• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Dune [Part 3] Messiah 2027 (28, 29, 30...)

No one said anything about race. Mage was talking about gender diversity.

Uh-huh, right. I've been accused of racism multiple times, some of them on this forum because Liet-Kynes was played by a black actress. I've made the point that race isn't the issue. Gender is the issue. And if Villeneuve wanted more "strong women characters" as he claimed, he could have written Harah in, and had Alia actually be born, instead of cramming 4 years into a few months. So his excuse doesn't wash.

Aside from the fact that women don't hold the position that this version of Liet-Kynes did, either in the Imperium or among Fremen, plus the fact that Chani's mother is dead and it's stated in the novel that both Paul and Chani lost their fathers to the Harkonnens, and Stilgar is Chani's uncle, not some buffoon from "the south"... I could go on.

Actually, there isn't any excuse for any of that. Villeneuve made changes for the sake of changes, not because any of them made sense in the context of the movie.

And you can park your condescension any time now.
 
No adaptation is ever going to be exactly the same as the source material, and none of what you're talking about there has any impact on the version of the story that they are telling in the movie.

So you admit that this version is different from what Villeneuve pretended it was? He boasted about how "faithful" he was to the source material. It should be obvious to anyone who read the novels that he was not faithful to the source material. If he'd been upfront and said he would be making changes, that would have been honest.

I'm not fond of liars.
 
So you admit that this version is different from what Villeneuve pretended it was? He boasted about how "faithful" he was to the source material. It should be obvious to anyone who read the novels that he was not faithful to the source material. If he'd been upfront and said he would be making changes, that would have been honest.

I'm not fond of liars.
It was incredibly faithful to the book, he never lied, you just had unmeetable expectations. It's pretty much impossible for any adaptation to be an exact recreation of the source material, different mediums needing to tell the story in different ways, changing times requiring changes to get rid of things that are now considered offensive or to meet modern expectations, and different creators approach stories in different ways.
 
1. I'm the person you replied to, so it's reasonable to think that you're making an accusation.

2. I don't have to "look in on myself." I just get fed up with others' bullshit. Race has NOTHING to do with my objections to Liet-Kynes being female. I don't appreciate either your "suggestion" or your attempt now to tap dance around that and pretend you weren't making an unjustified accusation.

3. I'm not a "dude". Reading comprehension of my usertitle is your friend.

I did not accuse you of anything. And I am not tapdancing around that. If I accuse someone, I do it out right. And like @The Nth Doctor said, it was about this being a gender thing.

I didn't notice the lady in your usertitle, I do apologize about that. I say dude to everyone, it wasn't ment as disrespect. If it felt like such, again, I apoligize for that.

So.... I'm stepping out of this and going back to actually discussing Dune 3.
 
Ok, it's not that far off from the source material. You make this sound like it's the Dark Tower movie vs the books.

I have no idea what that refers to.

It was incredibly faithful to the book, he never lied, you just had unmeetable expectations. It's pretty much impossible for any adaptation to be an exact recreation of the source material, different mediums needing to tell the story in different ways, changing times requiring changes to get rid of things that are now considered offensive or to meet modern expectations, and different creators approach stories in different ways.

:guffaw:

"Unmeetable expectations"? WTAF?

In what way was casting a man to play Chani's father "offensive"? What an utterly bizarre thing to say.
 
So you admit that this version is different from what Villeneuve pretended it was? He boasted about how "faithful" he was to the source material. It should be obvious to anyone who read the novels that he was not faithful to the source material. If he'd been upfront and said he would be making changes, that would have been honest.

I'm not fond of liars.
It was faithful to the book. A faithful adaptation for me needs to be faithful to the themes, plot, characters, and ambience of course, but never at a full 100% ratio. Often a movie that tries to be 100% identical to its source material misses the mark. Coppola's version of The Great Gatsby is a prime example for me. In this case, the character in question is a minor character whose changes do not impact the thematic structure or plot of the story. I didn't even know this was done until reading this thread and read the novel twice--albeit more than three decades ago. Chani being a stronger, more equal character, actual corrects a weakness in the original novel and reinforces the thematic structure of deconstructing religious extremism and flaws of faith and belief.
 
It was faithful to the book. A faithful adaptation for me needs to be faithful to the themes, plot, characters, and ambience of course, but never at a full 100% ratio. Often a movie that tries to be 100% identical to its source material misses the mark. Coppola's version of The Great Gatsby is a prime example for me. In this case, the character in question is a minor character whose changes do not impact the thematic structure or plot of the story. I didn't even know this was done until reading this thread and read the novel twice--albeit more than three decades ago. Chani being a stronger, more equal character, actual corrects a weakness in the original novel and reinforces the thematic structure of deconstructing religious extremism and flaws of faith and belief.

Your definition of "faithful" may be fine for you, but you're still missing a couple of important points.

First, "faithful to the source material" means not making significant changes. Turning Chani's father into a woman is not a trivial change. It directly contradicts multiple instances in the novel where Liet-Kynes' life and Chani's family ties are discussed. We know from the novel that Chani's mother is already dead. So this bizarre new character Villeneuve introduced can't possibly be Chani's mother.

Secondly, you're missing the fact that even though Dune takes place 20,000 years from now, it's still a feudal society. That means not everyone is equal. RHIP, and among the Fremen, the only way for a woman to have rank was to become a Sayyadina. Chani was not a Sayyadina, and while she and Paul were together, they were never married, either by Imperium or Fremen customs (when Paul asked Chani to look after the water rings he received for Jamis' water, Stilgar made it clear that in this instance it should not be taken as Paul offering her the rings as a pre-wedding gift).

Finally, people who characterize the novel version of Chani as weak and submissive are really missing the boat. Yes, she's upset and uncertain when Paul announces his intention to marry Irulan. But he makes a promise that it's strictly for political reasons and he has absolutely no intention of begetting any children with her, or having any sort of intimate relationship with her. Chani is the woman he loves, the woman he wants to have his children, and during the course of Dune Messiah, she is strong enough to understand and accept this. At no time does she rage!flounce or mock Stilgar (if Villeneuve had really been faithful to the novel, the point would have been raised that Chani was calling Stilgar out, challenging his fitness as Naib, which would have resulted in a fight to the death - something no Fremen woman would do, because Fremen women don't get to be Naibs).
 
I have no idea what that refers to.



:guffaw:

"Unmeetable expectations"? WTAF?

In what way was casting a man to play Chani's father "offensive"? What an utterly bizarre thing to say.
I'm not talking about that change specifically, I'm just talking about this in general terms. You seem to be going into these movies expecting everything to be exactly the way it is in the book, and that was never going to happen, so going in and getting mad about changes that have absolutely no impact on the overall big picture story that they are telling.
You keep going on and on about all these tiny insignificant elements of the book that relate to Liet and Chani, but absolutely none of that has any effect on the bigger picture, and had nothing to with the bigger picture stuff that we're getting in the movie.
Your definition of "faithful" may be fine for you, but you're still missing a couple of important points.

First, "faithful to the source material" means not making significant changes. Turning Chani's father into a woman is not a trivial change. It directly contradicts multiple instances in the novel where Liet-Kynes' life and Chani's family ties are discussed. We know from the novel that Chani's mother is already dead. So this bizarre new character Villeneuve introduced can't possibly be Chani's mother.
Why is this all so important? It has absolutely no effect on the bigger picture of the story, and really didn't anything that signficantly for the movie.
Secondly, you're missing the fact that even though Dune takes place 20,000 years from now, it's still a feudal society. That means not everyone is equal. RHIP, and among the Fremen, the only way for a woman to have rank was to become a Sayyadina. Chani was not a Sayyadina, and while she and Paul were together, they were never married, either by Imperium or Fremen customs (when Paul asked Chani to look after the water rings he received for Jamis' water, Stilgar made it clear that in this instance it should not be taken as Paul offering her the rings as a pre-wedding gift).
That may have been true of the book's version of the Dune world, but it's clearly not true of the movie's version.
 
I'm not talking about that change specifically, I'm just talking about this in general terms. You seem to be going into these movies expecting everything to be exactly the way it is in the book, and that was never going to happen, so going in and getting mad about changes that have absolutely no impact on the overall big picture story that they are telling.
You keep going on and on about all these tiny insignificant elements of the book that relate to Liet and Chani, but absolutely none of that has any effect on the bigger picture, and had nothing to with the bigger picture stuff that we're getting in the movie.

Why is this all so important? It has absolutely no effect on the bigger picture of the story, and really didn't anything that signficantly for the movie.

That may have been true of the book's version of the Dune world, but it's clearly not true of the movie's version.

I go into movies expecting that adaptations will not go out of their way to contradict the source material.

You want to know what I consider a trivial complaint in movie adaptations? Casting a blue-eyed boy to play Harry Potter. I came very late to HP fandom and did it in reverse: movies, YT videos explaining the movies because to this day I've never seen them in their proper sequence from 1-8, fanfiction, and then finally I read the books. Daniel Radcliffe not having green eyes is a trivial difference because the point is that his eyes have to resemble his mother's, so they cast a blue-eyed actress.

As for Dune movies, I'm critical of the parts of the Lynch movie that were wrong to the point of being SERIOUSLY wrong (the worst was the rain at the end). The miniseries made some bad casting decisions (but hey, the miniseries had the most accurate version of Liet-Kynes, so they did well on that score :techman: ).

Your repeated insistence that the changes Villeneuve made has no effect on the "big picture" is your own opinion. It has a very negative effect as far as I'm concerned. It tells me that Villeneuve understands little about the setting of the novels and furthermore, he was too lazy to even try to understand it.

There were already plenty of "strong female characters" he could have used for that actress he wanted. She could have been Harah, who is strangely absent from these movies. Very odd, for Jamis' widow (and Stilgar's future wife) to be omitted like this.
 
Ah yes, people must be lazy argument. Isn't that one worn out yet? He made a choice for his art. Do I agree? No.

Do I mind while watching the movie?

No.

That said, part 3 might be better suited for the adaptation process.
 
Your repeated insistence that the changes Villeneuve made has no effect on the "big picture" is your own opinion. It has a very negative effect as far as I'm concerned. It tells me that Villeneuve understands little about the setting of the novels and furthermore, he was too lazy to even try to understand it.
You keep saying that without any substantial proof.

And saying it has a "very negative effect" is hyperbolic at best.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top