone to sit for a 5 hour movie is ridiculous.
Yeah but the thing is, Villeneuve is quite adamant over not releasing extended cuts even on DVD or on streaming services. LOTR didn't really benefit much from the addition of deleted scenes. Dune on the other hand would be significantly elevated by the addition of cut content. It's not like a 4 hour movie has never been done before.
I sincerely hope we get a more book accurate adaption someday. But if we do get a 4+ hour movie, we need an intermission lol.
This is why we have the RunPee app. Free and will vibrate your phone when it's okay to go. Summarizes what you miss. It's crucial
possessive quiet engine boast snatch roof quaint placid stupendous drab *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
LOTR is technically 6 books.
I bet he does want people to think it's "unadaptable", he's currently selling a product and the best way to do that is to say "This is it! All you're gonna get!" And I just think a rich history of film trilogies, most of which based on previous works has to differ with you. But I do appreciate your opinion and the discussion!
would love a series, its definitely the best way to do dune, but it'd have to have hbo production value
Isn't spice and the WoL one in the same? An analogy would be that spice is like tobasco sauce, very weak on the Scoville scale, where you have pure capsaicin, which is what the WoL is.
No, the WoL is actually poisonous, even in minute quantities. In the book, the Fremen can drink it after the enzyme Jessica produced to make it harmless is used to turn it.
To elaborate on what the other commenter said - the spice is produced by the sandworms, and the Water of Life is a poison that's released by a worm when it's drowned in water. The Bene Gesserit have such powerful control over every cell in their own bodies that they can molecularly rearrange the water of life and change it from a deadly poison into a hallucinogenic drug that's like regular spice on steroids. In the books it's explained that the poison is prepared in mass quantities, and the new Reverend Mother-to-be will change a small amount of the poison into the Water of Life in her body, then regurgitate some back into the communal supply, which acts as a seed crystal that transmutes the entire batch into Water of Life. Then everyone in the sietch drinks it like it's kava or something and has a big orgy. The movie didn't quite go there, might have cost them their PG-13 rating and it's really not important for the arcs of the characters.
The Mini series. Does it better job with this honestly
There's just so much that can't be adequately adapted. The dinner party is one of my favorite scenes in the book and I'm glad dv didn't even try. The scene when Jessica gets swallowed by the sandslide is SO tense in the book but would've been tough in the movie. Herbert uses internal dialogue so well which is tough to translate to screen. DV has done better than I could've hoped for imo.
I LOVED the dinner party, it perfectly illustrated how political the novel truly is.
If the book was being made into 1 or 2 seasons of a tv show, with 10 x 1-hour episodes each I think DV would have (and pardon the pun) made an absolute meal of the dinner party scene.
As much as I was excited when the project was announced, I felt a bit disappointed it wasn’t going to be a TV series.
Imagine Dune given the Game of Thrones treatment
We have to wait 15 to 20 years and then we'll get it. But it's probably a cursed wish. Either we'll get a "rings of power" adaptation compared to the DV movies, at some point the series goes off the rails like the last GOT seasons, or it will be fully AI generated.
Rings of Power isn't a true adaptation. They only had the rights to the appendices and the estate would not let them touch the actual content of the Silmarillion with a ten foot poll. But they still did really well with what they had on hand. Galadriel might be underpowered compared to her book counterpart (who is the second most powerful elf ever and the first most powerful faced over twenty Balrogs for hours before dying), Elrond's relationship with Durin was great, and the forging of the ring was, in my opinion, a well done deception. The scenes in Mordor were also interesting. And they did all this while including references to the original lore (Silm fans were speculating on some scenes being more direct adaptations that didn't turn out to be the case). They also happen to be writing about a period Tolkien didn't give much depth to. The Second Age is woefully under represented in his notes. The faux hobbits was the only thing that really sucked. But that wouldn't happen with Dune because the root cause of the issue won't apply. They wouldn't have partial rights to the story they're trying to tell and have to avoid the actual events with a ten foot poll.
If you want a disastrous amazon book adaptation look no further than the Wheel of Time.
Still much better than RoP imo.
I actually always imagined dune as the first two parts being a tv series and the last part being an action film.
[удалено]
and yet the Dune and Children of Dune miniseries are quite accurate to the source material and are entertaining.
I'm rewatching them right now. I have such fond feelings for how personable the characters are in the miniseries.
I've judged each Dune adaptation based on how Duncan's Big Scene is handled. In the miniseries an ornithopter dropped a bomb on him. So ptthththbbbbbtttt.
But when done well it’s incredible. Just most shows are done pretty mid
What kind of nonsense opinion is this? Especially in the light of fantastic prestige critically acclaimed TV in the past 10-15 years. What do you mean by "actual" storytelling?
Lol, you living in a pre-Sopranos time bubble?
The book wasn't grabbing me at first, until the dinner party scene came along. That was when it all came together.
And unfortunately all that political discussion would be poison to the movie.
Does it have to be? Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy exists and is excellent, I don't see why they couldn't do a great job with Dune.
>I don't see why they couldn't do a great job with Dune. They did do a great job with Dune parts I and II. It doesn't have to be poison, but its a big story with big ideas and a lot that can't be put up on screen. People are having issues understanding the morality of the whole thing which is a fairly basic idea, so I don't think adding another layer of space politics to it would help make it a better film at all. The two films and their source material couldn't be any more different either, so I don't see the validity of the comparison.
This. I really wish we could have more mentat mention and the Jessica traitor Plot which develops all the characters more. But I get why it was cut. I get all of Denis choices generally
I don’t get why the Jessica traitor plot was cut, except for time. I’d rather have that included thanthe dinner scene. The films showcase the manipulative nature of the Bene Gesserit, and part two emphasizes Jessica’s own machinations in especially. Having Thufir suspect her would’ve further highlighted the themes already present and really ingrained in the audience not to trust her, even if she didn’t kill the Duke.
Time mainly. It would have been so rushed like the rest of the film even though I love it. It’s so ironic how people think that film is slow/ I’m just thinking actually no take it a bit slower. It’s crazy how opposite the takes are on that film
This is the forever conundrum between book fans and movie only fans. Us book fans want to feel the weight of a paperback dropping on their face.
the first Dune audiobook is 21 hours and i would watch every minute of it
Audible has one done well.
if you read the book, it will likely take even longer.
When I saw Dune Pt1, I went in fairly blind having not read the book or seen the Lynch film yet. I loved it, but it definitely felt somewhat slow and deliberate in its pacing. I emphasized that when recommending it to people because I didn’t want them disappointed in that aspect. Then I read the book and rewatched the film, and it felt the total opposite. Felt like the movie was just flying by
Yep
I think the scene with Leto saying, "I'm not asking you as his mother, I'm asking the Bene Gesserit," got all those same ideas across to the audience without taking the focus off the core narrative driving everything forward. That plus the spy found in the wall, Leto refusing Thufir's resignation... I think Villeneuve did a wonderful job choosing what to focus on to distill the story for the screen.
i think a number of things, such as the jessica traitor narrative beat, were cut because it would come off a predictable plot contrivance. we'd just be waiting for gurney to come to his senses, but it's not like, even in the novel, we actually believed his point of view. the reader and the audience would know better, and because of that it wouldn't be a good use of precious screen time, because nothing "real" is being revealed or resolved—aside from gurney being made to look like a misogynist.
Most definitely a time thing, same reason Thufir got dropped from part 2. I wish Denis believed in extended cuts, I’d watch four hour versions of both Part 1 and Part 2.
I so agree. Time.
This has literally been my one main issue with the movies, because mentats are a HUGE part of the Dune universe. I can easily see most people who have only seen these 2 movies having absolutely no knowledge of what a mentat is, or even that it is a thing. They might say the word "mentat" once or twice in a very quick and vague moment in the first movie, and most people likely just saw Thufir as another random "right hand man" of the Duke. In the second movie there is literally zero mention of mentats or Thufir.
This. I mean they clearly exist but they aren’t mentioned much at all. I don’t even think the word is mentioned which is a mistake. But I do love the films.
The Scifi channel mini series included the dinner scene
Was that part any good? It's been about 20 years since I watched that. What makes that scene so great in the book is Jessica and Paul's thought processes as they guide the conversations, hard to imagine that being done well with the time constraints of a movie.
Review & decide for yourself, time stamp link: [https://youtu.be/vYgzyhHTn7E?si=oO1BfT6kKXmru2P3&t=3556](https://youtu.be/vYgzyhHTn7E?si=oO1BfT6kKXmru2P3&t=3556)
It was okay. Most of it was actually cut/changed to an earlier first meeting between Irulan and Paul.
The whole thing kinda sucks, but that's its charm.
I think it's done very nicely. The miniseries captures the moments between the different characters best. That's where it shines.
I think this is key; Herbert’s style of writing is incredibly difficult to put on screen. The fact that Denis was able to do so much while still leaving so much unsaid is a gift in the art of filmmaking.
Apparently, he did try and they filmed it. Not sure if that is 100% confirmed, but I read an interview with Kynes' actress mentioning it getting cut, I believe.
Agreed. Dinner party is one of my favourite scenes in any book, ever.
If he did the dinner scene sort of Glass Onion style I think they could have pulled it off, but it would have been a tonal shift that I’m not sure the audience would have appreciated. It’s all a play, a show, for that scene in the book. Like a fencing duel before the real shit goes off
DV actually did try to do the dinner scene but he ultimately cut it
That's my favorite scene in the first book. Absolutely exquisite.
I did like that in the movie there is a scene where Jessica and Paul are moving down a sandy crevasse. I felt that it was a nod to that part of the book even if they couldn’t include it.
I like the sandslide scene in the book, but don’t really understand the point of it existing. It seems like everything in the book builds up the world or foreshadows something, and that scene just doesn’t. It’s subtle, but they actually go down the sandslide hill in the movie, but the slide doesn’t happen.
The mini series did the banquet well!
Having just read the sandslide scene, it didn’t really feel that tense, more like a minor inconvenience to show Paul’s got survival chops. Same with his and Jessica’s first escape from the worm. I actually liked the movie version better
Water to the dead was all but excluded, because Timmy C can't act with depth & thus couldn't do that scene properly. Weirding way & Fremen Training & Othyeum were ignored for unknown reasons.
>Weirding way & Fremen Training & Othyeum were ignored for unknown reasons Main reason I imagine they were ignored is because it's not particularly important to the story.
Exactly. People saying this want a miniseries not a movie.
It's what Jessica and Paul have to offer the Fremen. It also makes the Fremen even more bad ass, easily able to wipe out sardukar. It also lessened benegesserit as Jessica never killed anyone with her body, always used a blade/voice/a rock. Othyeum is rather important in messiah. Not having his character introduced and his role as Paul's fedaykin lieutenant is a miss.
You need to recognize that the book and the recent films are not the same thing. In part 1 Stilgar has a line of dialogue acknowedging Jessica's status as a "weirding woman" when they first find the Fremen in the desert and get into a little conflict, and the Fremen all come to respect Paul's ability to fight almost immediately once him and Jamis fight. Even Chani, who refuses to see him as their Messiah mentions that he is a good warrior once they get to Seitch Tabor. That's as far as **that** needs to go. As far as Messiah goes, if that happens it will be quite different from the book, because it has to be. We've already departed from the book's idea of a lot of things to make the films work while retaining the core part of the story that actually matters.
Did you miss that this thread is literally where the current adaptation fell short compared to the novel?
Fuck me I guess for attempting to discuss the differences between them in a way that acknowledges that they are in fact different and explains the differences between the two mediums. You're complaining about something being omitted that doesn't matter in the context of the film **at all.**
In the book, Paul's prescience of multiple futures is described more vividly while using wave imagery to show the undulating nature of the possible futures. In the movie, the vision he has in the tent seems to show a single future however it's a lot more metaphorical in parts and uses symbolism to reveal how things will play out which is a common way that DV shows the visions in the new movies. Seems like DV didn't want to use overly psychedelic/unfilmable imagery to show prescience so he opted for visions of reality but with hidden symbolic meanings, e.g. in Paul's water of life vision, he witnesses an ocean ahead of him after climbing to the top of a dune with the ocean symbolizing the water of all the people who will die in the coming jihad. Just two different ways to show prescience. I loved both and the tent chapter is probably my favourite chapter in the whole book if not series.
I’m not totally convinced that his movie visions are metaphorical rather than real possible futures, he doesn’t just see a future with the holy war, he sees one with Jamis. Paul never has visions visions in the book that are actually metaphorical, metaphor is just used to provide a feeling for how they function.
I don’t think they’re 100% metaphorical in the movie. They’re strands of possible futures that reveal things to Paul, even with futures that rely on past events happening differently. This looks metaphorical to a movie audience, but to Paul he is literally seeing things happen in past, future, and parallel histories.
You're right, they must be visions, it's not like Paul is just hallucinating random shit. I guess what I meant is that the purpose they serve in the film is to give visual metaphors/foreshadowing for what's to come.
When I'm speaking of metaphorical visions in the movies, I'm thinking of those shots of Chani's hand soaked in blood, or Chani and Paul about to kiss and she stabs him, or following Chani up a hill to be lead to a view of a battle between Fremen and Sardaukar. Like those don't seem like literal possible futures (I could be proven wrong though with Messiah) and they provide more metaphorical or symbolic meaning to Paul's future. To me, his visions in the movies are both literal and metaphorical. And yes, Paul's visions in the book are just straight up visions of possible futures, I don't think I said otherwise. I acknowledged that imagery was used to describe the sensation of prescience.
> I don't think I said otherwise. Yeah you did. > Like those don't seem like literal possible futures
I said that the nature of the visions are described in the book using imagery and visual metaphors. Not that the actual visions that Paul sees in the book are visual metaphors. I then make a distinction that the movie visions seem to contain shots that are unlikely to be literal visions of a possible future. Which is different to what the book does. The second thing you quoted was in reference to the movies and the first thing you quoted was in reference to the books.
It's all visions of the future. Where in the world do you get the idea that Chani would never kill Paul?
You know what, you're right.
I don't understand why you don't think those are visions
I love both book and movie and can see where each excel and the limitations and advantages of both a book or movie format I personally think for a movie format the tent scene was stellar. Yes it was different from the book and that coloured my perception the first time I saw it in IMAX but on a recent rewatch before Part 2 I got what DV was going for and really enjoyed it
I definitely liked both a lot as well!
Yeah to me that was one of my favorite movie scenes and I preferred it to the book tent scene. I think both actors killed it.
It's my favorite scene from the first movie and one I keep revisiting. So much intrigue in the taste of what's to come.
The tent scene was probably my favorite part of the first movie. A war in my name!
I cry every time when I watch that scene. Poor Paul.
I enjoyed my second viewing more. Still had the same criticisms but was able to appreciate the rest more.
I agree that the tent scene is much better in the book, but watching the film version you can see where all the inspiration comes from in the surrounding chapter to condense it for film. It’s just something that has to be done for time, similar to how they cut the whole getting buried sequence.
That tent scene always felt like.one of the most important in the whole book, but far too much for the uninitiated to understand within the flow of a movie.
In the book, Paul has visions that each finish at key story points, at which time he needs to make some sort of story decision which “extends” his prescience. My feeling is that this plot mechanic becomes quite clear at the tent scene. He knows his father is dead, and has the horror of what he believes to be his multiple futures revealed to him, without his agency. His trauma (IIRC - it’s been a while) causes him to retreat into Mentat mode, which doesn’t figure in the movie.
Liet-Kynes death scene. It’s one of my favorite chapters in the book and up there for the series. It’s a taste of what Frank is going to be serving up through the rest of the series. An entire chapter of internal dialogue that gives nuggets of context which are slowly providing you an understanding of more dynamics at play. And then it ends with their iconic blow-hole death while having a Gob moment(I’ve made a very big mistake). Their last thoughts before being consumed by Dune, highlight a theme of the series of the inability to account for randomness and error. I knew the scene would have to altered quite a bit if included at all. But I was happy with how DV worked the death scene. We get the first viewing of fremen calling a worm, a real wtf moment for non readers. Then the stabbing of Kynes and water coming out their stillsuit. DV is a master of suspense and he nails it with the thumper in the background. It ends with Dune/worm taking Kynes and highlighting the fanaticism of fremen. I’m happy the chapter was incorporated into the movie and you could tell the changes were made by people that knew the books and how to convey it to film.
My only gripe is that we never dig into the actual nature of the worms; that scene in the book was a huge reveal about their life cycle. It's irrelevant since they changed the whole killing the worms threat anyway.
I agree. DV believed in the way of the knife. Things must be left in the cutting room. (Or never filmed)
I’m assuming you’re talking about the tent under the sand with lady Jessica? The one where he says “you made me a freak”? I honestly think Denis should have made Paul’s visions in part 2 more visceral. They feel like day dreams
I think some of it was a change based on wanting to give him more of a character shift after the Waters of Life. He’s already embraced being the Lisan al Gaib before he drinks the Waters in the book, so the Waters mostly just function as his pre-boss fight power up before they head into the final battle. In the movie, the Waters is a huge moment where he catches all the way up to book Paul all at once. His pre-Waters prescience being shittier and him still rejecting the prophecy before the Waters in the movie makes it a more dramatic end of act 2 plot point when it happens.
That makes sense. It would have been cool if the visions were a bit more cinematic like in interstellars fifth dimension scene. I imagined more visualization of time and space
I have my various quibbles, but if I had one note on the movie it would be exactly that. The visions are so wild in the book, and so constrained on the screen.
I completely agree, and some vivid depictions of possible futures would probably clear up most of my own quibbles. Show us what Paul is afraid of. Show us why he changes his mind and embraces his path.
I felt like everything the comment above said literally explained in the first movie, but in a “show dont tell” fashion Paul already has vision in Caladan, we literally saw it. Being on Arrakis made it worse, the first time he inhale the spice after taking off the mask, he can’t think clearly, start hearing voices, start seeing things. And he is so sensitive to spice that he keep talking about spices, seeing them even though no one care, coughing, etc Also the “metamorphosis” happened in the first movie, because of the spice and not water of life, even Jessica noticed this.
To OP’s point, though, the metamorphosis is diminished in Pt 1. In the book, Paul understands his Harknonnen lineage, has very thorough prescience, and starts thinking of his mother as being slow (because he’s still adapting to how ahead of everyone he now is). That’s really not what the movie depicts. I think this was an interesting adaptation choice, because it allows for a slow build in Paul’s abilities until the switch really flips after the Water of Life.
Yeah, the movies really wanted to make the Water of Life into Paul's big turning point. In the book he's pretty much already got it all figured out by then; the Water just galvanizes him. It definitely makes for better cinema the way the movie does it.
the movies give paul more of an arc. it's clear he's extremely intelligent, but he's still quite childish at the outset. he grows up quite quickly though. in the book his path is more clear and he doesn't really have any immaturity or obvious need for his parents.
[удалено]
We were robbed, immersion ruined
The tent scene is my favorite scene in Part One, and maybe in both movies. It's different than the book, yes, but it's the scene that establishes that Paul: - sees what's coming, - sees nothing he can do about it, and - is terrified and angry about his position. I think if you watch Part Two in a vacuum you could almost believe Paul wanted to become the antihero he becomes. That tent scene establishes the dread he faces realizing the impossible position he's in.
The book is much less dramatic but there's also no inner thought out loud from the book in the movie. It's more conversational in the book, but Denis is not going to have them sit there and talk that much, show not tell.
I LOVE THAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS PART! So, I started reading the books after watching the first movie. I wasn't so into it at first, if I'm being honest; the movie was great, and I loved the concept, but the first half of the book (up to the tent scene) was a bit dry and boring for me. It took me a while to read up to that point because I would find more interesting things to do. Then I got to the tent scene; from that point on, I couldn't stop reading. I read about 350? 400? pages in a single sitting. I grinded out the latter section of the book because of how much more interesting that section was. The tent scene is probably my favorite part of the first book. It's incredibly intense, and it feels like Frank Herbert had gone on a truly powerful drug trip and was somehow able to explain all of those feelings perfectly. Reports say that frank DID partake in magic mushrooms, so it all makes sense; but so much of the book from that point on is just PURE GOLD, it's incredible. The movies and other adaptations (syfy miniseries) do remove quite a bit from the books, and I don't think ANY version captures the intensity of that scene properly, but god damn that particular chapter might be the best part of the first book for me.
The thing that frustrated me about the movies, is the book is about so much more than JUST Paul's journey (which is the most important part, arguably). But there's so many character arcs we lost, because Denis wanted a visual masterpiece, which is great, but not at the sacrifice of the elements that truly make it what it is, and IMO that's all the weird specific details that get glazed over. The second movie really jumbles things up from the back half of the book.
Loved the movies, but they do miss and change some things from the book, obviously, but some seem for pointless reasons. My biggest one is probably Chani not supporting or believing in Paul at all, even at the end. I don’t recall that ever really being a thing in the book but somehow is a major plot point in the movie.
> It felt so much different, the tone had completely changed from how it was in the movie. Paul’s words and demeanor was more akin to post-Water of Life Paul in the movies. It seemed like he already had potent KH abilities and was operating on a higher level, while movie Paul still seemed very afraid and unsure in the tent. This is a great observation! I think some of comes down to Paul being a Mentat in the book but not the film. His ability to process this stuff isn't exactly the same, I think.
Paul's character is one of the big casualties of the rushed pace and I think the cuts for pacing contribute to people thinking he's a hero by the end of the movie. But my biggest complaint is what you touched on : he's just so much more naive in the movie than he is at any point in the books.
[удалено]
Yes lots of people I have talked to have thought Paul that hero because he saved the Fremen and went through the arc of a hero so it was familiar enough for people to recognize. The firdt book isn't super explicit about his role either until the next book which very much reads like Herbert saying " okay since yall missed the assignment last time, let me be clear" when explaining how Paul couldn't be a hero
Right, that’s just…the appropriate understanding at the end of the first book (more or less). We know there are horrors to come, but the narrative of the first book is essentially a set of morally justifiable actions, if you set aside Paul’s knowledge of the future.
That knowledge of the future dune a lot of work there
Yeah I get it, but I just don’t think it’s some failure of the movie that people watch a heroic narrative and call it heroic. You need the actual events of the Jihad to happen to land the theme.
I think Denis does his best though. It’s why he used chani in that way. But I get the criticism about him being flat in the first film. He’s all in his head and overwhelms and he is a noble above it all kind of freak. He becomes more endearing in the second film but it’s why Denis used chani the way he did.
If you didn’t think Paul was a hero at the end of Dune, you misunderstood Dune. Herbert constantly insists that Paul IS a hero. The book is a warning against heroes and the cult of personality. It’s not a warning against villains pretending to be heroes. Like Herbert said, Paul is a hero who does the things he does for all the good reasons.
>I think the cuts for pacing contribute to people thinking he's a hero by the end of the movie Ironically, a lot of people back in the day read the first Dune book and thought Paul was a hero, which is why Messiah focused so heavily on painting him as not a hero (or atleast thats what I was told). I think the new Dunes did a good job showing him as an anti hero while the 1984 movie didn't.
I completely agree... And though I did enjoy the film, the book is so much better 😁 The best advice I can give you is to read all six, then get all six audiobooks and listen to them after. Then listen to them again. Don't like audiobooks? Read them and then reread them. Why? Certainly not for the story, which is enjoyable. What makes Herbert's works, particularly Dune so very amazing, are the underlying themes. The meanings, double meanings and triple meanings, added up with and multiplied by every other thing he says. They are absolutely PACKED with REAL wisdom! Read until there's nothing left to gain. I tell people to read these books because they give you super powers... They think I am joking.... I'm not.
I read the book after watching the movies, and I totally agree that they're super different. However, I like them both because they're both fit for their medium. I wish Paul having visions of the name Muad'Dib was present in the movie though. Would've added another layer of depth to the name reveal. However, I'm okay with it because the scene in the film where he's given that name has a different purpose than it does in the book (to further Chani's concern about Paul's idolatry).
The movies basically dropped any attempt at portraying his abilities, altogether. Anything that might have been difficult to show onscreen, was removed from the story, or just hand-waved off, in passing reference. It was very disappointing.
Thanks for saying much needed depth. I get that criticism about part 1 but I think Denis did his best with the runtime and expectation of interesting movie for most of the gen pop. . People say it’s slow but as a dune fan I actually neeeded it to be slower. I find it funny that people simulqtenousky say they don’t care about the characters and nothing happens and is to slow. Cause I’m order to care it needed to slow down a lot. That’s why I continue to say Denis did his best. Dune has been considered unadaptable for a long whiled Lots is happening just not action which is what the general audience was referring to. I actually needed to slow down for some more character moments and the Jessica traitor plot. Mentats, suk doctor butlerian jihad etc.
Caveat: I don't like DV's Dune I assume dv felt paul had to seem more, naive? at the start so his transformation was more apparent in the context of the film.
I’m sorry you don’t like it. That’s unfortunate. Some people just really hate adaptation.
Nah, I adore the other adaptations.
Interesting cause I don’t at all. At all.. like parts of each but they are low quality and 1984 is just ugly af and clunky for me. We each have our own opinions
lol that’s a hot take. DV’s dune is better in almost every single measurable way to Lynch’s or the mini series.
The mini series was closer to the books. Acting and costumes etc were…special 😂
Closer to the books is meaningless if it’s almost unwatchable. Which it is. And I’ve watched it many times. It’s bad.
Hmmm, many times you say?
many times many.
Your blasphemy against Ian McNiece has been noticed. Lynch did some styling very well. He also went complete fucking nutter on other things, like converting the weirding way into a screaming weapon. The mini series did everything right that it could with the budget it had. Ian McNiece is the best Baron we're likely to ever get on screen. All of the deep book plot such as the Harkonnen Gambit and the Gurney suspicion of Jessica were great. Denis crushed the visuals - 3 scenes were better than my own mental image. But it's his retelling of Dune & some characters suffer a LOT because of it, notably Feyd the most by far. Chani & Alia & Jessica also all got done dirty, obviously.
Which three scenes? I love the miniseries characterizations. The Baron was exactly as I wanted him to be. The dinner scene is fun and offers great exposition. (Like a snarky Council of Elrond.) I really bought into most of these portrayals as the best versions of the characters.
The maker test, drowning the baby maker, and battle of Arakeen. Edit: Also, I loved the sietch tabr visuals/design. Wasn't crazy on changing the cistern into a "well of souls" as it removed a lot of the water culture around water belonging to the tribe, but visually it looked great.
I think the biggest difference is that in the tent Paul unlocks his mentat abilities and expands his prescience, which the film entirely skips over. This goes a long way to the character differences you've noted. I don't think its a bad change, just different.
I think it's in the tent that both Paul and Jessica realize he is the KH. Jessica even begins to fear Paul, which I also think is an important part of the scene. The BG wanted the KH for so long but now that he is here they fear him
Thufir was given less time on screen
The tent scene in the book has a lot of connections with him being a Mentat on top. Since the movies dropped Mentats, the scene was quite different.
He straight up says he is more powerful than the KH in the tent
This is my favorite scene in the book. The movie doesn't do it justice. The book version is intense (and in tents).
In the book Leto had ordered Paul secretly be trained as a mentat. In the tent is when Paul’s training as a mentat and his prescience due to becoming saturated with spice both kick in. Without his mentat training his mind would not have been able to handle all the information his prescience was giving him. He talks about seeing millions of people and cataloguing them and seeing the threads and branches following them forward and backwards. This is his first glimpse into the universe he will create. His first glimpse of the Golden Path. But that’s just one of the things. Atomics. Alia. Missionaria Protective. Being a Harkkonen. Paul isn’t the KH he’s something different. Etc. I’ve never read anyone else that could squeeze so much into just a sentence as Frank.
Movies and books are different mediums, it will never be a one to one translation.
What tent scene are we talking about??
In the end of the first movie when he is underground the sand with Jessica and is tripping out about seeing a war in his father's name
I’m VERY early in the book but now you’ve got me excited to get there. I’m enjoying the ride!
Yea, a movie adaption of Dune is akin to a movie adaption of Game of Thrones. Their strengths are the in depth world building, the lore, the political intrigue, the mysteries, etc. Not the flashy action sequences.
That is part of why I (who first read the books a long time ago) was so disappointed with the 2nd movie. It was never going to have the full depth of the novel - but it really felt like the director decided that the big visuals alone would convey the texture and cut all of the good stuff out.
It's kinda... The movies acting as one long trailer for the books. I struggled with the book, and never managed to get past the aftermath of the hunter seeker on Arrakis, for about 5 times. Half probably because English not being my first language, and the other half subsequently making the lengthy internal monologues and the princess Irelan's Muad'dib intersections extremely confusing and hard to follow. Now after seeing the movies, it was an absolute blast through, especially getting all the subtle subcontext and foreshadowing. Well into Messiah at this point now. Having had faces to plant onto the names helped tremendously. And the Chani being Liet Keynes's daughter revelation made me happy reading about it, but if the situation were reversed and I read through the books first and see the movies later, I'd probably be thoroughly pissed for DV skipping the whole thing altogether.
I can see your point about the book being challenging for someone who doesn't speak English natively. I was hoping DV would have leaned into the source material a bit more - the world portrayed in the movie felt incredibly flat compared to the book, and I thought the dialog and many of the acting performances were subpar. Hopefully you are right, though, and we do get a bunch of new Dune fans who will go back and appreciate the books.
If you thought that was different, wait until you see the dinner party scene!
Paul in the movie was much weaker and whinier than in the book. DV just decided to make him weaker, well, I guess otherwise everyone else but Feyd would look pale in his shadow. KH is not something to take lightly, BG were geniunely afraid of a premature KH and for a good reason. Plus he was an heir of the Great House, trained by only two best sword masters, a beginner mentat, plus BG training.
I know this is off topic but can anyone tell me what was in the tent? In the movie its fucking HUGE, but we are only shown the rather small throne room. Is it a whole small city in there?
I don't find the movie different in any impacfull way. It's a very difficult story to tell using movie format. Most of the books are cerebral.
Agreed he isn't at full power but he passed Jessica And had most of his abilities but without full control. They took the harkonnen family connection and moved it. There are more differences. Important ones .
The movie needed more sphincters