this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
100 points (90.3% liked)

Science Fiction

13420 readers
30 users here now

Welcome to /c/ScienceFiction

December book club canceled. Short stories instead!

We are a community for discussing all things Science Fiction. We want this to be a place for members to discuss and share everything they love about Science Fiction, whether that be books, movies, TV shows and more. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow.

  1. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
  2. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.
  3. Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed
  4. Put (Spoilers) in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers.
  5. Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread.

Lemmy World Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I just finished part 1 and, well, I'm kinda disappointed. It's not bad, I think it's actually pretty solid, but compared to the book it's much worse in terms of story progression and characters. Some parts felt really rushed. I didn't expect it to be better than the book, but I still expected better adaptation considering that (at least as far as I know) it was well received and I knew that it didn't adapt whole book so I expected it to don't skip too much. Is part 2 any better?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] magiccupcake@lemmy.world 49 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm a bit surprised at a lot of the criticisms for the movies here, and I say this as a huge fan of the Dune novels too.

Villeneuve has a particular film style like blade runner 2049, and Arrival.

If you don't like his style you won't like the 2nd movie.

But on the other hand part 1 sets the stage for everything that happens in part 2, and overall I think it is an excellent adaption. Dune is not an easy book to adapt to film, and some changes had to be made, but they're aren't any glaring changes that make me go "why the hell did you change it that way?"

It's extremely faithful to the book, and in cases where it's not, I can see the reasoning for the change.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Honestly Chani is so much better in the movies. Her character makes zero sense in the first book. She's a strong capable warrior but just follows Paul around like a puppy and accepts his every decision as if she has no choice or will of her own.

[–] magiccupcake@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Honestly given how Frank Herbert wrote other female characters in the books, I interpreted chani as a satirization of settler/colonizer wife.

It's rather subtle, and would not likely come across well with a movie audience.

[–] tilefan@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

lol Zendaya brought the personality of a cinder block to that role.

[–] DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz 8 points 2 weeks ago

It's still an upgrade from the books, sadly.

[–] ShadowZone@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

As an avid Dune books reader (all of them), I think Villeneuve did the best adaptation possible. As a character, Chani is much more fleshed out in the films and Rebecca Ferguson CRUSHED it as Jessica. Oscar Isaac also was a very good Leto.

My big gripe is with Stilgar and Paul. Stilgar in the second movie was almost relegated to comic relief. Yes, he is also portrayed as a believer in the books, but it felt like a caricature in Dune Part 2.

As for Paul, I had hoped for more focus on why he actually went to drink the water of life. In the books he wanted to avoid it. But events he couldn't foresee and put people he loved in danger pushed him over the edge. In the film I didn't get any of that.

Still, loved both parts. Definitely worth a watch.

[–] frigidaphelion@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree first and foremost. I personally strongly disliked Chani's representation in the films, however. Especially the second film. Part of it was the writing, part of it was the acting. I think Zendaya is a good actor, but I don't think she was a good fit for the role. I feel the same way about Bardem in his role as Stilgar, but to a lesser degree.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I agree with you about Chanis character. It felt like they butchered her character and motivations to make her more palatable to modern audiences.

[–] And009@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

In the film iirc daughter in womb asked him to drink the water, and Paul didn't want to because it'd lead to mass bloodshed.

[–] julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's impossible to adapt, see all previous adaptations. I think you've pretty accurately summed up the shortcomings of the medium for that story. Watch the movie to marvel at the setting brought to life with a nice soundscape, ideally see it on a big screen. If you read the book you'll have some attachment to the characters and universe anyway so pacing and skipped detail shouldn't be too much of a problem for you. Just don't expect it to be perfect. IMO the second part is a bit stronger, maybe because the scope is tighter.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

IDK, the mini series honestly did a pretty good job staying faithful to the source. Too bad they didn't have a bigger budget is all

[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And the worst costume design ever committed to film.

Hey now, the hats were amazing!

[–] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Having not read the books but watched someone's very long YouTube video about them, I think the new movies did a pretty darn good job of doing a ton of crazy world building without being 3 hours of exposition. I certainly didn't understand everything but I got the rough idea of pretty much everything and I think they did a really good job in particular of relaying the "mind over machines" motif. Certainly not a perfect adaptation but I think it's a damn good example of one

[–] julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

I really enjoyed them too, which I guess I could have made clearer. I felt like my enjoyment was heightened by my knowledge and nostalgia for the books, but interesting yto hear another positive perspective without that aspect. I suppose what I'm trying to say is not that they aren't or can't be good, but that they aren't and can't be a faithful and complete adaptation.

The world building aspect is why I tend to think TV series are generally the better screen medium for scifi than feature film, having more space to explore the causes and consequences of a fantasy premise. But yeah, I love a spectacle. The setting and soundscape of the new movies are top. Like I can't rember feelings like that in the cinema since Lord of the rings.

[–] Cad@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The second is watchable but is worse as an adaption.

The events in the first book are concluded in it. It's not a trilogy adaption of Dune the book. Many of the characters have their actions and motivations swapped onto other characters. The ending changes some significant points. Feels like the third movie might end up being a freestyle attempt to start a "Dune Universe" IP rather than caring about the source material.

It's kind of a mess but still fun in some bits. Not sure if I'll bother to watch the third when it comes out.

[–] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 children)

Can you elaborate on how the 2nd movie didn't follow the book well? Because in my opinion it was pretty damn close to the book......i did think that the ending in the movie was a bit rushed and not as clearly explained as in the book, and they clearly pushed off Paul's demon sister baby to the 3rd movie, but other than that, it was pretty damn close? As far as book adaptations go, I felt this was easily top tier. It's impossible to capture every single thing from the book. There's just way too much shit that happened. Compared to adaptations that just straight up say "fuck you" to the books (witcher/3 body problem/silo) this felt very faithful to me.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the choice to set up Aliyah but ultimately leave her arrival for another time was a smart one, just as it was smart to not introduce Feyd until the second movie. Doing so really let him arrive in a big way, like "Oh shit, this guy is important."

(Also good lord, Austin Butler steals the second movie so hard)

[–] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 5 points 2 weeks ago

Yea for sure. Also having a demon baby cgi monster would have been weird on screen.

[–] GCanuck@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Not OP, but I didn’t like what they did to Chani. Kinda felt like that character got done dirty.

In the books, she was pretty much ride or die. The movie, not so much.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think that's a significant improvement. Chani being "ride or die" in the books is an awfully charitable way of saying that she basically has no purpose to her existence outside of Paul. The movie choosing to have her really show some resistance to the shitty / crazy stuff he's doing gives her more inner life as a character. It also nicely sets up for Messiah where there's definitely some tension between her and Paul (though never sufficiently explored IMO) over his choice to make Irulan his wife.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah I think her character is ridiculous in the books. She's a contradiction, a strong skilled warrior who can survive in the harshest conditions. But also will roll over and accept whatever decision her partner makes for her with no complaints.

[–] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yea she was pretty pro-Paul in the books I think.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Xbeam@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Since you are a fan of the books and you have already seen the first one, you should watch it, even you were disappointed with part one. You may find you like or you might be just as disappointed. Either way, it's about a 3 hour commitment. If you don't like it, don't watch it again. If you do, you've found a movie you enjoy.

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

100% agree with this. Dune 1 sets up the world, Dune 2 gets to tell more of a story.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If you didn't care for the first movie I don't think the second will solve any of your complaints. I say this as someone who really liked both movies. I have criticisms, and I don't think they're close to being Villeneuve's best work, but the worst Villeneuve movie is still better than most directors on their best day. But two is very definitely more of one, and if anything it amplifies the first movie's flaws rather than diminishing them, so it's very unlikely to address anything you didn't like. That said, I will throw it out there that it may be worth watching anyway just to experience Austin Butler's incredible take on Feyd Rautha, which is easily the best thing about the movie.

[–] B0NK3RS@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

I say it's worth a watch. Also when it comes to movies/tv and books it's best not to compare them too much and just take them for what they are individually.

[–] recklessengagement@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Watching dune 2 in the IMAX theatre with my buds was perhaps one of the greatest movie experiences in my life

[–] EarMaster@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I can imagine the sandworm ride was a blast on the big screen and with the big speakers. I haven't felt so much being blown into my seat since Fury Road...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scytale@lemm.ee 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It is, even just for the spectacle alone. It’s impossible to adapt everything in the book to a 2 or 3 movie series, so there will always be changes and things that will be left out when translated to the big screen. Having said that, Villenueve was the best person for the job and he delivered what he intended: a film that reflects the spirit of the book as much as possible while at the same time making it mainstream enough for general audiences to appreciate.

If you’re just going by sticking to the source material as your barometer, then the SyFy series is the “best”.

The pacing was better in part 2, too fast even IMO; since they crammed all the events into less than 9 months since Alia wasn’t born in this version.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

I think any story that has so much inner dialogue, thinking, tripping, and goes on for 6 volumes is impossible to communicate in the medium of film, but I loved these movies just because they were visually stunning, and the story kept my interest. I don't think you will feel like your time was wasted, just accept the film is its own thing, and be entertained.

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago

I think if you dislike the first movie you will also dislike the second.

I, personally, really liked both (outside of some pacing, as you say and some character changes).

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

One of the best movies of this year. Almost as good as Godzilla minus one.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

I wasn't awake enough to appreciate the sarcasm in this comment when I initially read it. Nice one.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago
[–] Nadru@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The 2nd movie is very rushed story wise but was better than the first. I hate the choice of Timothee and I hate some unnecessary stroy decisions they took but it's hollywood.

The mini series from 2000 did a better job, apart from some Harkonnen costume choices.

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

apart from some Harkonnen costume choices.

Oh, man, I forgot about those. 😄 The miniseries is good, though.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

I've not read the books and after watching part 1 I was left confused why everyone loved them. I didn't dislike the film, it was just fine, but it didn't get me excited for part 2. Sure I'd watch it, but if it were delayed or cancelled I wouldn't have minded.

For me part 2 is everything I wanted in a film. I would nearly go so far to tell someone unsure about the films to skip part 1 and just watch part 2. In reality I think doing that would be a bad idea, but part 2 is better than part 1 in nearly every way.

[–] Subtracty@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

I never read the source material, so I can't speak to the quality of adaptation. But I could not get past the casting and felt like the number of extremely famous faces detracted from the plot. The first movie I was somewhat able to be emersed in the world despite the main characters being the two most popular young stars of the year. But the second movie, I felt actors were cast in small parts they hardly got a chance to act in. Not that Christpher Walken can't absolutely nail a small part. It just didn't feel like some exotic Sci-fi world when every character was famous from 100 other movies.

[–] lemmur@szmer.info 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Well ... The ending is a little bit less cliffhangery than the first film. The worm scenes were super cool tho.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

It's much like part 1... not horrible, but not great, either.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 weeks ago

I liked it well enough. I will definitely watch more movies in this version of the story and characters, year after year, or every few years. That was true of all previous versions as well though.

[–] biofaust@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I will go against most opinions and I would say give it a try.

My friends who are into the book quoted much more from the second and style-wise I can tell you this: I LOVED the first one. I HATED the second one.

So, since the book seems really to be about deception, war and religion (the last 2 I despise to see in movies because I find them boring as hell), I could suggest you watch it.

[–] Donebrach@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Either you have a few hours to watch a movie or not. Why do people need to post to the internet to ask stuff like this? You do realize you can stop a movie if you’re not into it right?

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

I found part 2 much more boring then part one. They spent so much time wandering the desert in the center part of the movie I almost fell asleep.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Part 2 is done in the same spirit as 1. The characters and plot don't get any better, if anything they become outright one-dimensional. Everything (facts, characters) are over-simplified caricatures of themselves — they like to take one thing that's technically true and run it down into the ground.

The two things that bothered me the most is how Paul is completely robbed of any agency, and becomes this listless puppet with a sad smile, and how the plot revolves around religious fanaticism with only token mentions about prescience. Hell, I don't remember if they even mentioned why spice is so important.

To be honest it's killed any interest in me about seeing more movies. I mean I'll watch them, I liked the image and music, but in a detached way like I'd watch an Avengers movie. I can imagine exactly how they're going to be, shallow as fuck. Which is going to be completely stupid and pointless because the amount of political and sociological intrigue increases exponentially as you advance in the series.

[–] beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Liked it, think it’s worth it. Haven’t read the books & I’m not very invested in the story, & I’m a fan of the director’s work. Was cool to see lots of Fremen culture

load more comments
view more: next ›