Dune: Part Two (2024)

[Cpt. Aramsham]

I just watched this in IMAX. It is… not what I expected.

While Part One cut out a bunch of subplots and created various new scenes (that mostly amounted to exposition or "padding"), it followed the book's story fairly closely.

In contrast, Part Two departs dramatically from the book. Many of the book's scenes are there in some form, but they have been changed significantly, and the new scenes that have been added take the story in a very different direction. For the most part, the movie's themes are themes present in the book, but it's all told via a significantly reimagined story. (Something like the difference between Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Blade Runner.) Someone who watched first Lynch's Dune and then this film might wonder if they were adapting the same book—a few of the changes make "making it rain" seem like a trifle, and suggest that Villeneuve's Dune Messiah (now looking more and more like a certainty) will necessarily also be a loose adaptation.

It's an adaptation with a definite point of view: it takes some of the tricky questions from the book (like what it is that makes Paul unable or unwilling to stop the Jihad) and provides clear answers. If nothing else, it brings to the forefront aspects of the book that the other adaptations have tended to downplay.

What do you all think?

[georgiedenbro]

I think that very little could compel me to see part 2 after part 1 bored me to tears. I wanted to go to sleep during it.

[Serkanner]

I have not watched the first movie and also will not watch the second. It was to be expected that the movie would be different from the books with the only question being how much. When I read Villeneuve would be the director I had another reason to opt out as I am not a fan of his over the top visual style at all. Hopefully the movies will bring in a new generation of Dune enthusiasts who would want to read the books.

[3 P-O]

Yeah, there are some drastic changes. When Villeneuve was making the first part he said that he wanted to concentrate on women and specifically on the Bene Gesserit. This is even more evident on part two as he explains in this interview by Max Evry:

Villeneuve: "I want the movie to be an adaptation about the Bene Gesserit. I want the Bene Gesserit to be at the center of the epicenter of this adaptation. It’s one of the things I feel is the most accurate with our time."

Another explanation Villeneuve has given for the changes is how sees the role of Dune Messiah. For example, in this interview by Joe Deckelmeier Villeneuve claims that Herbert wrote Dune Messiah because many readers understood the first novel wrong:

Villeneuve: "But I will say that when Frank Herbert wrote the book, and then when the book came out, he was disappointed by how people perceived Paul Atreides. At the time, he felt that people were talking about Paul as a hero, and for him, he was an anti-hero. He was a dark figure. The book was a warning for him about a Messianic figure. And for that, he wrote Dune Messiah to correct [that] and to make sure that people understood his intention. I knew that story. I had the benefit of having read Dune Messiah, so I wrote Part 2 having that in mind."

But as we know from several sources, the first three novels were one book in Herbert's head and parts of Dune Messiah were written alongside the first novel. So Villeneuve's view seems strange.

In any case, these premises at least explain why he did some of the changes.

I watched the film about a week ago and cannot remember enough. Some of Villeneuve's interpretations seemed plausible within the rules of the universe. His choice to concentrate on the Bene Gesserit forced him to imagine scenes that are not in the book. I remember in the end there was a sequence where

Mohiam said that the sisterhood planned and wanted the destruction of the Atreides, not the Emperor.

And when Mohiam screamed "Abomination!" to Paul, it made me unsure if Villeneuve has a good grasp of the source material.

[georgiedenbro]

I didn't feel that Villeneuve had any 'interpretation' in Dune: part 1. To me it was just a paint-by-numbers exercise in putting actors in front of green screen. The performances weren't vivid, the characters uninteresting. I didn't care about Paul at all. The Baron was no fun. Leto and Jessica didn't have great chemistry. Actually the only actor I thought was entertaining was...ugh...Jason Momoa. He always does the same thing, but he did it well. I don't think it was right for Duncan, but it was lively. I may be in a minority, but I also thought the Blade Runner sequel was bland and lacking heart. I did finally see Arrival the other week, and although the story is fairly interesting (which wasn't his), the pace was plodding at times (which I also felt in Dune pt 1) and most of the characters were treated as window dressing. He was mostly interested in big FX and huge scale. Everything looked massive and impressive, but there was not that much more to it. That's what I expect from him now. I think he's got to be the most overrated director in Hollywood, by a longshot. I would have said JJ Abrams, but I'm not even sure if he's 'rated' at all beyong being a McDonalds ATM.

[Cpt. Aramsham]

I'm not a big fan of Villeneuve, but his Dune Part Two definitely shows a very strong "take" on the material, in the sense that it offers one distinct interpretation of what the story is about. Nobody who watches this film is going to walk away thinking that Paul defeating the Harkonnens and Emperor makes it a happy ending.

I do think you can already see signs of this in Part One, particularly in the portrayal of the Bene Gesserit. (I've seen people thinking "Bene Gesserit" were some kind of humanoid alien race rather than human, given their weird powers and the film's emphasis on Paul's genetic heritage from his mother.)

Visually I'd say the films have an undeniable sense of grandeur (and the wormriding scenes in Part Two are intense) that is mostly right for the material, though I find his style or taste in design too limited in its range, with the monumental and minimalist scenery eventually becoming monotonous. It makes for good cinematic spectacle, but the world doesn't feel entirely believable. (The Fremen sietches seem to consist of ancient ruins and caves where they just sit around on the stone floor, without any attempts to make the spaces livable.) So I agree that he's something of a one-trick pony (as far as the movies I've seen), but it's not a bad trick, and it's at least a defensible approach to Dune.

One thing I didn't like in his Dune movies is that the universe seems so grimdark that it makes the Jihad less of a big deal. The Harkonnens hardly go a minute without slaughtering random bystanders, the Sardaukar start their day off with human sacrifices on a genocidal scale, and Caladan… appears entirely uninhabited. It's not clear whether ravaging Fremen hordes are going to be all that much worse for the average Imperial citizen.

[Cpt. Aramsham]

But as we know from several sources, the first three novels were one book in Herbert's head and parts of Dune Messiah were written alongside the first novel. So Villeneuve's view seems strange.

To be quite honest, I don't think Frank Herbert was telling the truth about that. Not that he was necessarily lying deliberately, but that his memory was unreliable or he was spinning the truth, giving an exaggerated impression of the unity of the three books. ("Wrote part of" is essentially meaningless without some indication of how large a part, not to mention what he meant by wrote.) Because it's abundantly clear that major parts of Dune Messiah and Children of Dune cannot have been in his mind when he wrote Dune. I'm also convinced that him writing any sequels at all was contingent on the first book being a success, and that he was too much of a pro to put a lot of work into something he wasn't hoping to sell yet.

I recently read The Spice Must Flow: The Story of Dune, from Cult Novels to Visionary Sci-Fi Movies by Ryan Britt, and was pleased to see that he also made this point, emphasizing that many of Frank Herbert's claims about how he wrote the book need to be taken critically, since they are contradicted by other evidence. In my view Britt rather overstates the influence of Frank's editors on the story, particularly John W. Campbell, but it's an important corrective nevertheless. While much of what Britt describes is old news to hardcore Dune fans, he's also done some original reporting, including the only interview I've ever seen with Frank's third wife, Theresa Shackleford.

[georgiedenbro]

Nobody who watches this film is going to walk away thinking that Paul defeating the Harkonnens and Emperor makes it a happy ending.

Ok that is kind of good. Maybe I'll give a second thought to seeing it, just to see how this is portrayed. The problem is, since I didn't like Paul in part 1, I inherently won't feel that I want him to succeed, and I won't feel the pathos of his giving up and letting it all happen. He kind of felt powerless in part 1, being overshadowed by other characters. I think Lynch's Dune did a better job of it being from Paul's POV at the start and at important points.

One thing I didn't like in his Dune movies is that the universe seems so grimdark that it makes the Jihad less of a big deal. The Harkonnens hardly go a minute without slaughtering random bystanders, the Sardaukar start their day off with human sacrifices on a genocidal scale, and Caladan… appears entirely uninhabited. It's not clear whether ravaging Fremen hordes are going to be all that much worse for the average Imperial citizen.

I'd be ok with showing that the future is an extremely fierce place, with even the 'best' of the families using tactics that we'd call totalitarian in our current world. The trick would be to show the Atreides doing these things out of brute necessity, and then showing the contrast - what would happen if they didn't do these things, being wiped out, and people like the Harkonnens were largely in control.

[Naib]

I got to see Part 2 for free. Frankly, I want my money back. Villeneuve somehow increases the exposure of the women but also reduces their power, stature, and significance from the book. This is not a popular opinion elsewhere.