Who was disappointed in Dune?

[kutter]

Well I just watched it, have to say, I am just kind of meh about it. Denis Villeneuve changed to much of the storyline to suit me. I was hoping that he would take a cue from Peter Jackson and make a movie that was true to the book. Sadly he made a movie that appealed to hollywood.

I was initially interested in when the second installment was coming out, now, I do not care if they even make it.

Another epic novel fucked in the ass by a director that thinks he is smarter than the original author.

[Velfi]

Denis Villeneuve changed to much of the storyline to suit me. I was hoping that he would take a cue from Peter Jackson and make a movie that was true to the book. Sadly he made a movie that appealed to hollywood.

Is this a serious post?

[kutter]

Is this a serious post?

Have you read the book and seen the movie? Yes it is.

[Velfi]

Have you read the book and seen the movie? Yes it is.

The new Dune was fairly true to the book. There were some minor bits left out, like with the water ceremony being cancelled, and some changes that I noticed like who was involved in getting out of the storm, but it didn't change anything significant.

Also, the comparison for being faithful to the books is Peter Jackson's movies, which you didn't even clarify as not including the Hobbit movies, but just LOTR alone is not at all true to the books.

You could potentially argue that the Sci-Fi miniseries is more faithful to the book, but I don't see them as a huge divergence personally.

edit: I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that a man being cast as a LaAaAaAady is a Big Issue.

[kutter]

The new Dune was fairly true to the book. There were some minor bits left out, like with the water ceremony being cancelled, and some changes that I noticed like who was involved in getting out of the storm, but it didn't change anything significant.

Also, the comparison for being faithful to the books is Peter Jackson's movies, which you didn't even clarify as not including the Hobbit movies, but just LOTR alone is not at all true to the books.

You could potentially argue that the Sci-Fi miniseries is more faithful to the book, but I don't see them as a huge divergence personally.

edit: I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that a man being cast as a LaAaAaAady is a Big Issue.

While it is true that changing the planet ecologist to a woman was the first thing I noticed since it was shown in the cast before the movie came out as it turns out her performance was not bad. I had this discussion at work with someone and he was under the illusion that they were going to explore the relationship between a mother and a daughter; not sure why he thought that since they would have to leave the ecologist alive to do it, so that's a no go there. But her performance, while nothing especially significant was adequate. I am more concerned about using a disney actress to play Chani. The little bit we see of her in the movie, again left me with a nothing special taste in my mouth, and they say the second movie is centered around her and not Paul, which seems a little odd to me unless he is also delving into the second, third and fourth books.

One of the glaring things missing was the politics of the Landsraad, it is the whole reason why the Atreides went to Arrakis and the Emperors actions to send him there. I did like the fact that more than the other two, they showed more of the religious aspects of the Bene Gesserit, but again, they are a political creature as well and they barely even mentioned the spacing guild. That tripod of the throne, the witches and the navigators is the whole reason Arakkis is valuable in the first. Instead the Bene Gesserit look like meddling housewives and we never see the other two.

I keep hearing people say he is going to wrap it up in the second film, well if so, it is going to be a VERY long movie, which means it will really be two or three movies.

I realize that some changes are necessary for a multitude of reasons, but changes for the sake of changes, well do not try to then tell me he was true to the vision of Frank Herbert, because he was not. I feel like they threw in a bunch of big names and a whole lot of money and thought that people would not notice any differences. It will be interesting to see if I am the only one disappointed.

And I agree that the 2000 Sci-Fi three part was more true to the books, and for now, still my preferred one to watch.

[SonoftheNorth]

Yeah it wasn't good because nohttps://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BM2ZhYTcwOTUtOGU3Yi00M2Y5LTk2NDgtNzExMWIyYmVmZT c2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTU1OTUzNDg@._V1_.jpg

[Taernath]

Yeah it wasn't good because nohttps://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BM2ZhYTcwOTUtOGU3Yi00M2Y5LTk2NDgtNzExMWIyYmVmZT c2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTU1OTUzNDg@._V1_.jpg

I'll cut you.

https://i.imgur.com/fcOSNN4.jpg

[SonoftheNorth]

I'll cut you.

https://i.imgur.com/fcOSNN4.jpg


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EhbZhtTWAAE9TKr.jpg

[Taernath]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EhbZhtTWAAE9TKr.jpg

https://jamesworrad.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/img_0049.jpg

[Velfi]

While it is true that changing the planet ecologist to a woman was the first thing I noticed since it was shown in the cast before the movie came out as it turns out her performance was not bad. I had this discussion at work with someone and he was under the illusion that they were going to explore the relationship between a mother and a daughter; not sure why he thought that since they would have to leave the ecologist alive to do it, so that's a no go there. But her performance, while nothing especially significant was adequate.

Fair enough. I can see people being upset about Liet recast as a woman, but as far as the story goes (s)he has pretty much done all of their things before the events of the book even start, there's really only for them to recognize Paul and his stillsuit swag, to aid in escape, and then to die.


I am more concerned about using a disney actress to play Chani. The little bit we see of her in the movie, again left me with a nothing special taste in my mouth, and they say the second movie is centered around her and not Paul, which seems a little odd to me unless he is also delving into the second, third and fourth books.

We really have no way of knowing if this is true or not, and based on where it was decided to split the movie there's really nothing to show of Chani up to that point except for Paul's dreams.


One of the glaring things missing was the politics of the Landsraad, it is the whole reason why the Atreides went to Arrakis and the Emperors actions to send him there. I did like the fact that more than the other two, they showed more of the religious aspects of the Bene Gesserit, but again, they are a political creature as well and they barely even mentioned the spacing guild. That tripod of the throne, the witches and the navigators is the whole reason Arakkis is valuable in the first. Instead the Bene Gesserit look like meddling housewives and we never see the other two.

I'll agree to a certain extent, but if you summarize the happenings of the Landsraad it boils down to the emperor is worried about the growing power of Atreides and their Landsraad allies, so Shaddam conspires with Harkonnen to wipe them out via Arrakis. That's basically how they explained it in the movie, so while it is pared down it's not inaccurate. They could explain a bit more about the Bene Gesserit, and I'm guessing the spacing guild will be more explored in the next part.


I keep hearing people say he is going to wrap it up in the second film, well if so, it is going to be a VERY long movie, which means it will really be two or three movies.

I realize that some changes are necessary for a multitude of reasons, but changes for the sake of changes, well do not try to then tell me he was true to the vision of Frank Herbert, because he was not. I feel like they threw in a bunch of big names and a whole lot of money and thought that people would not notice any differences. It will be interesting to see if I am the only one disappointed.

And I agree that the 2000 Sci-Fi three part was more true to the books, and for now, still my preferred one to watch.

To me, it seems impossible to have a book translated to a movie with no changes whatsoever and still have it be a movie worth watching. I agree that the Sci-Fi version is probably more faithful to the text of the book, but to me Villeneuve's version is the most true to the spirit and feel of the book, and it's definitely the best version put to the screen hands down.

As far as the casting, I wasn't a big fan of Josh Brolin as Gurney and wouldn't have minded seeing Patrick Stewart again somehow. I liked Jason Momoa as Duncan, and I think Rebecca Ferguson is my favorite Lady Jessica. Timothee Chalamet was a good Paul, but my favorite Leto is still William Hurt.

[SonoftheNorth]

Fair enough. I can see people being upset about Liet recast as a woman, Found her delivery flat and boring, especially at the death scene.

[Velfi]

Found her delivery flat and boring, especially at the death scene.

I had mixed feelings about her death. On the one hand, there was no "I am a desert creature" bit which I was disappointed in, but on the other hand she got to take some bitch ass Sardaukar down with her so that was a positive instead of just wandering out alone to her death.

[SonoftheNorth]

The more I think about it I feel it was just poorly cast, had some cool artistic shots and effects but the acting really brings it down a notch. Thuffir hawat in that 3 sizes too small uniform was oof too, I prefer him with the eyebrows and fur coat.

[hamsquatch]

left me with a nothing special taste in my mouth.

I’m ruined and only get special tastes in my mouth from series these days. 2.5 hours doesn’t seem like enough time to get stuff developed.

[Velfi]

The more I think about it I feel it was just poorly cast, had some cool artistic shots and effects but the acting really brings it down a notch. Thuffir hawat in that 3 sizes too small uniform was oof too, I prefer him with the eyebrows and fur coat.

I liked the actor playing Thufir, but I will agree that I miss the eyebrows from Lynch's Dune, and more stain to the lips would be good instead of the little soul patch ink or whatever.


I’m ruined and only get special tastes in my mouth from series these days. 2.5 hours doesn’t seem like enough time to get stuff developed.

This was just part 1, 2.5 hours is only getting to Sietch Tabr.

[SonoftheNorth]

This was just part 1, 2.5 hours is only getting to Sietch Tabr.

I will watch a second one if they make it because there is still a lot of stuff to happen but if they never make a sequel I think this one wasn't as good as the original, seems like they just tried to spice it up for avengers movies fans.

[Gelston]

I only hate it because I have to wait ttwo goddamn years to see the second part.

[SonoftheNorth]

Only thing I think is better than the original is stellan skarsgard's portrayal of the baron, he was an over the top Cesar Romero in the original.

[hamsquatch]

This was just part 1, 2.5 hours is only getting to Sietch Tabr.

Ok, change 2.5 to 5 hours, same comment.

[kutter]

Ironically I liked who they cast for Thufir but they did not even come close to explaining what a mentat is, so maybe that was why the casting did not matter much since they did not come across as a human computer. I liked Jason Mamoa as Duncan, he was about as I see him in the books. Josh Brolin came across a little to dour for my thoughts of Gurney, but his performance was not bad. I am going to reserve judgement on Timothee Chalamet until the next one comes out, assuming it does, he is better than the Paul in the 1st one. At least they got the age right in this one, like they did in the Sci-Fi one.

I really liked William Hurt's portrayal and I thought that Oscar Isaac's, while different was very good, both did a good job of conveying the love of a father and the responsibility of a leader. I think the Baron did not come across as nearly evil enough. And where the fuck is Feyd? How can you make a movie and not even mention the main antagonist? Some people are saying that he combined Rabban and Feyd into one and if that is true, then he has really destroyed the storyline, but I suspect he will show up in the second one.

The highlight I think of all the performances was Javier Bardem, although that probably should not surprise me much.

I realize that I am harping on the fact that it did not closely follow the book, and I admit from a cinematic perspective it was an impressive movie. Villeneuve has a chance to redeem himself on the second one, I hope he does. For right now it is in the number 2 spot for me of the three Dunes, but that is not saying much since the 1st one was so bad.

[Orthin]

as someone who has never read the book(s?), will I find enjoyment in this movie or will it just be too hard to follow due to the amount of content?

[Gelston]

as someone who has never read the book(s?), will I find enjoyment in this movie or will it just be too hard to follow due to the amount of content?

I've never read the books, nor has my wife, and we both enjoyed it. She never saw the older movie or the miniseries either.

[SonoftheNorth]

as someone who has never read the book(s?), will I find enjoyment in this movie or will it just be too hard to follow due to the amount of content?


It'll still be watchable, I'd watch the original 1983 movie first maybe

[Velfi]

as someone who has never read the book(s?), will I find enjoyment in this movie or will it just be too hard to follow due to the amount of content?

I thought they did a good job of making it approachable for a general audience not familiar with the book, though some of it you'd need to pay a little attention to figure out like the slow/fast of the personal shields.

[kutter]

I thought they did a good job of making it approachable for a general audience not familiar with the book, though some of it you'd need to pay a little attention to figure out like the slow/fast of the personal shields.

That's true, they did not touch upon that at all did they so that might not make a lot of sense. I suppose I did not think too much about since I already knew.

I think someone could see it and understand, at least to the extent that Villeneuve intended the viewer to understand. I would say if you want a deeper dive without the book then the 3 part series is the most true to the books but you do not get to see Sting in a loincloth thingee. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing.

[Taernath]

I enjoyed it. It's about as true to the book as you're going to get in a movie format. I kinda wish they went with lesser known actors since most of them were a little distracting, but otherwise it was fine, and Chalamet grew on me. I never did see the Sci Fi miniseries.

[Tisket]

I've read the book and I loved the movie. Enough to watch it twice. It was a very faithful recreation that hit most of the points from the book narrative but in such a way that someone who had not read the book would still find it enjoyable.

[Tisket]

I will say that I went into it expecting to be disappointed because I didn't realize that it was a two-part movie and couldn't imagine how they could cover the contents of the book in two and a half hours. First time I've been relieved by a surprise cliffhanger.

[Neveragain]

I've never read the books, nor has my wife, and we both enjoyed it. She never saw the older movie or the miniseries either.

I've tried both reading and listening to the books and can't accomplish it. It may be because I watched the old movie several times before ever trying to read it. Reading it seems like a chore.

I'm just finishing up Adams then plan to watch Dune.

[Velfi]

Part 2 got the green light.

[Taernath]

Part 2 got the green light.

https://i.imgur.com/2DzJU5S.gif

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

edit: I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that a man being cast as a LaAaAaAady is a Big Issue.

Curious why you think that was an issue?

[Velfi]

Curious why you think that was an issue?

Great question, and in hindsight I can't imagine why any of the resilient and well-adjusted people who post here would have an issue with something like that.

[Alashir]

Great question, and in hindsight I can't imagine why any of the resilient and well-adjusted people who post here would have an issue with something like that.

Lol. Bam bam bam.

[Taernath]

Guys, what if...

what if they haven't shown Feyd-Rautha yet..

https://i.imgur.com/aeQyHTe.gif

... because Feyd-Rautha has been recast as a feeeeeemale.

[Astray]

Women? Anywhere but the KITCHEN?

WHAT YEAR IS IT?!?!?/3/1!1

[Velfi]

Guys, what if...

what if they haven't shown Feyd-Rautha yet..

https://i.imgur.com/aeQyHTe.gif

... because Feyd-Rautha has been recast as a feeeeeemale.

And the Oscar goes to: Annie Lennox, as Feyd from Dune part 4.

[drumpel]

The only good dune was:

Dune - The Battle for Arrakis on the Sega Genesis

[Velfi]

https://i.imgur.com/ku1whFh.png

[Velfi]

Christopher Walken's gonna be Emperor Shaddam in part 2, that's potentially kinda pog-worthy.

[Taernath]

Christopher Walken's gonna be Emperor Shaddam in part 2, that's potentially kinda pog-worthy.

No way. The memes are going to be out of this world.

[Neveragain]

Finally watched this a couple weeks ago. What really stood out to me was the soundtrack, IMO one of the best feature soundtracks in film history.

[Velfi]

No way. The memes are going to be out of this world.

"I need more spice."