Villeneuve's Dune: Part One (2019)

I dunno, when I read all six books, I did not take away any impression of gaudy and flamboyant clothing a'la Lynch- yes a feeling of 'high imperial diplomacy' and social ossification. But then, I admit, that might be a fault in my memory and reading. I'm not much of a fan of Bladerunner 2049 - boring story really - to tell you the truth, but I think Villeneuve's version of Dune is more in tune with what's in my head regarding Herbert's universe.

Different courses for different horses I suppose.
I agree with V Broom. Although Lynch’s version has some entertaining scenes I think the new version better reflects the book. In fact dare I say the second half of the Dune novel is quite dull in parts and I would say the film is less so.
 
Hold on a second here:
In the Dune Empire, all of the Houses are violent and self interested - Atreides included. They are not above Chalmurky, and the fact that Leto's father died bullfighting should tell you a little bit about violent mindset of the people of Caladan.

There is two primary contrasts made - ethics and cruelty. The Harkonnens are unethical and cruel. They are breaking the rules, but are also terrible rulers and human rights abusers. Unlike the Atreides, they have slaves, and will kill just about anyone for pleasure.

Shaddam is not particularly cruel, though entirely ruthless. But he is not depicted as someone that enjoys torture or death.


The fulcrum of Dune is that the Atreides have become two things - immensely popular in the Landsraad. And enormously proficient in combat - due to Halleck and Idaho. The Emperor, who has no male heir, is not necessarily popular and maintains power in large part through the threat of his Sardukar. If it became generally known that Atreides fighters could beat Sardukar in a fair fight, the Landsraad may turn on Shaddam by combining their military and economic forces to oust his house as imperial seat. Which is pretty much how the Shaddam's ancestor became emperor in the first place.

So, though he likes and admires Leto, Shaddam makes a decision to destroy the Atreides to maintain his power and send a general warning to all Houses about rocking the boat. The problem is that his fear of the Atreides army doing favorably against Sardukar leads him to make the unethical decision to secretly and illegally back the otherwise legal attack of the Atreides by the Harkonnens.

This is an interesting moment, because Shaddam's close council is a high level Bene Gesserit, who has a vested interest in the Atreides. However, Jessica screwed things up by having a boy, so the Bene Gesserit may have felt that trying to influence the Emperor was not possible or not worth it considering other available gene lines. So they did their best to warn the Atreides of the peril, and stepped back. What happened after that was largely affected by three things - Paul surviving, and being the KH; Atreides policies attracting the interest and respect of the Fremen; and the Fremen being potentially much more dangerous than the Sardukar (Atreides/BG training and command being the missing piece).



The BG has used the noble families as breeding lines, largely because the politics of noble house marriage are much more easily manipulated and tracked than regular people, but at no point does any commentary suggest that Shaddam, Irulan or even Ghanima's husband have any of the strongest KW genes. So I would disagree that Shaddam is anything more than very smart, ruthless and unsentimental in his quest to maintain status quo.

I haven't seen anything in the upcoming film trailer to suggest that this Shaddam is any different from the book's - except that he looks older than described (spice works wonders).


I agree. All of the houses will do what they have to to maintain and promote their house. For the Atreides, if the Fremen will work with them then great, if they will fight against them to free their own planet, then they will be wiped out. Not evil in their eyes, it's just what has to be done - the spice must continue to flow.

The Emperor is also keen on maintaining and promoting his House; which will mean from time to time chopping down those Houses he sees as overstepping their boundaries and challenging his own. As with all empires, you have to fight your way to the top; and then fight even harder to stay there. Not evil, he's just defending his own House against a perceived threat from another.

The Harkonnen on the other hand are what I would term as 'chaotic evil'. It's incredible (perhaps unbelievable) to think that a House that behaves as theirs does could get as far as it has behaving in such a manner. The Baron absolutely cannot be trusted or relied upon by anyone - even members of their own House. One can only assume that shortly after disposing of the Atreides, the Emperor would next have them on his hit list.
 
I agree with V Broom. Although Lynch’s version has some entertaining scenes I think the new version better reflects the book. In fact dare I say the second half of the Dune novel is quite dull in parts and I would say the film is less so.


I'm not sure that the book requires the movie to be split into two parts though. Lynch's Dune comes in at 20 minutes shorter than the new Dune part 1. For me, having read the book, it seems to me that it covers all the salient parts of the book, and (for me at least) is a good representation of it, whilst not being a literal word-for-word translation. Which (in my opinion) is what a movie representation of a book should do.

I'm not prepared to watch the new movie again (as it honestly bored me to tears in some parts), but I was left wondering what the new movie included that the Lynch version didn't.
 
Lynch version merely turned the story into a ordinary struggle for power and made Paul's ability into just another weapon with which to win that fight. It leaves the most important part out; Paul's growing awareness of what he is and the realisation of the awful choices and responsibilities that came with it. I think Lynch left the crucial part out. That was what brought tears to my eyes.

People want to see flashy and flamboyant characters in a colorful setting, but none of that is in the book. Action takes for the most part between the lines, are referenced or contemplated. It is not about outward appearances, but people's machinations and ulterior motives, Paul's search for what he is or will become.
I think Villeneuve understands the book and Arrakis quite well. It may look bland, but that surely depicts the harsh environment well with its harsh, unrelenting sunlight and buildings that must withstand sandstorms with up to 800m/h(?) winds. It is a grim, dull, barren and unforgiving place that is only appreciated for its spice.
 
Lynch version merely turned the story into a ordinary struggle for power and made Paul's ability into just another weapon with which to win that fight. It leaves the most important part out; Paul's growing awareness of what he is and the realisation of the awful choices and responsibilities that came with it. I think Lynch left the crucial part out. That was what brought tears to my eyes.

People want to see flashy and flamboyant characters in a colorful setting, but none of that is in the book. Action takes for the most part between the lines, are referenced or contemplated. It is not about outward appearances, but people's machinations and ulterior motives, Paul's search for what he is or will become.
I think Villeneuve understands the book and Arrakis quite well. It may look bland, but that surely depicts the harsh environment well with its harsh, unrelenting sunlight and buildings that must withstand sandstorms with up to 800m/h(?) winds. It is a grim, dull, barren and unforgiving place that is only appreciated for its spice.


Fair enough. What draws me to the Lynch version are the visuals; the set designs, the uniforms, the look of the characters such as the Baron and the Emperor; everything seems utterly alien. Villeneuve's looks more realistic and perhaps closer to the book, but (for the most part) looks like it could just as easily have been set on Earth as on Arrakis. I also thought that the screen presence of support actors such as Jurgen Prochnow, Sir Patrick Stewart, Freddie Jones and Max von Sydow lent the film an air of gravitas that was lacking in the newer movie.

Thinking about it, Lynch's movie ended up quite close in style to the 1980s Flash Gordon movie; larger than life characters with colourful (to the point of garish) visuals. Which is perhaps the reason why I like it so much. I can also understand why this could also leave some with the exact opposite opinion.

The movie (and also the excellent Amiga games) are what drew me into reading the book, so my judgement on how accurately Lynch's vision match Herbert's is probably influenced by that.
 
Fair enough. What draws me to the Lynch version are the visuals; the set designs, the uniforms, the look of the characters such as the Baron and the Emperor; everything seems utterly alien. Villeneuve's looks more realistic and perhaps closer to the book, but (for the most part) looks like it could just as easily have been set on Earth as on Arrakis. I also thought that the screen presence of support actors such as Jurgen Prochnow, Sir Patrick Stewart, Freddie Jones and Max von Sydow lent the film an air of gravitas that was lacking in the newer movie.

Thinking about it, Lynch's movie ended up quite close in style to the 1980s Flash Gordon movie; larger than life characters with colourful (to the point of garish) visuals. Which is perhaps the reason why I like it so much. I can also understand why this could also leave some with the exact opposite opinion.

The movie (and also the excellent Amiga games) are what drew me into reading the book, so my judgement on how accurately Lynch's vision match Herbert's is probably influenced by that.
This is purely personal taste. In many ways I liked the things you point out about Dune - I just wish they had been happening to a different story. The actual plot content of Dune is so exotic that I don't want an art deco visual layered on top of it.

I also prefer a more Star Wars approach to casting - well known actors come with their own baggage. Not that the first Dune was full of major stars, but with so many Twin Peaks actors, there was a sense of goofiness to what they were doing.

Lynch's Dune feels like the Dino De Laurentiis film that it was - Flash Gordon, Superman, Excaliber. For those of that were book fans first, it all was too much sweet frosting hiding the subtleties of the story.
 
Wohoo, I was right! We are getting Part III.

I’ve emailed Deadline to get some clarification on this. I thought maybe it was a typo, but no, Pete Hammond replied to my email saying, “That is what Denis says is the plan.”

So, we’re maybe getting a third ‘Dune.’ That is either very good or very bad news, depending on who you speak to. I was mezzo mezzo on the first one, but will wait and see how the second film pans out.
 
I finally got to see Dune . It was a bit slow but overall , I found it to be good film .:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ctg
Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune: Part Two” won’t be screened until November, but I’m hearing that the current cut of the film is very lengthy. How does 3 hours 15 minutes sound to you? This does not mean that the released version will be that long, but it is an indication, a tease, if you will, of how epic this second chapter will be. For comparison’s sake, the first “Dune,” released in 2021, was 2 hours 35 minutes. As Roger Ebert once said, “No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough.”

About the lenght. I had not trouble with it, but I felt that by taking a slower pace we weren't going to cover the book in one sitting. Then seeing the trailers it made think about the pacing again, and that's why I said there's going to be Part III. What it will exactly cover, we don't know but I cannot see them fitting Dune's ending in the next film and also cover all the things that happen with the Fremen and making Paul the Muad'Dip.

We haven't even got the interaction with Shani yet, not talking about making a family, and what happens with Jessica and Mother. If Villenue wants to do justice, he'll give them much more space and then he'll finishes the saga in the Part III, without involving the Children or the Messiah parts.
 
Last edited:
2024 may be a lean year for new material if that strike continues much longer,
 
This is purely personal taste. In many ways I liked the things you point out about Dune - I just wish they had been happening to a different story. The actual plot content of Dune is so exotic that I don't want an art deco visual layered on top of it.
I 'saved' Dune on my TBW list as I was excited to see it.

Utterly dreadful, stagnant plotless drivel.

I feel like I've watched a ten hour perfume commercial. Utter garbage.

The David Lynch one was challenging for reasons discussed above (I quite like the mad Lynchian additions) but this one. I actually laughed aloud when Zendaya says her one line at the end and... it finished.

If you want a movie where women are there to look pretty and men moody, where it crosses the line between Fry's Turkish Delight, Perfume and Pirelli adverts then this is the movie for you.

2/5, would not recommend. ;)
 
I 'saved' Dune on my TBW list as I was excited to see it.

Utterly dreadful, stagnant plotless drivel.

I feel like I've watched a ten hour perfume commercial. Utter garbage.

The David Lynch one was challenging for reasons discussed above (I quite like the mad Lynchian additions) but this one. I actually laughed aloud when Zendaya says her one line at the end and... it finished.

If you want a movie where women are there to look pretty and men moody, where it crosses the line between Fry's Turkish Delight, Perfume and Pirelli adverts then this is the movie for you.

2/5, would not recommend. ;)
I couldn't agree more.
 
I 'saved' Dune on my TBW list as I was excited to see it.

Utterly dreadful, stagnant plotless drivel.

I feel like I've watched a ten hour perfume commercial. Utter garbage.

The David Lynch one was challenging for reasons discussed above (I quite like the mad Lynchian additions) but this one. I actually laughed aloud when Zendaya says her one line at the end and... it finished.

If you want a movie where women are there to look pretty and men moody, where it crosses the line between Fry's Turkish Delight, Perfume and Pirelli adverts then this is the movie for you.

2/5, would not recommend. ;)


This movie seems to be quite divisive, with little middle ground. I felt the same as you, that it somehow manages to tell half a tale half as well as Lynch's version, yet still rolls in 15 minutes longer. I'm still not sure how it manages to do this.
 
I 'saved' Dune on my TBW list as I was excited to see it.

Utterly dreadful, stagnant plotless drivel.

I feel like I've watched a ten hour perfume commercial. Utter garbage.

The David Lynch one was challenging for reasons discussed above (I quite like the mad Lynchian additions) but this one. I actually laughed aloud when Zendaya says her one line at the end and... it finished.

If you want a movie where women are there to look pretty and men moody, where it crosses the line between Fry's Turkish Delight, Perfume and Pirelli adverts then this is the movie for you.

2/5, would not recommend. ;)
I think the most telling difference between this version and Lynch’s is the gom jobbar scenes. Lynch made it mean something whereas Villeneuve made it about as meaningful as an eye test.
 
Utterly dreadful, stagnant plotless drivel.

Stop beating about the bush and tell us what you really think!

I've almost forgotten Villeneuve's Dune, to be honest, while I've got loads of mental images from both the novel and the Lynch film. My main image of the recent adaptation is of a motorcycle courier walking down some concrete steps. Leaving aside the lack of interesting visuals, Lynch's characters feel a lot better (not just more grotesque). I also felt that Villeneuve's version got Jessica entirely wrong.

I do wonder if Villeneuve (and Christopher Nolan, while I'm at it) are just overrated and are good at seeming clever.
 
I think that it will be easier to see Dune for what it is after we have the whole story in front of us, rather than just Part 1.

Villeneuve is kind of boring - he tries to hold to the material he's adapting rather than just using it as a jumping off point for his own story, and that means that the film reads a bit more like literature than adventure film. But I don't know what the alternative is - who else is going to make that effort of fidelity and adaptation? It's an imperfect process and even the most enthusiastic fan is going to see all the "mistakes". I was certainly bothered by the immaturity of Jessica (and the stupid design of the 'thopters), but maybe Denis needed Jessica to develop as a character more than she does in the book, so he started her at a different level. We'll see how it plays out.

My enjoyment of the film came from moments of characterization and design that nailed the reality of the book without aping it.


Nolan is a genius - just maybe not of an art that everyone wants to watch.
 
I think what annoyed me more than anything was that it wasn't advertised well enough as a 2 part movie. Until I watched it I still had no idea how it was going to end. With 30 minutes to go I was wondering how they were going to cram the rest of the movie in, and then it suddenly stopped.

At least with most serialised movies, each one is a story within itself, but this wasn't even that. There could at least have been a rousing part ti finish the movie on, wetting the appetite for the second instalment, but we didn't even get that.

Jessica's character was poorly realised, and I didn't think that the doctors reasons for his betrayl were made clear enough (much better done in Lynch's version).
 

Similar threads


Back
Top