@Kurtzmansucks said:

Great movie but this one deviates furthest from the books than any of the versions of Dune

Fortunately for Hollywood, the majority of the audience don't read books anymore, especially if it is almost 900 pages.

@wonder2wonder said:

@Kurtzmansucks said:

Great movie but this one deviates furthest from the books than any of the versions of Dune

Fortunately for Hollywood, the majority of the audience don't read books anymore, especially if it is almost 900 pages.

Shame really though since this series would be a corner stone of modern sci fi literature.

@wonder2wonder said:

@Kurtzmansucks said:

Great movie but this one deviates furthest from the books than any of the versions of Dune

Fortunately for Hollywood, the majority of the audience don't read books anymore, especially if it is almost 900 pages.

Why the wink and to whom?

This one looks much, much more satisfying than its predecessor (did I spell that word right?).

@Rocky_Sullivan said:

@wonder2wonder said:

@Kurtzmansucks said:

Great movie but this one deviates furthest from the books than any of the versions of Dune

Fortunately for Hollywood, the majority of the audience don't read books anymore, especially if it is almost 900 pages.

Why the wink and to whom?

This one looks much, much more satisfying than its predecessor (did I spell that word right?).

Do you mean Dune: Part One or the 1984 version? Or maybe you might be referring to the mini-series from 2000?

@bratface said:

@Rocky_Sullivan said:

@wonder2wonder said:

@Kurtzmansucks said:

Great movie but this one deviates furthest from the books than any of the versions of Dune

Fortunately for Hollywood, the majority of the audience don't read books anymore, especially if it is almost 900 pages.

Why the wink and to whom?

This one looks much, much more satisfying than its predecessor (did I spell that word right?).

Do you mean Dune: Part One or the 1984 version? Or maybe you might be referring to the mini-series from 2000?

Dune: Part One was what I meant -- it's the easiest assumption, but an assumption all the same.

@Kurtzmansucks said:

Great movie but this one deviates furthest from the books than any of the versions of Dune

Agreed.

I rated the 1984 Lynch version a 6 out of 10. Which in my system is still a good rating. I rated Villeneuve's Dune Part One an 8 out of 10. And, having just seen Dune Part Two, this latest iteration a 9 out of 10.

Part One, in my estimation, was the most accurate to the sections of Herbert's book which were covered. I found the 1984 version less accurate than Part One, but-- oddly, I am sure to many --I found it more accurate than Part Two. Meaning, then, that of the three versions thus far filmed, this latest release-- Dune Part Two --was the least accurate of all three.

I say again, in my humble opinion, Dune Part Two was the least accurate to Frank Herbert's written story.

And yet, I rated it higher than the previous two entries. The visuals simply cannot be beat. I imagine a younger, less experienced filmmaker seeing this film, and throwing their hands up in surrender . . . "I'll never be that good . . ."

It's not even a matter of the enormous budget-- regardless of how much money one has to complete a film, it takes talent as a director to get the whole team required to work together, almost seamlessly, to realize the finished version (and I'm talking about the entire "back office" crew as well-- not just the onscreen talent).

Despite the significant-- perhaps one could even say the enormous --differences of Dune Part Two from the novel, when viewed on its own, it earns its 9 rating. It is really not only leaps ahead of the 1984 Dune, but is really, even, a distinctly different film from Part One. I would almost say it could stand on its own from Part One, and that the uninitiated could see Part Two without first seeing Part One, and they as a viewer would not feel very lost for not having seen the first installment.

@northcoast said:

Despite the significant-- perhaps one could even say the enormous --differences of Dune Part Two from the novel, when viewed on its own, it earns its 9 rating. It is really not only leaps ahead of the 1984 Dune, but is really, even, a distinctly different film from Part One. I would almost say it could stand on its own from Part One, and that the uninitiated could see Part Two without first seeing Part One, and they as a viewer would not feel very lost for not having seen the first installment.

If you only see Part Two, the story is very simple.

** SPOILERS **

** SPOILERS **

** SPOILERS **

There is a power struggle and the protagonist gets the oppressed people of the planet on his side. He wins with their help, and marries the Emperor's daughter to become the new Emperor. The other Houses do not agree, and he starts waging war against them. Oh yes, there is also the usual love story between him and a tribe's girl, who he promises to 'always love as long as he breathes'. She is disillusioned when he chooses power above love and returns to her traditional life in the desert.

@wonder2wonder said:

There is a power struggle and the protagonist gets the oppressed people of the planet on his side. He wins with their help, and marries the Emperor's daughter to become the new Emperor. The other Houses do not agree, and he starts waging war against them. Oh yes, there is also the usual love story between him and a tribe's girl, who he promises to 'always love as long as he breathes'. She is disillusioned when he chooses power above love and returns to her traditional life in the desert.

You have encapsulated the film perfectly, wonder2wonder. Within this context a prior viewing of Part One is not strictly necessary.

I remember thinking as part 1 drew to a close that they'd gone too far through the narrative for a cut off point. Therefore it's not surprising to hear this.

I guess they had to fill up a movie.

@wonder2wonder said:

@northcoast said:

Despite the significant-- perhaps one could even say the enormous --differences of Dune Part Two from the novel, when viewed on its own, it earns its 9 rating. It is really not only leaps ahead of the 1984 Dune, but is really, even, a distinctly different film from Part One. I would almost say it could stand on its own from Part One, and that the uninitiated could see Part Two without first seeing Part One, and they as a viewer would not feel very lost for not having seen the first installment.

If you only see Part Two, the story is very simple.

** SPOILERS **

** SPOILERS **

** SPOILERS **

There is a power struggle and the protagonist gets the oppressed people of the planet on his side. He wins with their help, and marries the Emperor's daughter to become the new Emperor. The other Houses do not agree, and he starts waging war against them. Oh yes, there is also the usual love story between him and a tribe's girl, who he promises to 'always love as long as he breathes'. She is disillusioned when he chooses power above love and returns to her traditional life in the desert.

So Villeneuve really deviated from the books! SMH

@bratface said:

@wonder2wonder said:

@northcoast said:

Despite the significant-- perhaps one could even say the enormous --differences of Dune Part Two from the novel, when viewed on its own, it earns its 9 rating. It is really not only leaps ahead of the 1984 Dune, but is really, even, a distinctly different film from Part One. I would almost say it could stand on its own from Part One, and that the uninitiated could see Part Two without first seeing Part One, and they as a viewer would not feel very lost for not having seen the first installment.

If you only see Part Two, the story is very simple.

** SPOILERS **

** SPOILERS **

** SPOILERS **

There is a power struggle and the protagonist gets the oppressed people of the planet on his side. He wins with their help, and marries the Emperor's daughter to become the new Emperor. The other Houses do not agree, and he starts waging war against them. Oh yes, there is also the usual love story between him and a tribe's girl, who he promises to 'always love as long as he breathes'. She is disillusioned when he chooses power above love and returns to her traditional life in the desert.

So Villeneuve really deviated from the books! SMH

Shockingly so actually on first viewing i was only willing to give it a 6 because book brain took over on second viewing just going to enjoy it on its own merits i give it a high 7 low 8 Chani being so out of character really detracted from any higher score

@Kurtzmansucks said:

Shockingly so actually on first viewing i was only willing to give it a 6 because book brain took over on second viewing just going to enjoy it on its own merits i give it a high 7 low 8 Chani being so out of character really detracted from any higher score

--SPOILERS FOLLOW IN THIS DISCUSSION--

Kurtzman--

I've been thinking about that, too, but, it is possible that if Dune Messiah goes forward, the original storyline might still be followed:

Paul's marriage to Princess Irulan was celibate in the books, only undertaken for political reasons. In the following film, I could see where Paul returns to Chani and she has his twin children, as happened in the book. Of course, in the book Chani does not survive the delivery. I don't know if Villeneuve will stick with that particular part of the storyline, given the fact that he seems to want to elevate her importance over Paul in the story, but perhaps we'll see . . . then again, if Dune Messiah never gets made, I'll be satisfied with the three films we have now.

I think those who just really have not been happy with the films might have to accept that the Dune saga, at its core, is among the group of books that are, essentially, unfilm-able. In this case the differences in artistic form between literature and cinema might just be too big a chasm to bridge.

@northcoast said:

@Kurtzmansucks said:

Shockingly so actually on first viewing i was only willing to give it a 6 because book brain took over on second viewing just going to enjoy it on its own merits i give it a high 7 low 8 Chani being so out of character really detracted from any higher score

--SPOILERS FOLLOW IN THIS DISCUSSION--

Kurtzman--

I've been thinking about that, too, but, it is possible that if Dune Messiah goes forward, the original storyline might still be followed:

Paul's marriage to Princess Irulan was celibate in the books, only undertaken for political reasons. In the following film, I could see where Paul returns to Chani and she has his twin children, as happened in the book. Of course, in the book Chani does not survive the delivery. I don't know if Villeneuve will stick with that particular part of the storyline, given the fact that he seems to want to elevate her importance over Paul in the story, but perhaps we'll see . . . then again, if Dune Messiah never gets made, I'll be satisfied with the three films we have now.

I think those who just really have not been happy with the films might have to accept that the Dune saga, at its core, is among the group of books that are, essentially, unfilm-able. In this case the differences in artistic form between literature and cinema might just be too big a chasm to bridge.

Just find it crazy that the sci fi network dune is the most canon i guess you would say

@Kurtzmansucks said:

@northcoast said:

@Kurtzmansucks said:

Shockingly so actually on first viewing i was only willing to give it a 6 because book brain took over on second viewing just going to enjoy it on its own merits i give it a high 7 low 8 Chani being so out of character really detracted from any higher score

--SPOILERS FOLLOW IN THIS DISCUSSION--

Kurtzman--

I've been thinking about that, too, but, it is possible that if Dune Messiah goes forward, the original storyline might still be followed:

Paul's marriage to Princess Irulan was celibate in the books, only undertaken for political reasons. In the following film, I could see where Paul returns to Chani and she has his twin children, as happened in the book. Of course, in the book Chani does not survive the delivery. I don't know if Villeneuve will stick with that particular part of the storyline, given the fact that he seems to want to elevate her importance over Paul in the story, but perhaps we'll see . . . then again, if Dune Messiah never gets made, I'll be satisfied with the three films we have now.

I think those who just really have not been happy with the films might have to accept that the Dune saga, at its core, is among the group of books that are, essentially, unfilm-able. In this case the differences in artistic form between literature and cinema might just be too big a chasm to bridge.

Just find it crazy that the sci fi network dune is the most canon i guess you would say

I personally thought the two 'miniseries' were a bit cheesy (the first one more than the second) but they also had more time.

@northcoast said:

@Kurtzmansucks said:

Shockingly so actually on first viewing i was only willing to give it a 6 because book brain took over on second viewing just going to enjoy it on its own merits i give it a high 7 low 8 Chani being so out of character really detracted from any higher score

--SPOILERS FOLLOW IN THIS DISCUSSION--

Kurtzman--

I've been thinking about that, too, but, it is possible that if Dune Messiah goes forward, the original storyline might still be followed:

Paul's marriage to Princess Irulan was celibate in the books, only undertaken for political reasons. In the following film, I could see where Paul returns to Chani and she has his twin children, as happened in the book. Of course, in the book Chani does not survive the delivery. I don't know if Villeneuve will stick with that particular part of the storyline, given the fact that he seems to want to elevate her importance over Paul in the story, but perhaps we'll see . . . then again, if Dune Messiah never gets made, I'll be satisfied with the three films we have now.

Yes, it is easy to have Chani return in the sequel and die. Those who have not read the books will be shocked by this outcome, but if they are Star Wars fans, they might remember the prequel trilogy: Padmé Amidala dies after the birth of the twins Luke and Leia. Of course, in this case you won't expect Paul to become as evil as Anakin Skywalker.

I think those who just really have not been happy with the films might have to accept that the Dune saga, at its core, is among the group of books that are, essentially, unfilm-able. In this case the differences in artistic form between literature and cinema might just be too big a chasm to bridge.

It seems that almost everyone, even the usual 'negative' critics - who are rating it 9-9.5 out of 10 stars - are quite happy with this movie, and hope to see more about the Dune Universe. This time they don't mind the differences between book and movie.