Nasnandos wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2024 8:23 am

Deimos wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2024 11:31 am I decided I'm going to re-read it before I watch the DV movies.

Just a suggestion, but I would do the the opposite. Having the book fresh in your head before seeing the films will just make the condensed parts, omissions, and changes from the book more distracting.

Well, Ok... maybe
I'm not fanatical about "Dune Canon" the way I am about "JRRT works canon."
I want to reread the book prior to seeing the movie just to get the story back in my mind.
Things can happen vary fast on the screen and I don't want to be guessing at something I missed.
Since I'm not going to hyperventilate if the movie doesn't follow the book (whether by alterations/additions/omissions) do you still recommend skipping the reread prior to seeing the movies?

Deimos wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 10:55 pm Since I'm not going to hyperventilate if the movie doesn't follow the book (whether by alterations/additions/omissions) do you still recommend skipping the reread prior to seeing the movies?

That's up to you. I'm just going by the reaction of two friends who re-read Dune before seeing it, and wished they hadn't afterward. There are a few major changes in part 2, a big change to one main character in particular. We found those very distracting/disappointing, vs vs my wife who barely remembers the book, and another friend who never read the book. Both liked those parts. It's all in the third act and added a bit of a sour note to the ending for me, in what I thought was otherwise a fantastic film overall.

The movie takes its time to tell the story, so I think it is unlikely you will miss anything. I do recommend watching part 1 again before seeing part 2 though. It's really just the second half of that movie, and picks up right where part one stopped.

Saw it last night.

It was a pretty awesome experience, especially in IMAX. Really blown away by the visual spectacle, the spot-on casting for the characters, and the performances. Insofar as the story and book vs. movie, it was all there, or at least all of the important parts that were needed to bring the complete story onto the screen. Just as in the first part, a few smaller details had to be left out, but it really didn't impact the plot in any way, and any viewers that didn't read the book won't know anything is missing, or has been altered, as is the case of the two major changes Kit has alluded to.

The first one is definitely a byproduct of the huge time compression between Paul and Jessica joining the Fremen, and the emperor's arrival on Arrakis, so it makes sense that it played out the way it did. However, there is a key moment that that missing character is a part of at the end that has greater implications in Children of Dune, but since there are no plans to take the movies that far, we won't really see that play out. As for the other change, one that fundamentally alters a major character, I was of mixed feelings yesterday, thinking that it did feel more appropriate somehow, but this morning as I think on it more, I'm catching more of a whiff of modern sensibilities playing a role in the change, and an 'update' to the character driven by a particular socio-political movement and ideology that pervades entertainment today. Nothing wrong with that movement by itself and what it champions, but its forced insertion into a classic work like this leaves me feeling disappointed for the author's intentions and creation because the character, as written was also perfectly valid and just as realistic in their path and personal choices. If Dennis gets to make Dune Messiah, it will be interesting to see how they will reconcile all that.

So, other than disagreeing with that one character change, all that remains are minor nitpicks, such as the removal of characters like Thufir Hawat and Count Fenring, whose scenes were shot but removed from the final cut, and the climactic battle at the end felt overly rushed. After such a huge buildup, it was either over too quickly, or they simply didn't show enough, at least to my satisfaction. We know that the Fremen ultimately prove better fighters than the Sardaukar, but after the latter were pumped up for the audience by showing how easily they defeated the best the Atreides had, they were practically a non-factor in the final battle. Guess you can't do much against sandworms, but the ground fight was over in a flash. Disappointing. Also, either I missed it, or when they were discussing the plan of attack, it was never mentioned what the atomics would be used for. Instead, we just get to see them launched and the subsequent destruction of the Shield Wall, but I'm sure many were left wondering why they weren't used to wipe out the vast majority of the assembled Sardaukar army and ships. It just felt... odd.

Lastly, I was looking out for the scene with the lasguns and the "No shields!" and good thing I was because it happens right at the beginning of the movie... lol. It comes and goes so quickly, I think most people won't even pick up on it, but yeah, a line or two to explain that somewhere would have been cool, from a techie-nerd's viewpoint. Interestingly enough, for the new Dune Awakening survival game coming out, the game designers had to go to the Herbert Estate to seek permission to do away with that particular in-universe rule. Why? In play-testing, they quickly realized that far too many players would 'break' the game by constantly and purposely inducing localized nuke strikes on each other.

Nasnandos wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 4:48 am

Deimos wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 10:55 pm Since I'm not going to hyperventilate if the movie doesn't follow the book (whether by alterations/additions/omissions) do you still recommend skipping the reread prior to seeing the movies?

That's up to you. I'm just going by the reaction of two friends who re-read Dune before seeing it, and wished they hadn't afterward.

When there's an adaptation coming out and I haven't read the book, I never try to read it beforehand (or reread it, if I have read it before). I never had the opportunity to enjoy Jackson's LOTR movies just as movies, because I had read the books many times and instantly spotted all the many changes he made. That's why when the Harry Potter movies were coming out, I purposely waited until afterward to read the books. I was able to enjoy all the Potter movies on their own merits, without wringing my hands over anything changed.

With Dune, I'm not as into the book as I was with LOTR, but having read it probably 3 or so times, I know the story well enough to detect any major changes made by the adaptation. And if they're minor changes, I guess they don't matter that much. So I was able to enjoy Part 1 reasonably well on its own merits. People keep alluding to a big change or two in Part 2 and I'm about at the point of PMing one of you to ask what it was. I think I know, as some things I've seen recently have alluded to it. It would be a big change but perhaps not all that consequential of a change. But if it is the change you allude to, knowing that it's what I heard about would alleviate my apprehension about it being something else more serious.

Sometimes we take our entertainment too seriously, I guess. I do, anyway.

Olorin wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:24 am When there's an adaptation coming out and I haven't read the book, I never try to read it beforehand (or reread it, if I have read it before)....
With Dune, I'm not as into the book as I was with LOTR, but having read it probably 3 or so times, I know the story well enough to detect any major changes made by the adaptation. And if they're minor changes, I guess they don't matter that much. ...
Sometimes we take our entertainment too seriously, I guess. I do, anyway.

I'm just the opposite.
If There is a movie being made of a book I'll read the book before seeing the movie.
It's not a hard and fast rule -- I have made a few exceptions, but very few.
I've never regretted the times I read the book first and then saw the movie. Never.

Valkrist wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 6:26 am As for the other change, one that fundamentally alters a major character, I was of mixed feelings yesterday, thinking that it did feel more appropriate somehow, but this morning as I think on it more, I'm catching more of a whiff of modern sensibilities playing a role in the change, and an 'update' to the character driven by a particular socio-political movement and ideology that pervades entertainment today.

I had the same feeling the day after seeing it.

I have heard people say similar things about Jessica, as they thought she was made into Paul's enemy in the movie. I did not see her as such, but Paul actually did see her as an enemy of sorts in the book, and had that very thought.

Valkrist wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 6:26 am Interestingly enough, for the new Dune Awakening survival game coming out, the game designers had to go to the Herbert Estate to seek permission to do away with that particular in-universe rule. Why? In play-testing, they quickly realized that far too many players would 'break' the game by constantly and purposely inducing localized nuke strikes on each other.

Ha ha. That's dead on to what me and my old RPG and strategy gaming friends would have done back in the day if that were in game. We always added nukes to our Axis and Allies rules.

Olorin wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:24 am With Dune, I'm not as into the book as I was with LOTR, but having read it probably 3 or so times, I know the story well enough to detect any major changes made by the adaptation. And if they're minor changes, I guess they don't matter that much. So I was able to enjoy Part 1 reasonably well on its own merits.

You will probably enjoy part 2 as well. It's really just the second half of the same film. As a book adaptation, it is missing probably 60% of the book, and what they did keep from the book, they changed quite a bit. The film focuses on the main story line that centers around Paul, and hits all those story beats very well. It's a very well made and immersive film, with a few flaws. A few major ones to me, but I still like the film

Olorin wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:24 am People keep alluding to a big change or two in Part 2 and I'm about at the point of PMing one of you to ask what it was. I think I know, as some things I've seen recently have alluded to it. It would be a big change but perhaps not all that consequential of a change.

I saw it again yesterday, and enjoyed it even more than I did the first time. And hated a couple of the changes even more, especially that one character change we were talking about above. I just don't care for that character as portrayed in the film at all, which is a shame because it's a character I liked in the book.

Valkrist wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 6:26 am As for the other change, one that fundamentally alters a major character, I was of mixed feelings yesterday, thinking that it did feel more appropriate somehow, but this morning as I think on it more, I'm catching more of a whiff of modern sensibilities playing a role in the change, and an 'update' to the character driven by a particular socio-political movement and ideology that pervades entertainment today. Nothing wrong with that movement by itself and what it champions, but its forced insertion into a classic work like this leaves me feeling disappointed for the author's intentions and creation because the character, as written was also perfectly valid and just as realistic in their path and personal choices. If Dennis gets to make Dune Messiah, it will be interesting to see how they will reconcile all that.

After seeing it again and examining those scenes in more detail, I really dislike that change. Not enough to make me not like the film, I just wish one of those scenes was not the very last shot of the film. The film should have ended on Paul, or Jessica and Chani, as it did in the book. I worry Dune Messiah/Dune Part 3 will probably be even more different from the book with regards to that character. I suspect more of that socio-political ideology will be injected into it, but I hope not. If done the way the book plays out, the audience should care about and feel sympathy for what that character goes through. They will have to do a major 180 to make me care about the snotty, entitled, egocentric film version of that character now.

I'm sure non book fans will have no issue with it, but I heard more than a few grumbles from book fans about that character while walking out of the theater.

Another thing that rubbed me wrong, even more so the second time watching it, was the whole north vs south thing with the Fremen. One of the traits that made them such a powerful force in the book was that they were, for the most part, all believers, and all in unity with their goal. That change just does not fit with what Frank created. I'm sure it was added to make the change to that one character's story arc work in the film, which I guess is another reason I don't care for it.

I keep trying to find the article that I read where DV explains why he changed that character so much, but I can't seem to. Anyway, the basic gist of it, if his words are to be taken at face value and assuming he's not trying to deflect the exact type of criticism that you and I are leveling at it, but he says it had to do with wanting reinforce Herbert's message that this was a cautionary tale about the dangers of messianic figures, and not about Paul as a 'white saviour'. Apparently he felt there's a real concern for having this story misinterpreted as just that, and having that character behave that way as opposed to how it plays out in the novel, drives that point home more for the audience.

I'm always wary of filmmakers claiming they know the mind of an author and that the changes they make are supposed to be an improvement rather than hubris and poetic license, and in this case, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Paul Atreides may *seem* like a hero, but you're really not paying attention if that's all you get out of it. Having said that, they didn't have to make the changed character so irritating and downright unlikable in the process, and that's how it came across to me.

There is a third book yet to be made into a film that delves deeply into that theme of Herbert's story, so there was no need to alter a main character, and in turn her people, to such a blatant degree in this film. Maybe Spaith's and DV and have some plan to circle back around in film 3 with her.

SPOILERS IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM
There are several interviews where DV explained his intent to drive that point home, but I think he focused so much on it that he actually undermined Herbert's spirit and intent. If he left Chani as book Chani, the rest of the film still made the same point. If the change was really made to just add some modernized "girl power" attitude to the film, it did the opposite by making her a less intelligent and petty activist version of Herbert's Chani. It also made half the Fremen appear as misguided simpletons, which also goes against what Herbert wrote. The Fremen were a unified creation of their ecosystem and cannot exist in split "north" and "south" factions as the film ham-fistedly depicted. That seemed like DV cheaply inserting his own world view into Dune to me.

The more I think about that change, the more it irks me, so I suppose I just need to get over it. I really did like the film as a film. I just hate when an adaptation gets so close to the mark, but a few aspects of it miss the target so completely.

I suppose it could be argued that DV was being cautious in the event Dune Messiah doesn't get the green light, though that seems all but assured now.

However, the movie ends so abruptly and lacks any closure between these two characters that it's impossible to not think that he wasn't already looking ahead to the next installment to tie that up. If not, then it's gotta go down as one of the most dissatisfying movie endings of all time.

Other than that observation, you summed up my thoughts perfectly on the character and the change. As for the Fremen split, no culture is ever truly homogenous, but that's essentially how the Fremen are depicted in the novel, and yes, doing this does smack a bit of forced conflict and political commentary. Sadly, it's expected now for writers and directors to insert their own personal views into adaptations where they have no business being. If that's what you want to do, that's perfectly fine, but if that's the case, then do it with an original work, not someone else's.

I saw just the other day that DV is now saying that he will not make Messiah unless he's sure that he can make it a better movie than part two. IMHO given the weakness of the source material, that's an impossibly high bar to hurdle. He has also said that he's thinking now that it may be good to do a different project in between Part Two and Messiah. I think the take home from all of this is that we should not expect to see Messiah on our screens two years from now unless somebody else directs it. My preference would be for DV to make it so that we have a consistent artistic vision, even if that vision might be slightly flawed. it is certainly better than what we could have gotten out of a sprawling complicated book like this!

Olorin wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2024 9:35 am I saw just the other day that DV is now saying that he will not make Messiah unless he's sure that he can make it a better movie than part two. IMHO given the weakness of the source material, that's an impossibly high bar to hurdle. He has also said that he's thinking now that it may be good to do a different project in between Part Two and Messiah. I think the take home from all of this is that we should not expect to see Messiah on our screens two years from now unless somebody else directs it. My preference would be for DV to make it so that we have a consistent artistic vision, even if that vision might be slightly flawed. it is certainly better than what we could have gotten out of a sprawling complicated book like this!

Yeah... I get how he wants to challenge himself as a filmmaker, but that's a very problematic statement in that it paves the way for even greater liberties to be taken with the source material. Good of him to warn us ahead of time though. I don't think the problem is so much that Messiah is a weak book - I actually consider it to be a fitting, if depressing end to Paul's story. The problem is how slim the book is and what DV will find to fill the inevitable runtime of nearly three hours with. Maybe we'll get to see more of Fremen's Jihad?

As far as other projects and time, DV has gone on record as saying he wanted to do at least two other projects in between for sure, and that the wait would be four years, not two. At least that will let the cast age out a bit.

Unfortunately it also lets those of us who have, hmmm, crested the hill age out a bit too, LOL!

I also had thought about how slim DM is and how that might present a challenge. When you brought it up I thought you were going to praise your favorite source material expansion (the Hobbit movie trilogy) and pine for a similar treatment for DM! But covering the Jihad is an even better idea. As I recall, in the books that took place entirely off-screen and you only know about it from later references. I guess in books you can do that but if you're making a movie and there's a pivotal event that reshapes the Imperium and takes 62 billion lives, I'd think that essential to visualize, even if only a few scenes. Of course, that would make for an even more depressing movie.

I'm not fishing for spoilers here but you allude to Part 2's abrupt ending. I think the average moviegoer wants movies to have a happy ending, and while Dune proper seems to have that, the main character winning, DM is a sandworm of a different color. Perhaps DV will color the story in such a way that it is a relief that Paul is driven from power, and thus there is a "happy" ending.

Olorin wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2024 11:15 am When you brought it up I thought you were going to praise your favorite source material expansion (the Hobbit movie trilogy) and pine for a similar treatment for DM!

I can smell bait from a mile away!

Love the book; could do without easily half of the three movies we were given.

But back to the topic at hand, I trust DV to deliver something that fills in the blanks, and as I mentioned the Jihad, the audience will need to be shown what about that event lands Paul in the predicament he finds himself in by the telling of the second book. It's a journey for the character, and we need to travel that road with him, not just hear about it in snippets or 2-second flashbacks. We need something more substantial. Also, I know DV's not interested in Children of Dune, but I do hope we get some inkling of the Golden Path and what about it causes Paul to ultimately reject it.

Olorin wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2024 11:15 am I'm not fishing for spoilers here but you allude to Part 2's abrupt ending. I think the average moviegoer wants movies to have a happy ending, and while Dune proper seems to have that, the main character winning, DM is a sandworm of a different color. Perhaps DV will color the story in such a way that it is a relief that Paul is driven from power, and thus there is a "happy" ending.

Dune Part 2 already started down the Dune Messiah path. Also, I suppose it's all a matter of perspective, but having seen all of Villeneuve's other films, I don't think he really does happy endings He does some of the most gut wrenching endings of any film maker.

As far as Dune Messiah being a thin book, then there is no excuse not to include as much of the story as possible. There is actually quite a lot that happens in the book. I think they will struggle to get it all in a 2 1/2 hour film.

Nasnandos wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2024 12:20 pm Dune Part 2 already started down the Dune Messiah path. Also, I suppose it's all a matter of perspective, but having seen all of Villeneuve's other films, I don't think he really does happy endings He does some of the most gut wrenching endings of any film maker.

I've seen 3 DV movies, not counting Dune: Sicario, Arrival, and Blade Runner 2049. I don't remember much about Sicario other than that it was good. Blade Runner 2049 had what I would call at worst a mixed ending. K presumably dies, but Dekkard is reunited with his daughter. It was a relatively uplifting ending, viewed against the movie as a whole and compared to the director's cut of the original Blade Runner. And Arrival, although there was certainly a tragic note associated with it, had a more or less positive ending. We met an alien species, it went well in the final analysis, and the main character, although she knows what her future holds, appears to be at peace with it. So, I think I'd say his movies might have emotionally complex endings rather than gut wrenching. At least they were not wrenching to my gut, in any case.

Nasnandos wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2024 12:20 pm As far as Dune Messiah being a thin book, then there is no excuse not to include as much of the story as possible. There is actually quite a lot that happens in the book. I think they will struggle to get it all in a 2 1/2 hour film.

Good point. But are you sure you wouldn't rather have a manufactured love story, or lots of extra orc raids? Actually, kidding aside, the potential for the love triangle is already there, since Paul will have both a wife and a concubine. In the book, the wife was purely for the political connection, but I could see a lot of filmmakers parlaying that into an emotional attachment to make the movie more "interesting." Would DV do that? I'd think not, but he's Quebecois, so his sensibilities are probably not necessarily identical to mine.

Olorin wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:44 am So, I think I'd say his movies might have emotionally complex endings rather than gut wrenching. At least they were not wrenching to my gut, in any case.

Give Incendies a watch

Nasnandos wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2024 12:20 pm Paul will have both a wife and a concubine. In the book, the wife was purely for the political connection, but I could see a lot of filmmakers parlaying that into an emotional attachment to make the movie more "interesting." Would DV do that? I'd think not, but he's Quebecois, so his sensibilities are probably not necessarily identical to mine.

I don't see him going there, but I fully expect him to deviate quite a bit from the book. He already has to in order to follow what he changed in Dune 1 and 2.

So, there are all these stories swirling now about Dune 3, ie, Dune Messiah. DV has long said he wants to make it, has a screenplay mostly finished, Hans Zimmer is already working on the music, etc. Then DV says he'll only make it if he's sure it'll be better than Dune 2, which is IMHO a bit of a large WTH moment. So then last week, film websites start saying the movie has been greenlit, though from the text of it, it doesn't necessarily sound like what I think of as a green light. So, the head of Legendary, the production company that made 1 and 2 and put forward 80% of the budget, says that the movie is in active development and when they are satisfied with a script, it'll get a production green light, which sounds sensible. But now there's a rumor flying that Warner, which put up 20% of the cost and handles distribution, is putting Dune 2 on Max right after day 45 from the theatrical release. 45 days is sort of the standard window now between theater and streaming, but Dune 2 is still making money at the theater and it wouldn't seem to make sense to kill it off there by putting it on Max. For example, Warner waited a good long while to put Barbie on Max. Anyway, the rumor/conspiracy theory is that if Dune 2 goes on Max in the next week or so and strangles the theatrical income, Dune Messiah won't get made.

This sounds like a big mess to me and that all the players have never bothered to develop any unified messaging on this, or as we used to say in the days before everything was said in corporate speak, they haven't gotten their story straight.

I would not believe all the clickbait hype from people trying to create controversy. Denis just wants to have a great script before doing the finale. He said something similar before part 2 got rolling. Dune 3 is going to happen one way or the other, it's just a matter of when. I know Legendary would prefer he do part 3 before one of the other three projects he has in development, but I think Denis is going to do whatever he wants and start on Dune whenever he thinks it is ready.

I really hope he does something else in between, because I think the break and extra time to develop the best way to tell that story will result in a better film.

Well, whatever happens with Dune 3, it is now fact that WB is forging ahead with streaming Dune 2 very soon, followed closely by the disc release.

From Dark Horizons:

Dune: Part Two
Warner Bros. Home Entertainment has announced that Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune: Part Two” will be coming to digital platforms on April 16th. A month later, the title is set to hit 4K UHD and Blu-ray disc on May 14th.

Though I'm excited by the thought that I can finally see this in six days, it's still a bit gobsmacking that they're going to cut its theatrical legs off.