Dune: Part Two 2023 (Denis Villeneuve)

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...45#post2358245

Initial thoughts:


1. I'd forgotten just how much Star Wars borrowed from Dune


2. Like the previous installment, looks great, the design of the locations and transport are incredible.


3. Is this the most Hans Zimmer Hans Zimmer has ever been?


4. Paul's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!


5. It's been a long time since I read the book but I feel like there were things/people missing - is Jessica pregnant for two years or is the whole war/uprising done and dusted in just a few months?


6. Is there going to be a part 3?


7. I did not recognise Austin Butler.

If it makes profit, then for sure there will be part 3. Presumably Dune: Messiah.

Performances rated:

Seydoux, kangaroo mouse (Muad'Dib)

Zendaya

Bardem, Butler (unexpected) +

Chalamet, Ferguson

Brolin, Skarsgård, Rampling

Pugh, Bautista, Walken

__________________
Entertainment Log
Letterboxd profile

I would gladly watch a Muad'Dib spin-off show...

https://youtube.com/shorts/HlICsfM57...M2GvdY94rlou1z

Tickets in hand for the Sunday afternoon showing at the massive DLX theater. Yes, I am tempering my expectations, as I still think this material can't be fully adapted to screen without making lots of concessions. It's too layered, too complex, and has too many subtle aspects that frankly could never be conveyed properly in even three feature films.

Even though I consider the first film to be one of the best science fiction films of the last decade, I couldn't give it a perfect rating due to a couple of the choices that most likely had to be made, but still detracted from the film. I normally dislike exposition, but Dune almost requires a certain amount of background information to properly establish the world. Both Lynch and Villeneuve used a similar method to convey some of the set-up for the universe, having Paul study some educational materials that helped fill in some of the details. This is clunky but I think it worked well in conveying the information. The extended edition of the 1984 version famously tacked on a bunch of storyboards at the beginning of the film; that version easily conveys the largest amount of exposition, but ends up being terrible cinema, so I avoid it completely.

Lynch takes it further in using a voice-over to illustrate what people are thinking, but this rarely works without coming across like a cop out or just being straight up bad. Villenueve, probably at great pain to himself, either didn't write much exposition in, or just cut most of it out eventually. On paper, this is better cinema, but some of the ideas, such as the function of the mentats or the nature of the Guild, especially how they fit into the political scheming and manipulation, will be extremely difficult to convey in purely cinematic terms. He minimized the mentats in the first film, and I expect the same treatment for the Guild in the second half. I've read the books, so it tends to still click into place for me, but after coming out of the cinema in 2021, my friends who hadn't read the books had quite a few questions.

As I type this, I think the odds of this all getting pulled together properly in the second film are pretty long. My hopes are that Villeneuve is able to create an engaging piece of cinema out of the material he was able to adapt, and it will be up to me to temper my expectation in regards to the complex details of the story just not all being present.

Anyway, enough prattling for now. I will report back in after seeing the film on Sunday!

__________________

Here's what I wrote in the Rate the Last Movie You Watched thread:

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...43#post2443843

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Two questions for those who've watched:

• Did you catch the obvious David Lynch homage, and if so, did you think it was hilarious?
  
• Am I missing something (probably explained in the novels), or is this the biggest plot hole ever:

OK, like I said, there may be something in the novels that explains this in a way that doesn't make the whole thing seem like one of the worst plot holes ever in a movie.

^ There's a plot hole in yo plot hole discovery. I'd have to re-watch pt.1 to be sure, but my watchlist is over 4000 so I don't have the time to do that anytime soon.

I dunno about that. I rewatched Dune Part 1 before and after DP2. It still doesn't seem to add up.

First, they weren't on Earth.
(that was a joke, btw)

Second in spoilers because I have no idea if any of this is a spoiler as I've yet to see p2. I do like spoiler tags though.



Jus' muh two pesos.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

Your analogy doesn't quite work imho because in the world of Dune, you have "Houses" instead of the nation-states we have on this planet right now.

That's a different argument than it was originally, and I was only extending your analogy of U.S. nuclear options. If we're only going to use the world of Dune, then that sneak attach was still an attack on House Atreides. Nuke House Atreides to stop the Harkonnen sneak attack.

My parenthetical region/country add was tongue-in-cheek to justify adding parenthesis and rambling on a bit more.

Um, in other Dune-related news, Neil deGrasse Tyson had some thoughtful comments about the new movie while talking to Stephen Colbert on the Late Show last night.

Definitely a bit on the geeky side, but still fascinating to watch.

Oh I see. I would still assume DV opted to stay within the constraints, whatever those may be, that exist in the author's universe. Sadly, I've not read the books either. Perhaps the reliance on shields over the offensive use of atomics was explored in the text. Even with the creative conflict of "correcting" source material (I assume this would be a correction if the original writing was off) to make it more relatable to modern audiences and sci-fi buffs, doing so would probably create more story arc issues that would spread uncontrollably once the invading Harkonnen forces were pushed back, if not annihilated completely, by using atomics during the invasion. From that point forward, all provided plot motivation stops, my guess, and suddenly we're experiencing a very different story.

Iderno. Suspension of disbelief, I suppose. Take it for face value that a fictional universe that operates under different religious and scientific practices than what our universe does might have evolved its own internal logic for such things. While my use of N.Y.C. was only a model for reference, you are right in that we are talking about Arrakis within the world of "Dune." If we agree to that, then applying our experienced logic to the "Dune" experience and resulting logic might be off and more to the issue.

I maybe should have spoiler-tagged all that to keep in tradition, and that I kind of like using them. I forgot. =\

Possible Spoilers***

In Dune the novel it was stated that the first strike use of atomics was strictly forbidden and any of the ruling houses that violated that would be destroyed by all the other houses. In the novel the Atreides got around that rule by using their atomics against the huge rock wall that protected the Harokan 'castle strong hold' on Arrakis after the Harkonnens retook that from the Atreides. I image that's why Dune 2 doesn't have the Atreides using nukes on the attacking ships.

I hope I got that all correct, it's been a long time since I read the Dune books. Hopefully @Sedai will let me know if I remembered that wrong, I know he's read all the Dune books.

I finished watching Dune (2021) in preparation to go see Dune Part Two but was sorely disappointed and am no longer interested in seeing the sequel. I saw the 1984 Lynch version recently, rating that pretty low because I didn't like the messy visual style but now appreciate it much more after seeing the remake. This one looks great but bores me.