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 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???
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.
@sunnybunch - https://www.reddit.com/r/TVTooHigh/
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 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???
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.