Who's looking forward to Dune Part 2?

[TheRedChamber]

This was my favourite scene from Part One:

Here's hoping part two produces something equally good.

 

[SimonDoom]

Dune 2 opens this weekend. I'm going to see it on on IMAX screen on Sunday.

I'm enough of a sci-fi/fantasy fan that I get excited about a serious attempt to do justice to some great sci fi/fantasy stories, like Peter Jackson's LOTR, which I thought was much better than I ever expected it could be (because I thought it would be impossible to do well). Sometimes it's great, sometimes not so much.

David Lynch's Dune, IMO, is an example of the latter. I didn't like it at all, although I can agree with some points in this article I saw today, calling it a "Beautiful Sci Fi disaster."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/ne...TS&cvid=7c9517aef51e4d98a561451a6df7b10d&ei=6.

I have liked much of what David Lynch has done, but I thought he was the wrong director for that project. I didn't like the way his Dune world looked. I like Kyle McLachlan but thought he was the wrong actor to play Paul whereas Timothy Chalamet, IMO, combines just the right combo of gravity and youthful looks). There was no way to successfully squeeze the Dune story into a 2 hour movie (not Lynch's fault).

I thought Dune 1 got the "look" just right, and I'm curious to see how it looks in part 2. I can't wait to see Christopher Walken as the emperor, and how the film deals with the character Alia.

 

[KeithD]

I never saw Dune 1 (or read the book). Apparently a lot of people are looking forward to the sequel.

 

[SimonDoom]

I never saw Dune 1 (or read the book). Apparently a lot of people are looking forward to the sequel.

If you like sci fi/fantasy with extensive world building, combined with a lot of moral ambiguity, I think it's about as good as it gets, and I would recommend it. I think I liked the movie better because I had read the book. I saw it with some people who had not read the book and they were confused by some of it.

 

[KeithD]

If you like sci fi/fantasy with extensive world building, combined with a lot of moral ambiguity, I think it's about as good as it gets, and I would recommend it. I think I liked the movie better because I had read the book. I saw it with some people who had not read the book and they were confused by some of it.

I read the Heinlein series years ago and still have it on a bookshelf and I was reading David Wingrove's Chung Kuo series until when I went overseas and couldn't locate new books in the series--but when I started writing mysteries and espionage, I'm afraid I just stopped reading in sci-fi then. I don't feel the loss. I have one sci-fi title in the marketplace (and posted here under sr71plt) that's done well, but I just don't have the energy to construct a coherent "other" scientific world for a story.

 

[Bamagan]

Dune 2 opens this weekend. I'm going to see it on on IMAX screen on Sunday.

I'm enough of a sci-fi/fantasy fan that I get excited about a serious attempt to do justice to some great sci fi/fantasy stories, like Peter Jackson's LOTR, which I thought was much better than I ever expected it could be (because I thought it would be impossible to do well). Sometimes it's great, sometimes not so much.

David Lynch's Dune, IMO, is an example of the latter. I didn't like it at all, although I can agree with some points in this article I saw today, calling it a "Beautiful Sci Fi disaster."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/ne...TS&cvid=7c9517aef51e4d98a561451a6df7b10d&ei=6.

I have liked much of what David Lynch has done, but I thought he was the wrong director for that project. I didn't like the way his Dune world looked. I like Kyle McLachlan but thought he was the wrong actor to play Paul whereas Timothy Chalamet, IMO, combines just the right combo of gravity and youthful looks). There was no way to successfully squeeze the Dune story into a 2 hour movie (not Lynch's fault).

I thought Dune 1 got the "look" just right, and I'm curious to see how it looks in part 2. I can't wait to see Christopher Walken as the emperor, and how the film deals with the character Alia.

I have heard that they largely ignore the existence of Alia in favor of other storylines and expanding Chani's role (the latter of which I agree is a good idea in principle).
Apparently Paul encounters an adult version on his spice-trip into the future, but the child version is excluded from the story, partly because they compress the several years of downtime where they are rallying the Fremen into about one year.

 

[SimonDoom]

I have heard that they largely ignore the existence of Alia in favor of other storylines and expanding Chani's role (the latter of which I agree is a good idea in principle).
Apparently Paul encounters an adult version on his spice-trip into the future, but the child version is excluded from the story, partly because they compress the several years of downtime where they are rallying the Fremen into about one year.

That's interesting! I hadn't heard that. I can understand that as an artistic choice. Alia worked OK in the book, but I don't think Lynch pulled off her character in his movie, and I was wondering how the new movie would deal with her. Increasing Chani's role makes sense, too, because she wasn't a completely satisfying character in the book.

I assume Anya Taylor Joy will be playing the older version of Alia in Paul's vision, because she's in the movie but her role wasn't revealed.

 

[Bamagan]

That's interesting! I hadn't heard that. I can understand that as an artistic choice. Alia worked OK in the book, but I don't think Lynch pulled off her character in his movie, and I was wondering how the new movie would deal with her. Increasing Chani's role makes sense, too, because she wasn't a completely satisfying character in the book.

I assume Anya Taylor Joy will be playing the older version of Alia in Paul's vision, because she's in the movie but her role wasn't revealed.

That is my assumption as well. And yeah, I love her character in the books, though I kind of hate her character arc, and doing a realistic version of her as a toddler with thousands of years of memories in live action must be close to impossible.

 

[AchtungNight]

IMHO David Lynch may not have pulled off Alia well, but her actress Alicia Witt did.

 

[SimonDoom]

IMHO David Lynch may not have pulled off Alia well, but her actress Alicia Witt did.

I think her performance in that role comes across as unnerving. Maybe part of it is that I have a difficult time watching a child actress that I later thought was very sexy as an adult.

 

[dadadadiox]

I’m not at all a sci-fi / fantasy nerd but I do have a place for Dune in my heart. I also like Vonnegut’s sci-fi writing but that has a lot to do with my love for his style.

I will rewatch the first Dune film. I’m not referring to the steaming pile of crap David Lynch put out in ‘84, the only Lynch film I give a hard thumbs down to. After that refresher viewing of the 2021 film I will catch the new film in a theater. I may have to go alone as my partner is not a fan.

I feel it’s a film best seen on the big screen. I’m still annoyed I missed Napoleon in theaters, partly due to the fact my partner was uninterested.

 

[jomar]

Dune 2 opens this weekend. I'm going to see it on on IMAX screen on Sunday.

I'm enough of a sci-fi/fantasy fan that I get excited about a serious attempt to do justice to some great sci fi/fantasy stories, like Peter Jackson's LOTR, which I thought was much better than I ever expected it could be (because I thought it would be impossible to do well). Sometimes it's great, sometimes not so much.

David Lynch's Dune, IMO, is an example of the latter. I didn't like it at all, although I can agree with some points in this article I saw today, calling it a "Beautiful Sci Fi disaster."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/ne...TS&cvid=7c9517aef51e4d98a561451a6df7b10d&ei=6.

I have liked much of what David Lynch has done, but I thought he was the wrong director for that project. I didn't like the way his Dune world looked. I like Kyle McLachlan but thought he was the wrong actor to play Paul whereas Timothy Chalamet, IMO, combines just the right combo of gravity and youthful looks). There was no way to successfully squeeze the Dune story into a 2 hour movie (not Lynch's fault).

I thought Dune 1 got the "look" just right, and I'm curious to see how it looks in part 2. I can't wait to see Christopher Walken as the emperor, and how the film deals with the character Alia.

When I first saw the Lynch version back in the day I was definitely not a fan. But I caught it on tv semi-recently and I was a bit surprised that I really liked it. I had far more appreciation of his weirdness than I did the first time around. And Brian Eno, Toto, Sting, the rest of the cast, and the guild navigators! What’s not to love!

I do love this modern effort and am looking forward to seeing part 2 on the big screen.

 

[nice90sguy]

Just saw Part 2 (front row middle, my favourite seat).
No spoliers from me, but it was less pompous, even more visually stunning, with more action than the first part, and even had a little femdom! I gave it four drops of worm-piss

 

[TakeItOrLeaveIt]

Just saw Part 2 (front row middle, my favourite seat).
No spoliers from me, but it was less pompous, even more visually stunning, with more action than the first part, and even had a little femdom! I gave it four drops of worm-piss

I watched it last night and was very, very impressed. Being careful to avoid spoilers, I’ll just say I was surprised with quite how dark it gets.

I thought part 1 was fantastic, part 2 is better. And, boy, does it deliver on spectacle.

 

[nice90sguy]

As part of my gap-filling on SF films I missed the first time around, I watched "Cloud Atlas" a couple of days ago. I didn't know what to make of it. So I watched it again last night. I still don't know what to make of it, but I'm going to watch it a third time tonight.

 

[Wifetheif]

I saw it last night with the fiancee. She dozed off for parts, but I was captivated. Dune is a very difficult book to adapt and I thought this was the best we are going to get. The orinthopters are more like dragonflies than birds but I like the aesthetic. No spoilers. Paul comes across as a petulant brat which is not quite the case in the novels. He looks the part though as Paul is not particularly imposing and is only like fifteen in the novel. I like the female leads better. Charlotte Rampling was born to play a reverend mother!

 

[Devinter]

I am seeing it in a couple of hours. Though I am so tired today that I might enjoy it less than I would have hoped. I'm on my fifth cup of coffee already. My face feels numb and tingly.

 

[SimonDoom]

I saw the movie a few hours ago, on an IMAX theater with my sons. We all enjoyed it a lot.

It's faster-paced and more absorbing than Part 1, so if you liked Part 1 you probably will like this even more, and if you found Part 1 a little slow you might still like this. No spoilers, but I'll say a few things about it:

--It's one of the most visually impressive movies I've ever seen. I thought it did a great job bringing the story to life. I can't think of a sci fi movie with higher production values than this one.

--The music is excellent, a typically gut-pounding, wall of sound Hans Zimmer score.

--The cast is excellent. I don't think anyone was miscast.

--There are a few significant deviations from the story in the book, but I thought they were all justifiable to make it work better as a movie. I won't say what they are. The movie humanizes some of the characters, who were a bit stiff in the book, and it elevates the roles of some of the female characters without in any way seeming forced or taking attention away from the male characters.

The only reason I can think why someone might not like it is they just don't like the story. It's not Star Wars. It's a somewhat dark, somber story with horrible villains but ambiguous heroes. The movie addresses that ambiguity head on.

I highly recommend it if you like the book, liked the first part, or just like sci fi/fantasy movies with great world-building and high production values.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I saw the movie a few hours ago, on an IMAX theater with my sons. We all enjoyed it a lot.

It's faster-paced and more absorbing than Part 1, so if you liked Part 1 you probably will like this even more, and if you found Part 1 a little slow you might still like this. No spoilers, but I'll say a few things about it:

--It's one of the most visually impressive movies I've ever seen. I thought it did a great job bringing the story to life. I can't think of a sci fi movie with higher production values than this one.

--The music is excellent, a typically gut-pounding, wall of sound Hans Zimmer score.

--The cast is excellent. I don't think anyone was miscast.

--There are a few significant deviations from the story in the book, but I thought they were all justifiable to make it work better as a movie. I won't say what they are. The movie humanizes some of the characters, who were a bit stiff in the book, and it elevates the roles of some of the female characters without in any way seeming forced or taking attention away from the male characters.

The only reason I can think why someone might not like it is they just don't like the story. It's not Star Wars. It's a somewhat dark, somber story with horrible villains but ambiguous heroes. The movie addresses that ambiguity head on.

I highly recommend it if you like the book, liked the first part, or just like sci fi/fantasy movies with great world-building and high production values.

Terrific. Does this movie complete the first book, so that the third will dive into Heretics?

 

[SimonDoom]

Terrific. Does this movie complete the first book, so that the third will dive into Heretics?

The movie completes the first book. The ending definitely paves the way for a Part 3, which I assume would cover Dune Messiah.

 

[SimonDoom]

I took myself off to see Part One last week - the Oz distributor very sensibly brought it back for a cinema run.

Being a fan of Rebecca Ferguson, I liked it; Timothy what's his name, not so much. Hard to be a tough guy when you barely fit into the boots, and the hair? Anyway.

I'm looking forward to Part Two - the "big cinema" appeal of Villeneuve is always there, and Anya Tailor-Joy is always worth it.

I might even go back and read the book.

Big thumbs up on Rebecca Ferguson; I fell for her the moment she emerged from the pool in that scene in the Mission:Impossible movie. Here, though, she plays the mom role. It's a good role, and the movie gives her more agency than the book does, but it's not a sexy role.

I think Timothee Chalamet is just right for this role. He looks like a boy, but that's important, because the character Paul is only 15-16 when the story starts. He has tremendous inner strength but is outwardly unprepossessing, and Chalamet can do that. In contrast to Kyle McClachan in the 1984 Dune; he looked older and more adult, but in my opinion he lacked gravitas as an actor. I never bought him as Paul. He's better as a more off-beat, slightly comical character, which he played in Twin Peaks and in Sex and the City.

There's not much of Anya Taylor-Joy, alas, but there's a good reason for that, which I won't discuss. She will loom large in Part 3, whenever that comes out, I believe.

You like strong female characters, I believe. Part 2 beefs up the roles of Chani (Zendaya), Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), and Irulan (Florence Pugh) so they're more movers and shakers in the movie than in the book, and I think it's an improvement. It turns it into more of a story of interlocking relationships than of Paul's solo journey to Messiah-hood, which is more like what the book offered.

Before the movie, a trailer played for the upcoming Furiosa, which I gather is a prequel to the post-apocalyptic Australia Mad Max:Fury Road, with Anya Taylor-Joy substituting for Charlize Theron as a younger version of the Furiosa role. You might want to see that. It looks . . . loud. But so do all movies in trailers these days.

 

[SimonDoom]

I understand why it was written that way, I'm just unconvinced by the implied in-world logic of it.

Understandable. Dune requires an enormous amount of suspension of disbelief. I was willing to buy into it, because there was so much loving attention to detail in the world-building that I got over the fact that the world that Herbert built is totally implausible. It's like a magician who's so skilled moving his hands that he distracts you from the problems with the disappearing rabbit.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Before the movie, a trailer played for the upcoming Furiosa, which I gather is a prequel to the post-apocalyptic Australia Mad Max:Fury Road, with Anya Taylor-Joy substituting for Charlize Theron as a younger version of the Furiosa role. You might want to see that. It looks . . . loud. But so do all movies in trailers these days.

Yes, I'm looking forward to that one, Mad Max of course, being Australians showing Americans how to do it properly. The Mad Max movies are cult classics here - the first one being the movie that launched Mel Gibson (although I'm not sure if it came out before Gallipoli or after). Tom Hardy filled the boots nicely in Fury Road - although his role in Peaky Blinders is my favourite.

 

[MetaBob]

Dune Part 2 debuts on March 1. It doesn't have much to do with erotica, I suppose, but I think a lot of the authors here are into sci fi, so I'm curious about whether you are looking forward to it and why.

I read Dune as a teen, decades ago, a few years after I read Lord of the Rings. I enjoyed both, greatly, although in different ways. For years I thought both could never be turned into decent movies. I thought David Lynch's Dune in 1984 was a disaster. But I was astonished by how good I thought Peter Jackson's LOTR was. It left a lot of the book out, but it had no choice in order to condense the story into three movies. I thought the casting was great and the realization of Middle-earth was excellent. The musical score was one of the best in movie history, IMO.

I thought the same of Dune Part 1. Visually, I thought it was a near-perfect realization of the book. I think the cast is great. The problem with Dune is the story. LOTR is a feel-good story. You can fall in love with the characters. It's hard to fall in love with anybody in Dune. It's a fairly bleak, dark universe, and everybody in it follows a questionable moral code. Paul, the hero, is a compelling but morally ambiguous hero.

Still, if you get past that, it's a fascinating story, with maybe the best world-building in sci fi/fantasy history, and I'm looking forward to part 2. I can't wait to see Christopher Walken as the emperor. I suspect it will be far more entertaining than the first installment because of the quicker pace and more action, and the further development of the relationships. I'm curious to see how Alia is portrayed. I've heard that Anya Joy-Taylor is in Part 2, but nobody has said whom she plays, so I wonder if somehow she's going to play Alia as a super-intelligent and preternaturally mature child.

I read Dune in high school. I thought it was one of the two best SF books I'd ever read, with Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land, and I've gone back to re-read it multiple times, while I haven't re-read the Heinlein.

I liked the David Lynch film adaptation. It was silly, but kinda sincere. I wish Jodorowski had been able to finish his.

Then I saw the SyFy adaptation of 15 years later, which I preferred, even though I missed Linda Hunt very much. They also did Children of Dune, which I haven't seen yet. Julie Cox was far better as Irulan than Virginia Madsen, I thought. Then I saw Part One of Villaneuve's adaptation. It was good. I will seek out Part Two at some point, but will not prioritize seeing it, because ...

No matter how good it might be, it won't be as good as the book.

I re-read Heretics and Chapterhouse a few years ago, and have God-Emperor on my to-read-again list (along with a lot of other things).

Edit: I don't think comparing David Lynch's 1984 Dune to Peter Jackson's 2001-2003 LOTR is fair; they were made nearly two decades apart. If you want to compare David Lynch's Dune to any LOTR adaptation, compare it to Ralph Bakshi's (1978).

I think the closest comparison to Peter Jackson's LOTR is HBO's Game Of Thrones, which I thought far better (until the last few episodes).

 

[nice90sguy]

Before the movie, a trailer played for the upcoming Furiosa

That trailer appeared for me too. Yeah, Loud. Mad Max was of its time IMO, and a reload doesn't really appeal to me.