Villeneuve's DUNE

[Mephariel 451]

4 hours ago, Mr. Who said:

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

 

The Two Towers Extended Edition is my favorite out of them all. But FOTR theatrical is probably my favorite out of the 3 theatrical versions.

1 hour ago, Romão said:

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

 

I think it would be curious to see if WB continues the franchise without Denis Villeneuve. He said he won't do anymore after Messiah. 

[MaxMovieMan 273]

4 hours ago, Romão said:

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

It’s one of my favorite books in general just because I love the philosophy and themes presented. And it’s on such a massive scale. Delves deep into Frank’s thoughts on controlled stagnation and forward progression as a species. Also… I think the new movie gave a slight hint towards this book and specifically the “Golden Path.”

 

Spoiler

When Paul sees the visions of billions starving. I think this is in reference to the Golden Path that Leto II commits. It could just be about the Fremen Jihad that happens in “Dune Messiah” but in that book people don’t starve they are murdered. The starvation aspect comes from Leto II stagnating humanity. Maybe Denis will combine aspects from future books into the next film.

 

[Jim Ware 526]

15 hours ago, Romão said:

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

Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson were both Executive Producers and 'script consultants' for Villeneuve's films, but yes, their books are indeed awful. I expect the upcoming Sisterhood TV series to be similarly risible!

[Romão 2,274]

8 minutes ago, Jim Ware said:

Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson were both Executive Producers and 'script consultants' for Villeneuve's films, but yes, their books are indeed awful. I expect the upcoming Sisterhood TV series to be similarly risible!

 

 

I suppose that role was more of a contractual obligation than any sort of real input in the film's script. To its benefit, I'm sure

[crocodile 8,017]

I am not a great fan of this but it was definitely quite an engrossing and impressive experience. The first film had all the world detail and visuals but this one adds some excitement as well into the mix. It didn't lose me at any point, unlike the first one, so it was a cinema trip worth taking. I enjoyed it.

 

Karol

[Tallguy 3,398]

1 minute ago, crocodile said:

The first film had all the world detail and visuals but this one adds some excitement as well into the mix.

 

Much like the structure of the book the first part has all the world building but then it flips THAT table and so the second part ALSO has all the world building only of a different world. Maybe it's recency bias, but I think the second film did it better.

[crocodile 8,017]

17 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

Much like the structure of the book the first part has all the world building but then it flips THAT table and so the second part ALSO has all the world building only of a different world. Maybe it's recency bias, but I think the second film did it better.

It's definitively more involving. 

 

The score also felt better in the second one. I haven't heard the album but there were some nice moments. Having said that, I bet the sketch book album is probably still the best option.

 

Karol 

 

[MaxMovieMan 273]

I really wish the end section of “Song of the Sisters” was used more in the movies. It has such a mysterious and epic theme to it. Hopefully in “Dune Messiah” we’ll get it on the big screen.

[Tallguy 3,398]

9 minutes ago, crocodile said:

The score also felt better in the second one. I haven't heard the album but there were some nice moments. Having said that, I bet the sketch book album is probably still the best option.

 

I have not made the exhaustive dive on this score or movie that some here seem to have done. Was there anything from the Sketchbook that wasn't in one that was used / expanded on here? I can't tell if the love theme sounds familiar just because it has that Zimmer Dune sound or if I had already heard it before.

 

I discovered recently (and I think I posted this) that the Part One OST just didn't grab my attention or enthusiasm anymore when I went back to it a couple of months ago. But then I found that the Sketchbook did exactly that.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,542]

Why is 

 

Spoiler

Thufir Hawat

 

not in PT. 2?

[MaxMovieMan 273]

Probably time constraint.

[Tallguy 3,398]

18 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Why is 

 

  Hide contents

Thufir Hawat

 

not in PT. 2?

 

Short answer? Because. Long answer:

 

Spoiler

Because it was a plot thread that DV didn't feel like following up on. (Or didn't feel he had time to follow up on.) It's indicated that all the Atreides except for Gurney are dead.

 

TBH Thufir doesn't do much in the second half of the book. He's taken on by the Harkonnens and he and Feyd plot against the Baron to limited degrees of success. He and Gurney believe that it was Jessica who was the Harkonnen traitor and are seeking revenge if it turns out she's alive. Since the traitor plot was barely touched on in Dune part One and the misdirection not at all it leaves him with even less to do.

 

You also spend the second half waiting for him and Paul to reunite. They do for an instant before Thurfir is killed.

 

Thufir and Jessica are my two favorite characters and I think Villeneuve did them both dirty. IMHO.

 

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

My understanding is he had shot scenes, but in editing the film Denis cut them clean out of the movie.

 

Yet another thing that makes the two parts feel quite distinct.

[MaxMovieMan 273]

I loved what they did with Jessica in the film.

 

Spoiler

Portraying her more as a villainous figure rather than a heroic one adds to the overall theme that Denis is going for. He wants to show the downsides of messiahs and fanaticism. Honestly the biggest change to the book besides Alia was Chani.

 

She is very blindly faithful to Paul in the book which wouldn’t have added much to this message Denis wanted to show. Instead he had her be a non-believer and by the end of the film she seems to be the only Fremen who doesn’t believe in Paul. This is very interesting because Paul kept seeing visions of her in the first film and then here he ends up falling in love with her. The one person who doesn’t believe in the “Lisan al Gaib” is the one person Paul ends up loving. That’s because she loves Paul the man, not the messiah. Because of this it makes more sense that Chani was singled out for Paul in his visions as opposed to it being another Fremen fanatic.
 

Also Paul’s rise in general is treated as a bad thing and is extremely foreboding which again adds to the fact that Denis wanted this film to be a warning/tragedy. Denis treats the Kwisatz Haderach as a danger which is why Jessica and the Bene Gesserit in general are scary as hell. Jessica after the Water of Life is my favorite character in the movie. She changes so much and how they handled Alia as well was chef’s kiss. Rebecca Ferguson knocked it out of the park.

 

My favorite shots/parallels in the film are how when Paul and Jessica first arrive to Sietch Tabr their way is blocked and they can’t get through however when Paul goes south (Transformed into the Kwisatz Haderach) the Fremen themselves pave a path for him through the crowd. He is now their messiah. Visually storytelling at its finest.

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 minute ago, MaxMovieMan said:

I loved what they did with Jessica in the film.

 

That's probably a huge reason why I liked Part One more. The character I felt I could relate to in Part One was Jessica: Paul's predicament, in both parts, is much too cosmic and kind of beyond us, to be relatable on a human level. Jessica was just the worried-sick mum.

 

In this, she's that for, oh, ten minutes and then she's becomes a personality-less oracle figure.

[MaxMovieMan 273]

That’s the whole point. She goes from a “caring” mother to a prophet of the prophecy who instead of being a mother to Paul is now a steward for the Kwisatz Haderach. Also even in the first film she is definitely a little suspicious as she allows the Reverend Mother to do whatever she wants to Paul and appears to have the Bene Gesserit in the back of her mind. Leto asks her in the first one if she’s going to be a “mother” to Paul to which she says always. Then in this one when she…

 

Spoiler

drinks the Water of Life, she fully transforms into her Reverend Mother, Bene Gesserit self, which causes her to put the prophecy above all else. This was in the book but yes Denis portrays this more sinisterly than the novel. But I love this change.

 

I found myself relating a lot to Chani in this one. She sorta takes on that role as the audience surrogate. You’re right the other characters are cosmic in level/belief which is again why I love the change they made for Chani. And Jessica still has a personality. It’s just a very sinister personality. After all…

 

Spoiler

she got all of the memories of the past Reverend Mothers and has a fully conscious fetus in her belly talking to her.

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 minutes ago, MaxMovieMan said:

I found myself relating a lot to Chani in this one. She sorta takes on that role as the audience surrogate. You’re right the other characters are cosmic in level/belief which is again why I love the change they made for Chani.

 

That's true. Although it didn't resonate as strongly with me, personally.

[Tallguy 3,398]

Spoiler

I don't think DV navigates the opposition that Paul's legend is real. He leans too much on the "It's all part of the show" aspect of the Bene Gesserit. So you kind of lose sight of the fact that Paul actually does everything that was prophesied.

 

They make the "believer" Fremen (especially Stilgar) look rather foolish and ignorant. (I think that was the aim.) Which is one thing when it's a centuries old religion. It's another thing when you have Wicked Jessica literally duping non-believing Fremen into The Cause.

 

We're so used to the narrative of false prophets being bad (and I've seen interviews with DV and his own opinions on modern Western religion) that it escaped them that Herbert's theme was that REAL prophets were probably really bad too.

 

Herbert wrote Dune Messiah to underline that point because he felt people had missed it in Dune. This feels like DV reading ahead but coming to the wrong conclusion.

 

Still loved the movie. Wish it had been a smidge better.

 

27 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

That's probably a huge reason why I liked Part One more. The character I felt I could relate to in Part One was Jessica: Paul's predicament, in both parts, is much too cosmic and kind of beyond us, to be relatable on a human level. Jessica was just the worried-sick mum.

 

When we watched Part One a few weeks ago on the third time that Jessica is literally shaking with anxiety my wife (who has never read the book) said "She's a really nervous person, isn't she?" I wanted to scream "She's not SUPPOSED to be." Maybe that's why DV makes it so that the audience can't actually hear what the words to the Litany of Fear are.

 

I liked Jessica better in part two than part one, but I don't think either one "gets" her. Which is really too bad because Ferguson is terrific.

 

Spoiler

I don't know what they will do with "part three". Because at the end of Dune Jessica has had enough and leaves Paul to retire to Caladan. So really the opposite of the film.

 

[MaxMovieMan 273]

Here’s why I think Denis perfectly captured the message of the novel with Paul and his messianic elements:

 

Spoiler

Yes Paul is technically a real messiah as he does all of the things foretold and has the powers of a Reverend Mother. But all of this IS fake. It is all manipulation by the Bene Gesserit to control people. They wanted to create a Kwisatz Haderach to control the universe. He would be the people’s messiah and the Bene control him from behind the scenes. Jessica herself says that they need to control “the weak ones” first so they can get to the rest later which does make sense. Children and sick people would be converted much easier than others. Paul’s actions that he performs himself get the rest of the Fremen to believe in him. Jessica and Alia convert one section through belief and Paul converts another through his own actions. The Fremen aren’t stupid but they see the signs and that’s why they believe. I think the film did a great job at showing Paul earning their respect and becoming a messiah figure on his own while Jessica converted everyone else that wasn’t fighting with him.

 

Paul is a false prophet in the book. But he is a real one to the people of the Fremen. That’s the point. He may be “real” due to his powers and skills but everything was planned ahead by an organization of people seeking to control everybody. This is the definition of a false prophet. Paul genuinely cares for the Fremen people and it’s himself that gets them to believe. “The messiah is too humble to say he is the messiah” is a perfect example of this. It’s only after he drinks the Water of Life that Paul decides to own the prophecy and use the Fremen to take revenge. He is both a real messiah with influence but also a false messiah with his true goals by the end of the film. At first Paul just wants revenge but after getting to know the Fremen he changes to really caring. Paul genuinely was like a messiah to the Fremen at first because he cared for them and became one of them. He proved himself to them for the fact that he cared. But later he becomes the false prophet he was always so scared of. He gained the Fremen’s trust and belief because he cared about them and became one of them but upon drinking the Water of Life past, present, and future all turned the same. Paul wanted revenge and saw that he now had an army at his disposal. This is where he goes from a real messiah to a false one. Paul is a real messiah in the ability sense yet he is a false messiah in his beliefs sense (After he takes the Water of Life). Paul goes through quite a character arc in this film. But to Herbert is there even a difference between the two types of messiahs?

 

Denis did read ahead to put some of the darker elements of the Kwisatz Haderach prophecy into this film however he came to the exact same conclusion Herbert did. All messiahs are bad.

 

“No more terrible disaster could befall your people than for them to fall into the hands of a Hero.” - Frank Herbert

 

Frank wasn’t religious so he never believed in any “real” messiahs anyways. He saw throughout history how there have been powerful figures that have influenced great amounts of people. Whether these people are messiahs, rulers, politicians, it’s all the same. They are heroes to their people. These people prop them up as their gods and then do their bidding. This is a fact of humanity and has been shown time and time again. It’s even still happening to this day.

 

CHARACTER MAP FOR PAUL

1. At the start Paul is both a false messiah literally and figuratively. He doesn’t have the respect of the Fremen yet, doesn’t have his powers, and his main desire is revenge.

 

2. Upon learning Fremen culture and becoming one of them he is mostly a real messiah literally and figuratively. He proves himself to the Fremen, still doesn’t have powers, and his main desire is to help the Fremen people (When Paul puts his ring away and says, “Father I found my way.” This is him embracing the Fremen and becoming a literal messiah in the ability sense and a figurative messiah through his new-found devotion to the natives.)

 

3. After taking the Water of Life Paul is a real messiah. He has the abilities, has the influence, and has the respect of all Fremen. However figuratively and mainly Paul is now a false prophet/messiah. His main goal is once again to revenge (Evidenced by him putting back on the ring and calling himself “Paul Muad’Dib Atreides” to the Fremen) and he no longer has the Fremen people at the front of his mind.

 

So at the end of the day yes Paul has the messianic abilities and influence but he is a true false messiah. He doesn’t have the Fremen as his priority anymore. It’s now revenge. Paul is a false prophet because he is claiming holy and religious powers to manipulate the Fremen when he knows damn well that he’s not getting any of these powers from God or divine authority. It’s just the Bene Gesserit performing plans within plans as always.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

The character I felt I could relate to in Part One was Jessica

 

3 hours ago, MaxMovieMan said:

I found myself relating a lot to Chani in this one.

 

Jessica? Chani? A worrying mother and a teenage girl?

 

Anyone else here like me and fully relate to Paul? Especially in the next film.

[Tallguy 3,398]

5 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Anyone else here like me and fully relate to Paul? Especially in the next film.

 

Undisputed ruler of the known universe?

[MaxMovieMan 273]

25 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Jessica? Chani? A worrying mother and a teenage girl?

 

Anyone else here like me and fully relate to Paul? Especially in the next film.

I mean if you can relate to a super-being who can see past, present, and future all at the same time and also is fully seeking violent revenge then hey you do you man.

 

Chani and Jessica were probably the most “human” characters besides Duncan and Leto.

[Chen G. 3,949]

7 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Anyone else here like me and fully relate to Paul? Especially in the next film.

 

I do!

 

But I just found Jessica - in Part One - more relatable on a human level.

[Edmilson 7,466]

Okay, I saw it yesterday and I really liked it! Better than I thought! Mostly because I found Part One just okay so this one really surprised me.

 

Still, something curious happened during my movie session. I sat on the IMAX theater and then a couple with an actual toddler, a little girl who was like one or two years old, sat beside me. Immediately, my first thought was "what are these people doing? This little girl is going to cry as soon as the movie begins!".

 

As they sat, the man put the girl on his lap and the Godzilla x Kong trailer started to play. That trailer is filled with giant monsters roaring AS LOUD AS THEY CAN, so I thought she was going to cry... But that didn't happen and she just watched the trailer with some slightly fearful interest.

 

Then the movie began and the first thing that we see, or rather hear, is some guy burping on Zimmer's score. Once again I thought the little girl was going to be terrified but to no avail.

 

Anyway, it didn't last long and soon she was with her mother asking (yeah, I could hear her) "Mommy, I want to leave! I want to go home!". Eventually, her mom calmed her with the 21st century nanny for toddlers: a smartphone. The girl then started paying attention to the phone instead of the movie, but, if you saw the movie, then you know that it can get VERY VERY LOUD, especially during the action scenes or crowd scenes. Not only due to the sound effects but also due to Zimmer's EPIC SCORE.

 

At that moment I started to get worried for the child. That wasn't the place for a toddler, especially as the EXTREMELY LOUD sound mixing could hurt her still developing auditory system. Heck, halfway through the movie my adult and IMAX-experienced head was hurting with all the loudness.

 

So I guess that was too much for the girl because eventually her mom left the movie theater with her while the father stayed to watch the movie (sexism!). But after, like, 15 or 20 minutes the mom and the girl came back and she was sleeping. 

 

As far as I could tell (because I was obviously more interested in the movie, lol), the little girl was still asleeping by the time the end credits rolled (don't know how she didn't wake up with all the noise from the climax). 

 

Anyway, I really hope that couple (who seemed to be young, about my age or so) was so hyped to see the movie and, since they weren't able to find someone who could stay with her, they took their toddler to the theater, like, a last resort. Because taking little children who are no more than babies to an IMAX theater showing a VERY LOUD action movie for adults is a truly idiotic idea. 

[Gabriel Bezerra 302]

50 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Still, something curious happened during my movie session. I sat on the IMAX theater and then a couple with an actual toddler, a little girl who was like one or two years old, sat beside me. Immediately, my first thought was "what are these people doing? This little girl is going to cry as soon as the movie begins!".

 

As they sat, the man put the girl on his lap and the Godzilla x Kong trailer started to play. That trailer is filled with giant monsters roaring AS LOUD AS THEY CAN, so I thought she was going to cry... But that didn't happen and she just watched the trailer with some slightly fearful interest.

That's sinisterly weird, a similar thing happened in my screening yesterday... A couple with a young kid sat right at our side and the GxK trailer made her scared and she cried a bit, then the movie started and she kept talking about the "monsters", so the parents pulled up the phone and had her watch some show while the movie was on... Why? Why bring a child to Dune Part 2 in IMAX?

 

Anyways, loved the movie, the first act is so much fun, Javier Barden had the audience chuckle a few times, the worm ride was a sensory overload, couldn't stop smiling. Timothy surprised me a bit in his turn, it was really well done and played, I had conflicting emotions in the entire final fight, going to "this is awesome" to "oh no" every minute.

 

16 hours ago, MaxMovieMan said:

Here’s why I think Denis perfectly captured the message of the novel with Paul and his messianic elements:

 

Spoiler

I had the first impression that the Water of Life that made him go evil, though I knew it wasn't really, he was the one to come up with "turn the non-believers to his side", your breakdown cleared my assumptions, so thanks!

 

[Faleel 5,355]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

Okay, I saw it yesterday and I really liked it! Better than I thought! Mostly because I found Part One just okay so this one really surprised me.

 

Still, something curious happened during my movie session. I sat on the IMAX theater and then a couple with an actual toddler, a little girl who was like one or two years old, sat beside me. Immediately, my first thought was "what are these people doing? This little girl is going to cry as soon as the movie begins!".

 

As they sat, the man put the girl on his lap and the Godzilla x Kong trailer started to play. That trailer is filled with giant monsters roaring AS LOUD AS THEY CAN, so I thought she was going to cry... But that didn't happen and she just watched the trailer with some slightly fearful interest.

 

Then the movie began and the first thing that we see, or rather hear, is some guy burping on Zimmer's score. Once again I thought the little girl was going to be terrified but to no avail.

 

Anyway, it didn't last long and soon she was with her mother asking (yeah, I could hear her) "Mommy, I want to leave! I want to go home!". Eventually, her mom calmed her with the 21st century nanny for toddlers: a smartphone. The girl then started paying attention to the phone instead of the movie, but, if you saw the movie, then you know that it can get VERY VERY LOUD, especially during the action scenes or crowd scenes. Not only due to the sound effects but also due to Zimmer's EPIC SCORE.

 

At that moment I started to get worried for the child. That wasn't the place for a toddler, especially as the EXTREMELY LOUD sound mixing could hurt her still developing auditory system. Heck, halfway through the movie my adult and IMAX-experienced head was hurting with all the loudness.

 

So I guess that was too much for the girl because eventually her mom left the movie theater with her while the father stayed to watch the movie (sexism!). But after, like, 15 or 20 minutes the mom and the girl came back and she was sleeping. 

 

As far as I could tell (because I was obviously more interested in the movie, lol), the little girl was still asleeping by the time the end credits rolled (don't know how she didn't wake up with all the noise from the climax). 

 

Anyway, I really hope that couple (who seemed to be young, about my age or so) was so hyped to see the movie and, since they weren't able to find someone who could stay with her, they took their toddler to the theater, like, a last resort. Because taking little children who are no more than babies to an IMAX theater showing a VERY LOUD action movie for adults is a truly idiotic idea. 

Usually whenever I went to a concert when I was young (which was somewhat rare), I was made to wear earplugs.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

15 hours ago, Tallguy said:

Undisputed ruler of the known universe?

 

15 hours ago, MaxMovieMan said:

I mean if you can relate to a super-being who can see past, present, and future all at the same time and also is fully seeking violent revenge then hey you do you man.

 

It takes one to know one!

 

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

I do!

 

But I just found Jessica - in Part One - more relatable on a human level.

 

Yes. Of all the souls I have encountered in my reading of Dune, hers in the most...human.

[Edmilson 7,466]

1 hour ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:

That's sinisterly weird, a similar thing happened in my screening yesterday... A couple with a young kid sat right at our side and the GxK trailer made her scared and she cried a bit, then the movie started and she kept talking about the "monsters", so the parents pulled up the phone and had her watch some show while the movie was on... Why? Why bring a child to Dune Part 2 in IMAX?

Lol

 

I truly want to believe that they only took that baby girls because they couldn't find anyone to stay with her. But I have an uncomfortable feeling that these kinds of couples who take toddlers to adult movies are those hipster diehard cinephiles that want to take their children to "quality movies" since early age to make them love the Seventh Art, even though their kids are too young to understand any of that and it'll likely result in a traumatic experience.

[Tallguy 3,398]

2 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:

That's sinisterly weird, a similar thing happened in my screening yesterday... A couple with a young kid sat right at our side and the GxK trailer made her scared and she cried a bit, then the movie started and she kept talking about the "monsters", so the parents pulled up the phone and had her watch some show while the movie was on... Why? Why bring a child to Dune Part 2 in IMAX?

 

I would have had them booted.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

35 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

I would have had them booted.

 

IMAX Karen!!!

[Tallguy 3,398]

6 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

IMAX Karen!!!

 

I'd have done it in a discount cinema on a Tuesday morning. Damn skippy.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

7 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

I'd have done it in a discount cinema on a Tuesday morning. Damn skippy.

 

Got that beat. I'd have done it at home watching a movie I downloaded for free.

[Edmilson 7,466]

1 hour ago, Tallguy said:

 

I would have had them booted.

 

38 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Got that beat. I'd have done it at home watching a movie I downloaded for free.

To be honest, the toddler herself didn't bother me much. I mean, she whined to her parents that she "wanna go gome" but I barely listened. What annoyed me was the parents' attitude of bringing a literal baby to an IMAX theater with powerful, explosive audio. Hopefully the BAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUMS didn't do much damage to her audition. Couldn't they, I dunno, leave the baby with a relative so that they could enjoy the movie?

 

Or were they one of those modern hip couples who think that by bringing babies to showings of adult movies will somehow turn them into cult cinephiles when they get older?

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

26 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Or were they one of those modern hip couples who think that by bringing babies to showings of adult movies will somehow turn them into cult cinephiles when they get older?

 

Worked for Tarantino.

[Edmilson 7,466]

Forty years from now, that baby girl will be the writer and director of Once Upon a Time in Netflix, a look upon the streaming wars as seen by the eyes of a recently cancelled social media influencer who tries to recover his career by starring in a season of Stranger Things.

[Edmilson 7,466]

As for the movie itself, it left me with two doubts.

 

One major turning point for the movie is...

 

Spoiler

Feyd Rautha being sent to Arrakis to deal with the Fremen insurgence after Rabban's failure. When he gets there, the first thing he does is to bomb the mountains (?) where the Fremen resided, which motivates Paul to drink the Water of Life.

But if the Harkonnen have known for years where the Fremen live, why didn't they bomb there sooner? Why Rabban, who was shown to be obssessed with defeating the Fremen, didn't think that before? Is he an idiot?

Because he spent months sending Harkonnen soldiers to die in the desert and that strategy only got his men killed, whereas Feyd Rautha in just a few minutes almost single handlely turned the tide of the war by bombing the Fremen HQ. Seems a very dumb moment, for Rabban and the script.

 

And the other is, by the end of the movie...

 

Spoiler

Paul sends his Fremen to wage war on the Great Houses. But, as formidable as they are in the desert, don't the Great Houses have much bigger technological superiority than them? They were shown to be tribesmen who were living in the desert and fighting with swords, while the Houses have warships and whatever.

Also, if each House has their own atomic warheads, then it's a much larger number than nukes than whatever Paul has left, right? All they need to do is to drop a nuke in Paul's army and the rebellion is finished. 

Power scaling in the Dune universe is so much weird.

[MaxMovieMan 273]

I mean the Fremen do have lasguns/pistols and they took all of the emperor’s ships/weapons.

 

Spoiler

The Landsraad can’t nuke Arrakis because they don’t want to destroy the Spice fields. That’s what Paul threatened them with in the first place. Then they called his bluff so he sent the Fremen up to kill them all.

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

19 minutes ago, MaxMovieMan said:

I mean the Fremen do have lasguns/pistols and they took all of the emperor’s ships/weapons.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The Landsraad can’t nuke Arrakis because they don’t want to destroy the Spice fields. That’s what Paul threatened them with in the first place. Then they called his bluff so he sent the Fremen up to kill them all.

 

Spoiler

The movie gave me the impression of the Fremen attacking the Great Houses would be kinda like if the Vietcong in the 60s decided to declare war on NATO... lol (with all due respect to all parties). But I guess the technological difference between the Fremen and the Houses isn't that large. And they do have the advantage of the spice.

But I don't know, the power scaling was a little weird in the movie's universe.

 

[JNHFan2000 2,966]

41 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

As for the movie itself, it left me with two doubts.

 

One major turning point for the movie is...

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Feyd Rautha being sent to Arrakis to deal with the Fremen insurgence after Rabban's failure. When he gets there, the first thing he does is to bomb the mountains (?) where the Fremen resided, which motivates Paul to drink the Water of Life.

But if the Harkonnen have known for years where the Fremen live, why didn't they bomb there sooner? Why Rabban, who was shown to be obssessed with defeating the Fremen, didn't think that before? Is he an idiot?

Because he spent months sending Harkonnen soldiers to die in the desert and that strategy only got his men killed, whereas Feyd Rautha in just a few minutes almost single handlely turned the tide of the war by bombing the Fremen HQ. Seems a very dumb moment, for Rabban and the script.

 

 

Spoiler

That's because a dofferent type of bomb is used.

The Baron talks about it right after it happens that it's a genius tactic to use old school bombs which melt the rocks from the inside

 

[Tallguy 3,398]

54 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

  Hide contents

The movie gave me the impression of the Fremen attacking the Great Houses would be kinda like if the Vietcong in the 60s decided to declare war on NATO... lol (with all due respect to all parties). But I guess the technological difference between the Fremen and the Houses isn't that large. And they do have the advantage of the spice.

But I don't know, the power scaling was a little weird in the movie's universe.

 

 

Well...

Spoiler

They did do a pretty good job in the films of indicating that the Sardaukar were universally accepted as unbeatable. And the Fremen routinely beat them.

 

This wasn't meant to be an "Ewoks vs. Stormtroopers" situation.

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,542]

Has anyone got any ideas which character Tim Blake Nelson played?

Count Fenring? A First Stage Guild Navigatior?

[Edmilson 7,466]

19 hours ago, Tallguy said:

 

Well...

  Reveal hidden contents

They did do a pretty good job in the films of indicating that the Sardaukar were universally accepted as unbeatable. And the Fremen routinely beat them.

 

This wasn't meant to be an "Ewoks vs. Stormtroopers" situation.

 

Spoiler

Hmm, I see. I dunno, I may have been in a Avatar or Star Wars mindset and thought this was like Ewoks vs Stormtroopers or Na'Vi vs technologically advanced humans or maybe even Dothraki vs knights of Westeros, when clearly the Fremen are more than capable of standing against the Houses and such. They have not only swords but also ammo capable of destroying harvesters and ships and pierce armors, plus the Atreides nukes and the spice.

I guess I saw this from the wrong angle because I was expecting an Avatar kind of story - an inhabitant of a more "advanced" society that takes refuge among the more tribalistic natives, falls in love with female warrior and eventually commands their theoretically less advanced armies against the more powerful enemies.

 

[Romão 2,274]

33 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Has anyone got any ideas which character Tim Blake Nelson played?

Count Fenring? A First Stage Guild Navigatior?

 

Spoiler

My guess is a Navigator, probably confering with the Bene Gesserit or the Emperor in some capacity. I really don't think what purpose Fenring would serve in this film. I'm also guessing that Tim Blake Nelson will be back for Messiah

 

[Tom Guernsey 2,286]

Finally got round to seeing it albeit not in IMAX or at an especially astonishing cinema but it still looked and sounded great. Totally didn’t recognise Austin Butler but as someone pointed out, no matter how bald you think he is in this film he’s even more bald than that. Quite. He’s seemed to have got lots of plaudits for his performance but it didn’t seem any more than a somewhat standard sneering villain (good though he was). The more nuanced villain roles were more engaging even if they looked less good topless.

 

My biggest issue with the film was that it was one of those films where I just couldn’t give two shits about any of the characters. Not through bad acting but it’s just a film that’s more about the ideas (how cults and messiahs are built, and prophesies willed into being etc). Timothy Chalamet was great as the lead and he certainly had the charisma to lead such a big movie but it was all so portentous that his journey from being relatively innocent and well meaning to someone fuelled by messianic zeal didn’t make as much impact somehow. It didn’t help that there were a few points where the narrative seemed to jump just a bit too quickly for the story to unfurl naturally (and not ashamed to admit I wasn’t quite sure who was where and how they got there a couple of times). It also almost felt like there was an obligation to put in some humour just to stave off the whole thing seeming like it was totally up its own arse but it wasn’t really enough for my liking. Plus some of the bad people seemed to just be dicks for the sake of it. They’d have been killed in an uprising years ago acting like that. 

 

Hans’ score had its moments but I don’t think the apparently endless themes are presented in a way that makes it possible to readily identify them with people or places or ideas beyond a few of the bigger melodies/ideas. I’ve read the posts, listened to the album several times and seen the film and I can’t say I could identify what theme represents what.

 

Spoiler bit, although it’s one of those things you can see coming a mile off which is why I’m mentioning it for being so lame, but…

 

Spoiler

Please can directors stop ending knife or sword fights with “it looks like the villain has stabbed the good guy at the last minute but ‘shock’ it was the good guy who struck that fatal final blow and it’ll be revealed by the bad guy showing his fingers covered in his own blood as he is surprised to have lost and then dies”. Seriously, nobody is surprised by this “twist” any more. I was more surprised that Villeneuve actually used that trope. It’s cheesier than a Parmesan factory now. For the love of god stop.

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

7 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Spoiler bit, although it’s one of those things you can see coming a mile off which is why I’m mentioning it for being so lame, but…

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Spoiler

Thought the same thing when I watched it. I was like "oh, here they go again with that knife cliche thing. We all know it's the villain who got stabbed". Also part of this cliché: the villain, after realizing he is the one stabbed, say something "clever" to the hero before collapsing to die, preferably some line that the audience has heard him saying before.

Btw, shouldn't your post and mine be on the movie thread instead of the score thread? @Jay, can you move them to the proper thread?

[Gabriel Bezerra 302]

32 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Spoiler bit, although it’s one of those things you can see coming a mile off which is why I’m mentioning it for being so lame, but…

Spoiler

Well, it is a callback to Gurney and Paul's fight in Dune Part 1

 

[Tallguy 3,398]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

  Hide contents

Hmm, I see. I dunno, I may have been in a Avatar or Star Wars mindset and thought this was like Ewoks vs Stormtroopers or Na'Vi vs technologically advanced humans or maybe even Dothraki vs knights of Westeros, when clearly the Fremen are more than capable of standing against the Houses and such. They have not only swords but also ammo capable of destroying harvesters and ships and pierce armors, plus the Atreides nukes and the spice.

I guess I saw this from the wrong angle because I was expecting an Avatar kind of story - an inhabitant of a more "advanced" society that takes refuge among the more tribalistic natives, falls in love with female warrior and eventually commands their theoretically less advanced armies against the more powerful enemies.

 

 

If you watch the beginning of the first movie they certainly play it that way. It's told as the old tale of an oppressed people. The Fremen may consider themselves many things but they do not consider themselves oppressed. Or if they do it's in a fatalistic "Let them try" way.

 

Spoiler

Another thing left out of the movie is that because of his total control of the spice Paul has the monopoly of the spacing guild at his disposal. This is another reason why the Fremen will be unbeatable on a galactic scale.

 

A detail that makes the Fremen a little more galactically savvy is that they were bribing the Spacing Guild to keep satellites away from the deep desert, hiding themselves from the Harkonnen  and then the Atriedes.

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

How Dune fits in current day Hollywood and how it should inspire new and bolder filmmaking:

 

 

[KK 3,307]

I liked the new one more than the last one. It still rings a little hollow for me, but it is impressive. Clearly, the films divided the plot material poorly. I'm glad it's doing what it is to generate box office interest, but the euphoria around it being the saviour of cinema feels silly.

 

The score is less offensive to the picture than its predecessor, but it's still not very good. I listened to the sketchbook last night, and there's honestly some interesting stuff in there (unlike the drab colourless OSTs). If only Denis' musical instincts allowed more for that kind of material, these films could have been more imaginative and wild.

[A24 4,338]

On 09/03/2024 at 1:12 AM, Edmilson said:

 

How Dune fits in current day Hollywood and how it should inspire new and bolder filmmaking.

 

 

But will it be as bold as Lynch's Dune?