Dune Part 2 2023 (24, 25, 26...)

[Timewalker]

Well, he is adapting the book and so did Lynch, it was inevitable they would have to film the same scenes. Both made adaptation choices that overlapped coincidentally or maybe even not that coincidental ( what i wrote above). The miniseries just had more time to include such things, the movie has to concentrate all of that into roughly 2-3 hours per movie, so a large book like Dune will have to be cut down to the essentials.

Uh-huh.

Villeneuve struts around, pontificating about how he didn't copy Lynch, then proceeded to copy the Lynch style of stillsuits, that his production doesn't make accurate use of any more than Lynch's production did.

It was made very clear in the novel that the forehead had to be covered. You need to keep your mouth covered, because you lose moisture through sweat and exhaling. Yet in both movies we see bareheaded Fremen panting openly, mouths uncovered.

So much for water discipline.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

While it is a good scene with great worldbuilding i wonder what it would have added to the movie itself in terms of story.

Story is not the only aspect of a film. Visuals, sound, score, character, and setting are just some of the other elements that go into a great film. Almost every time a great visual is presented (and film is a visual medium, but also one with a soundtrack), it does nothing to advance the story. Not everything in a film needs to literally advance the story. It's when a film lingers on anything that isn't interesting that it gets in trouble.

 

[FPAlpha]

Uh-huh.

Villeneuve struts around, pontificating about how he didn't copy Lynch, then proceeded to copy the Lynch style of stillsuits, that his production doesn't make accurate use of any more than Lynch's production did.

It was made very clear in the novel that the forehead had to be covered. You need to keep your mouth covered, because you lose moisture through sweat and exhaling. Yet in both movies we see bareheaded Fremen panting openly, mouths uncovered.

So much for water discipline.

And we see this in many scenes happen that Fremen cover everything but the eyes, what's your point? Movies are a visual medium and the director has made the choice to show the actors. Do you hate Villeneueve that bad that you scramble to find the smallest deviations from the book to point a finger at? Could you not enjoy the movie because that detail was not 100% correct as described in the book?

I've had my share of disappointing book adaptations that missed core aspects of the book, this is just not a core aspect to me and nothing to get up in arms about.

Story is not the only aspect of a film. Visuals, sound, score, character, and setting are just some of the other elements that go into a great film. Almost every time a great visual is presented (and film is a visual medium, but also one with a soundtrack), it does nothing to advance the story. Not everything in a film needs to literally advance the story. It's when a film lingers on anything that isn't interesting that it gets in trouble.

Sure and i agree but what would have been the point of the banquet scene to spend 5-10 minutes on other than to show the audience that Paul has talent for leadership? As i said we had this small scene of him and Silgar at the beginning that does that and i expect we will see much more of it in the second movie.

The film doesn't need to represent the classes of people in Arrakeen, their socioeconomic system or show off characters that only appear in that scene because it simply doesn't have the time. Movie scenes need to have a purpose and that is either advancing the story or setting the mood, sometimes they can do both but i just feel that the banquet scene would not have added much to the movie.

Now if Villeneuve would have filmed but just cut it for whatever reason but had plans for a Director's Cut like some others do and include it i'd be all for it - most of the time people who watch Director's Cuts are fans of the movie and book and want to see this, the general audience will be had to convince to sit through 3+ hours of something they may be unfamiliar with.

 

[Mage]

The banquet scene was a set up to much more than just Paul's leadership abilities. It gave us a lot of nuances and insight into the different social groups on Arrakis and how they all deal with the importance of spice and water. The difference between rich and poor, the difference between native and newcomers.
Plus, the beginnings of Jessica understanding of who her son is and her colored views of him. She had indeed born a son instead of a daughter because she wanted to please Leto, but she was highly aware that there was always a chance he is the Kwisatz Haderach. Yet she still sees him as a little boy. As a Bene Gesserit, the many ways of manipulation are very well known to her. Yet, because of the way she sees Paul, she completely misses that sex is being used a tool to distract and manipulate Paul. The idea that this is something her son could be drawn to or that someone might use it against him is alien to her, so she misses it.
It is a crucial step and thus crucial scene into her understanding that she NEEDS to start seeing Paul as more than just her little boy, and start seeing him as a concept and entity in his own right. It is her that she begins to see what he can be. And it terrifies her.

So yes, the banquet scene is crucial to many aspects of the complete story that is Dune. In my opinion anyway. YMMV.

 

[Mudd]

Uh-huh.

Villeneuve struts around, pontificating about how he didn't copy Lynch, then proceeded to copy the Lynch style of stillsuits, that his production doesn't make accurate use of any more than Lynch's production did.

It was made very clear in the novel that the forehead had to be covered. You need to keep your mouth covered, because you lose moisture through sweat and exhaling. Yet in both movies we see bareheaded Fremen panting openly, mouths uncovered.

So much for water discipline.

Who cares?

Villeneuve's Dune is a brilliant film. The other versions can all go home.

The book itself is an overlong, so-so, if terribly popular, novel that among other things relies heavily upon stereotyping and prolix dialogue as it churns along. Treating it literally on film would be a dud. And the sequels are worse.

 

[FPAlpha]

The banquet scene was a set up to much more than just Paul's leadership abilities. It gave us a lot of nuances and insight into the different social groups on Arrakis and how they all deal with the importance of spice and water. The difference between rich and poor, the difference between native and newcomers.
Plus, the beginnings of Jessica understanding of who her son is and her colored views of him. She had indeed born a son instead of a daughter because she wanted to please Leto, but she was highly aware that there was always a chance he is the Kwisatz Haderach. Yet she still sees him as a little boy. As a Bene Gesserit, the many ways of manipulation are very well known to her. Yet, because of the way she sees Paul, she completely misses that sex is being used a tool to distract and manipulate Paul. The idea that this is something her son could be drawn to or that someone might use it against him is alien to her, so she misses it.
It is a crucial step and thus crucial scene into her understanding that she NEEDS to start seeing Paul as more than just her little boy, and start seeing him as a concept and entity in his own right. It is her that she begins to see what he can be. And it terrifies her.

So yes, the banquet scene is crucial to many aspects of the complete story that is Dune. In my opinion anyway. YMMV.

I disagree based purely on the needs and capabilities of a movie adaptation. I'm repeating myself but the movie simply doesn't have the time to spend on such "small" details that ultimately lead nowhere in the context of the parts of the story the movie needs to tell to have a coherent story and stick to the novel. The banquet scene would be brilliant in a well made TV show and could be a highlight of the show if properly written and directed, because a TV show simply has far more time to go deeper into the material.

You state it needs to show the difference between rich and poor, between native and newcomers but we all got this with the Atreides arrival on Arrakis and the few scenes after when they're settling in and Paul takes that walk alone to the Palm trees. These scenes tell you all you need to know about the state of affairs without having to lay it out in words, you instinctively see the distinction of the masses and learn that they have been manipulated by the Bene Gesserit with the legend of the Lisan al Gaib so it can be exploited in the future if necessary and on the other side the Atreides with their gear and comparately luxurious palace and squeaky clean clothes ( on a planet that's basically dust in a million forms).

This, to me, is why i adore this movie because it is a prime example of explaining things without having to stump the nose of the audience into it. For example Duncan Idaho - he reports that he's never come so close to death when fighting a Fremen and in the deVries/Sardaukar scene we seen a mortal enemy of the Atreides talk about Idaho in respect and awe, implying he's a superior fighter to them. In itself it's just a statement of a fact or in his case a sentiment but as the movie progresses we see in escalating order how utterly competent the Sardaukar are, how easily the Fremen can beat them and as the final progression how Duncan tears through the Sardaukar alone and nearly succeeds where the Fremen have finally been beaten ( no doubt enacting a huge price from the Sardaukar). This is how Villeneuve establish several things - building up the Sardaukar as the premier fighting force up until they start to fight the Fremen but above all of them is Idaho.

It is this example and many others where Villeneuve uses the book and his own visuals and style to convey a message to the audience and the banquet scene would be superflous in that regard because it would only reinforce something that the audience already knows, hence the effort would be wasted and the movie would get cluttered needlessly and could use the runtime to better effect elsewhere.

 

[Mage]

I disagree based purely on the needs and capabilities of a movie adaptation. I'm repeating myself but the movie simply doesn't have the time to spend on such "small" details that ultimately lead nowhere in the context of the parts of the story the movie needs to tell to have a coherent story and stick to the novel. The banquet scene would be brilliant in a well made TV show and could be a highlight of the show if properly written and directed, because a TV show simply has far more time to go deeper into the material.

You state it needs to show the difference between rich and poor, between native and newcomers but we all got this with the Atreides arrival on Arrakis and the few scenes after when they're settling in and Paul takes that walk alone to the Palm trees. These scenes tell you all you need to know about the state of affairs without having to lay it out in words, you instinctively see the distinction of the masses and learn that they have been manipulated by the Bene Gesserit with the legend of the Lisan al Gaib so it can be exploited in the future if necessary and on the other side the Atreides with their gear and comparately luxurious palace and squeaky clean clothes ( on a planet that's basically dust in a million forms).

This, to me, is why i adore this movie because it is a prime example of explaining things without having to stump the nose of the audience into it. For example Duncan Idaho - he reports that he's never come so close to death when fighting a Fremen and in the deVries/Sardaukar scene we seen a mortal enemy of the Atreides talk about Idaho in respect and awe, implying he's a superior fighter to them. In itself it's just a statement of a fact or in his case a sentiment but as the movie progresses we see in escalating order how utterly competent the Sardaukar are, how easily the Fremen can beat them and as the final progression how Duncan tears through the Sardaukar alone and nearly succeeds where the Fremen have finally been beaten ( no doubt enacting a huge price from the Sardaukar). This is how Villeneuve establish several things - building up the Sardaukar as the premier fighting force up until they start to fight the Fremen but above all of them is Idaho.

It is this example and many others where Villeneuve uses the book and his own visuals and style to convey a message to the audience and the banquet scene would be superflous in that regard because it would only reinforce something that the audience already knows, hence the effort would be wasted and the movie would get cluttered needlessly and could use the runtime to better effect elsewhere.

I think Villeneuve's adaption is amazing, BUT still needs the banquet. This is where we disagree. And this is ok. I'm at that age where I state an opinion, hear someone else's, listen to it and either agree or disagree and then say 'all is good and opinions are always awesome'. Yours is a great opinion because it is yours and I like that.

 

[Set Harth]

Villeneuve's Dune is a brilliant film. The other versions can all go home.

 

[FPAlpha]

I think Villeneuve's adaption is amazing, BUT still needs the banquet. This is where we disagree. And this is ok. I'm at that age where I state an opinion, hear someone else's, listen to it and either agree or disagree and then say 'all is good and opinions are always awesome'. Yours is a great opinion because it is yours and I like that.

Come on, you're taking all the fun out of arguing on virtual message boards about things we have no control over and for which the rest of humanity has no interest in. I have no way to determine if i'm superior to you if you're being all mature, sane and sensible!

 

[Mage]

Come on, you're taking all the fun out of arguing on virtual message boards about things we have no control over and for which the rest of humanity has no interest in. I have no way to determine if i'm superior to you if you're being all mature, sane and sensible!

Oh... Crap....
Uh.... You... You poopy face with your poopy thoughts and..... not right thinking!!!

Better....??

 

[FPAlpha]

Oh... Crap....
Uh.... You... You poopy face with your poopy thoughts and..... not right thinking!!!

Better....??

Yo momma! ( i declare victory!)

Yes, i feel better. Thanks!

 

[Mage]

Yo momma! ( i declare victory!)

Yes, i feel better. Thanks!

Sometimes the right people hit the right vibe on this forum and we actually have fun!! Thanks!!

 

[fireproof78]

This is kanly, Pieter. Vendetta.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[JD]

Uh-huh.

Villeneuve struts around, pontificating about how he didn't copy Lynch, then proceeded to copy the Lynch style of stillsuits, that his production doesn't make accurate use of any more than Lynch's production did.

It was made very clear in the novel that the forehead had to be covered. You need to keep your mouth covered, because you lose moisture through sweat and exhaling. Yet in both movies we see bareheaded Fremen panting openly, mouths uncovered.

So much for water discipline.

I don't think it's really that Villenueve was purposefully repeating what Lynch did so much as there really only being a few ways to do that stuff, and they just both happened to go in a similar direction with it.
As for them not covering the Fremen's faces, that's pretty standard for movies and TV, outside of unique cases like The Mandalorian and Dredd, they're always going to want to show their actors' faces on screen. It's the same reason why the movie and tv versions superheroes like Spider-Man or Deadpool who wear full face masks are constantly finding some excuse to take their masks off as much as possible.

I think Villeneuve's adaption is amazing, BUT still needs the banquet. This is where we disagree. And this is ok. I'm at that age where I state an opinion, hear someone else's, listen to it and either agree or disagree and then say 'all is good and opinions are always awesome'. Yours is a great opinion because it is yours and I like that.

I admire you for that, I'm really trying to do that, but I still struggle not to continue arguing after I really should stop.

 

[Mudd]

I didn't miss the banquet. Okay, I do like the story about the drowning passengers but it's no big deal.

A decent editor could have cut 25% of the first book, which I suppose is a result of its being published by a nonfiction house.

 

[Timewalker]

Who cares?

Obviously you don't. Others do. It's not just me.

Villeneuve's Dune is a brilliant film. The other versions can all go home.

The book itself is an overlong, so-so, if terribly popular, novel that among other things relies heavily upon stereotyping and prolix dialogue as it churns along. Treating it literally on film would be a dud. And the sequels are worse.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

So am I.

I don't think it's really that Villenueve was purposefully repeating what Lynch did so much as there really only being a few ways to do that stuff, and they just both happened to go in a similar direction with it.
As for them not covering the Fremen's faces, that's pretty standard for movies and TV, outside of unique cases like The Mandalorian and Dredd, they're always going to want to show their actors' faces on screen. It's the same reason why the movie and tv versions superheroes like Spider-Man or Deadpool who wear full face masks are constantly finding some excuse to take their masks off as much as possible.

There is obviously a way to film this book without ignoring the very strict water discipline the Fremen live under. The miniseries, while not perfect, is much better at this than either movie. If Villeneuve was going to copy, rather than go by the novel as he falsely claimed he did, he should have done what the miniseries did.

The actors don't have to have their faces covered unless they're in the open desert, wearing a stillsuit. These people live on a planet where water is so precious that shedding tears is treated as a gesture deserving of awe ("giving water to the dead"). To see water so openly and egregiously wasted in these movies makes me think the directors didn't actually understand the novel.

 

[fireproof78]

To see water so openly and egregiously wasted in these movies makes me think the directors didn't actually understand the novel.

They don't.

They adapted it.

 

[Timewalker]

Which is a good enough reason for me to call bullshit on Villeneuve's claim that he followed the novel.

Lynch didn't understand it either at least how the stillsuits function and that while water can't be wasted, making it rain and killing the worms isn't the answer either. Hopefully Villeneuve gets at least that much - that rain is a very BAD thing.

 

[fireproof78]

Which is a good enough reason for me to call bullshit on Villeneuve's claim that he followed the novel.

Following it may mean different things to him.

 

[Timewalker]

Oh, as in he got the novel's name right and most of the characters' names right, set it in a desert, but otherwise gave some characters dialogue more suited to an American sitcom, genderswapped another character for a flimsy reason, and more other things than I've got time to mention now?