Something I have noticed is that almost everyone who discusses this movie (and the 1st Part as well) tend to always get caught up in the novels and interpreting the films through the lens of the books. I tend to take films as they are and am indifferent to their fidelity to the source material. Is it good as a film standing on its own?
I have never read the books. I tried to watch the First installment and became quite frustrated trying to even grasp what was going on. I gave up.
I will try again because maybe I wasn't patient enough to let the various threads of the film come together and stopped too soon.
I did not read the books. I watched the first installment last weekend. It was interesting. It was ok. At the end of 2, which I watched on a huge screen yesterday, I came out and said so why did any of that happen? lol My husband loved it. He read the first book when he was a teen. He was disappointed I didn’t like it. For instance references to the Great Houses. Like who are they? Do I care? 🤷♀️ At least it went by quickly and I didn’t think when will this be over. I did love Rebecca Ferguson’s performance. She was kinda scary. And now I can listen to this episode since I saw the movie!
Yeah, it's interesting, I've sometimes wondered if folks who haven't read the books could really follow what was happening (I get the sense the answer is frequently "no"). But it's hard to disentangle the two, at least in part because the movie is also very clearly in conversation with the book.
I can't directly speak to this as I have read the books, but at least for a very small anecdotal sample size, the answer was "somewhat". I had a buddy who saw the first part and quite enjoyed it. Ironically, two of his biggest complaints were things that were addressed in the book:
A) He thought that Paul was gearing up to be an action figure/fighter type, and that Timothy Chalamet looked "a bit scrawny" for that role. Book Paul is noted to be small for his age and very thin.
B) He asked where all the rest of the Atriedes were, that they seemed to just be the ruling family and soldiers in their service. He was a little surprised to hear me tell him that in the books, the Great Houses were basically occupying armies and considered themselves distinct from the people of the planets they're on.
But he did very much follow what was going on in the film and who was on which side, why characters were acting the way they did, etc.
I loved the movie and I think Chalamet is Paul. In reading this series over the years, starting as a young teen and now, the intricacies of the Fremen life, the nuances of the Bene Gesserit planning, and all of the intrigue is of course nigh impossible to bring to the screen. I thought Dune 1 was extremely well done. I also loved Dune2, however did have some "critiques" after I slept on it. (and I will definitely see it again) Unlike below, I actually believe that the love (soul mate?) story between Paul and Chani didn't quite feel as deep as I felt it in the books. Some of the Chani churlishness in this move I think was at odds with how she was in the book; I found it a little strange. I do think we could well have done with some time noting the Fremen ways .... the way they have the water of life ceremony, how the sietch 'becomes one', some of the cultural ways. There definitely could have been a bit more with the mentats and what they are and why and how that fits in with the Bene Gesserit. Obviously that would have added too much time .... but I do wonder if there couldn't have been flashes or just a little more fleshing out of this .... flashbacks? Paul's dreams? Conversations with Alia? Its not clear in the movie or foreshadowed at all IMHO that what happened to the unborn child will be a disaster in the future. But all in all I thought it was a great picture and feel like we finally have something that creates something akin to Herbert's world. How far can they go???
Agree. I think the suggestion of it ... or one scene could be the one where he's given jamisxwater rings and he asks chani to hold them .... its a telling scene imho
You young people are so spoiled with your fancy TV's! I'm so old that I remember life without CABLE! I remember watching over the air broadcast with all the snow and constantly adjusting an antenna. Some areas of the country couldn't even pick up all 3 networks. I thought DVD's were marvelous. Past that, any improvement in visual quality is lost on me.
Just going in and commenting before I've listed to the podcast, but I have to admit, I wasn't impressed with Dune part 2. Every movie adapted from a book is going to make changes from the source material. If nothing else, the difference between print and film require it. Dune, for instance, narrates most of the action through the internal monologues of characters, you see their thoughts and reaction to action 'offstage', an approach that is ridiculous to put on the big screen. And of course there are usually going to be subplots that are cut for time, and even with doing that, this was a hefty 2:45 runtime.
But they also make serious, in fact I would say fundamental changes to the book in ways that I really think hurt the overall project and do so unnecessarily. The romance between Paul and Chani is a pretty minor subplot in the book, the movie elevates it to front and center. Feyd-Ruatha gets some weird and in my opinion unnecessary character flattening, turning from a smooth and deadly anti-Paul to just a lunging psychotic . The culture of the Fremen is very sanitized and the movie leads out all their unnecessary feuding among themselves, wife swapping, and cultural institutions of things like raising the children of a guy you killed because that happens so frequently they need to institute rules about it.
But the absolute worst in my opinion is the whole nature of Paul's visions and how they guide his actions. Movie Paul gets vague glimpses of a future and of the strife and war he could unleash if he brings in the "Southern fundamentalist tribes" (no such thing in the books) and goes full force against the Harkonen, so tries to halfass things and get his revenge without going full force, only to gradually realize he needs to stop holding back once he's taken the Water of Life and sees more clearly.
Book Paul gets his clarity of prescience simultaneously sooner than in than in the movie but also too late. By the time he's killed Jamis he's ALREADY set the Fremen loose upon the universe, and his major goal and conflict in the book isn't whether or not to unleash the storm, but how to ride it once he's already unwittingly unleashed it.
Maybe I'm too much of a purist, but as visually stunning as Villeneuve's work is, I can't get behind this.
I have a theory that some of the changes in part 2 exist to combat the critique that Dune is a "white-savior" narrative.
You heard that critique a lot in the lead up to the first film, and it's understandable. Dune is fundamentally an "anti-messianic" story, but you don't really reach that point until the second book. If all you read was the first book, it would be easy to get the impression that Paul is both protagonist and hero. I suspect Villeneuve made a lot of the changes he did to make that message more obvious.
@sunnybunch - https://www.reddit.com/r/TVTooHigh/
all that effort just to do it wrong, smdh
Great episode. Both the general discussion and reviews were particularly interesting this week.
Good stuff
Something I have noticed is that almost everyone who discusses this movie (and the 1st Part as well) tend to always get caught up in the novels and interpreting the films through the lens of the books. I tend to take films as they are and am indifferent to their fidelity to the source material. Is it good as a film standing on its own?
I have never read the books. I tried to watch the First installment and became quite frustrated trying to even grasp what was going on. I gave up.
I will try again because maybe I wasn't patient enough to let the various threads of the film come together and stopped too soon.
I did not read the books. I watched the first installment last weekend. It was interesting. It was ok. At the end of 2, which I watched on a huge screen yesterday, I came out and said so why did any of that happen? lol My husband loved it. He read the first book when he was a teen. He was disappointed I didn’t like it. For instance references to the Great Houses. Like who are they? Do I care? 🤷♀️ At least it went by quickly and I didn’t think when will this be over. I did love Rebecca Ferguson’s performance. She was kinda scary. And now I can listen to this episode since I saw the movie!
Yeah, it's interesting, I've sometimes wondered if folks who haven't read the books could really follow what was happening (I get the sense the answer is frequently "no"). But it's hard to disentangle the two, at least in part because the movie is also very clearly in conversation with the book.
I can't directly speak to this as I have read the books, but at least for a very small anecdotal sample size, the answer was "somewhat". I had a buddy who saw the first part and quite enjoyed it. Ironically, two of his biggest complaints were things that were addressed in the book:
A) He thought that Paul was gearing up to be an action figure/fighter type, and that Timothy Chalamet looked "a bit scrawny" for that role. Book Paul is noted to be small for his age and very thin.
B) He asked where all the rest of the Atriedes were, that they seemed to just be the ruling family and soldiers in their service. He was a little surprised to hear me tell him that in the books, the Great Houses were basically occupying armies and considered themselves distinct from the people of the planets they're on.
But he did very much follow what was going on in the film and who was on which side, why characters were acting the way they did, etc.
I loved the movie and I think Chalamet is Paul. In reading this series over the years, starting as a young teen and now, the intricacies of the Fremen life, the nuances of the Bene Gesserit planning, and all of the intrigue is of course nigh impossible to bring to the screen. I thought Dune 1 was extremely well done. I also loved Dune2, however did have some "critiques" after I slept on it. (and I will definitely see it again) Unlike below, I actually believe that the love (soul mate?) story between Paul and Chani didn't quite feel as deep as I felt it in the books. Some of the Chani churlishness in this move I think was at odds with how she was in the book; I found it a little strange. I do think we could well have done with some time noting the Fremen ways .... the way they have the water of life ceremony, how the sietch 'becomes one', some of the cultural ways. There definitely could have been a bit more with the mentats and what they are and why and how that fits in with the Bene Gesserit. Obviously that would have added too much time .... but I do wonder if there couldn't have been flashes or just a little more fleshing out of this .... flashbacks? Paul's dreams? Conversations with Alia? Its not clear in the movie or foreshadowed at all IMHO that what happened to the unborn child will be a disaster in the future. But all in all I thought it was a great picture and feel like we finally have something that creates something akin to Herbert's world. How far can they go???
"the way they have the water of life ceremony, how the sietch 'becomes one'"
I suspect they didn't want to have an orgy in the movie, would classify it as R at least.
Agree. I think the suggestion of it ... or one scene could be the one where he's given jamisxwater rings and he asks chani to hold them .... its a telling scene imho
You young people are so spoiled with your fancy TV's! I'm so old that I remember life without CABLE! I remember watching over the air broadcast with all the snow and constantly adjusting an antenna. Some areas of the country couldn't even pick up all 3 networks. I thought DVD's were marvelous. Past that, any improvement in visual quality is lost on me.
Just going in and commenting before I've listed to the podcast, but I have to admit, I wasn't impressed with Dune part 2. Every movie adapted from a book is going to make changes from the source material. If nothing else, the difference between print and film require it. Dune, for instance, narrates most of the action through the internal monologues of characters, you see their thoughts and reaction to action 'offstage', an approach that is ridiculous to put on the big screen. And of course there are usually going to be subplots that are cut for time, and even with doing that, this was a hefty 2:45 runtime.
But they also make serious, in fact I would say fundamental changes to the book in ways that I really think hurt the overall project and do so unnecessarily. The romance between Paul and Chani is a pretty minor subplot in the book, the movie elevates it to front and center. Feyd-Ruatha gets some weird and in my opinion unnecessary character flattening, turning from a smooth and deadly anti-Paul to just a lunging psychotic . The culture of the Fremen is very sanitized and the movie leads out all their unnecessary feuding among themselves, wife swapping, and cultural institutions of things like raising the children of a guy you killed because that happens so frequently they need to institute rules about it.
But the absolute worst in my opinion is the whole nature of Paul's visions and how they guide his actions. Movie Paul gets vague glimpses of a future and of the strife and war he could unleash if he brings in the "Southern fundamentalist tribes" (no such thing in the books) and goes full force against the Harkonen, so tries to halfass things and get his revenge without going full force, only to gradually realize he needs to stop holding back once he's taken the Water of Life and sees more clearly.
Book Paul gets his clarity of prescience simultaneously sooner than in than in the movie but also too late. By the time he's killed Jamis he's ALREADY set the Fremen loose upon the universe, and his major goal and conflict in the book isn't whether or not to unleash the storm, but how to ride it once he's already unwittingly unleashed it.
Maybe I'm too much of a purist, but as visually stunning as Villeneuve's work is, I can't get behind this.
I have a theory that some of the changes in part 2 exist to combat the critique that Dune is a "white-savior" narrative.
You heard that critique a lot in the lead up to the first film, and it's understandable. Dune is fundamentally an "anti-messianic" story, but you don't really reach that point until the second book. If all you read was the first book, it would be easy to get the impression that Paul is both protagonist and hero. I suspect Villeneuve made a lot of the changes he did to make that message more obvious.