Villeneuve's DUNE

[Bespin 8,483]

Interesting article where Denis Villeneuve talk about how his roots in Catholic Quebec influenced the way that he wrote and directed the Dune movies. He calls himself a product of the Quiet Revolution and the new film focuses on danger of mixing politics and religion.

 

https://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/movies/growing-up-catholic-in-quebec-shaped-denis-villeneuves-vision-of-dune#:~:text=Villeneuve talks of how his,Quiet Revolution of the 1960s

[Tallguy 3,398]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

There's really no concrete point of comparison except they're both seminal "genre" works, grand of scale and serious in tone, which is pretty generic as a common ground to invite comparison.

 

Arguably true but they tend to be seen as the twin pillars or two genres that don't tend to get any serious consideration and tend to have a large overlap of audience.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Frankly, I find the oft-touted comparisons to Lord of the Rings very, very misplaced. The sensibility of the books, the adapted screenplays, the mise-en-scene of their respective directors and the pulse of the editing are starkly different across both properties. There's really no concrete point of comparison except they're both seminal "genre" works, grand of scale and serious in tone, which is pretty generic as a common ground to invite comparison.

 

The comparison long predates the films though. The blurbs on my copy of the book include one by Arthur C. Clarke: "I know nothing comparable to it except The Lord of the Rings." On some levels it seems an apt comparison, although on many others the two works are obviously very different.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 minute ago, Marian Schedenig said:

The blurbs on my copy of the book include one by Arthur C. Clarke: "I know nothing comparable to it except The Lord of the Rings."

 

Sure, but that's on a more rhetoric level, you know?

 

I just don't see any similarity of substance between the two books, and if it were possible even less between the resulting films.

[Romão 2,274]

Their only point of comparasion is being landmark works in their respective genres and being quite thorough in their world building (Tolkien even more so, obviously). It ends there, I think

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

The key I think is the world building and how in both cases it includes extensive references to back story & mythology that are not otherwise explained in the narrative, but add a lot of depth.

[SF1_freeze 131]

1 hour ago, Mephariel said:

 

Like seriously, what? Dune isn't a sci-fi epic? The design, cinematography is far more epic than Star Wars. Like real epic. With great use of contrasting colors, shadows, and volumes of space. With a sense of scope, real danger, real feel of location, people, and architect. When the characters goes into a canyon or rides a sandworm, it feels like a real ecosystem where in Star Wars, it is basically, "Where can I put a lovable creature here for someone to ride?" Star Wars is one big CGI painting with flat lightning and color and you know it is a fantasy right off the bat. This is a universe where a 9 year old is screaming out of joy in a cockpit but you are telling me that Dune doesn't feel real? James Cameron and Christopher Nolan would disagree with you. 

 

And Zimmer did a great job with Dune 2 and his music fits the film. It is as thematic as it needs to be. No matter how you feel, there are no rules that state you need certain amount of themes to make a sci-fi epic. 

 

You are right that Dune isn't as good as LOTR, but neither is Star Wars and most other sci-fi. LOTR's production design, music, and acting are leagues above most other films. It is disingenuous to argue you need to be as good as LOTR to be epic sci-fi.  

 

Lastly, when was the last time there was a "great" Star Wars film? Empire Strikes Back in 1980?

 

😄 Please don't forget, that i am only nitpicking here about what's in my opinion missing for Dune 2 for a 5 star rating (or 10/10).

In my review post i gave the film 4 out of 5 stars (8/10).

So for me it was a very good film, but no galaxy spanning sci fi epic and the score was servicable with a great love theme but a dissapointing rest and a rather bad sound of the music in general.

 

And i think you didn' read my post careful enough, because i never had a problem with the planet Dune itself. I wrote before that Dune/Arrakis was realized very well, including design, epicness and ecosystem.

 

My main problems were the design and realization of all the other planets, houses, space, societies,... which in my opinion were done mostly bad, bland, lazy and boring.

 

If you have a galaxy spanning storyline and only one planet is done great and the others are not, then sorry you don't deserve to be called a sci-fi masterpiece.

 

[MaxMovieMan 273]

Geidi Prime was so amazingly designed in my opinion.

 

Spoiler

The arena scene with Feyd was a highlight for me. The way they utilized the black sun to make everything infrared/black and white was beautiful.

A sci-fi masterpiece doesn’t need a bunch of planets at all. It also doesn’t need to be galaxy spanning. It just needs to in the genre of sci-if and be really good. And besides there were four planets and two that were pretty well realized in my opinion. In the first Star Wars film there’s only one planet that’s developed at all so I think they’re on a pretty even playing field.

[Mephariel 451]

2 hours ago, SF1_freeze said:

 

😄 Please don't forget, that i am only nitpicking here about what's in my opinion missing for Dune 2 for a 5 star rating (or 10/10).

In my review post i gave the film 4 out of 5 stars (8/10).

So for me it was a very good film, but no galaxy spanning sci fi epic and the score was servicable with a great love theme but a dissapointing rest and a rather bad sound of the music in general.

 

And i think you didn' read my post careful enough, because i never had a problem with the planet Dune itself. I wrote before that Dune/Arrakis was realized very well, including design, epicness and ecosystem.

 

My main problems were the design and realization of all the other planets, houses, space, societies,... which in my opinion were done mostly bad, bland, lazy and boring.

 

If you have a galaxy spanning storyline and only one planet is done great and the others are not, then sorry you don't deserve to be called a sci-fi masterpiece.

 

 

I thought Geidi Prime's design was amazing. To us, it may not seem like a habitable place, just like to us, Feyd-Rautha isn't a good looking guy. But to them, it is home and they probably have different standard of beauty. The fact that Geidi Prime looks nothing like Arrakis or Caladan or most places in other sci-fi films means they did a good job to make the planet and culture unique. 

 

As for Caladan, do they really need to show cities? Caladan plays such as unimportant role in the story, I don't know what showing more cities would do. 

 

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

 

[Brundlefly 2,385]

On 01/03/2024 at 12:56 PM, MaxMovieMan said:

This movie cements both parts of Dune as all-time great sci-fi films and also as a whole with both movies combined I would say this becomes an all-time epic in general. I don’t think Denis could’ve done a better job with this and this is definitely his magnum opus. Dune: Messiah will be very interesting because the ending of this film leaves one major plot thread in a different place than the books. This plot thread is literally the driving force of Dune: Messiah so I honestly don’t know how they would even adapt the book without completely changing the plot. I think what Denis did with the change was better than the book’s ending but Dune: Messiah hinges on this thing that Denis changed. Who knows. For now we have two films that are for sci-fi what Lord of the Rings was for fantasy.

The ending feels so open (much like ESB) that I've got the impression, we will have a movie trilogy, where you won't feel the "cut" between the two books that the whole story is based on. It just will be one big seven and a half hours movie.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Brundlefly said:

we will have a movie trilogy, where you won't feel the "cut" between the two books that the whole story is based on. It just will be one big seven and a half hours movie.

 

Now that's a big statement.

 

Even the two "Parts" of Dune are separate productions: Villenueve did not write the two scripts, even as a story treatment, together or even back-to-back and did not film them together. They have, as far as I can tell, pretty much the same crew, but in the first part he didn't particularly try to introduce as many of the cast-members of both parts: there are many new faces in Part Two.

 

The two films do feel reasonably of-a-piece, but Dune: Messiah is bound to be a different beast. I doubt it will play as cohesive enough to be regarded as a 7.5-hour film.

[Romão 2,274]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Now that's a big statement.

 

Even the two "Parts" of Dune are separate productions: Villenueve did not write the two scripts, even as a story treatment, together or even back-to-back and did not film them together. They have, as far as I can tell, pretty much the same crew, but in the first part he didn't particularly try to introduce as many of the cast-members of both parts: there are many new faces in Part Two.

 

The two films do feel reasonably of-a-piece, but Dune: Messiah is bound to be a different beast. I doubt it will play as cohesive enough to be regarded as a 7.5-hour film.

 

 

Same thing as the two books, really (Dune and Dune Messiah). Regardless of how Frank Herbert has said that Messiah was always intended as an epilogue for the first book, they still very much feel like separate, distinct (albeit continuous), works.

 

I'm sure the movies will feel the same. It's actually to the stories benefit, I think, if we feel a somewhat pronounced stylistic and tonal change in the 3rd movie

[Brundlefly 2,385]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Now that's a big statement.

 

Even the two "Parts" of Dune are separate productions: Villenueve did not write the two scripts, even as a story treatment, together or even back-to-back and did not film them together. They have, as far as I can tell, pretty much the same crew, but in the first part he didn't particularly try to introduce as many of the cast-members of both parts: there are many new faces in Part Two.

 

The two films do feel reasonably of-a-piece, but Dune: Messiah is bound to be a different beast. I doubt it will play as cohesive enough to be regarded as a 7.5-hour film.

You're right. Having seen the second part, I maybe just wanted to emphasize the narrative flow that I assume the three movies will be connected by.

 

Yeah, it's more like Kill Bill and less like Nymphomaniac or 1900, where the films were just split up, AFTER they were shot and edited.

 

1 hour ago, Romão said:

Same thing as the two books, really (Dune and Dune Messiah). Regardless of how Frank Herbert has said that Messiah was always intended as an epilogue for the first book, they still very much feel like separate, distinct (albeit continuous), works.

 

I'm sure the movies will feel the same. It's actually to the stories benefit, I think, if we feel a somewhat pronounced stylistic and tonal change in the 3rd movie

I haven't read the books, but isn't it the case, that Villeneuve leans the second movie towards the Messiah book, unlike Herbert did?

[Romão 2,274]

3 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

 

 

I haven't read the books, but isn't it the case, that Villeneuve leans the second movie towards the Messiah book, unlike Herbert did?

 

Yes, much more so, although still totally in line with bits and strands of foreshadowing you can detect in the first book

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

7 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Even the two "Parts" of Dune are separate productions: Villenueve did not write the two scripts, even as a story treatment, together or even back-to-back and did not film them together. They have, as far as I can tell, pretty much the same crew, but in the first part he didn't particularly try to introduce as many of the cast-members of both parts: there are many new faces in Part Two.

 

The two films do feel reasonably of-a-piece, but Dune: Messiah is bound to be a different beast. I doubt it will play as cohesive enough to be regarded as a 7.5-hour film.

 

Yeah. I think Villeneuve would certainly have been mindful of what worked and what didn't work in the first part, and this undoubtedly lead to tweaking whatever he had planned for the second.  Still, I think both parts could be edited together into one massive film, and it would mostly play as such (though some characters, such as the Emperor and Feyd, would probably be introduced earlier).  But the third film? No. That will clearly be a different, separate thing.

 

I frankly think this occurred to a lesser extent on The Lord of the Rings as well. While the films were shot simultaneously, it's pretty clear to me that Jackson made editing decisions for the second two films based on what worked before. In other words, had all three films not only been shot simultaneously, but also edited and ultimately released at the same time, the second two films, particularly ROTK, would have played out differently, and perhaps significantly so (no doubt to Viggo Mortenson's approval).

[Jay 37,369]

7 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

(no doubt to Viggo Mortenson's approval).

What does this mean?

[Faleel 5,355]

3 minutes ago, Jay said:

What does this mean?

Perhaps?

 

https://ew.com/article/2014/05/17/viggo-mortensen-lord-of-the-rings-interview/

[Chen G. 3,949]

21 minutes ago, Faleel said:

Perhaps?

 

https://ew.com/article/2014/05/17/viggo-mortensen-lord-of-the-rings-interview/

 

This interview to me is proof that actors are not the best judges of productions they took part in.

 

But certainly, if people detect different sensibilities across films that had been written together, filmed together, and to some (admittedly small) extent even edited together, that's sure to be the case with Dune, which was none of those things.

[Faleel 5,355]

Just now, Chen G. said:

 

This interview to me is proof that actors are not the best judges of productions they took part in.

 

 

Nothing he said was wrong, from a certain point of view.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Certainly, his assertion that the bulk of the two other parts was done in the pickups is not accurate, to say the least.

 

The bulk of the footage in The Two Towers and The Return of the King is from principal photography. The pickups were substantial, but in the grand scheme of things amount to touch-ups and improvements rather than filling-in wholesale missing pieces.

 

But we're getting sidetracked here...

[Faleel 5,355]

Mortensen: The new Lucas?

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

 

Its just that actors have a very "tunnel view" image of productions they're in, certainly when its to some extent an ensemble piece. They know their part, and they have a good grasp of the scenes they're in. But they don't necessary keep tabs on everybody else's scenes or how it all fits together, especially not in films where a lot of the stuff isn't there in-camera.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

I don't think Viggo is approaching this the same way your typical Hollywood actor is (i.e. it's all about me). If that were the case, he'd probably name Return of the King as his favourite. The guy is a thoughtful artist, and I think his comments reflect that. And I'd submit that he's more (not less) qualified to comment on this subject than any of us here.

 

Quote

 

"ln the first movie, yes, there's Rivendell, and Mordor, but there's sort of an organic quality to it, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it's grittier."

 

Mortensen says the "ballooning" of Jackson's reliance on CGI began with the second film, The Two Towers, and has increased with each subsequent project. "It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit...it's like that to the power of 10," Mortensen says.

 

 

While I love the second two films dearly, I pretty much agree with him (especially with regard to The Hobbit). And he's not slamming TTT & ROTK...he's just saying the subtlety and organic quality of the first film was gradually lost. I don't think this is an unfair assessment. 

 

9 hours ago, Chen G. said:

But certainly, if people detect different sensibilities across films that had been written together, filmed together, and to some (admittedly small) extent even edited together, that's sure to be the case with Dune, which was none of those things.

 

I actually detect it less with Dune. I don't see as significant a shift in sensibility between Part I & Part II as FOTR and its sequels, despite the latter being mostly filmed simultaneously (films are made in the edit). 

[Chen G. 3,949]

The two Dunes do have a different sensibility to me: The first one is almost all atmosphere, the second one is much more overtly a war picture. There's A LOT more character introductions in Part Two (and a lot more characters that are killed off in Part One never to be seen again: I was surprised there wasn't even a flashback to Oscar Isaac) then there are in The Two Towers, much less in The Return of the King.

 

And it remains to see how Messiah will play out. I feel like comparing an 11-hour trilogy to a "paltry" five hour duology is perhaps not the most scientific comparison. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

It's really a pity WB didn't have the courage and foresight to just let Villeneuve film both parts simultaneously (assuming it was their, not his, choice).

 

Messiah is going to be its own thing, by necessity. It's been years since I read the book, but as I recall there's a decade+ jump in time, and the universe and characters are in a completely different place. Maybe if you chopped up all three films into a miniseries for HBOMAX (which they'll probably do at some point) it could play as a single piece, but otherwise it will definitely feel more like a traditional sequel. Which, after all, is what it is, as both film and literature. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

5 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

It's really a pity WB didn't have the courage and foresight to just let Villeneuve film both parts simultaneously (assuming it was their, not his, choice).

 

I read about it at the time, and it seems like a kind of joint decision: They had talked about it, but it was clearly risky and at least in hindsight Villenueve said it was the better choice for him. I don't think he even started doing the treatment for Part Two until he saw the first film was doing okay at the box office.

 

I mean, The Lord of the Rings is way more...accessible than Dune, and to underline that, while Lynch's Dune flopped, Bakshi's Rings did not. So there was more reason for trepidation ahead of Villenueve's film.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

17 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Messiah is going to be its own thing, by necessity. It's been years since I read the book, but as I recall there's a decade+ jump in time, and the universe and characters are in a completely different place.

 

There's a big jump, yes… but there's also quite a big one (though much smaller in comparison) before the final part of the first book.

[Mephariel 451]

In the book it was 12 years right? I mean, they would have to increase the gap even further if they want to bring in Ana Taylor-Joy right?

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

Just saw this film on a whim. Wasn't particularly invested after Part 1 despite having read the book, but I must say I LOVED this movie. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it was thoughtful, thematically consistent, visually stunning and at least IMO never boring. I wish Zimmer's score had told more of a story rather than mostly serving as trailer-esque wallpaper, but at least it was decent wallpaper. If Villeneuves really does make Messiah, I'll see it for sure!

 

Oh and just for the record, Star Wars wishes it was making movies this good.

[SF1_freeze 131]

19 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Certainly, his assertion that the bulk of the two other parts was done in the pickups is not accurate, to say the least.

 

The bulk of the footage in The Two Towers and The Return of the King is from principal photography. The pickups were substantial, but in the grand scheme of things amount to touch-ups and improvements rather than filling-in wholesale missing pieces.

 

But we're getting sidetracked here...

How do you know how much was done during pick-ups?

Is there a list out there? Do you have a link?

 

12 hours ago, A. A. Ron said:

Oh and just for the record, Star Wars wishes it was making movies this good.

True, compared to Dune 1 and 2, the Starwars Sequels were really really bad.

The OT and PT of course are another story.

[Edmilson 7,466]

Woah 

 

Dune: Part Two’ Rides Sandworm To $178.5M Worldwide Opening –

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

56 minutes ago, SF1_freeze said:

True, compared to Dune 1 and 2, the Starwars Sequels were really really bad.

The OT and PT of course are another story.

The PT was nowhere near this good either. Not even close.

 

7 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Woah 

 

Dune: Part Two’ Rides Sandworm To $178.5M Worldwide Opening –

That’s wild. There were only about 6 other people in my Saturday night showing.

[badbu 123]

14 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Woah 

 

Dune: Part Two’ Rides Sandworm To $178.5M Worldwide Opening –

that’s crazy!

[Jay 37,369]

21 hours ago, Faleel said:

Perhaps?

 

https://ew.com/article/2014/05/17/viggo-mortensen-lord-of-the-rings-interview/

 

Wow, that was a fascinating read.  Thank you for that!

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

20 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

Wow, that was a fascinating read.  Thank you for that!

 

What do you think of Mortenson's comments, Jay?

[Chen G. 3,949]

53 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Woah 

 

Dune: Part Two’ Rides Sandworm To $178.5M Worldwide Opening –

 

Well, I guess Dune Messiah is on?

[Jay 37,369]

18 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

What do you think of Mortenson's comments, Jay?

 

I've thought from the very beginning that FOTR had a special and unique energy to it that TTT and ROTK didn't have.  It always felt to me that because of the overnight and extreme success of FOTR, PJ changed, and the TTT and ROTK we got were heavily influenced by his new fame and acclaim, and probably some pressure to continually match the success of the first.

 

This is why FOTR has always been my favorite of the trilogy by far, it just feels like a pure expression of doing the best adaptation of the beginning of the book as possible.  Every idea they had was good, the effects were practical as much as possible (and all look fantastic), CGI was used sparingly and tactfully... everything just worked. A lot of lightning in a bottle for sure.

 

The it was a massive success, so he gets more budget to finish up TTT.  Now there's lots more CGI, more re-editing, he's asking for Helm's Deep shots from his VFX team last minute, things are color graded more noticeably.  And this spills over into color grading the EE of FOTR to match.  I don't remember now exactly which scenes in the final cut are from the 2002 reshoots but I remember thinking one or two of them was a really unnecessary addition.

 

Despite all that, TTT still mostly works for me brilliantly, I still really think its a pretty damn awesome followup to one of my favorite movies of all time... and some of these new changes could have been reeled in for a concluding chapter, I had so much faith in this back then (I even remember PJ talking about how TTT was the hardest section of the book to adapt and hardest movie to cut together in a way that made sense back then)

 

But instead, ROTK is all of those problems kicked up more notches.  So much more CGI, so much more editing, so much more color grading.  Also another thing that affected the sequels but not FOTR was that he was editing them in a world he knew there would be Extended Editions, which I think changed what he might have included in their theatrical cuts if those weren't a certainty.

 

I still ilke TTT and ROTK a lot, they just don't have that extra special something that makes FOTR so perfect of a movie to me.  I remember the first time seeing ROTK, in theaters on opening day, thinking there was so many weird editing choices in the beginning of the film, I was really taken out of things.  Some of these things go away when you sit down at home and watch all three Extended Editions as a marathon or whatever, but even then I still don't think the overall TTT and ROTK movies are as good as FOTR.

 

So ROTK has really always been my least favorite of the three.  Despite having some of the best and coolest moments in it, it overall just feels like it never finds a groove to me.  And it doesn't help that there was so much cut that wasn't even restored for the EE and that the EE brings its own clunkiness in parts.

So anyway, I don't remember much about King Kong and never saw Lovely BOnes, but it's a bummer that all of his worst instincts from ROTK were still at play with those Hobbit movies.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

I'm quite pleased with how spectacularly Dune is doing, critically and commercially! Not just because I like the film (and the first one), and want to see more, but it's incredibly gratifying to see a cerebral, expertly crafted science fiction film doing so well. Especially one that makes intelligent use of CGI, made by people who seem to have passion and care about what they're doing. This isn't assembly-line filmmaking, and it's nice to see a genre film that doesn't involve Superheroes and people getting slammed into walls at the top of the box office.

 

A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one. Hopefully this bodes well for the future, not just for Dune but for cinema in general.

[Edmilson 7,466]

25 minutes ago, Jay said:

This is why FOTR has always been my favorite of the trilogy by far

For me as well.

 

In fact, I go as far as saying that Fellowship is my favorite movie of all time. No other movie had the same effect on me when I first saw it at age 8 or 9. I'm sure people who grew up on Star Wars or Jurassic Park can relate. But even fond childhood memories aside, it holds up EXTREMELY well as a well crafted adventure movie with perfect pacing, acting and score.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

40 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

In fact, I go as far as saying that Fellowship is my favorite movie of all time.

 

Along with Casablanca, probably my favourite as well.

 

TTT & ROTK are also phenomenal, of course. But damn...The Fellowship of the Ring to me is about as close to perfection as a film can get.

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

Isn’t the name of one of the Dune sequels “Heretic”?

 

Yeah; that’s what you lot are. 

[MaxMovieMan 273]

Heretics of Dune yes lmfao. I can only imagine what that would look like to be adapted. After Dune Messiah shit gets real weird.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

17 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Isn’t the name of one of the Dune sequels “Heretic”?

 

Yeah; that’s what you lot are. 

Heretics? For liking FOTR more than the other 2? Or for comparing LOTR to Dune? Or?

[Edmilson 7,466]

18 minutes ago, A. A. Ron said:

Heretics? For liking FOTR more than the other 2? Or for comparing LOTR to Dune? Or?

Return of the King is one of his favorite movies and the absolute best in the LOTR film trilogy according to him. I really love it, of course, but FOTR is unmatched for me.

 

Btw, are the Dune sequel books as bad as people say? I haven't read them but my sense of completin would like to see the entire saga adapted... lol

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

Oh, well that I don't understand at all. Fellowship is just an unrivaled force of nature as far as I'm concerned, both film and score. I'll agree that the whole last hour/4th disc of the ROTK complete recordings is utterly perfect though.

 

As far as the Dune sequels go, I haven't really heard them called "bad" just weird. I've only read the original and part of Messiah, but I've certainly heard a bunch of crazy things about

Spoiler

clones of Duncan Idaho, living characters getting possessed by the spirits of dead characters, and of course Paul's son somehow turning himself into a human/sandworm hybrid.

 

[Jay 37,369]

3 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

TTT & ROTK are also phenomenal, of course. But damn...The Fellowship of the Ring to me is about as close to perfection as a film can get.

 

 

Yes!

[Mr. Who 919]

I love FOTR but my favorite has always been Two Towers.

[MaxMovieMan 273]

3 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Btw, are the Dune sequel books as bad as people say? I haven't read them but my sense of completin would like to see the entire saga adapted... lol

They aren’t bad at all. I just don’t think they’re mainstream enough to be made for the big screen. They get very weird and out there as far as the plot/concept goes. Especially once you get to God-Emperor which frankly wouldn’t be able to be a film IMO. Or if it was a film it would be more like a documentary lmfao.

[Romão 2,274]

I adore all Frank Herbert's 6 Dune books. God Emperor of Dune, the fourth one, might actually be my favorite.

 

Now, the stuff "written" by his son and Kevin J. Anderson, is absolutely god awful