this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
101 points (89.8% liked)

Science Fiction

13617 readers
4 users here now

Welcome to /c/ScienceFiction

December book club canceled. Short stories instead!

We are a community for discussing all things Science Fiction. We want this to be a place for members to discuss and share everything they love about Science Fiction, whether that be books, movies, TV shows and more. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow.

  1. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
  2. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.
  3. Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed
  4. Put (Spoilers) in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers.
  5. Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread.

Lemmy World Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I just finished part 1 and, well, I'm kinda disappointed. It's not bad, I think it's actually pretty solid, but compared to the book it's much worse in terms of story progression and characters. Some parts felt really rushed. I didn't expect it to be better than the book, but I still expected better adaptation considering that (at least as far as I know) it was well received and I knew that it didn't adapt whole book so I expected it to don't skip too much. Is part 2 any better?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

I tried to watch part 1 again tonight and I'm putting it down with about an hour left. 4k on a theatre screen with headphones and popcorn and I laughed out loud when Jessica and Paul were whispering to each other 20' away in the mist, when the gang strode off the ship accompanied by bagpipes ("shields up!") and that one time the Sardukar shouted "Sardukar" during the invasion. I'm done trying to understand what some people see in these movies. Absolute garbage as far as I can tell.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Either you have a few hours to watch a movie or not. Why do people need to post to the internet to ask stuff like this? You do realize you can stop a movie if you’re not into it right?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

I think any story that has so much inner dialogue, thinking, tripping, and goes on for 6 volumes is impossible to communicate in the medium of film, but I loved these movies just because they were visually stunning, and the story kept my interest. I don't think you will feel like your time was wasted, just accept the film is its own thing, and be entertained.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I will go against most opinions and I would say give it a try.

My friends who are into the book quoted much more from the second and style-wise I can tell you this: I LOVED the first one. I HATED the second one.

So, since the book seems really to be about deception, war and religion (the last 2 I despise to see in movies because I find them boring as hell), I could suggest you watch it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

I think if you dislike the first movie you will also dislike the second.

I, personally, really liked both (outside of some pacing, as you say and some character changes).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Well ... The ending is a little bit less cliffhangery than the first film. The worm scenes were super cool tho.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Liked it, think it’s worth it. Haven’t read the books & I’m not very invested in the story, & I’m a fan of the director’s work. Was cool to see lots of Fremen culture

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The 2nd movie is very rushed story wise but was better than the first. I hate the choice of Timothee and I hate some unnecessary stroy decisions they took but it's hollywood.

The mini series from 2000 did a better job, apart from some Harkonnen costume choices.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

apart from some Harkonnen costume choices.

Oh, man, I forgot about those. 😄 The miniseries is good, though.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

As an avid Dune books reader (all of them), I think Villeneuve did the best adaptation possible. As a character, Chani is much more fleshed out in the films and Rebecca Ferguson CRUSHED it as Jessica. Oscar Isaac also was a very good Leto.

My big gripe is with Stilgar and Paul. Stilgar in the second movie was almost relegated to comic relief. Yes, he is also portrayed as a believer in the books, but it felt like a caricature in Dune Part 2.

As for Paul, I had hoped for more focus on why he actually went to drink the water of life. In the books he wanted to avoid it. But events he couldn't foresee and put people he loved in danger pushed him over the edge. In the film I didn't get any of that.

Still, loved both parts. Definitely worth a watch.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I agree first and foremost. I personally strongly disliked Chani's representation in the films, however. Especially the second film. Part of it was the writing, part of it was the acting. I think Zendaya is a good actor, but I don't think she was a good fit for the role. I feel the same way about Bardem in his role as Stilgar, but to a lesser degree.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

I agree with you about Chanis character. It felt like they butchered her character and motivations to make her more palatable to modern audiences.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

In the film iirc daughter in womb asked him to drink the water, and Paul didn't want to because it'd lead to mass bloodshed.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Watching dune 2 in the IMAX theatre with my buds was perhaps one of the greatest movie experiences in my life

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

i took my kids to see it in IMAX and they came out calling it the best sci fi movie of all time haha. it was a ton of fun

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I can imagine the sandworm ride was a blast on the big screen and with the big speakers. I haven't felt so much being blown into my seat since Fury Road...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

the latest films are just about the visuals, and films like that don't do it for me. I love the book, and I love the 1984 film (not because it's a good Dune movie). I also have a soft spot for the Syfy series

[–] [email protected] 52 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm a bit surprised at a lot of the criticisms for the movies here, and I say this as a huge fan of the Dune novels too.

Villeneuve has a particular film style like blade runner 2049, and Arrival.

If you don't like his style you won't like the 2nd movie.

But on the other hand part 1 sets the stage for everything that happens in part 2, and overall I think it is an excellent adaption. Dune is not an easy book to adapt to film, and some changes had to be made, but they're aren't any glaring changes that make me go "why the hell did you change it that way?"

It's extremely faithful to the book, and in cases where it's not, I can see the reasoning for the change.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Honestly Chani is so much better in the movies. Her character makes zero sense in the first book. She's a strong capable warrior but just follows Paul around like a puppy and accepts his every decision as if she has no choice or will of her own.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Honestly given how Frank Herbert wrote other female characters in the books, I interpreted chani as a satirization of settler/colonizer wife.

It's rather subtle, and would not likely come across well with a movie audience.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

lol Zendaya brought the personality of a cinder block to that role.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

It's still an upgrade from the books, sadly.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

I've not read the books and after watching part 1 I was left confused why everyone loved them. I didn't dislike the film, it was just fine, but it didn't get me excited for part 2. Sure I'd watch it, but if it were delayed or cancelled I wouldn't have minded.

For me part 2 is everything I wanted in a film. I would nearly go so far to tell someone unsure about the films to skip part 1 and just watch part 2. In reality I think doing that would be a bad idea, but part 2 is better than part 1 in nearly every way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Part 2 is done in the same spirit as 1. The characters and plot don't get any better, if anything they become outright one-dimensional. Everything (facts, characters) are over-simplified caricatures of themselves — they like to take one thing that's technically true and run it down into the ground.

The two things that bothered me the most is how Paul is completely robbed of any agency, and becomes this listless puppet with a sad smile, and how the plot revolves around religious fanaticism with only token mentions about prescience. Hell, I don't remember if they even mentioned why spice is so important.

To be honest it's killed any interest in me about seeing more movies. I mean I'll watch them, I liked the image and music, but in a detached way like I'd watch an Avengers movie. I can imagine exactly how they're going to be, shallow as fuck. Which is going to be completely stupid and pointless because the amount of political and sociological intrigue increases exponentially as you advance in the series.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Since you are a fan of the books and you have already seen the first one, you should watch it, even you were disappointed with part one. You may find you like or you might be just as disappointed. Either way, it's about a 3 hour commitment. If you don't like it, don't watch it again. If you do, you've found a movie you enjoy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

100% agree with this. Dune 1 sets up the world, Dune 2 gets to tell more of a story.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It is, even just for the spectacle alone. It’s impossible to adapt everything in the book to a 2 or 3 movie series, so there will always be changes and things that will be left out when translated to the big screen. Having said that, Villenueve was the best person for the job and he delivered what he intended: a film that reflects the spirit of the book as much as possible while at the same time making it mainstream enough for general audiences to appreciate.

If you’re just going by sticking to the source material as your barometer, then the SyFy series is the “best”.

The pacing was better in part 2, too fast even IMO; since they crammed all the events into less than 9 months since Alia wasn’t born in this version.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

I never read the source material, so I can't speak to the quality of adaptation. But I could not get past the casting and felt like the number of extremely famous faces detracted from the plot. The first movie I was somewhat able to be emersed in the world despite the main characters being the two most popular young stars of the year. But the second movie, I felt actors were cast in small parts they hardly got a chance to act in. Not that Christpher Walken can't absolutely nail a small part. It just didn't feel like some exotic Sci-fi world when every character was famous from 100 other movies.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If you didn't care for the first movie I don't think the second will solve any of your complaints. I say this as someone who really liked both movies. I have criticisms, and I don't think they're close to being Villeneuve's best work, but the worst Villeneuve movie is still better than most directors on their best day. But two is very definitely more of one, and if anything it amplifies the first movie's flaws rather than diminishing them, so it's very unlikely to address anything you didn't like. That said, I will throw it out there that it may be worth watching anyway just to experience Austin Butler's incredible take on Feyd Rautha, which is easily the best thing about the movie.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The second is watchable but is worse as an adaption.

The events in the first book are concluded in it. It's not a trilogy adaption of Dune the book. Many of the characters have their actions and motivations swapped onto other characters. The ending changes some significant points. Feels like the third movie might end up being a freestyle attempt to start a "Dune Universe" IP rather than caring about the source material.

It's kind of a mess but still fun in some bits. Not sure if I'll bother to watch the third when it comes out.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Can you elaborate on how the 2nd movie didn't follow the book well? Because in my opinion it was pretty damn close to the book......i did think that the ending in the movie was a bit rushed and not as clearly explained as in the book, and they clearly pushed off Paul's demon sister baby to the 3rd movie, but other than that, it was pretty damn close? As far as book adaptations go, I felt this was easily top tier. It's impossible to capture every single thing from the book. There's just way too much shit that happened. Compared to adaptations that just straight up say "fuck you" to the books (witcher/3 body problem/silo) this felt very faithful to me.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The movie is basically "guy gets cast as Messiah by evil cabal machinations and is too big a baby to do anything about it". The end.

Leaving aside for a moment the sheer complexity of the themes and the plot and the universe in the book —that didn't make it through— the movie doesn't even stay faithful to itself. Every single person who's had any influence on Paul gets discarded just so he can fulfill his ultimate destiny of being a sad, wet blanket with a "welp, I guess we're doing that" attitude.

But seriously, how do you manage to make two movies and have nothing important from the rich Dune universe make it through? This could have just as easily been set in the Star Wars universe with only minor alterations and nobody among the general public would have batted an eye.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, sorry man. I just disagree. I only read the first dune book and half of messiah so far. But I really think the movie did a great job with it. Agree to disagree

Also the two movies look gorgeous on 4k HDR Blu-ray, but I digress.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There's more to a movie adaptation than good casting, nice imagery, good music and loosely following the events.

There are huge plot holes, for example. To mention just one, how can a bunch of savages on a backwater planet win against the resources of the entire Empire? They might pull off a victory here and there, in carefully planned condition, on their own planet, but how can they win a war against a space-faring enemy with entire fleets at their disposal?

Even on home turf they're outgunned, the movie actually shows what happens if the Harkonnen were to use conventional weapons in earnest, they bomb the shit out of them because the Fremen have no shields. But its only done once then conveniently never again. There's a limit to how far hand-to-hand combat will go, especially in a high-tech future war. It's suited to guerilla warfare, assassinations, but not all-out war.

There are of course answers to all of the above but they're not in the movies.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

The war for Arrakis is the classic tale of a small number of colonizers against a larger, motivated, native population. The Harrkonens drastically underestimate the total number of Fremen, and try to fight stand-up battles while the Fremen simply ambush less protected targets. I thought this came across fine in the movie.

The more problematic undertone come directly from Frank Herbert, who had this theory that military prowess only comes from hardship (that's why the Sardaukar are so tough - because the prison planet they are trained on is so harsh), and the Fremen are nigh-invincible fighters because Arrakis is so hard to survive on. This is a misconception that repeats across earlier anthropological study (e.g. ancient Sparta) and is closely tied to the 'Noble Savage' trope.

Also, there never was a fight against the 'resources of the entire empire', Paul and the Fremen fought and defeated the Harkonnens in months-long (movie) or years-long (book) guerilla campaign aimed at lowering spice production. Eventually the Emperor brought his personal forces planetside to restore order. Detachments from the other houses remained in orbit and were not permitted to make planetfall. This is when the Fremen play their trump card of surprise worm attack.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think the choice to set up Aliyah but ultimately leave her arrival for another time was a smart one, just as it was smart to not introduce Feyd until the second movie. Doing so really let him arrive in a big way, like "Oh shit, this guy is important."

(Also good lord, Austin Butler steals the second movie so hard)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Yea for sure. Also having a demon baby cgi monster would have been weird on screen.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not OP, but I didn’t like what they did to Chani. Kinda felt like that character got done dirty.

In the books, she was pretty much ride or die. The movie, not so much.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Yea she was pretty pro-Paul in the books I think.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think that's a significant improvement. Chani being "ride or die" in the books is an awfully charitable way of saying that she basically has no purpose to her existence outside of Paul. The movie choosing to have her really show some resistance to the shitty / crazy stuff he's doing gives her more inner life as a character. It also nicely sets up for Messiah where there's definitely some tension between her and Paul (though never sufficiently explored IMO) over his choice to make Irulan his wife.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Yeah I think her character is ridiculous in the books. She's a contradiction, a strong skilled warrior who can survive in the harshest conditions. But also will roll over and accept whatever decision her partner makes for her with no complaints.

load more comments
view more: next ›