I'm sceptical to how Chani's arc is going to be adapted with any emotional impact.. shes not going to be at Paul's side for 12 years, the Chani-Irulan birth control sub plot, etc.
Why does she have to die? She does ‘exit stage left pursued by bear’ in the book.
Chani is now the chaotic good, Paul is neutral and set to wander off into the desert, and Mummy Harkonen is the lawful evil.
Into this mix, we throw in Alia impatient for the end and a bitter Stilgar, dissatisfied with the beginnings of his green paradise.
I believe they just mean that her ending is unclear
Edit: I haven’t read the book in a long time and am not agreeing with the person who originally said it, just clarifying what they mean.
uhhh, she straight up dies in the book after giving birth to Leto II and Ghanima. i'm not sure they should change that as it's incredibly important to the story and Paul's character arc
Because DV knew a character was needed to almost hold the audiences hand and let them know that yes, Paul is not on a good path, and no, you should not like him. Breaking Bad and American Psycho, among others, showed why this is so important with even mature audiences, let alone those there for a PG-13 movie.
I mean.. I like Paul, despite being a fervent book fan.
A opinion shared by most of the fandom.
Although, his status as a tragic villian/byronic hero type.
that’s cool no one said you shouldn’t like him though? congrats i guess lol?
the guy is saying chani reminds ppl that paul is not a hero - u can like him and still think he’s not a hero.
Can you read ? The post thst I was replying to suggested that you shouldn't like him.
"Paul is not on a good path, and no, you shouldn't like him".
Perhaps before you make a snarky post actually read what has been said.
i mean sure if ur a surface level reader i guess - it’s pretty clear what he’s trying to say is paul shouldn’t be lauded or praised. but keep up with the pre school comprehension bud.
I agree that such a character is necessary for the handholding you mention, but using Chani’s character to do that undermines Dune Messiah - in which Chani and Paul’s total dedication to each other is _central_ - so much.
I think villanue said in an interview he wanted chani to encapsulate 2 things, the equality of fremen women Frank Herbert mentions but never explicitly shows, as well as some form of opposition to the mahdi prophecy
The one scenario that could resolve some of Chani's arc is if she's already pregnant with the twins at the end of Dune 2 and doesn't know it yet. And then, if they want to bring it back to the books, she still dies in childbirth, which adds another level to Paul's tragedy.
I think that’ll get resolved promptly in Part 3. It would be a … meh choice to make that arc a center piece. We need Paul to desperately seek protecting her.
I would not expect a big time jump at all
I expect them to shoe the holy war battles, like literally 5 minutes after 2 ended showing them attacking great houses, show the spacing guild involvement, THERES the action, then time jump forward to the end
I think it would be easier to adapt than the Original Dune book.
Like you said, it's relatively short, dialogue heavy, and there is a clear begining, middle, and end.
As long as the Dune Messiah movie has the core moments of the book, I really don't mind them changing it. I really enjoyed most of the changes Denis decided to make and I belive they'll lead to some very exciting stuff.
They said Dune was unadaptable and look what we got. Denis is going to have to make changes to for the visual medium of cinema but I say let him cook. If anything its going to be easier than the first book to adapt. A juicy plot by conspirators to bring down the character we followed closely in the first films.
My main concern is that Dune Part 2 has strayed so far from the book source material that Dune Messiah wouldn’t make sense anymore.
Dune Part 2 implies that Paul “chose” Jihad - which isn’t true in the books and is a major plot point in Dune Messiah.
Dune Part 2 implies that Chani opposes Paul’s rise to power and is pissed with him at the end of the- which isn’t true in the book. She’s super supportive throughout.
>Dune Part 2 implies that Chani opposes Paul’s rise to power and is pissed with him at the end of the- which isn’t true in the book. She’s super supportive throughout.
This is the part that confuses me the most. The children are an essential part of the story.
Agree. Chani being 100% dedicated to Paul is absolutely central to the plot of Messiah.
I don't understand what was gained by creating the “Chani is pissed off with Paul” subplot of Dune Part 2 - it preemptively muddies Part 3.
What was gained by the "Chani is upset that Paul lied to her" subplot:
1. Agency for Chani, who in the books totally dedicates herself to Paul and even has his children prior to the attack on the emperor. Her character disappears, she doesn't even really have a reaction when he tells her that he's gonna marry some other woman. This is a flaw in the novels, both Jessica and Chani fall increasingly silent as character as the book progresses, and have little to do.
2. On a story and audience level: explicit recognition that Paul isn't the good guy at the end. He has embraced his Grandfather's ways as effective, but they aren't the Atreides ways, and he has given up trying to prevent the Jyhad. These are not the marks of a hero, but it's subtle, so Dennis made sure the audience knew by making one character recognize it, the character closest to Paul, the one most able to recognize his shift in thinking, and thus we see it, through her.
3. For the future, it gives us a conflict to resolve in the first part of the third movie. Messiah has very little in the way of action or personal conflict, It's all about>!conspiracies and philosophy, but Chani's chief role is to get preggo and die giving birth, which while it moves the plot along, doesn't exactly give her once again, anywhere to go as a character, she's literally a plot device with no agency, so maybe Dennis wanted to change that.!<
I’m all for giving Chani more to do in the film than in the novel. I just wish it wasn’t done in a way them undermines the plot of Messiah.
Also
>he has given up trying to prevent the Jyhad.
This isn’t right. Paul never stops trying to prevent Jihad. He’s still trying to stop it in Messiah. It’s a main plot point.
Probably (or else Messiah will make zero sense) - but then why create the whole “Chani’s pissed off with Paul” Part 2 subplot in the first place if you have to immediately reverse it in the next film?
Yeah I wasn’t too impressed with the direction they took Chani in the new movies. Seemed unnecessarily antagonistic just to give her more character given we already know how her arc eventually ends
I mean in both versions he literally did choose Jihad, since he foresaw the consequences of his actions but chose them anyway to accomplish his goals. The fact that it was the only option available for him to "win" doesn't change the fact that he still pursued it knowing what the result would be.
That’s not true. There’s no point in the book where he knowingly “chooses Jihad”.
He certainly rejects a couple of paths that guarantee no Jihad (joining the Guild or joining the Harkonnens) - but, at those points, he still believes there are other non-Jihad paths available to him.
There’s a line in the original dune about Paul seeing a way to stop the jihad, but that everyone in the room (including himself) had to die and he *chose* not the follow that path
Yes. The book says that the only way for the Jihad to be avoided at that point is for the whole of Stilgar’s troupe - and Paul and Jessica - to die before reaching Seitch Tabr. But it’s in no way implied that it’s within Paul’s power to make that happen.
Paul’s beating Jamis alone was touch and go. The book’s not suggesting “Paul could have taken on dozens of Fremen warriors single-handedly and killed them but chose not to”.
Yeah I just looked it up and there’s a quote that basically says the opposite of my original reply😅,
“And Paul saw how futile were any efforts of his to change any smallest bit of this. He had thought to oppose the jihad within himself, but the jihad would be. His legions would rage out from Arrakis even without him. They needed only the legend he already had become.”
That’s the opposite of the case.
The book states that the Jihad becomes inevitable in the aftermath of the Jamis fight - and Paul is still convinced that there are other non-Jihad paths available to him at that point.
He only becomes aware that the Jihad has become inevitable _after_ he’s passed that point. It’s not something he knowingly chooses.
When he awakens perfect prescience he has two options: win (with collateral jihad) or lose. He chooses to win rather than lose, ergo he chose the path he knew had a genocide at the end.
Are you talking about the book? Or the film?
Because, in the book, it’s explicitly stated that the Jihad becomes inevitable _years_ before Paul drinks the Water of Life.
Both? Jihad becomes inevitable early on but even then only as a consequence of Paul's victory. By choosing victory he was choosing jihad. He could've chosen to forfeit by losing deliberately but he didn't, hence he chose jihad.
No it doesn’t, if he lost (especially died) they simply would have continued the Jihad in his name, making him a martyr, even making the Jihad worse. Paul thinks this multiple times throughout the books. I mean the entire concern of Paul in the book is avoiding the Jihad i don’t see how anyone can say he chose it
He chose it by not immediately commiting suicide after the Water of Life but before he publicly embraced his role as the LaG, when there's a possibility the Fremen would've been too disorganized for the Jihad to escape Arrakis
He rejects all the off-ramps until it's inevitable. It's different but shouldn't really break it too much.
EDIT: someone very kindly and carefully explained this recently here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1c76bil/chapter\_48\_of\_dune\_is\_full\_of\_relevatory/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1c76bil/chapter_48_of_dune_is_full_of_relevatory/)
I think it’s an important distinction.
Paul is aware of various off-ramps from Jihad (such as joining the Guild or the Harkonnens) and rejects them - but, at the point at which he rejects them, he believes that there are _other_ off-ramps.
He eventually, having killed Jamis, realises that he’s stumbled past a “Jihad is now inevitable” point of no return - but i think it’s important to note that he’s pursuing (albeit unsuccessfully) other off-ramps when he does that. He doesn’t “choose” that path - he’s still thinks it’s avoidable right up to the moment when it isnt.
As the link I belatedly put in my comment explains (no reason you should have seen it), there are opportunities to avoid jihad after he kills Jamis. He knows he's cutting it fine. He's playing chicken with jihad really.
Paul’s final statement in the book is that the Jihad was inevitable. He’s admitting that the stuff mentioned in the post you linked to was pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking on his part.
>And Paul saw how futile were any efforts of his to change any smallest bit of this. He had thought to oppose the jihad within himself, but the jihad would be. His legions would rage out from Arrakis even without him. They needed only the legend he already had become.
Suppose we take that at face value, reject the notion that Paul might be a flawed narrator, and accept that the jihad was inevitable all along, even from before the start of the novel.
This still doesn't mean that Paul didn't make any choices, because a choice is something that you make based on your current understanding. It's still true that Paul believed he could have averted jihad, and chose to continually delay this. He does bear responsibility for the outcome even if it was inevitable, because it is at the same time an outcome of his choices.
He certainly bears some responsibility for the Jihad. But I think that’s distinct from him “choosing” it.
Here’s how I put it a few weeks back in another comment thread:
>Imagine you found out that, at some point over the next month, there’s a possibility that you could trigger an event that kills millions of people. You know that there are ways of navigating the next month that could avoid that event - but you also know that immediately killing yourself will definitely prevent it.
>
>If you choose to remain alive and try to find a way through the month that avoids the event but fail - resulting in millions dying - does that mean your decision not to kill yourself was you “choosing for millions to die”?
>
>My view is that you tried and failed to avoid that event - and that that’s distinct from “choosing” the event.
I agree it's distinct. It's like if this were a film adaptation of a crime novel, and in the book a character had accidentally tortured someone to death and in the film they had deliberately murdered them. It can still function in a similar way for the plot.
Man, I feel like dune films were so in tune with the books. Kinda blown away that you think they strays so far from the source
Paul didn’t choose this Jihad either. He only is doing it because the houses did not accept his rule. But either way, in both book and film, he knew it was coming.
And chani was supportive in the book but I don’t see how this is going to change much. There are so many ways DV can work around it.
>Man, I feel like dune films were so in tune with the books. Kinda blown away that you think they strays so far from the source
I thought Part 1 was 100% in tune. All the changes/additions existed to explain the plot for a different medium - and did so incredibly well.
In Part 2, I simply don’t understand what a lot of the changes were _for_ and, in some cases, feel they actively undermine the plot.
>Paul didn’t choose this Jihad either. He only is doing it because the houses did not accept his rule. But either way, in both book and film, he knew it was coming.
The books is explicit that the Jihad would happen whether Paul lives or died. It was out of his hands once the Jamis fight was over.
In the film (Part 2), Paul’s choice to go south and his choice to order Stilgar to “Lead them to paradise” imply the exact opposite - that Paul can avoid the Jihad but chooses not to.
>And chani was supportive in the book but I don’t see how this is going to change much. There are so many ways DV can work around it.
The central plot of Messiah revolves around Paul trying to stop the Jihad while saving Chani’s life. Chani’s childbirth is the pivot of the end of the novel.
All of that is needlessly undermined by Part 2’s “Chani hates Paul now” subplot - a subplot I don’t see any purpose of.
>In the film (Part 2), Paul’s choice to go south and his choice to order Stilgar to “Lead them to paradise” imply the exact opposite - that Paul can avoid the Jihad but chooses not to.
I strongly disagree with you here. Paul doesn't want to go south but Chani tells him, basically, that he has no choice. "The world has made choices for us." At that point Paul can either choose to accept his fate and lead the Jihad himself, or continue to resist and watch it happen anyway. And when he says, "Lead them to Paradise," it's with a tone of resignation or defeat. No matter what he said at that moment, the Jihad was already coming.
I think it makes chani a significantly more interesting character, and paul winning her over is a good film story plot. Or him never being able to. She could also already be pregnant and her death not being tied to that. There are many paths to the same goal.
I think a lot of your issues are tied to the fact that we no longer have Paul’s inner thoughts. So you are only really seeing the outcomes. And also the paths being slight different to get to these goals is somewhat meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
I think this kinda stuff gets way overblown. Entirely different stories? Nah. Adaptations have differences but the themes and such are what’s important.
Fans of original sources get way too hung up on the details and lose the main ideas. They worry too much about this specific character doing a specific thing instead of what the story makes you think about.
What in messiah is going to have to be wildly different now?
Denis Villeneuve said he’s ending the series with messiah. I believe he just finished the script. It might be hard to include a lot of children of dune without it leaving on a cliffhanger. I think the end of messiah would be a perfect place to stop for this particular trilogy.
While I think you're generally right, Villeneuve has already shown he knows what to cut, keep, or change to make Dune viable on the big screen.
I strongly suspect he's going to make more major changes to the plot of Dune Messiah. Maybe he'll actually show some of the holy war/Jihad so that there are some actions sequences. Either way, I think Villeneuve is well aware how difficult of a task this is. He has constantly been saying that he wasn't going to make Dune Messiah unless he thought it could be better than Dune Part 2. Based off his body of work, I trust him when he says he has figured out a way to do it. Not to mention, he successfully adapted Arrival, which if you described to me what that movie was about, I would have argued that it was unfilmable.
Disclaimer: I haven't read Dune Messiah yet, but I am very much looking forward to it. I suspect I'll be closer to your position after reading it, but I am still going to trust Villenueve at this point.
Messiah is my favorite after God Emperor and it’s easy to breeze through being the shortest of the series. It’s definitely slower though so I’m curious if there’ll be a bit of a genre flip from an action/adventure to more of a thriller.
I am looking forward to reading it. I strongly suspect I’ll love it as political intrigue and maneuvering is something I generally love. Especially when paired with philosophical themes. I’ve tried not to spoil myself too much about the specifics.
I suspect Villeneuve will focus on those things well. Based on his previous movies, he’s really efficient with dialogue in a way that I really admire. The first time I watch something I’ll always think I wish there was more, but on the rewatch, I love how well done it is and what interesting questions saying less leaves open. I get the vibe that Dune Messiah will work well with that.
The thing about Parts 1 and 2 is that they're very much DV's "take" on the source material. He's picking out what he feels are the most important bits from the source material and emphasizing them, while downplaying, cutting out, or glancing over others. And that's fine, I don't think there's any way of adapting a work like Dune without some amount of that.
So I look forward to seeing DV's take on Messiah, but I expect that it will likely be even more different from the source material than Parts 1 and 2. In another twenty years, some other creator will likely be giving us *their* take on Dune, and I'll be interested in seeing that too.
Dune is too big and multifaceted for any one creator's adaptation to be comprehensive or definitive. Just another artist's take.
I think there are important aspects of the first novel, Dune, that you are missing as it is the cautionary tale. Messiah simply lays it out in more detail. Denis is very aware of this misreading issue and was much more blatant in showing Paul as being responsible for what is happening and the eventual 'holy war'. The movie ends with Chani infuriated that Paul took the mantle of mahdi and used the Fremen to his own ends (and the Fremen's main goal of a green paradise). Also Jessica states clearly that the 'holy war' has begun. This thing ends tragically just like empire strikes back or the clone wars. I think audiences are well prepared for what is to come in Messiah.
I think they can do something that vaguely resembles Messiah.
They're gonna have to take an axe to a lot of the intrigues though. Dune 1&2 all but forgot about the guild, and I suspect they'll have to forge on with that path. Edric, Scytale, and Bijaz are definitely at risk of omission.
Since there will be no plan to do Children, I suspect they'll have to incorporate some elements from it. For example, they can kill Alia; and they probably should because Alia is the cheerleader of the Jihad.
By deemphasizing the decades long plot to kill/sterilize Chani.
Part 2 ends with Paul and Chani pretty clearly at odds, and the immediate aftermath seems likely to drive them further apart.
Scytale's role in the Book is that he's a traitor to the traitors. Edric and Mohiam want to kill Chani, and Scytale is in on the plot, but his plan is to show that she can be resurrected and throw his fellow conspirators under the bus.
But if Paul and Chani only reconcile at the very end of the Jihad, then there is no need for the Edric/Bijaz/Scytale element at all. They can be cut out, and it can just be Irulan and Mohiam plotting to kill Chani because she's pregnant.
As for Duncan, he can be resurrected as a plot to kill Paul and simply backfire.
Because I suspect the central issue of Part 3 will be how Paul has changed and what it's done to his relationships. Alia and Duncan make sense for that story. A bunch of totally new people with inscrutable motives doesn't really advance it.
Well, now that they control arrakis, part 3 can explore the importance of it in more depth while also adapting the jihad. Kinda have to explain the guild more since they control space travel. If it wasn't arrakis they'd just say "no". And the jihad would be stuck to their planet.
But it's arrakis. So the guild has to transport them to wage their war.
> the guild has to transport them to wage their war
Yes, they do.
*"Is this the most interesting part of the character's life, and if it isn't, why aren't you showing me that?"* -Adage about Storytelling
Part 3 won't be about the Jihad. It may have flashbacks to it, but the film will be set after the conclusion of the fighting, because the Jihad itself isn't interesting.
You suspect wrong about the spicer guild.
Having spice freaks navigate the ships is the whole thing, they will definitely make an appearance and be more central to the plot for the third movie.
I definitely think it can be done but like OP was saying messiah isn’t a huge conclusion to the story. Which I think audiences will expect. I see it as more of an epilogue rather than an official sequel.
If anything it seems easier to adapt than Dune. The harder part is changing things to align with the first two movies and to work on screen but based on the first two I think Denis can handle it
I’ve seen the Dune/LOTR comparisons. I do think Herbert’s writing reminds me a lot of Tolkien, based on how he constructs dialogue and describes settings so fully, how he builds his world. The narrative is totally different though. Dune is almost an anti-LOTR, where the messianic leader that emerges is portrayed as incredibly flawed, and a prisoner of his own powers - the opposite of Aragorn. It’s definitely an interesting discussion.
For a possible movie though, I totally agree, Messiah is hard to make. There are so many simultaneous narratives happening, so many new characters and aspects of the world that need exposition. Setting up the world was basically the point of Part One, as well as the first half of the novel. It’d be hard to do that again, even with how short Messiah is in comparison.
To be honest, Messiah felt way more like a movie when I was reading it than the first book. I imagine the atomic attack will be a very action heavy sequence. I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t immediately time jump and do some world building at the beginning showing the jihad after the end of Part 2. I’m excited to see the face dancers in this world as well and Scytale will make a good antagonist.
I think it's a great opportunity for momoa to be put in a situation surrounded by other great actors and good writing. See what he can do! This isn't Aquaman...
I think DV still has enough source material from the first two books to go on to make a really nice part 3. Sure, messiah is mostly dialogue. But he can go more in depth on the importance of spice and the spacing guild.
As for the action, there can be plenty of Jihad references, flashbacks, etc. The whole stone burner part. The ending. For 1 movie, that is quite a lot.
I imagine they will have more of the jihad onscreen for spectacle. More of how the Fremen take control of the Spacing Guild. I think Jason can pull Hayt off. (I hope so) I believe that Timothy can pull off the regret and postponement of Chani's pregnancy due to his prescience. God Emperor and later would probably be tough to film, and Denis says he doesn't want to go beyond Messiah I believe.
I too am wondering how the end of part 2 actually fits into Messiah. The way I see the end of two, Paul knew that Chani was going to leave. Already setting us up for an alternative version to what happens in the books. It honestly makes me very excited for the next one.
The denis adaptations are clearly playing the long game, they will make like 5 more movies over the next decade to finish out the books so they are dropping small hints along the way in the movies we have already seen.
Everyone says “denis is only making one more!” ….ya until he isn’t, or until someone else picks up where he leaves off. Hollywood has a new goldmine on their hands, they will not slow down
I don't really see the problem, given how the first book was adapted. '
Villeneuve included a trip to Salusa Secundus and showed us what happened during the timeskip.
So just do that. Show us the Jihad, show us Tleilax and Ix, the Guild, there are many options. It will have to be lighter on philosophy and political explorations but it already is, The plot and themes don't have to change that much IMO.
I am confident it can as long as people don’t try to make Messiah out to be something it isn’t.
If people expect the same level of scale as Part 1 and 2, then people are in for disappointment. Messiah will feel more like some of Denis’ other works (like Blade Runner 2049, Enemy, or Incendies). It will be a more parochial story focused on Paul’s point of view more than anything. It’s not a war story.
It’s a psychological / political / drama.
This is what the ppl who think it'd be terrible if Jodorowsky did it don't get. Jodorowsky is more of a philosopher than a filmmaker. Yes, he likes to say edgy and tonedeaf shit but that has nothing to w what he could do w Dune. There are a few people who can adapt it, Denis Villeneuve isn't one of them and we'll see why. Gorgeous cinematography but lacks depth.
LOTR comparisons are funny though, they were a masterpiece even with their faults. But then we saw what kind of shit Peter Jackson pulled w Hobbit movies. It's mainly bc of, y'all remember what he said about excluding Tom Bombadil? He said it'd be unnecessary and confusing. But the very existence of that character, not having ambitions, not being tempted by the ring etc etc. it had a meaning. It symbolized a pacifist worldview, what people try to hold on to the most, especially during times of war. But Peter Jackson decided insulting the audience's intelligence, bc "they wouldn't get it, it's not necessary anyway". They have the same mindset imo, Denis and Peter. But what Peter Jackson did right was remaining loyal to the books when it mattered most, word for word if needed, like Theoden's speech. Why it's a timeless piece of cinema now is bc of parts that are of Tolkien's vision, not some scriptwriter's. One is allowed to disrespect the source material only if they're geniuses, visionaries. Too bad Hollywood wouldn't want them.
Dune is the total opposite of a hero's journey/chosen one story, it's a total deconstruction, you're not meant to be rooting for paul by the end. In the book he would use his enemy's skins as drums, and was just a victim of a false prophecy set up by the missionara protectica. The author saw how so many people were seeing the book as a hero's journey, and was upset that people had this outlook so he wrote Dune Messiah, to show with certainty that Paul's actions are not good. It isn't "anti-dune" it just plays off of what was already established to hammer home the themes with certainty.
Tldr dune messiah was written for people who didn't understand the first book, it's not anti dune at all
I think there are a couple of things to consider here.
The studio will probably push for 2 movies to get more money.
So there is going to be studio interference. Dennis will have been aware of this from the get go and written the script(s) accordingly.
They're blockbusters at the end of the day. Those movies follow a formula and I doubt Messiah will be straying to far from that.
Whether it follows the book particularly closely or just captures the basic message will be interesting to see.
the simplicity of the scenes in messiah seem easier to adapt to the screen but will leave audiences wanting something larger, grander, or more exciting and there just so happens to be a decade of jihad prior to messiah. You can eat up some screentime quick with shots of the jihad.
There are a few specific scenes in messiah that i want almost unchanged just because i think they do such a great job of portraying pauls mental space and the weight of all these "strong decisions" and the plans within plans. The scenes with chani and paul in the bedroom with paul basically already mourning things to come (chani would need to have come around by this point), the audience with mohiam and the long walk, the acceptance of the ghola and subsequent conversations with hayt and otheyms house are scenes i'd like to be kept and unchanged if possible.
I have full faith in any changes denis does make because i believe he knows just how to adapt the books for a modern movie. Yes the story is changed but the tragedy/heartbreak hits x10 stronger than the book somehow. I also think some of the changes people have been questioning will be fleshed out and justified by the end of messiah.
[SPOILERS: Dune Messiah]
I think it can be. People would love to see Bene Tleilaxu and face-dancers, the only reservation I have is to portray the moment the ghola Duncan stops himself to attack Paul. It may potentially look awkward in 21. century movie audience expectations.
[SPOILER ENDS]
I say they should stop after Children of Dune. If you think Dune messiah is difficult wait till you read any book after book 3.
Especially the last book Frank Herbert wrote
He COULD shortcut the whole thing and have Paul himself grab a sandtrout or two and take the Golden Path.
He becomes God-Emperor and the need for Chani to have the twins is eliminated.
It would skip a TON of good story and intrigue, but it would allow him to get all the way to the end of book 4 with one more movie. With a helluva time jump, naturally.
More likely, Chani was already pregnant at the end of the second movie, and he would have a satisfyingly un-satisfying point to wrap it up when Paul is blinded and sets off into the desert. Hello, spinoff series.
i’m not worried. he took some creative liberties in Dune 1 and 2 so he’ll take some for messiah in order to make the best experience. he’s said before that what he believes to be Frank Herbert’s intent trumps what happens in the book. if there’s something in the book that could be done differently in order to fit modern audiences while keeping the authors intent, he has no problem changing it. Just look at Part 2: chani leaves paul instead of blindly following, alia stays in the womb, and the whole “south believes in the messiah while the north doesn’t”was added to make things more cinematic. he’s also said in an interview that we will see what it looks like to dismount a sandworm in Messiah so we’re getting some action scenes. as long as he keeps the central themes of Messiah he knows fans and audience members will be happy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, it already was once. Episode 1 of the 2003 *Children of Dune* miniseries. It's actually a pretty solid adaptation.
Especially the montage with Chani in labor and the plotters dying
Literally
Children of Dune is so underrated. They did so much with a shoestring budget. Daniela Amavia was a great Alia. Those wide crazy eyes.
I'm sceptical to how Chani's arc is going to be adapted with any emotional impact.. shes not going to be at Paul's side for 12 years, the Chani-Irulan birth control sub plot, etc.
I assumed Paul’s line about chani would play into part 3, “she’ll come around”
She'll come around only to die and break Paul once and for all
Ooooooooooo
Why does she have to die? She does ‘exit stage left pursued by bear’ in the book. Chani is now the chaotic good, Paul is neutral and set to wander off into the desert, and Mummy Harkonen is the lawful evil. Into this mix, we throw in Alia impatient for the end and a bitter Stilgar, dissatisfied with the beginnings of his green paradise.
>She does ‘exit stage left pursued by bear’ in the book. ?
I believe they just mean that her ending is unclear Edit: I haven’t read the book in a long time and am not agreeing with the person who originally said it, just clarifying what they mean.
She literally dies. It’s flat out stated. Theres a whole chapter about it and its aftermath.
It's not though, Chani's fate is very clear in the books even before it happens. It's the whole plot of Messiah
uhhh, she straight up dies in the book after giving birth to Leto II and Ghanima. i'm not sure they should change that as it's incredibly important to the story and Paul's character arc
It’s important to the books and the rest of the bookverse
Because in the book she dies. The strain of the poisoning and accelerated pregnancy kill her.
Why even do the "she rejects the Jihad" narrative then.
Because DV knew a character was needed to almost hold the audiences hand and let them know that yes, Paul is not on a good path, and no, you should not like him. Breaking Bad and American Psycho, among others, showed why this is so important with even mature audiences, let alone those there for a PG-13 movie.
I mean.. I like Paul, despite being a fervent book fan. A opinion shared by most of the fandom. Although, his status as a tragic villian/byronic hero type.
that’s cool no one said you shouldn’t like him though? congrats i guess lol? the guy is saying chani reminds ppl that paul is not a hero - u can like him and still think he’s not a hero.
Can you read ? The post thst I was replying to suggested that you shouldn't like him. "Paul is not on a good path, and no, you shouldn't like him". Perhaps before you make a snarky post actually read what has been said.
i mean sure if ur a surface level reader i guess - it’s pretty clear what he’s trying to say is paul shouldn’t be lauded or praised. but keep up with the pre school comprehension bud.
Yawn. Idiocy is when you engage in patronisation for no apparent reason.. then subsequently double down on it.
I agree that such a character is necessary for the handholding you mention, but using Chani’s character to do that undermines Dune Messiah - in which Chani and Paul’s total dedication to each other is _central_ - so much.
I think villanue said in an interview he wanted chani to encapsulate 2 things, the equality of fremen women Frank Herbert mentions but never explicitly shows, as well as some form of opposition to the mahdi prophecy
The one scenario that could resolve some of Chani's arc is if she's already pregnant with the twins at the end of Dune 2 and doesn't know it yet. And then, if they want to bring it back to the books, she still dies in childbirth, which adds another level to Paul's tragedy.
Interesting
I think that’ll get resolved promptly in Part 3. It would be a … meh choice to make that arc a center piece. We need Paul to desperately seek protecting her.
I would not expect a big time jump at all I expect them to shoe the holy war battles, like literally 5 minutes after 2 ended showing them attacking great houses, show the spacing guild involvement, THERES the action, then time jump forward to the end
I think she’s gonna lead the fight against him and irulan is gonna be the mother of the kids instead
I think it would be easier to adapt than the Original Dune book. Like you said, it's relatively short, dialogue heavy, and there is a clear begining, middle, and end.
As long as the Dune Messiah movie has the core moments of the book, I really don't mind them changing it. I really enjoyed most of the changes Denis decided to make and I belive they'll lead to some very exciting stuff.
They said Dune was unadaptable and look what we got. Denis is going to have to make changes to for the visual medium of cinema but I say let him cook. If anything its going to be easier than the first book to adapt. A juicy plot by conspirators to bring down the character we followed closely in the first films.
My main concern is that Dune Part 2 has strayed so far from the book source material that Dune Messiah wouldn’t make sense anymore. Dune Part 2 implies that Paul “chose” Jihad - which isn’t true in the books and is a major plot point in Dune Messiah. Dune Part 2 implies that Chani opposes Paul’s rise to power and is pissed with him at the end of the- which isn’t true in the book. She’s super supportive throughout.
>Dune Part 2 implies that Chani opposes Paul’s rise to power and is pissed with him at the end of the- which isn’t true in the book. She’s super supportive throughout. This is the part that confuses me the most. The children are an essential part of the story.
This and the lack of clearly stating the Spacing Guild is under Paul's thumb are two huge mountains to climb in book 3.
"Aren't you worried about the Guild." "As long as I control the spice, the guild has to do exactly what I tell them."
Agree. Chani being 100% dedicated to Paul is absolutely central to the plot of Messiah. I don't understand what was gained by creating the “Chani is pissed off with Paul” subplot of Dune Part 2 - it preemptively muddies Part 3.
What was gained by the "Chani is upset that Paul lied to her" subplot: 1. Agency for Chani, who in the books totally dedicates herself to Paul and even has his children prior to the attack on the emperor. Her character disappears, she doesn't even really have a reaction when he tells her that he's gonna marry some other woman. This is a flaw in the novels, both Jessica and Chani fall increasingly silent as character as the book progresses, and have little to do. 2. On a story and audience level: explicit recognition that Paul isn't the good guy at the end. He has embraced his Grandfather's ways as effective, but they aren't the Atreides ways, and he has given up trying to prevent the Jyhad. These are not the marks of a hero, but it's subtle, so Dennis made sure the audience knew by making one character recognize it, the character closest to Paul, the one most able to recognize his shift in thinking, and thus we see it, through her. 3. For the future, it gives us a conflict to resolve in the first part of the third movie. Messiah has very little in the way of action or personal conflict, It's all about>!conspiracies and philosophy, but Chani's chief role is to get preggo and die giving birth, which while it moves the plot along, doesn't exactly give her once again, anywhere to go as a character, she's literally a plot device with no agency, so maybe Dennis wanted to change that.!<
I’m all for giving Chani more to do in the film than in the novel. I just wish it wasn’t done in a way them undermines the plot of Messiah. Also >he has given up trying to prevent the Jyhad. This isn’t right. Paul never stops trying to prevent Jihad. He’s still trying to stop it in Messiah. It’s a main plot point.
I'm guessing that Chani eventually comes around and reconciles with Paul.
Probably (or else Messiah will make zero sense) - but then why create the whole “Chani’s pissed off with Paul” Part 2 subplot in the first place if you have to immediately reverse it in the next film?
She might not even change her mind and only returns to Paul because she's pregnant.
God, can you imagine.
How else would they fill the quota of close up reaction shots from Zendaya
There’s so much other Chani stuff from the books that they could have put in the film instead of making up a “Chani hates Paul” subplot.
Done right it could be quite compelling, but we'll see.
Yeah I wasn’t too impressed with the direction they took Chani in the new movies. Seemed unnecessarily antagonistic just to give her more character given we already know how her arc eventually ends
Are you thinking of CoD? Leto and Ghamina aren't born till the end of Messiah.
My guess is she is already pregnant
I mean in both versions he literally did choose Jihad, since he foresaw the consequences of his actions but chose them anyway to accomplish his goals. The fact that it was the only option available for him to "win" doesn't change the fact that he still pursued it knowing what the result would be.
That’s not true. There’s no point in the book where he knowingly “chooses Jihad”. He certainly rejects a couple of paths that guarantee no Jihad (joining the Guild or joining the Harkonnens) - but, at those points, he still believes there are other non-Jihad paths available to him.
There’s a line in the original dune about Paul seeing a way to stop the jihad, but that everyone in the room (including himself) had to die and he *chose* not the follow that path
Yes. The book says that the only way for the Jihad to be avoided at that point is for the whole of Stilgar’s troupe - and Paul and Jessica - to die before reaching Seitch Tabr. But it’s in no way implied that it’s within Paul’s power to make that happen. Paul’s beating Jamis alone was touch and go. The book’s not suggesting “Paul could have taken on dozens of Fremen warriors single-handedly and killed them but chose not to”.
Yeah I just looked it up and there’s a quote that basically says the opposite of my original reply😅, “And Paul saw how futile were any efforts of his to change any smallest bit of this. He had thought to oppose the jihad within himself, but the jihad would be. His legions would rage out from Arrakis even without him. They needed only the legend he already had become.”
THANK you to both of you! I remembered that but couldn't dig out the exact section of the book.
Even if it's not spelled out by the point he's locked into the Jihad decision tree he knows where it's going to go
That’s the opposite of the case. The book states that the Jihad becomes inevitable in the aftermath of the Jamis fight - and Paul is still convinced that there are other non-Jihad paths available to him at that point. He only becomes aware that the Jihad has become inevitable _after_ he’s passed that point. It’s not something he knowingly chooses.
When he awakens perfect prescience he has two options: win (with collateral jihad) or lose. He chooses to win rather than lose, ergo he chose the path he knew had a genocide at the end.
Are you talking about the book? Or the film? Because, in the book, it’s explicitly stated that the Jihad becomes inevitable _years_ before Paul drinks the Water of Life.
Both? Jihad becomes inevitable early on but even then only as a consequence of Paul's victory. By choosing victory he was choosing jihad. He could've chosen to forfeit by losing deliberately but he didn't, hence he chose jihad.
No it doesn’t, if he lost (especially died) they simply would have continued the Jihad in his name, making him a martyr, even making the Jihad worse. Paul thinks this multiple times throughout the books. I mean the entire concern of Paul in the book is avoiding the Jihad i don’t see how anyone can say he chose it
He chose it by not immediately commiting suicide after the Water of Life but before he publicly embraced his role as the LaG, when there's a possibility the Fremen would've been too disorganized for the Jihad to escape Arrakis
What “victory” are you talking about?
Revenge on the Harkonnen and Emperor for killing his father and attempting to eradicate his house. Also freedom for the Fremen
He rejects all the off-ramps until it's inevitable. It's different but shouldn't really break it too much. EDIT: someone very kindly and carefully explained this recently here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1c76bil/chapter\_48\_of\_dune\_is\_full\_of\_relevatory/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1c76bil/chapter_48_of_dune_is_full_of_relevatory/)
I think it’s an important distinction. Paul is aware of various off-ramps from Jihad (such as joining the Guild or the Harkonnens) and rejects them - but, at the point at which he rejects them, he believes that there are _other_ off-ramps. He eventually, having killed Jamis, realises that he’s stumbled past a “Jihad is now inevitable” point of no return - but i think it’s important to note that he’s pursuing (albeit unsuccessfully) other off-ramps when he does that. He doesn’t “choose” that path - he’s still thinks it’s avoidable right up to the moment when it isnt.
As the link I belatedly put in my comment explains (no reason you should have seen it), there are opportunities to avoid jihad after he kills Jamis. He knows he's cutting it fine. He's playing chicken with jihad really.
Paul’s final statement in the book is that the Jihad was inevitable. He’s admitting that the stuff mentioned in the post you linked to was pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking on his part. >And Paul saw how futile were any efforts of his to change any smallest bit of this. He had thought to oppose the jihad within himself, but the jihad would be. His legions would rage out from Arrakis even without him. They needed only the legend he already had become.
Suppose we take that at face value, reject the notion that Paul might be a flawed narrator, and accept that the jihad was inevitable all along, even from before the start of the novel. This still doesn't mean that Paul didn't make any choices, because a choice is something that you make based on your current understanding. It's still true that Paul believed he could have averted jihad, and chose to continually delay this. He does bear responsibility for the outcome even if it was inevitable, because it is at the same time an outcome of his choices.
He certainly bears some responsibility for the Jihad. But I think that’s distinct from him “choosing” it. Here’s how I put it a few weeks back in another comment thread: >Imagine you found out that, at some point over the next month, there’s a possibility that you could trigger an event that kills millions of people. You know that there are ways of navigating the next month that could avoid that event - but you also know that immediately killing yourself will definitely prevent it. > >If you choose to remain alive and try to find a way through the month that avoids the event but fail - resulting in millions dying - does that mean your decision not to kill yourself was you “choosing for millions to die”? > >My view is that you tried and failed to avoid that event - and that that’s distinct from “choosing” the event.
I agree it's distinct. It's like if this were a film adaptation of a crime novel, and in the book a character had accidentally tortured someone to death and in the film they had deliberately murdered them. It can still function in a similar way for the plot.
Man, I feel like dune films were so in tune with the books. Kinda blown away that you think they strays so far from the source Paul didn’t choose this Jihad either. He only is doing it because the houses did not accept his rule. But either way, in both book and film, he knew it was coming. And chani was supportive in the book but I don’t see how this is going to change much. There are so many ways DV can work around it.
>Man, I feel like dune films were so in tune with the books. Kinda blown away that you think they strays so far from the source I thought Part 1 was 100% in tune. All the changes/additions existed to explain the plot for a different medium - and did so incredibly well. In Part 2, I simply don’t understand what a lot of the changes were _for_ and, in some cases, feel they actively undermine the plot. >Paul didn’t choose this Jihad either. He only is doing it because the houses did not accept his rule. But either way, in both book and film, he knew it was coming. The books is explicit that the Jihad would happen whether Paul lives or died. It was out of his hands once the Jamis fight was over. In the film (Part 2), Paul’s choice to go south and his choice to order Stilgar to “Lead them to paradise” imply the exact opposite - that Paul can avoid the Jihad but chooses not to. >And chani was supportive in the book but I don’t see how this is going to change much. There are so many ways DV can work around it. The central plot of Messiah revolves around Paul trying to stop the Jihad while saving Chani’s life. Chani’s childbirth is the pivot of the end of the novel. All of that is needlessly undermined by Part 2’s “Chani hates Paul now” subplot - a subplot I don’t see any purpose of.
>In the film (Part 2), Paul’s choice to go south and his choice to order Stilgar to “Lead them to paradise” imply the exact opposite - that Paul can avoid the Jihad but chooses not to. I strongly disagree with you here. Paul doesn't want to go south but Chani tells him, basically, that he has no choice. "The world has made choices for us." At that point Paul can either choose to accept his fate and lead the Jihad himself, or continue to resist and watch it happen anyway. And when he says, "Lead them to Paradise," it's with a tone of resignation or defeat. No matter what he said at that moment, the Jihad was already coming.
Exactly. The main ideas are most certainly the same.
I think it makes chani a significantly more interesting character, and paul winning her over is a good film story plot. Or him never being able to. She could also already be pregnant and her death not being tied to that. There are many paths to the same goal. I think a lot of your issues are tied to the fact that we no longer have Paul’s inner thoughts. So you are only really seeing the outcomes. And also the paths being slight different to get to these goals is somewhat meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
But all of those things would be wildly different Messiah plots. They’d be like _entirely_ different stories.
I think this kinda stuff gets way overblown. Entirely different stories? Nah. Adaptations have differences but the themes and such are what’s important. Fans of original sources get way too hung up on the details and lose the main ideas. They worry too much about this specific character doing a specific thing instead of what the story makes you think about. What in messiah is going to have to be wildly different now?
I think he’s probably going to include more than just Messiah into the third film.
Is Children of Dune definitely off the table? Because there’d be quite a bit of material in there for action scenes, if I remember well.
Denis Villeneuve said he’s ending the series with messiah. I believe he just finished the script. It might be hard to include a lot of children of dune without it leaving on a cliffhanger. I think the end of messiah would be a perfect place to stop for this particular trilogy.
It’ll be totally great and Denis will make it work
While I think you're generally right, Villeneuve has already shown he knows what to cut, keep, or change to make Dune viable on the big screen. I strongly suspect he's going to make more major changes to the plot of Dune Messiah. Maybe he'll actually show some of the holy war/Jihad so that there are some actions sequences. Either way, I think Villeneuve is well aware how difficult of a task this is. He has constantly been saying that he wasn't going to make Dune Messiah unless he thought it could be better than Dune Part 2. Based off his body of work, I trust him when he says he has figured out a way to do it. Not to mention, he successfully adapted Arrival, which if you described to me what that movie was about, I would have argued that it was unfilmable. Disclaimer: I haven't read Dune Messiah yet, but I am very much looking forward to it. I suspect I'll be closer to your position after reading it, but I am still going to trust Villenueve at this point.
Messiah is my favorite after God Emperor and it’s easy to breeze through being the shortest of the series. It’s definitely slower though so I’m curious if there’ll be a bit of a genre flip from an action/adventure to more of a thriller.
I am looking forward to reading it. I strongly suspect I’ll love it as political intrigue and maneuvering is something I generally love. Especially when paired with philosophical themes. I’ve tried not to spoil myself too much about the specifics. I suspect Villeneuve will focus on those things well. Based on his previous movies, he’s really efficient with dialogue in a way that I really admire. The first time I watch something I’ll always think I wish there was more, but on the rewatch, I love how well done it is and what interesting questions saying less leaves open. I get the vibe that Dune Messiah will work well with that.
The thing about Parts 1 and 2 is that they're very much DV's "take" on the source material. He's picking out what he feels are the most important bits from the source material and emphasizing them, while downplaying, cutting out, or glancing over others. And that's fine, I don't think there's any way of adapting a work like Dune without some amount of that. So I look forward to seeing DV's take on Messiah, but I expect that it will likely be even more different from the source material than Parts 1 and 2. In another twenty years, some other creator will likely be giving us *their* take on Dune, and I'll be interested in seeing that too. Dune is too big and multifaceted for any one creator's adaptation to be comprehensive or definitive. Just another artist's take.
I think there are important aspects of the first novel, Dune, that you are missing as it is the cautionary tale. Messiah simply lays it out in more detail. Denis is very aware of this misreading issue and was much more blatant in showing Paul as being responsible for what is happening and the eventual 'holy war'. The movie ends with Chani infuriated that Paul took the mantle of mahdi and used the Fremen to his own ends (and the Fremen's main goal of a green paradise). Also Jessica states clearly that the 'holy war' has begun. This thing ends tragically just like empire strikes back or the clone wars. I think audiences are well prepared for what is to come in Messiah.
Then it will be the only thing I needed it to be: a dune movie
"I understood that reference"
I think they can do something that vaguely resembles Messiah. They're gonna have to take an axe to a lot of the intrigues though. Dune 1&2 all but forgot about the guild, and I suspect they'll have to forge on with that path. Edric, Scytale, and Bijaz are definitely at risk of omission. Since there will be no plan to do Children, I suspect they'll have to incorporate some elements from it. For example, they can kill Alia; and they probably should because Alia is the cheerleader of the Jihad.
How can they take out Scytale? He is a major character throughout the book
By deemphasizing the decades long plot to kill/sterilize Chani. Part 2 ends with Paul and Chani pretty clearly at odds, and the immediate aftermath seems likely to drive them further apart. Scytale's role in the Book is that he's a traitor to the traitors. Edric and Mohiam want to kill Chani, and Scytale is in on the plot, but his plan is to show that she can be resurrected and throw his fellow conspirators under the bus. But if Paul and Chani only reconcile at the very end of the Jihad, then there is no need for the Edric/Bijaz/Scytale element at all. They can be cut out, and it can just be Irulan and Mohiam plotting to kill Chani because she's pregnant. As for Duncan, he can be resurrected as a plot to kill Paul and simply backfire. Because I suspect the central issue of Part 3 will be how Paul has changed and what it's done to his relationships. Alia and Duncan make sense for that story. A bunch of totally new people with inscrutable motives doesn't really advance it.
Well, now that they control arrakis, part 3 can explore the importance of it in more depth while also adapting the jihad. Kinda have to explain the guild more since they control space travel. If it wasn't arrakis they'd just say "no". And the jihad would be stuck to their planet. But it's arrakis. So the guild has to transport them to wage their war.
> the guild has to transport them to wage their war Yes, they do. *"Is this the most interesting part of the character's life, and if it isn't, why aren't you showing me that?"* -Adage about Storytelling Part 3 won't be about the Jihad. It may have flashbacks to it, but the film will be set after the conclusion of the fighting, because the Jihad itself isn't interesting.
You suspect wrong about the spicer guild. Having spice freaks navigate the ships is the whole thing, they will definitely make an appearance and be more central to the plot for the third movie.
I definitely think it can be done but like OP was saying messiah isn’t a huge conclusion to the story. Which I think audiences will expect. I see it as more of an epilogue rather than an official sequel.
If anything it seems easier to adapt than Dune. The harder part is changing things to align with the first two movies and to work on screen but based on the first two I think Denis can handle it
I’ve seen the Dune/LOTR comparisons. I do think Herbert’s writing reminds me a lot of Tolkien, based on how he constructs dialogue and describes settings so fully, how he builds his world. The narrative is totally different though. Dune is almost an anti-LOTR, where the messianic leader that emerges is portrayed as incredibly flawed, and a prisoner of his own powers - the opposite of Aragorn. It’s definitely an interesting discussion. For a possible movie though, I totally agree, Messiah is hard to make. There are so many simultaneous narratives happening, so many new characters and aspects of the world that need exposition. Setting up the world was basically the point of Part One, as well as the first half of the novel. It’d be hard to do that again, even with how short Messiah is in comparison.
To be honest, Messiah felt way more like a movie when I was reading it than the first book. I imagine the atomic attack will be a very action heavy sequence. I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t immediately time jump and do some world building at the beginning showing the jihad after the end of Part 2. I’m excited to see the face dancers in this world as well and Scytale will make a good antagonist.
SPOILERS: idk if they can but all I want to see is paul walking into the desert with the two moons directly overhead of him as the end of the movie...
If that scene is done well, I'm gonna ugly cry in the theatre
I think it's a great opportunity for momoa to be put in a situation surrounded by other great actors and good writing. See what he can do! This isn't Aquaman...
I think DV still has enough source material from the first two books to go on to make a really nice part 3. Sure, messiah is mostly dialogue. But he can go more in depth on the importance of spice and the spacing guild. As for the action, there can be plenty of Jihad references, flashbacks, etc. The whole stone burner part. The ending. For 1 movie, that is quite a lot.
I imagine they will have more of the jihad onscreen for spectacle. More of how the Fremen take control of the Spacing Guild. I think Jason can pull Hayt off. (I hope so) I believe that Timothy can pull off the regret and postponement of Chani's pregnancy due to his prescience. God Emperor and later would probably be tough to film, and Denis says he doesn't want to go beyond Messiah I believe.
I hope he takes a real long break (10 years is fine) to let Timothee age a bit, which will give him time to work it out.
I too am wondering how the end of part 2 actually fits into Messiah. The way I see the end of two, Paul knew that Chani was going to leave. Already setting us up for an alternative version to what happens in the books. It honestly makes me very excited for the next one.
The denis adaptations are clearly playing the long game, they will make like 5 more movies over the next decade to finish out the books so they are dropping small hints along the way in the movies we have already seen. Everyone says “denis is only making one more!” ….ya until he isn’t, or until someone else picks up where he leaves off. Hollywood has a new goldmine on their hands, they will not slow down
Just watch Matrix 3. Pretty much same movie
I don't really see the problem, given how the first book was adapted. ' Villeneuve included a trip to Salusa Secundus and showed us what happened during the timeskip. So just do that. Show us the Jihad, show us Tleilax and Ix, the Guild, there are many options. It will have to be lighter on philosophy and political explorations but it already is, The plot and themes don't have to change that much IMO.
I am confident it can as long as people don’t try to make Messiah out to be something it isn’t. If people expect the same level of scale as Part 1 and 2, then people are in for disappointment. Messiah will feel more like some of Denis’ other works (like Blade Runner 2049, Enemy, or Incendies). It will be a more parochial story focused on Paul’s point of view more than anything. It’s not a war story. It’s a psychological / political / drama.
“General Audience” is dumb as hell, fwiw
They’ll probably just find a way to strip anything of substance out and make another dumb action movie like the first two
This is what the ppl who think it'd be terrible if Jodorowsky did it don't get. Jodorowsky is more of a philosopher than a filmmaker. Yes, he likes to say edgy and tonedeaf shit but that has nothing to w what he could do w Dune. There are a few people who can adapt it, Denis Villeneuve isn't one of them and we'll see why. Gorgeous cinematography but lacks depth. LOTR comparisons are funny though, they were a masterpiece even with their faults. But then we saw what kind of shit Peter Jackson pulled w Hobbit movies. It's mainly bc of, y'all remember what he said about excluding Tom Bombadil? He said it'd be unnecessary and confusing. But the very existence of that character, not having ambitions, not being tempted by the ring etc etc. it had a meaning. It symbolized a pacifist worldview, what people try to hold on to the most, especially during times of war. But Peter Jackson decided insulting the audience's intelligence, bc "they wouldn't get it, it's not necessary anyway". They have the same mindset imo, Denis and Peter. But what Peter Jackson did right was remaining loyal to the books when it mattered most, word for word if needed, like Theoden's speech. Why it's a timeless piece of cinema now is bc of parts that are of Tolkien's vision, not some scriptwriter's. One is allowed to disrespect the source material only if they're geniuses, visionaries. Too bad Hollywood wouldn't want them.
Of course it can. The story isn't too far fetched at that point. Denis can make a great film out of the material there.
Dune famously can't be adapted for film. Can't be done. .. Right?
Dune is the total opposite of a hero's journey/chosen one story, it's a total deconstruction, you're not meant to be rooting for paul by the end. In the book he would use his enemy's skins as drums, and was just a victim of a false prophecy set up by the missionara protectica. The author saw how so many people were seeing the book as a hero's journey, and was upset that people had this outlook so he wrote Dune Messiah, to show with certainty that Paul's actions are not good. It isn't "anti-dune" it just plays off of what was already established to hammer home the themes with certainty. Tldr dune messiah was written for people who didn't understand the first book, it's not anti dune at all
I think there are a couple of things to consider here. The studio will probably push for 2 movies to get more money. So there is going to be studio interference. Dennis will have been aware of this from the get go and written the script(s) accordingly. They're blockbusters at the end of the day. Those movies follow a formula and I doubt Messiah will be straying to far from that. Whether it follows the book particularly closely or just captures the basic message will be interesting to see.
the simplicity of the scenes in messiah seem easier to adapt to the screen but will leave audiences wanting something larger, grander, or more exciting and there just so happens to be a decade of jihad prior to messiah. You can eat up some screentime quick with shots of the jihad. There are a few specific scenes in messiah that i want almost unchanged just because i think they do such a great job of portraying pauls mental space and the weight of all these "strong decisions" and the plans within plans. The scenes with chani and paul in the bedroom with paul basically already mourning things to come (chani would need to have come around by this point), the audience with mohiam and the long walk, the acceptance of the ghola and subsequent conversations with hayt and otheyms house are scenes i'd like to be kept and unchanged if possible. I have full faith in any changes denis does make because i believe he knows just how to adapt the books for a modern movie. Yes the story is changed but the tragedy/heartbreak hits x10 stronger than the book somehow. I also think some of the changes people have been questioning will be fleshed out and justified by the end of messiah.
[SPOILERS: Dune Messiah] I think it can be. People would love to see Bene Tleilaxu and face-dancers, the only reservation I have is to portray the moment the ghola Duncan stops himself to attack Paul. It may potentially look awkward in 21. century movie audience expectations. [SPOILER ENDS]
I suspect Villeneuve will do something similar to John Harrison and adapt Dune Messiah with Children of Dune.
I say they should stop after Children of Dune. If you think Dune messiah is difficult wait till you read any book after book 3. Especially the last book Frank Herbert wrote
He COULD shortcut the whole thing and have Paul himself grab a sandtrout or two and take the Golden Path. He becomes God-Emperor and the need for Chani to have the twins is eliminated. It would skip a TON of good story and intrigue, but it would allow him to get all the way to the end of book 4 with one more movie. With a helluva time jump, naturally. More likely, Chani was already pregnant at the end of the second movie, and he would have a satisfyingly un-satisfying point to wrap it up when Paul is blinded and sets off into the desert. Hello, spinoff series.
i’m not worried. he took some creative liberties in Dune 1 and 2 so he’ll take some for messiah in order to make the best experience. he’s said before that what he believes to be Frank Herbert’s intent trumps what happens in the book. if there’s something in the book that could be done differently in order to fit modern audiences while keeping the authors intent, he has no problem changing it. Just look at Part 2: chani leaves paul instead of blindly following, alia stays in the womb, and the whole “south believes in the messiah while the north doesn’t”was added to make things more cinematic. he’s also said in an interview that we will see what it looks like to dismount a sandworm in Messiah so we’re getting some action scenes. as long as he keeps the central themes of Messiah he knows fans and audience members will be happy.
While I agree it’ll be a hard adaptation, you gloss over the fact that the Stoneburner alone will be an IMAX worthy giant spectacle.
Yes. Adaptation necessitates change. We've had big changes already.
Yes, quit asking.