Frank Herbert's DUNE PART 2 from Legendary Pictures (11/17/23) 6 6

[Bosco685]

The most detailed review he has given in a while.

[Number 6]

On 3/5/2024 at 5:59 PM, D84 said:

I respect what you are saying but... 

Movie directors always have a reason for "fixing" a book.

I know what Herbert said in the interviews, but he clarified his intentions with the second book. The director could have done the same thing. Instead, in his pompousity thought he could improve the book.

It was a highly dumbed down version of Dune. And the runtime excuse doesn't work. Both films together clock in at 5 1/4 hours while the Sci Fi Channel mini series was 4 1/2 hours and was able to cover the story more thoroughly and accurately. Yes, the mini series had awful effects but I'd rather see the story done justice.

It was visually everything I ever wanted but storywise was a huge letdown.

Out of respect for those who haven't seen it, I won't list the numerous changes made from book.

And you really don't need to.

Godfather, Planet of the Apes, Lord of the Rings, Jaws....all of those movies have changes or dropped things from the novels they're based on, in some cases considerably.  Novels that were best-sellers in their own right.  Those films are considered to be very good to excellent, classic adaptations of their source material.  I'd be surprised if anyone considered any of those films a "train-wreck" adaptation simply because it's different from the book.

Look, you didn't enjoy it, I respect that, and I'm not going to try and argue you into loving it.  But I do want to address this because I see this "arrrggg! It's not exactly like the book!" criticism popping up on different sites.

Personally, I don't think the goal of a film adaptation of novel is to have a scene-for-scene, line-for-line representation of the book.  Obviously, there needs to be fidelity to the source material, otherwise why do the adaptation in first place, just do something original.  On the other hand, the film has to be its own thing and be able to stand on its own, otherwise it just becomes a book report.  If someone wants the exact experience of reading the book, then they can just read the book.

The challenge that Villeneuve had with this is not only does his adaptation have to be something distinct from the novel, it also has to differentiate itself from the two previous adaptations, both of which cover the same basic plot.  And as you pointed out, the mini-series follows the novel very closely, so if Villeneuve were to replicate that level of fidelity, then it would just come off as the Villeneuve-version of the mini-series.  Surely you can understand why he would have no interest in doing that.

And for me personally (and I'm sorry, I know I'm going to ruffle some feathers when I say this) the mini-series being "book-accurate" is the only virtue it has, and in my opinion is an example of how an adaptation can strictly adhere to the source material and still manage to make the story seem dull and uninteresting.  I've watched both mini-series once and have no desire to ever watch them again.  Again, if I want something 'exactly like the book' I'll just re-read the book.

I have read the novels several times, it's one of my favorites, and I certainly want an adaptation that is respectful of the source material (and IMHO I think Villeneuve's version is) but at the same time I don't think the novel should be treated as so sacrosanct that nothing and be altered in an adaptation to film.  I can't even imagine what it would be like to have film versions of Jaws and Planet of the Apes that were exactly like the books instead of the versions we have.

It's NOT about "fixing" or "improving" the source material.  I think you're attributing ill-intent and taking offense where there really doesn't need to be.  Books are one medium for telling a story, films are another medium.  There are things that work well and can be done in one medium that don't work as well or can't be done in another.   That's the challenge of adapting a novel, especially a well-loved one:  how to capture what makes the novel special while simultaneously making something that will be special as a film, a film that will have merit on its own.

And that's what makes Dune a challenging adaptation is because part of what people love about it is all the intricate details of the world-building and all of the plans-withing-plans story.  That's something that can done well in a book.  But instead of having a bunch characters spout tons of expository dialog and rushing from scene to scene to cover all the sub- and sub-sub-plots, Villeneuve chose to tell the story more visually, and that's something that, when done well, is something that the medium of film can excel at.  And I think this adaptation does.

If someone wants exactly what's in the book, the best thing to do is read the book.  If you're appreciation of the book makes you demand a literal adaptation, then the HBO mini-series already exist.

 

But if you really want to experience cinema (and I apologize, as I know Scorsese has made that a trigger-word around here) then I highly recommend seeing this in a theater, preferably a premium theater.  Personally, I think the love of the source material is evident, the major themes are well represented, and I appreciate how it enabled me to experience aspects of the novel that I would never get from just reading the book.  It's not perfect, but I'd give it 4.5/5 or 9/10, for me the best movie since Godzilla Minus One and one of the best new movies I've seen in a long time

 

This film certainly isn't interchangeable with the novel.... but I don't think that should really be the goal to begin with.

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]

[D84]

On 3/6/2024 at 12:39 PM, Number 6 said:

And you really don't need to.

Godfather, Planet of the Apes, Lord of the Rings, Jaws....all of those movies have changes or dropped things from the novels they're based on, in some cases considerably.  Novels that were best-sellers in their own right.  Those films are considered to be very good to excellent, classic adaptations of their source material.  I'd be surprised if anyone considered any of those films a "train-wreck" adaptation simply because it's different from the book.

Look, you didn't enjoy it, I respect that, and I'm not going to try and argue you into loving it.  But I do want to address this because I see this "arrrggg! It's not exactly like the book!" criticism popping up on different sites.

Personally, I don't think the goal of a film adaptation of novel is to have a scene-for-scene, line-for-line representation of the book.  Obviously, there needs to be fidelity to the source material, otherwise why do the adaptation in first place, just do something original.  On the other hand, the film has to be its own thing and be able to stand on its own, otherwise it just becomes a book report.  If someone wants the exact experience of reading the book, then they can just read the book.

The challenge that Villeneuve had with this is not only does his adaptation have to be something distinct from the novel, it also has to differentiate itself from the two previous adaptations, both of which cover the same basic plot.  And as you pointed out, the mini-series follows the novel very closely, so if Villeneuve were to replicate that level of fidelity, then it would just come off as the Villeneuve-version of the mini-series.  Surely you can understand why he would have no interest in doing that.

And for me personally (and I'm sorry, I know I'm going to ruffle some feathers when I say this) the mini-series being "book-accurate" is the only virtue it has, and in my opinion is an example of how an adaptation can strictly adhere to the source material and still manage to make the story seem dull and uninteresting.  I've watched both mini-series once and have no desire to ever watch them again.  Again, if I want something 'exactly like the book' I'll just re-read the book.

I have read the novels several times, it's one of my favorites, and I certainly want an adaptation that is respectful of the source material (and IMHO I think Villeneuve's version is) but at the same time I don't think the novel should be treated as so sacrosanct that nothing and be altered in an adaptation to film.  I can't even imagine what it would be like to have film versions of Jaws and Planet of the Apes that were exactly like the books instead of the versions we have.

It's NOT about "fixing" or "improving" the source material.  I think you're attributing ill-intent and taking offense where there really doesn't need to be.  Books are one medium for telling a story, films are another medium.  There are things that work well and can be done in one medium that don't work as well or can't be done in another.   That's the challenge of adapting a novel, especially a well-loved one:  how to capture what makes the novel special while simultaneously making something that will be special as a film, a film that will have merit on its own.

And that's what makes Dune a challenging adaptation is because part of what people love about it is all the intricate details of the world-building and all of the plans-withing-plans story.  That's something that can done well in a book.  But instead of having a bunch characters spout tons of expository dialog and rushing from scene to scene to cover all the sub- and sub-sub-plots, Villeneuve chose to tell the story more visually, and that's something that, when done well, is something that the medium of film can excel at.  And I think this adaptation does.

If someone wants exactly what's in the book, the best thing to do is read the book.  If you're appreciation of the book makes you demand a literal adaptation, then the HBO mini-series already exist.

 

But if you really want to experience cinema (and I apologize, as I know Scorsese has made that a trigger-word around here) then I highly recommend seeing this in a theater, preferably a premium theater.  Personally, I think the love of the source material is evident, the major themes are well represented, and I appreciate how it enabled me to experience aspects of the novel that I would never get from just reading the book.  It's not perfect, but I'd give it 4.5/5 or 9/10, for me the best movie since Godzilla Minus One and one of the best new movies I've seen in a long time

 

This film certainly isn't interchangeable with the novel.... but I don't think that should really be the goal to begin with.

I was fine with some changes and things being condensed, but I think it went too far.

Stilgar's faith being played as quaint and for laughs.

Adding bull about the northern Fremen being skeptics and the small minded southerners being zealots. It came across as trying to put american stereotypes into the movie.

Chani... I can't go into this one because it's infuriating. 

Changing Lady Jessica  into Lady Macbeth. Yes, she used the prophecies to protect herself and Paul, but this was not the character.

Alia and Leto (Paul and Chani's kid) being left out didn't bother me, but they should have made Jessica take her place in revealing her's and Paul's lineage to the Baron and killing him. She could used the voice on Feyd at the attack on Seich Tabar and gotten to the palace that way.

Again, changes because of medium are fine, but those examples I gave are too far from the book for me. Especially Chani.

I'd rather they just wrote their own stories and stopped capitalizing on name recognition. 

Edited March 7 by D84

[Axelrod]

On 3/6/2024 at 1:39 PM, Number 6 said:

I can't even imagine what it would be like to have film versions of Jaws and Planet of the Apes that were exactly like the books instead of the versions we have.

omg, I remember the first time I actually read Jaws and was stunned by the amount of time that was spent on the subplot of Brody's wife having an affair with Hooper.  

I was like, wtf is this?

Edited March 7 by Axelrod

[Grendel72]

Guess the dune miniseries was probably the most faithful to the books but it was a miniseries and more time could be given to flesh out the different narratives. I am def not one who demands accuracy so much as faithfulness to film adaptations. Its an adaptation afterall and I think this movie stayed true to that. Having said that I still remember being so disappointed seeing gandalf's staff being broken by the witchking. 

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]

[Artboy99]

On 3/6/2024 at 11:39 AM, Number 6 said:

And you really don't need to.

Godfather, Planet of the Apes, Lord of the Rings, Jaws....all of those movies have changes or dropped things from the novels they're based on, in some cases considerably.  Novels that were best-sellers in their own right.  Those films are considered to be very good to excellent, classic adaptations of their source material.  I'd be surprised if anyone considered any of those films a "train-wreck" adaptation simply because it's different from the book.

Look, you didn't enjoy it, I respect that, and I'm not going to try and argue you into loving it.  But I do want to address this because I see this "arrrggg! It's not exactly like the book!" criticism popping up on different sites.

Personally, I don't think the goal of a film adaptation of novel is to have a scene-for-scene, line-for-line representation of the book.  Obviously, there needs to be fidelity to the source material, otherwise why do the adaptation in first place, just do something original.  On the other hand, the film has to be its own thing and be able to stand on its own, otherwise it just becomes a book report.  If someone wants the exact experience of reading the book, then they can just read the book.

The challenge that Villeneuve had with this is not only does his adaptation have to be something distinct from the novel, it also has to differentiate itself from the two previous adaptations, both of which cover the same basic plot.  And as you pointed out, the mini-series follows the novel very closely, so if Villeneuve were to replicate that level of fidelity, then it would just come off as the Villeneuve-version of the mini-series.  Surely you can understand why he would have no interest in doing that.

And for me personally (and I'm sorry, I know I'm going to ruffle some feathers when I say this) the mini-series being "book-accurate" is the only virtue it has, and in my opinion is an example of how an adaptation can strictly adhere to the source material and still manage to make the story seem dull and uninteresting.  I've watched both mini-series once and have no desire to ever watch them again.  Again, if I want something 'exactly like the book' I'll just re-read the book.

I have read the novels several times, it's one of my favorites, and I certainly want an adaptation that is respectful of the source material (and IMHO I think Villeneuve's version is) but at the same time I don't think the novel should be treated as so sacrosanct that nothing and be altered in an adaptation to film.  I can't even imagine what it would be like to have film versions of Jaws and Planet of the Apes that were exactly like the books instead of the versions we have.

It's NOT about "fixing" or "improving" the source material.  I think you're attributing ill-intent and taking offense where there really doesn't need to be.  Books are one medium for telling a story, films are another medium.  There are things that work well and can be done in one medium that don't work as well or can't be done in another.   That's the challenge of adapting a novel, especially a well-loved one:  how to capture what makes the novel special while simultaneously making something that will be special as a film, a film that will have merit on its own.

And that's what makes Dune a challenging adaptation is because part of what people love about it is all the intricate details of the world-building and all of the plans-withing-plans story.  That's something that can done well in a book.  But instead of having a bunch characters spout tons of expository dialog and rushing from scene to scene to cover all the sub- and sub-sub-plots, Villeneuve chose to tell the story more visually, and that's something that, when done well, is something that the medium of film can excel at.  And I think this adaptation does.

If someone wants exactly what's in the book, the best thing to do is read the book.  If you're appreciation of the book makes you demand a literal adaptation, then the HBO mini-series already exist.

 

But if you really want to experience cinema (and I apologize, as I know Scorsese has made that a trigger-word around here) then I highly recommend seeing this in a theater, preferably a premium theater.  Personally, I think the love of the source material is evident, the major themes are well represented, and I appreciate how it enabled me to experience aspects of the novel that I would never get from just reading the book.  It's not perfect, but I'd give it 4.5/5 or 9/10, for me the best movie since Godzilla Minus One and one of the best new movies I've seen in a long time

 

This film certainly isn't interchangeable with the novel.... but I don't think that should really be the goal to begin with.

I agree.

I am ok with deviations from the book/source material if it makes sense and enhances the story being told on the screen.

Having the elves arrive at Helm's Deep in Lord of the Rings was not in the book, but the Elves were fighting the forces of evil during this time and having the elves arrive created a fantastic moment in the film that also acknowledged the source material.

I actually like how Dune 2 has chosen to deal with Alia so far. It adds something to the story that the audience has never seen before yet is a nod to the source material.

[Bosco685]

 

[Number 6]

On 3/8/2024 at 7:26 AM, Artboy99 said:

I actually like how Dune 2 has chosen to deal with Alia so far. It adds something to the story that the audience has never seen before yet is a nod to the source material.

This is something I liked as well.

In the book

Spoiler

Alia being a toddler who can speak and act like an adult

has weird creep factor to it.  But it's one of those things that if you try and replicate that on film, your choices are kind of limited as to how to pull that off.  Having a child actor with an adult over-dubbing the lines comes off as a bit silly instead of creepy.

The way they handled this in the film I think keeps that weird creep factor as to me 

Spoiler

it seems like Alia is manipulating Jessica and events from the womb, but that's my take.  Others may not see it that way.

 

[Bosco685]

[Artboy99]

On 3/8/2024 at 10:18 AM, Number 6 said:

This is something I liked as well.

In the book

  Hide contents

Alia being a toddler who can speak and act like an adult

has weird creep factor to it.  But it's one of those things that if you try and replicate that on film, your choices are kind of limited as to how to pull that off.  Having a child actor with an adult over-dubbing the lines comes off as a bit silly instead of creepy.

The way they handled this in the film I think keeps that weird creep factor as to me 

  Hide contents

it seems like Alia is manipulating Jessica and events from the womb, but that's my take.  Others may not see it that way.

 

Spoiler

some manipulation, The ability to have a private "conversation" between 2 individuals that have the knowledge and experience of a Reverend Mother puts them in a unique situation. Quite cool!

Additionally I agree with you regarding dealing with a child actor as it advances time which is difficult to fit into a narrative on screen. 

 

[jsilverjanet]

Ok i had planned to go see this dolby Cinema but after some of the videos and comments from the board, it's time to visit that mammoth screen about an hour away in the suburbs

huzzah!

[Zonker]

On 3/6/2024 at 8:48 PM, D84 said:

 

Adding bull about the northern Fremen being skeptics and the small minded southerners being zealots. It came across as trying to put american stereotypes into the movie.

 

Maybe.  But what came to mind for me was another Jesus allusion- the northern Galilean ("Can anything good come out of Galilee?") starting his ministry up there, and knowing that once he travels south to Jerusalem-- the center of conventional temple-Judaism-- the endgame truly begins, one which he cannot really control.  

Saw it last night with my son, and it was a 10/10 for us both.  It now makes me want to re-read Dune Messiah after 40+ years.  I remember strongly disliking the sequel at the time because I didn't appreciate what Herbert was doing to Paul, not understanding that was the author's entire point for the character.  

 

[D84]

On 3/9/2024 at 9:10 AM, Zonker said:

Maybe.  But what came to mind for me was another Jesus allusion- the northern Galilean ("Can anything good come out of Galilee?") starting his ministry up there, and knowing that once he travels south to Jerusalem-- the center of conventional temple-Judaism-- the endgame truly begins, one which he cannot really control. 

Fair point. I didn't think of that.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 3/9/2024 at 10:41 AM, D84 said:

On 3/9/2024 at 9:10 AM, Zonker said:

Maybe.  But what came to mind for me was another Jesus allusion- the northern Galilean ("Can anything good come out of Galilee?") starting his ministry up there, and knowing that once he travels south to Jerusalem-- the center of conventional temple-Judaism-- the endgame truly begins, one which he cannot really control. 

Fair point. I didn't think of that.

I did at the time, but I didn't know the director's correlation with the line. It is the 1st thing I thought of because like you said, when it seemed the south were to be the passionate people it all was lent from common spiritual themes @D84 Lord willing not to make them lose the salt of flavor between film and ideology  

Spoiler

It sums up into does the main person desire to pick up the "cross" or is it a bit forced due to situations, or in this case a prophecy from the womb. Even the tears brought on for salve was kind of like does this affect the main guy, as to his ambition toward a final solution. When Jesus used spit like 3 times recorded for a miracle. Not having read the books, it sounded like something that was used a long time ago or more often in the past, with correlations to the "Messiah" context, which copies well known Faith Stories. I don't know how much that corrupts it for me, other than to say it lends to the overall theme from bigger truths.

 

[Bosco685]

44% drop - wow!