Hacker News Reader

Comment by skellera | Hacker News Reader

I was telling my partner that I felt the movie was meant for people who read the book. She thought it was boring. It’s missing a lot of smaller context and seems dull without it. But if you’ve read the book(s), it’s actually a pretty good visual of the series. It would take too long and be dull to everyone if we sat through explanations of everything.

This is a great supplement to anyone who didn’t read the book but saw the movie. That said, the book would probably be even better for that.

View on HN

My girlfriend didn't read the book, but liked the movie a lot. "Finally a movie that takes its time to show as a different world instead of taking it as a backdrop of the same stories", she said. And I am with her. I like movies that just want to take me to a place instead of firing me up emotionally with cheap tricks while using the scenario as an exchangable backdrop.

I read the book, my girlfriend didn't. We both agreed on two things:

1. The plot was moving too quickly and without enough context. She said she didn't understand much, and I can relate to that. If I haven't read the book I wouldn't be able to pick up with the plotline.

2. We didn't have any feelings towards any of the characters. We weren't sorry for Leto, we didn't identify with Paul, Jessica or any other character, we weren't even hating the Harkonnen.

All this led us to the conclusion that it was better to take things more slowly, investing more building the characters and context and getting people "onboard". This would have probably required to split the book into 3 films instead of 2, but I think it would have been worth it.

If you want a better adaptation, watch the 2000 miniseries version of it. It ran to nearly 5 hours and, contrary to this movie, your girlfriend won't have to wait two years to see how it turns out if she isn't interested in reading the book herself.

How can you watch the 2000 mini series version? I looked at all the streaming services and media vendors, and haven't found a way to get it. It does seem like Dune would be better served by a mini series....perhaps 10 or 13 hours of screen time for the first book.

Didn't you get the memo? The streaming industry fucked up, it's back to torrents again.

Edit: On DDG, search "dune miniseries <file-extension>", the second result has a working magnet link.

No idea, haven't searched for it. I bought the DVDs years ago. I just figured someone would have it out there on the Internet.

Thank you! I'll check that out

The 1984 movie did a better job of efficiently explaining what was happening.

Two good examples are the pain box and the slow blade penetrate the shield in training.

While the new Dune movie mention how they work - they just do a bad job of communicating that as effectively as the 1984 movie. To really appreciate this movie, you either needed to have read the book, or watched the prior movie (1984), or the TV mini-series'.

They also introduced things from the book, like how to walk in sand, and the visions of the jihad, but describe them poorly, and leave the viewer wondering why they're even mentioned. It's just badly written.

...but there were other issues with the movie as well. Long useless sequences of sand visuals that added nothing to the story - and that annoying scream sound that left our eardrums ringing, for no other purpose than to try to make the audience feel like an uneventful scene is somehow important to the plot.

A lot of people complained about the voice-overs in the 1984 film but they actually added a lot of value by efficiently introducing concepts to the viewer succinctly - especially the intro in the beginning which sets up the universe.

The best take on this universe after the book is actually SciFi channel mini-series in 2000 and then the Children of Dune in 2008.

While I'm not disagreeing with you, every one of your points is explaining things that could make it more informative - but not that necessarily actually make it a better movie.

All that you say can be true, each of those changes likely would make things more informative - but doesn't mean they necessarily should be added.

I've never read the book and what you and your gf say is exactly what I thought while watching it. I was really immersed by the world-building and visually delighted the whole time. I don't even remember some of what the plot was about, I dont care.

My wife, after the movie:

"SooOooo I wasn't excited to see this movie. I think I might have seen the old one, but I don't remember liking it. This movie though was amazing and now I'm just mad I have to wait two years to see the sequel!"

> I was telling my partner that I felt the movie was meant for people who read the book. She thought it was boring.

A lot of people who read the book because of the upcoming movie also thought the book was boring.

I think that most people expect character-driven narrative, and so when you get a work that leans more towards ideas and concepts, people tune out.

Edit: I think is also why the movie Sicario (also by Villeneuve) threw some people off, because it didn't operate with a "normal" narrative: SPOILER {the roles of main character and protagonist were two different people}:

* https://thebarkbitesback.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/going-deep...

On the other hand, if you take a book that leans towards ideas and concepts, and you make series with character-driver narrative out of it so people won't tune out, you get something like Foundation, that has only title and names of places and characters common with the original. All that made the original interesting is lost.

> All that made the original interesting is lost.

The economist Paul Krugman of all people wrote a 'review' of each basically saying the same thing:

> “Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year. The story spans centuries; in each episode everything appears to be on the brink, and it seems as if only desperate efforts by the protagonists can save the day. But after each crisis, Seldon’s prerecorded hologram appears to explain to everyone what just happened and why the successful resolution was inevitable given the laws of history.

> So how does the Apple TV series turn this into a visually compelling tale? It doesn’t. What it does instead is remake “Star Wars” under another name. There are indispensable heroes, mystical powers, even a Death Star. These aren’t necessarily bad things to include in a TV series, but they’re completely antithetical to the spirit of Asimov’s writing. Pretending that this series has anything to do with the “Foundation” novels is fraudulent marketing, and I’ve stopped watching.

* https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/dune-movie-founda...

* https://archive.md/YFxVi

A perfect summary. "Foundation" trilogy is essentially a novelization of the generalized anthropic principle[0]: protagonists aren't special, the only reason we're reading about particular characters and not some others is because those people happened to be at the right place and time during pivotal moments in history[1]. The show, on the other hand, seems to be just another "special heroes with special powers direct the course of history".

It wouldn't even be that bad if the show wasn't regularly referencing back to Seldon and psychohistory, essentially telling us one thing, but showing something completely opposite.

It's not all bad, though. There are elements that would fit well with the books. The way they handled emperors, for example.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[1] - Or what could be described as pivotal moments - the whole point of Seldon's use of psychohistory was to set the initial conditions to ensure there's a high probability that future events will take a very particular path[2]. Kind of like we do space missions today, where a probe is launched just right, so it stays on a predetermined path through the Solar System, making it reach its destination years or decades later.

[2] - And to my great relief when first reading the trilogy, Asimov wasn't dumb about this. He seemed to have known enough about what today we'd call non-linear systems and chaos theory, that he addressed the obvious problems of psychohistory and long-term stability of Seldon's plan in the trilogy (as well as in subsequent books).

> A perfect summary. "Foundation" trilogy is essentially a novelization of the generalized anthropic principle[0]: protagonists aren't special, the only reason we're reading about particular characters and not some others is because those people happened to be at the right place and time during pivotal moments in history.

That "anthropic principle" goes out the window pretty quick in book 2 when a super-powered mutant becomes the antagonist.

... which is the point. It's all about the spinning top (The Foundation) staying spinning and not falling over...

Premise: You can't expect predictions to stay true over centuries, you need a guiding hand to keep that top spinning and not tumbling over, so you need the Second Foundation to be The Management. Bonus: due to the circumstantial requirements, you get to make them secret and hidden.

Requirement: There has to be tension within a book. There has to be conflict, resolved in a way conducive to literary imperative.

Resolution: Something has to be able to challenge this otherwise-perfectly-set-up system. Something that is not predictable, and which would not be easily adjustable by the Second Foundation; something out of the ordinary. A single man, who really can influence history. The Second Foundation would be prepared for a Napoleon of their time, but they wouldn't expect anyone like the Mule.

Corollary: The Second Foundation is exposed, introducing tension and conflict for the next book in the series. Who wants to be a puppet on a string, after all ?

It could have gone very differently if the Mule hadn't been sterile, or could have taught his skill, but again, literary imperative dictates that "The Good Guys win", so the Second Foundation overcomes the Mule, and the plan is put back on track. Suspiciously well, in fact. The anthropic principle is validated, and a single man did not in fact change history. This time.

"The Good Guys" changes in later books, of course, and the Second Foundation end up losing, but that's quite literally another story :)

I mostly agree, except for "The Good Guys" part.

What I found endearing about the books[0] is that it didn't try to cast any of the factions as The Good Guys. The Foundation definitely isn't. The trilogy, especially the first book, shows the Foundation applying plenty of hard realpolitik to survive and expand; they do not carry any moral banner, except that of Seldon's Plan. They're not the United Federation of Planets by any measure. They just are. The Second Foundation isn't presented in a better light either.

> The anthropic principle is validated, and a single man did not in fact change history. This time.

I most likely haven't read far enough into the book sequence, but at least by "Foundation's Edge", the anthropic principle remains valid; the protagonist of that book, despite being seen as special by their contemporaries, still turns out to be involved in the story only because they happened to be best person available along the criteria of the ... entity ... driving the events.

[0] - That I've read so far, i.e. the trilogy, and "Foundation's Edge".

> I mostly agree, except for "The Good Guys" part.

That's why I had "The Good Guys" in quotes :) We're supposed to root for the Foundation/Second Foundation, but it's clearly presented as the best of two evils. People, being people but better than 30,000 years of anarchy.

> you need a guiding hand to keep that top spinning and not tumbling over, so you need the Second Foundation to be The Management

That's where your anthropic principle ends, though, halfway through the trilogy. From there on out the original protagonists can't win without a new "special" set of characters blessed with superhuman abilities.

I feel the Mule was like the Mongols, bring distant realms under one rule, disperse the knowledge and then burn out.

It is just not to set the initial conditions. It needs to be guided constantly. The probabilities need to be updated periodically, alternate paths need to be mapped (e.g. bring the plan back on track after The MULE). Hence the Second Foundation and the need for people to be unaware of them.

(spoiler) Even the entity, beyond the Second Foundation, who started everything and keeps it on track.

Yes, that's what I meant in my footnote no. 2. I was just trying to avoid spoilers - but since the whole subthread subsequently has been: both Seldon and Asimov demonstrated their understanding of chaotic systems by creating the Second Foundation, whose purpose was to maintain Seldon's plan as a closed-loop optimization system, despite the Foundation (and initially, the reader) believing it was an open-loop, fire-and-forget one.

Also what I liked about the series is the multiple logical explanation of things which seem equally convincing but ultimately wrong. e.g the location of the second foundation and later of earth.

In this logical recursion you have to keep track of the level your are in till ultimately a simple explanation is revealed. Sometimes it feels too much of a coincidence, but I enjoyed the mental gymnastics.

Of course Paul Krugman is a fan of the Dune and Foundation books!

Very few shows or movies can pull off exploring how a system works, from top to bottom, to show how the world is shaped by rules, customs, etc. The Wire comes to mind as the best "real world" example. I was very impressed by how the Dune movie hinted at the underlying systems while translating the salient points and the "feel" of Dune to the language of film. While I feel it failed in some places, it's a hugely impressive achievement. I love Lynch and like his Dune, but really it's a totally different work from the books with surface level similarities. 2021 Dune feels like a true film adaptation, no easy feat.

Well at least I can take the Foundation TV show off my "to watch" list now

Thanks for that summary; I didn't know there was a Foundation TV show, and at the moment I don't care either.

It reminds me of an attempt to make a Brave New World TV show, which based on the trailer has... little to do with the original book. The book itself wasn't even a good book in terms of storytelling IMO, it was more about worldbuilding and a bleak look at a "utopian" future.

So far it's a binge watch in a weekend when you have nothing better to do series (visuals are nice), but instead of giving the viewer that satisfaction of having some minimal immersion for a few hours in a story ... it has FUCKING DUMB cliffhangers at the end of every god damned episode. :(

Oh yes. The Foundation series would stand fine on its own, but it's pretty much the exact opposite of everything the book trilogy was, making the experience extremely jarring to me (I've read the books somewhat recently, so they were fresh in my mind when I started watching).

I agree. Having read the books of both series though and coming in with the expectation that I just wanted interesting science fiction I’ve been pleased with both the Dune movie and the Foundation series.

Foundation so far looks like two different shows: a very cool Empire story with three cloned Cleon guys, and a pathetic cliched YA action series about Terminus. (I'm rooting for the Cleons)

[grin] I don't think you're going to win there, unless they really take the show in a different direction :)

They shouldn't trust that suspicious Demerzel robot, better destroy it.

The problem for me is that the movie wasn't leaning into ideas and concepts either. I see a lot of comments about political, religious and ecological topics in Dune but I saw almost nothing about that in the movie, other than very shallow comments/ideas. To me, Dune felt like a completely empty movie: scenes are beautiful, yes, but that was it.

Nobody seems to mention the mini-series - I thought it was the best Dune rendition to video/film. I hated the Lynch version. Sting totally turns me off.

I read the book in the early seventies; never liked the prequels/sequels. I'm also not that keen on the mutant Paul/Sandworm god. That didn't work for me.

This is how I felt about his Blade Runner 2049 -- aesthetically stunning, but weak hollow story, like an intensively expensive well done fan-fic.

As a big fan of the Dune series I'm a bit unsure if I really even want to see the movie.

Arrival was excellent, but my experience with Blade Runner 2049 makes me unsure about Villeneuve's work.

Wait and watch it with part 2.

My biggest gripe with it is that it's just yet another Villeneuve movie. It's not different enough compared to BR2049. It seems as if 2049 was just a study for Dune. (Because probably it was.) And there's just not enough life in Dune compared to the richness of the books. (Nor in BR. Or in Arrival. ... Because Villeneuve emphasizes the anxiety of alienation a bit too much...?)

The emptiness in BR2049 was explained in-universe: people were leaving Earth for colonies and the planet was severely depopulated. It was OK for it to have this lifeless feeling. But "Dune" should be brimming with life, struggle and constant dangers, this melancholy and sterility do not fit it at all.

I also found Blade Runner 2049 terrible. It felt totally empty. The original movie had an interesting story and built an interesting world. I don’t even know what 2049 was really about.

I felt the same about the “Joker” movie. Good acting and production but ultimately not interesting .

2049 is completely unengaging for me. It seemsa to add exactly zero to the original movie.

Yep. And doesn't work as a standalone movie either.

Aesthetics were amazing. But after a certain point I just don't care how it looks and feels. No story worth digging into.

And it's not like the man can't tell a character driven story. I cared a lot about the characters in Arrival. It made my whole family cry.

I felt nothing from Blade Runner 2049. Nothing.

Did you not care at all for K and his struggle for meaning?

I love that movie and I think in it, the story is just an excuse to show us the world and it's the world that's more interesting. A future where androids are organic, of course they have protein farms everywhere. They appear to have mastered sustainable (solar) engergy too. All of this and it's still a distopian future ravaged of inequality.

For all its faults, Lynch's Dune turned out to be an overall better movie! Who could have thought?

My god, how could you say that. I watched the Lynch version before watching the new version, just to be able to compare. The Lynch version was the worst movie I've ever seen.

One must know how to watch it. Younger people can hardly see past the flashy pictures. Lynch's Paul was particularly brilliant, his figure had some mystic qualities around it, new movie has nothing like it.

I'm not young :)

I just couldn't get past the horribly stilted dialogue, the clowny costumes, and the completely terrible "inner monologue."

Oh, and the last scene where the emperor himself jumps on the merry-go-round and is shooting things. wtf.

The movie was so completely bad in every dimension.

The only positive is that after watching it, I got a better idea of what was happening in the 2021 version.

Well, I can agree with parts of that, and still, the new movie is worse. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Totally agree. I think it was badly done. Big waste of lots of millions of dollars; and it blocked the stream for a new version, for two decades.

Not criticising Lynch for having a go; props. I just don't think it worked out. That's how the cookie crumbles for most movies. Nice try.

The merry-go-round thing was pretty cool tho, for a society without computers. I've yet to read an essay that examines it and tries to figure out its principle of operation.

How can you say that? There's no such thing as a bad Patrick Stewart movie.

Especially when he runs into battle with a doggie in his shirt!

A friend saw it with me, no context at all for him, he was fascinated by the religious war undertones sprinkled through the movie

I wouldn't call "sprinkled undertones" a few visions describing very explicitly a holy war, but to each their own.

> war

Given some folks are complaining about the "white saviour" trope in Dune, it would be interesting to see Dune Messiah be made. It's not like Herbert wasn't aware of the idea, given what he knew about (e.g.) T. E. Lawrence ('of Arabia').

Haven't seen the movie yet, but from reading the book I just don't see the white savior angle. Freemen were indoctrinated by the Bene Gesserit to believe in a prophesy and Jessica "lies" to them to make them believe Paul is the one.

Freemen are being oppressed, but they aren't the weak ones in Dune not by a long shot since they even have enough wealth to outbid the empire on satellites in orbit around Arrakis.

I want to see Dune God Emperor adapted now that would start getting to "seriously weird" territory.

I think white savior just means guy came from outside who has amazing abilities and lead the native.

Yes, but my point is that he's not a saviour of the Freemen at all. It's clear in the books that they are better armed, better adapted and their numbers is severely underestimated by the Harkonnen. At no point in the first book are the Freemen truly at risk of being decimated.

This is a fine line to thread and I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment as to how the handled it, but while the Freemen don't have interplanetary domination in mind and Paul does lead them to Jihad, it's not like Avatar where the native are being exterminated and some random guy leads them to military success.

I dont think it matters whether they are oppressed or need a savior.

The ridiculous thing about that narrative is that an alien with their own agenda (most likely not for the benefits of the native) is somehow given leadership

In the book, at least, he earns/steals that position (it's not given to him) by virtue of his mother's knowledge of their religious beliefs and his training from birth to be a leader. Which was only barely hinted at in this movie.

I've always read Dune as a strong condemnation of the white saviour. Paul dooms the Fremen to a horrible purpose; forever to deliver a religious genocide in his name. Paul knows what he's doing is wrong, we the reader are told its wrong, and yet Paul does it anyway because his power of prescience shows him the alternative is worst for the universe. The sequels completely adhere to the idea that Paul is right, and turn the whole Dune universe into shlock, but the original novel posits the idea that Paul can't be sure it's the right thing to do.

The thing is all of that is explained in much more detail in the second part of the book. You know, the part that's not a film yet.

> condemnation of the white saviour

it seems more like condemnation of the concept of leading, or controlling, as opposed to educating and liberating. The white savior element is not neccessary to convey that message.

The white savior tropes are mostly from activists. The actual book is a critique of the very idea of saviors in general.

"white saviour" is just the pithy modern name for what the book was critical of. It wasn't just in general against saviours, the oppression and race aspects were def part of the book. I'm no activist but I was disappointed (and surprised given the current climate) that those undertones weren't in the movie at all (arguably acting nice to the Freman for "desert power", but the movie was too invested in showing Leto as a really great guy with so little screen time that it couldn't afford to dwell on the complexity) - it comes more to the foreground after he's with the Freman so hopefully the second movie will explore that critique a bit more.

None of this stopped me from really enjoying the movie - though I think highlighting the ambiguity could make it into a really great movie. The book does it by exploring how the systems work in the world which rarely works well in movies, so I'm not sure how part 2 could do it without it feeling "tacked on"

Was it the intention from the start or did Frank come up with it as he wrote more books?

The movie sets up a direct commentary on our middle east adventures.

The only commentary that is set up is "colonization and oppression is bad", there's not much more there.

Just my own taste, but after Sicario and Blade Runner, Villeneuve has become one of my favorite directors. I'm looking forward to Dune.

Arrival hooked me on as well

Who would have thought a sci-fi film with aliens could be about motherhood/parenting? :)

Are you making a joke about "Aliens" or is this an honest question

Having a child is a key theme in Arrival and it is set in a context of communicating with mysterious aliens.

It's a rhetoric question. I don't think anyone was expecting that ending.

> A lot of people who read the book because of the upcoming movie also thought the book was boring.

the book's pacing isn't exactly brisk from what my younger self remembers of reading it.

To me Sicario was a masterpiece. But Dune ... I could never get warm with it. Neither the book, nor the first movie nor the recent one.

Yeah I had the same feeling. I watched the new movie, and was left feeling underwhelmed. Striking aesthetics, and a true visual and audio experience. But the first half of the film felt like all exposition with no plot, and the film didn't give me much reason to care about the characters so I didn't. But the movie left me with a feeling of wanting more, so I did some research about the world Frank Herbert created, and I actually watched the film again and enjoyed it a lot more with a better understanding of the relevance of what I was seeing.

To be honest, I think that's a bit of a failure of the film that it doesn't stand truly on its own. It seems that they tried to be very faithful to the text in terms of what they depicted - which I'm sure was appreciated by Dune fans - but I understand the source material was quite dense, so they would have had to leave quite a lot of important details out.

And I think one of the mistakes of the film was to focus so much about Arakkis. The film opens with the struggle and exploitation of the fremen over spice extraction. But I think it's the wrong focus. The thing that makes Arakkis interesting is the fact that the entire empire hinges on the spice production there. The planet itself is just sort of a back-water. I think it would have been better to start with a vignette explaining the importance of spice, to properly set the stakes for the rest of the film.

You mean like this: https://youtu.be/eqvSJp-6qT4

Your points are well taken. The movie could probably have used a bit more teen angst between Paul and Chani or somebody else to help with caring about characters for people new to the book. I loved it because I've read the book and seen the other movie and TV shows, but I can see how it would come across a bit like Blade Runner 2049 where it had amazing visuals but could leave certain audiences bored.

I am glad that the movie didn't do that, I liked it precisely for the reason that it made me the fly on the wall of a greater story. I know we are used to get likeable protagonists, but ultimately I often perceive these as cheap tricks that take away from my feeling of immersion for a place. Because all the usual plotpoints and hyperfunctionalized narratives ultimately tend to turn the world they take place in into exchangable backdrops, which is the polar opposite of the idea of the Dune series, where a Place (Arakis) influences the lifes of whole societies in interesting ways. I am glad that Villeneuve managed to do without the classical Hollywood-Three-Act-Script-Consultant-Techniques that make so much of todays movie production bland and unwatchable (for people like me), precisely for the same reason: I can't care for stories where I feel the cheap tricks that make it up at every corner.

But there are cheap tricks here too. The trademark Zimmer wall of sound to make a scene "impressing", the wide long shots of CGI sceneries where no one lives, the dark/cloudy environments to avoid showing more detail...

As bot a VFX artist and a musician I can assure you that neither of those tricks were cheap : )

Yeah I think you could have gotten very far with a light touch here. For instance, just a few well-placed character moments between Paul and his father would have heightened the impact of what happens later in the film. And maybe also a few scenes where the characters are actually experiencing joy together to better contrast the hardships later on. The tone of the movie is generally so dour and one-note - maybe that is part of the aesthetic Villeneuve is trying to create, but I think even a little bit of emotional range could have gone a long way.

Yeah at least the david lynch opening sets the stage, but I think you could do better than just direct exposition from a floating head. For instance maybe have a voice over while showing a navigator use the spice to travel safely in space.

Or maybe show some important event in interstellar politics and explain how it was made possible by spice.

I think there are different ways you could do it.

You mean like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7FcJwg6OkA&t=229s

> The movie could probably have used a bit more teen angst

So glad it didn't, teenage angst is the most uninteresting thing in the world

It's like 2049 in the sense that both overly rely on the admittedly really great cinematography, score and atmosphere. I enjoyed both but 2049 had a somewhat thin plot while Dune spent most of the movie on exposition and set-up as if I'm watching the first episode of a TV show.

> I think that's a bit of a failure of the film that it doesn't stand truly on its own.

Kay, it's a story that seems to be very hard to make as a free-standing fillum. (I haven't seen the new movie, I'll be looking forward to it until it arrives on free-to-air). At least three producers have had a shot, and at least two have made a dogs-breakfast of it.

I mean, they had a good shot at doing something difficult - I don't mean to diminish their efforts.

For me it was actually a relief to see that not everything is being over-explained, a sickness many modern movies suffer from. Where is the fun if after the movie you don't talk about it, look things up, maybe even read the book?

As someone who loves Denis Villeneuve I did all that, although I felt "left behind" throughout the movie, because I didn't read the books. Visually amazing, but I was sad I couldn't appreciate it the way it could have been.

To be fair, "overwhelmed" is how one feels reading the book; we're given SO MUCH all at once.

Competing cultures. Strange names. Prophecy. Paul is referred to in 4 or 5 different ways... it's a lot to take in.

The movie was the same way. They explain everything, but there's a LOT to explain so they say it once and move on.

One constantly feels "behind" and then, at the end, you feel this "wow" sensation of the scale of squeezing all that lore and world-building and storytelling and philosophy into one book.

> Prophecy

Don't worry too much about the prophecy. It's mainly fake, the extent to which it's not fake is that the Bene Gesserit take seriously the idea that the best way to predict the future is to invent it.

As someone who remembers watching the Lynch directors cut at a 24 sci-fi marathon and had no clue what was going on I felt like this movie did a good job introducing the world building without dwelling too much on the details. The various factions made sense and if I want more there are a lot of books to dive into.

'A lot' is painfully subjective in this case.

Depending on the school of thought there is just the one book (Dune); the six books by Frank Herbert; or those, plus all the output of Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson.

The implication being that not all books may appeal to everyone who enjoyed Dune (the book).

I am really looking forward to being able to spend some time in forums and with friends over the coming months (and years given how often I talk about the things I like over and over again) and see how the feelings for the Dune(2021) film correspond to peoples feelings on which books are a part of the series.

I am waiting to see the film until this weekend, so I will have to take my own impressions as a baseline and look forward to discussions and arguments on Dune saving from a dreadfully boring winter.

I've read the books but so long ago I forgot almost all about it (I remember the sandworms and that I liked it).

What did you feel left behind about?

Perspective of books reader/movies watcher but wife hasn't read the books:

The "big picture politics" of the Landsraad coupled with the power of the Guild and Bene Geserit...is the biggest thing missing. It's all only hinted at. When you read the books you realize how all these different factions sortof work as checks and balances on each other.

If you haven't read the books, it just seems like it would be impossible to understand why anything is happening "big picture". It just seems like bad stuff is happening to the good guys.

The Bene Gesserit was something I couldn't quite get a grip on, the gravitas house Atreides' arrival seemed to have, when they came to Arrakis, the different houses and their relationships... I had a lot of moments where felt I was missing context, because the scenes presented themself as "important" but I couldn't figure it out in that moment. Sometimes later in the movie some context was given, but during those scenes I felt "lost". I will certainly give it rewatch, maybe even read the books now.

>the gravitas house Atreides' arrival seemed to have

I feel they should have had about two orders of magnitude more than that, they're the rulers from the stars, appointed by the emperor, they rule multiple worlds and have interstellar ships, and are some of the most important people in the whole Empire.

This was my biggest disappointment with the movie - they rule many worlds, but it doesn't feel that way from how they're treated. They don't vet even their closest people (like, for real, you don't know your personal doc has his family held hostage by your enemy?). Some mid-level businessmen in Russia probably have better security setup than the House of Atreides; and their posse is more fitting for some aging Hollywood actor. Seriously, they just go move to the new planet, no planetary patrols, border guards, space legions, no nothing - really cavalier about the whole thing, all while fully expecting their rivals to attack. No wonder they got caught with their pants down basically.

This is something they fail to explain in the movie, but the reason that the doctor is so trusted is because he comes from a school of indoctrinated physicians thought to be psychologically incapable of harm.

> the gravitas house Atreides' arrival seemed to have, when they came to Arrakis

In the modern age we don't have much 'pomp and circumstance', but in an aristocratic society that generally tends to be more prevalent. It helps to show people's place in the hierarchy of things.

See for example the "Sir Jean" scene from The Last Duel (set in 1386):

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEoUgrOxHfc

That's too bad :-( That's a failing of the Lynch film too. You were supposed to have read the book.

I think it's also worth reflecting on how modern attention spans have shortened. Modern media has spoiled us with instant and constant gratification in our pockets. Dune, the book, was written in an era where it was still considered acceptable for media to demand something of its consumers, like attention, patience and so on - and the movie is a faithful adaptation of the book.

I honestly don't like too much these kinds of takes. People still read long, boring books, still concentrate and pay attention to certain media... Responding to criticism that something is boring, slow-paced or whatever with the equivalent of "the youngs these days" is not too productive.

I think there is an argument to be made that movies have generally gotten dumber and plots more obvious. So when a film comes along that expects you to do a bit more work, I think lots of people find it confusing. (for example, figuring out that the reason no one uses guns is that shields only block fast things -- the former is unexplained, but easily deduced from the latter, which is reinforced many times.)

I don't buy that this is an actual trend. If anything I think we're seeing more original plots than we used to. Even marvel plots are a hell of a lot more interesting than their equivalents in the 00s, 90s, and 80s. A lot of content is starting to get smarter, and more genre savvy, and indie content is thriving more than ever before.

You and I must be watching different marvel movies.

I would comment as follows.

Iron Man - sort novel for setting marvel tone but mostly banal action movie

Iron Man 2 - banal action movie

Thor - banal action movie

Captain America: The First Avenger - particularly banal action movie

Marvel's The Avengers - banal action movie

Iron Man 3 - banal action movie, sort of interesting to see protagonist suffering PTSD anxiety from being a superhero

Thor: The Dark World - banal action movie

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - first interesting take. Patriotism is not the same as government obedience. Real fight choreography approaching a soft john wick.

Guardians of the Galaxy - Early rock and roll aesthetic pretty interesting

Avengers: Age of Ultron - banal action movie, perhaps mcu lowpoint

Ant-Man - superhero heist movie, literally deconstructs larger than life superhero tropes. I think thumbs up

Captain America: Civil War - by this point doing the mcu's own thing, which is novel, but probably not interesting outside

Doctor Strange - banal action movie

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - aesthetic still feels mostly fresh.

Spider-Man: Homecoming - super down to earth high school drama, frustrated working class villains suffering the fallout of superheroes, seems interesting to me

Thor: Ragnarok - great film, very genre savvy. Rare achievement to make godly strength brutes feel really engaging to watch. Taika Waititi is a genius.

Black Panther - pretty good. interesting aesthetic. directly addressing racial tensions.

Avengers: Infinity War & Endgame - Mostly fan service and not too surprising but honestly still novel.

Ant-Man and the Wasp - Ehhh I really don't remember

Captain Marvel - Beginning had some great hard sci fi imo. Thought the ending message of newly apotheosizied female not needing to prove herself to her evil male mentor was a solid take, whereas a classic "mano a mano" kind of showdown would be so typical of the genre

Spider-Man: Far From Home - Villain emphasizing themes of the power of deceptive media? heck yeah.

Wandavision - Really bizarre and interesting start. Unfortunately non-self-aware conclusion

Falcon and Winter Soldier - Active discussions of race and the problematic nature of superheroes being supremacists? Very good.

Loki - kind of a super cliche topic (time cops) that is also somehow really rare? eh.

honorable mentions for Logan and Deadpool for being just great; and the Amazing Spiderman for its excellent aesthetics despite terrible writing.

Again, isn't this "the youths these day" argument again with no data to back it up? I mean, to put a quick example, Tenet requires a level of attention that other movies don't require.

Also, from the movie it's not so obvious that shields only block fast things. To me it looked like they work like a strong fabric held by a force field, but that can be penetrated if enough force is applied.

I'm pretty sure one of the characters explicitly says near the beginning of the film that it's fast vs. slow that makes a difference.

It's not about the youth these days, it's about Hollywood -- the fact that Hollywood movies are more commoditized and generally "samey" than previously is a pretty well-known development. It's an industry thing, not a culture thing (or, well, it may be driven by cultural changes, but I don't entirely believe that, and don't want to speculate anyway).

> not so obvious that shields only block fast

It's literaly said so by one of the character in the same scence shields are introduced: "the slow blade penetrates the shield"

I don't think it's a fair characterization. I think just about everyone can infer how shields work after watching this movie. I think the issue is you can watch the film as many times with as much attention as you want, and without extended context there will be a lot which goes over your head.

Can you give an example of something that goes over one's head?

> I think just about everyone can infer how shields work after watching this movie.

If you re-read my comment, my point is not that people can't infer how shields work (they actually don't need to infer it, because it's told to them explicitly in the first 10 minutes), but that they can't infer why swords are used instead of guns. That requires an inferential leap that the movie doesn't spoonfeed you.

I've had people IRL tell me they were confused by the swords, so no, it's not a given that people can infer that.

> my point is not that people can't infer how shields work (they actually don't need to infer it, because it's told to them explicitly in the first 10 minutes), but that they can't infer why swords are used instead of guns.

Isn't that utterly obvious from how the shields are supposed to work?

> That requires an inferential leap that the movie doesn't spoonfeed you.

What, "...and bullets move fast, so of course guns won't work" is a "leap"? Come on!

And here I thought I was pessimistic and cynical about the average IQ of the populace at large...

I hadn't read the books.

If you think about it for about 5 seconds, it makes sense swords are the only thing that are effective against shields and the explanation about fast vs slow is very clear.

The gun example is a bad one—that's not why they don't use guns. They don't use lasguns because they cause a nuclear explosion when fired against shields.

Oh, and since you are the only one mentioning it on this page, one of my pet peeve with the movie is: why so freaking many lasers? Two is two more than we should have seen, I think.

(the other pet peeve is that they don't draw blood every time we see a crysknife).

I didn't mention lasguns, just guns.

Why don't they just use the shields as nuclear weapons then?

Spoiler alert for Part 2!

Convention, just like why nukes haven't been used as weapons in over 70 years in the real world. If your enemy does it to you, you'll do it to them.

But also, isn't there an agreement that any house that uses nukes against human targets gets obliterated by the entire Landsraad ? Which might make a bit problematic the Fremens' use of nuke(s) in the Lynch-version assault on the emperor.

I think you're correct. It's been a while since I read the books and I deliberately didn't reread them before the movie to avoid the kind of frustrations that occur when you see an adaptation and are too-familiar with the books so a few of these details are escaping me at present.

The Fremen in Lynch's adaptation did what they did in the book. They won the war any way they could as they were the underdogs, without taking Arakeen they couldn't win it.

I'm not an expert on the world of dune or anything, but I guess I would have assumed that nukes on a relatively barren sand planet would be pretty ok.

Except that others will use it against you. Also, because this movie didn't convey it well, Spice is literally the thing that keeps the Empire and the economy going. Without it, there is no interstellar travel (thanks to a religious opposition to thinking machines). So maybe on an arbitrary barren sand planet you could try and get away with it, but this is not the one you want to test that on. It would be tantamount, at the time of the book's writing, to nuking the OPEC nations on Earth, you know, the places where (at the time) an incredibly large percentage of oil was being pulled out of the ground and keeping the global economy going.

I should probably just stop here and not expect to grok the geopolitics of this universe over a conversation like this but...

* Why is there so much conflict if there's an empire?

* Why doesn't one faction simply control the planet?

* These are just regular nukes right? Like on the scale of the atomic weapons we have now? I guess on the scale of intergalactic conflict those don't sound very important to me? Very different from the scale of a nuke on an OPEC state city.

Why is there conflict in any nation with an existing government? Because people have desires which conflict with the status quo. They want more power, more resources, better resources. In a galactic empire, do you want a planet or the best planet? Do you want the planet that makes you the most wealth or the planet that's just a bunch of rocks?

The Emperor, ostensibly, controls all the planets. The political system is based on fiefdoms in the book. He hands the administration of Arrakis to a particular noble based on his own political objectives and trust.

They are essentially nukes, yes. But melange (the spice) is only available from Arrakis (in the books it's discussed that they try and find ways to make it elsewhere, but without spoilers I can't so much more than that it doesn't work). If the OPEC nations were your only or principal source of oil in this world, and you nuked them, what immediate impact would you expect from that? A global economic shutdown, and almost certainly being ostracized (if not worse) from the international community. Setting off nukes and making it practically impossible to export melange from Arrakis would be similarly effective at collapsing the galactic empire and economy.

I'll try one last time before giving up :)

OPEC doesn't feel like the right analogy. OPEC is a foreign state. Arrakis seems to be, like all planets, owned by the galactic empire. It is by several orders of magnitude the most important planet. A better analogy would be if, say, Hawaii, contained the bulk of the world's energy resources. It is strange to me that the galactic empire doesn't rule this planet directly with extreme security measures. Why isn't the empire immediately taking charge directly when there's any sign of conflict on the most important place in the empire?

You're reading way too much into my analogy, but sure, go with your Hawaii version. It's an analogy, they are not exact, just, you know, analogies. To give you a sense of the idea.

Why not? You'd have to ask Frank Herbert for a definitive answer, but the next best is to read the books. There are many factions involved, the emperor is not actually in a position of absolute authority. The Great Houses, the Spacing Guild, Bene Geseret, Bene Tleilax and others also wield influence. There are checks and balances in place (by custom, by law, by force), and one of those is that the Emperor does not control Arrakis directly. It would put him in a position with too much power that the others (envious or desirous of semi-selfrule) would object to, probably violently. Arrakis is also a source of great wealth, and by giving it out to specific Houses, the Emperor is granting a favor (at least on the surface) and buying their allegiance.

At that point you might as well just nuke them

> She thought it was boring. It’s missing a lot of smaller context and seems dull without it.

Not just dull, but even confusing at times because it was too minimal at parts. The actual importance of spice and its qualities is only briefly touched upon, and I think the Bene Gesserit's political importance and their long-term planning and meddling was a little too underplayed. Those are pretty important elements driving the story.

Agreed - thus one can argue that the movie is aimed at people who have read the book. Without the background knowledge provided by the book, the film is in a limbo of much ado about nothing.

I hadn't read the books, and I was seriously underwhelmed. It looked decent, but that was about it. It was very slow, there was no way to empathize with any of the characters, as they were unlikable, and often disposed of after a short screen time, and the story was cheesy mysticism in a Game of Thrones sauce. Even the sandworms were not that impressive. On the plus side, I don't like Hans Zimmer's underscores, but I thought this soundtrack was almost completely excellent (except for the use of choir).

I got completely downvoted for my opinion on Seveneves. This one won't fare better, I'm afraid.

Music was the worst part of the movie for me.

A lot of things were so over the top that it felt distasteful. It didn't have that Avengers style light hearted, not-taking yourself too seriously and intentionally over the top vibe - it tried to take itself seriously and yet had a bunch of blockbuster cliche moments.

And the dramatic music braaping every time someone does anything stood out the most in this regard.

I liked how the music didn't succumb to "Mickey Mousing", where everything that happens on screen is accompanied by a change in the soundtrack, but instead was composed of (sometimes pretty) long lines that faded in and out. And no attempt to cover up lacking development with rhythmic distraction, either. It didn't result in memorable tunes, which is a pity.

Over the top, probably, but mainly because it had been mixed too loud. The sound editor could have done that more tastefully. Still not as bad as TENET, although that's a pretty low bar.

How much our tastes can differ!

The sound levels were absolutely bonkers, I had volume at 20/40 for some parts and 40/40 for others. I watched most of the movie with subtitles on because I didn't want to wakeup the neighbors. I wish Android TV had the ability for loudness equalization. Does VLC or Plex have this feature? I think I checked once before and didn't find it.

I've noticed this in a lot of recent movies. Total abuse of dynamic range. The loud parts are ear splitting and then when you get to dialog, it just can't be heard at all. My ears can't hear anything quiet, but don't mind the loud parts. On the other hand, my wife loses her shit when it gets too loud and the dog goes crazy. You can't win. I sit there on the sofa with my finger constantly manipulating the volume control.

And before anyone asks, yes, I have a dedicated center channel, and I keep the receiver outputs pretty well calibrated. This seems to be a deliberate choice during the movies' production.

I think maybe they do this to deter home watching/encourage cinema-going.

> The sound editor could have done that more tastefully.

An interview with Mark Mangini, the sound designer, with someone whose sound was used in Dune (for the desert mouse, muad'dib):

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtfzjehDg74

> It didn't have that Avengers style light hearted, not-taking yourself too seriously and intentionally over the top vibe

And I couldn't have asked for more. This movie was like a small island of refuge from the desolation of cultural genocide Marvel has caused over the past decade

Jeebus. I HATE the soundtrack. I can't stand Zimmer anymore. He keeps doing the same old textured two notes synth effects, loud booming brass basses and metallic clanking percussion noises since Inception or whatever, that fit perfectly trailers but but gets the more tiring the longer the movie. Each new film has an even more repetitive and loud soundtrack than the last one, pretending to be dramatic, but hint: drama is born from changes of emotions and atmosphere, not constant loud drones. Plus these insufferable pretentious noises never stop; in opposition to the mystical, meditative nature of the story, clearly calling for moments of contemplative silence, there's a constant background of "braooowww" "oooohh" and "clang clang". Ick. The movie was pretty good, but the "music" really degraded the experience for me.

Wouldn't it rather be that Game of Thrones is in a Dune sauce?

Off-topic but thanks for the tip on Seveneves! Never heard of the book before, but looking it up seems like my cup of tea :)

> the story was cheesy mysticism in a Game of Thrones sauce

I've not seen the new movie yet, but the biggest problem I have with Lynch's movie is that it treats the mysticism as serious/plausible; yet a key part of Dune is that its religions are social engineering tools, managed and spread by the Bene Gesserit over thousands of years. In particular:

- Their "Missionaria Protectiva" programme spread the meme that Bene Gesserit members are supernatural witch/sorceress-like figures, who should be revered and assisted.

- The "Kwisatz Haderach" is the end-goal of their breeding programme: a male who can survive the Bene Gesserit training. As part of this 10,000 year plan, a religious meme was propagated that a messiah would appear in 10,000 years time. Hence when Paul appeared 10,000 years later (one generation early, since Jessica was meant to have a daughter), he could cash-in on the religious capital the Bene Gesserit had built up, and use it for his own ends. Note that others came close, including Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen and Hasimir Fenring (plus others who are mentioned in later books).

Yet Lynch portrayed Paul as a messiah to the audience, showing the audience a world of "cheesy mysticism" rather than letting them in on the scheme. (The miniseries did a better job of showing Paul's helplessness, despite his prescience; and his guilt for the inevitable genocide that will occur in his name)

I liked the underscores but I wish they were more under, you know? I don’t have hearing problems (that I know of) but I struggled to understand what was being said much of the time. It seriously detracted from what could have been a good, slow science fiction film.

I agree, I went by myself and left wondering how some one that didn't read the book would feel. Underwhelmed with the plot? Confused?

But from my perspective the movie was a fantastic sensorial companion to the books. I felt it nailed everything (or maybe I was justed primed to accept this). Everyone must watch this in one of those simulator-4D screening rooms with vibrating chairs.

I left unsure about the portrayal of Jessica and Gurney though. I found Jessica from the movie overly unsure and emotional to what I imagined. And Gurney too stiff.

> I found Jessica from the movie overly unsure and emotional

That’s how I felt until she was slitting throats in the back of a thopter without a second thought lol

She was like a mix of Wendy from the Shining and Ripley from Alien.

I didn't read the book and really enjoyed the movie. Afterwards I didn't felt like there was a lot that happened in the movie, but that was not important. What I really enjoyed was the epic yet reduced aesthetics and the feel that this a bigger introduction to a hole new universe that could hold a lot of great stories. I'm thrilled for the following movies, but I don't really want to wait that long. So what I will be doing is start reading the books.

I haven't read the books and went with a poker buddy to see it. After the movie I explained my experience to him like having been dealt 94o for two and a half hour straight, frustratingly waiting for something to manifest.

I didn't read the book, didn't have any idea of the plot or anything. At about 1h into the movie (just before the invasion happens) I remember I thought "man this movie is pretty slow". Then the invasion happened (and it felt pretty rushed for such an apparently important moment) and then... it went back to being slow. The last half hour became unbearable knowing that nothing was going to happen and no plot lines were going to be resolved because it was part 1 of 2. Watching 30 minutes of a movie where almost nothing happens when you know there's not going to be a payoff doesn't feel nice.

I watched it with folks new to Dune and they were dazzled by the art. It’s an engrossing film to watch on the big screen and I loved the feeling of being dumped into this fictional world. It is a direct contrast to the modern humanity instilled into all of the Marvel or similar films that use our society as a cultural backdrop for fictional future or alien worlds.

In that vein, it is similar to the book. The book doesn’t provide immediate context. The reader collects the puzzle pieces over hundreds of pages.

Totally agree. I watched it with my family and my mom was confused at times. I had to stop and explain things like the Mentats and the real power of the Spacing Guild. I don’t think they make clear in the movie just how important this spice thing is. She also thought the Baron was the Emporer for most of the movie. I don’t know why the emperor and Irulan don’t make an appearance.

After the movie was over she said she liked it but she wasn’t sure if she could follow without my help.

The emperor and Irulan only make a personal appearance at the end of the book, don't they? During events the movie presumably doesn't cover at all?

They only make an appearance then, but throughout the book Irulan's commentary is interweaved between chapters. It feels like that could have been a useful path for a bit of exposition on the things that aren't explicitly covered in the plot.

I just thought exposition wise it might have been good. They talk about this Emperor a lot and he just never appears on screen.

I feel like the 80s movie does this far better. For all its flaws. It makes an effort to show the emperor and the spacing guild and impress upon the viewer how involved and how powerful (or in the case of the spacing guild, how alien) they are.

Might be interesting to see how they respond to the old movie by comparison.

Yeah, the best version of Dune is somewhere between Villeneuve's version and Lynch's version.

Villeneuve left out too much and Lynch compromised too much.

I didn’t read the book and I thought the movie was hard to follow but certainly not boring. I rewatched it (which I usually never do), and thoroughly enjoyed it the second time around.

I had tried to get into Dune many years ago, but found it hard to keep track of all that was going on. I wish I had pushed through, because I'm now enthralled by the Dune universe. I can say that the movie helped lay a foundation for me that has made the book far more enjoyable - to the point where I'm almost finished with the audiobook after only starting it last week!

One thing that helped me with Dune is using the glossary at the back of the book. It's a bit odd and some might say due to bad writing, but he will just start using a word without ever letting you know what it means. The only way to know is from the glossary. Also, don't be afraid to consult a dictionary in some cases. I remember the word "qanat" appears a lot in some of the later books and I just ploughed through without even know what it was. Just look things up and you'll get more out of it.

> some might say due to bad writing

My favorite part of "A Clockwork Orange" (book) was that very thing: the narrator just talking naturally and leaving the reader to figure out the slang (Nadsat).

There too was a glossary in the back of the book but I soon dispensed with it and found I could get the gist of the slang well enough to just roll with it.

This. You get the hang of the Clockwork Orange slang after a few pages, because the author is so slick with it.

If you read foreign literature, every single novel is like that anyway. Except that there is no convenient glossary at the back explaining the unfamiliar words.

> some might say due to bad writing

Anybody can come up with a new language that happily condenses the concepts you need to have in your new world, but forcing the reader to read an encyclopedia to decipher it is just lazy. You are meant to weave the explanations in your narrative, so the reader picks them up seamlessly.

It's a bit like building a UI that is unusable without reading a boring manual.

There's plenty of exposition in Dune. I never used the glossary once. People familiar with fantasy and SciFi have no problems absorbing weird names and such at face value with the idea that context will be added as exposition continues. Looking up each term you don't know in the glossary is actually the wrong way to read these types of books. Youll be presented with information that you shouldn't know yet.

> You are meant to

There are no rules except "be good". I've thoroughly enjoyed Dune every time I've read it and it had quite a profound effect on me as a youngster. There are countless thousands just like me and you can't argue with that really.

> It's a bit like building a UI that is unusable without reading a boring manual.

Well, I think the purpose of a UI is slightly different to that of a novel. One exists to be useful while other exists to be enjoyable. If it's useful it's useful. Doesn't matter if it requires a manual or not.

McDonald's is also enjoyable and enjoyed by millions, it's still not "good food"; as I always say, that sort of reasoning leads to us eating shit because billions of flies cannot be wrong (cit).

The best part of Dune is clearly the worldbuilding rather than the prose. Yes it can be used, and the software is great when you get to know how it works, but there is a learning curve that similar software does not have.

Your reasoning contains the same assumptions, just in the other direction. You seem to be saying that if masses of people enjoy something it must be “bad” on some level.

Nope, not said that anywhere above; just that popularity is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of literary quality.

> I always say, that sort of reasoning leads to us eating shit because billions of flies cannot be wrong (cit).

You didn't make the distinction "is not necessarily" in your first comment. That changes the connotation.

I don't buy this at all. I never read the book and found the movie easy to follow.

I certainly buy that some people were confused, but I don't agree that means the movie was poorly made. Some things are just not for certain people. It's a work of art as much as a product — it should not be designed-by-committee to achieve maximum popularity.

I watched it last night. It was a bit of a letdown for me. After 2.5 hours, the movie ended and I know I might be in the minority but I feel like the movie was ending at a beginning, it could have been longer.

I suppose the cheap cliffhanger ending is meant to sell tickets to the sequels. But it felt even cheaper than Star Wars in terms of summation and closure. I felt like after that much investment of time, the ending could have been a little bit more resolved rather than "New Beginning!" vibes. The movie isn't really notable in my mind without seeing the sequels. I surmise that once sequels come out, watching them back to back, will be a satisfying experience. But this movie, in isolation, is a bit too void of what a movie ought to contain.

This wasn’t a cliffhanger ending, it really wasn’t. There were so many points where the movie could have ended on a cliffhanger and it didn’t, instead it ended on a propre “pause”: things aren’t over but they’re also not left hanging.

I was really afraid of it ending like the golden compass movie’s cliffhanger which left me with such an awful taste in my mouth and then didn’t get a sequel…

I suppose it wasn't a cliffhanger, but it just felt a bit like the start of a movie rather than the end. Star Wars has done that a bit, but I felt like Dune did it in more of a suave, almost perfect way, which kind of made me sad there wasn't another 2 and a half hours to watch. I suppose I'll wait for the sequel.

Reflecting back on the movie, I really like the aspect of surviving in a desert, and flowing, becoming one with the Dao, the energy of the universe. It was really well done, and even if that's the only thing the movie provided, that is a sage adage that I will hold in my heart for years to come.

My wife, who usually hates Sci-Fi, had the opposite reaction - I thought they did a great job keeping the feeling while streamlining things - disappointed by the lack of politics but think it was the right decision. It somehow felt like a rich world despite not getting into the details.

The glaring omission, especially given our current zeitgeist, was the subversion of sci fi tropes, the questionable "white saviour" elements, the environmental concerns and treatment of the native people, but those come up more in the second part of the book anyway, so I'm holding on to hope that will be explored more in the second movie

I felt it had the opposite problem of the Hobbit trilogy. Too much cramped into 2 movies and left out too much context and supporting details that would make the world more interesting and understandable to viewers. I think it would have been better as a 10 episode series or movie trilogy instead of 2 movies.

I'm really not sure who they made the movie for. There's not really enough exposition to explain why anything is happening if you did not read the books, yet it feels very repetitive if you are a book fiend.

The best explanation of watching the movie I've seen is a friend who felt they were reciting a litany as they watched each scene. "And now Gurney trains Paul in shield-fighting" "and now the Gom Jabbar" "and now the Shadout Mapes presents the Crysknife" "Now the Duke rescues the workers from the sandcrawler" "Now Paul and his mother face the worm", etc. I'll give the movie this, it hit pretty much all the episodes that one would expect.

I haven't read the book. I thought the plot was easy to follow and exciting enough. I don't know what really needed a more thorough explanation. I mean, the Butlerian Jihad certainly sounds interesting, but now that I know about it, my opinion or understanding of the plot hasn't really changed.

In general I'm not a fan of the type of movie where everyone knows there's going to be a sequel so the emotional climax of the movie is closer to the middle and there's not too much suspense towards the end. So, overall, I just thought the ending was pretty dull.

The movie could have certainly done with a video game-esque five minute opening monologue explaining everything. I had to brief family members on the overall setting and basic plot because the movie assumes a lot of knowledge, I felt (particularly around who the Bene Gesserit are).

FWIW, I have never read the book, but had seen the Lynch movie and was obsessed with the video game which doesn't really cover a lot of the plot either, but I think does a good job of setting.

Also true of Also true of Lynch's version. Also true of Jodorowsky's abortive attempt.

Is it that Dune books seem slow-moving? Is it the concepts being difficult to visualize?

Also, are Dune and Don Quixote both cursed to never quite make satisfying films?

Agreed - I think the film did a great job of touching on stuff, without wasting time with exposition of it. Been enjoying the various in-depth reviews (and the linked story) which colour in the film's sketch a bit more.

What it lacked was subtle details, and pacing.

Watch The Godfather or an episode of The Simpsons, both examples of fitting in an enormous amount of detail without being rushed.

There was a lot of detail missing that could have been there.

The Godfather re-cut to be in chronological order was even better. I believe it was on HBO.

My son read the book and we went to see the movie. He liked it a lot but I was definitely thinking that it would be tough for anyone else.

Your partner thought Hans Zimmer, indisputably maker of the epic sound that made inception great, was boring?

Let's pause here...

I feel like it was pretty obvious what was going on, and I didn't read the book

i thought they were trying to stage a kind of 'star wars' set in the desert. They are probably planning for several sequels, that's why they had to stretch it a bit.... (at least the worms were fun)

They've not really stretched it at all, Dune is a long dense book, and to try and do it justice in a single film would result in a confused mess. Just look at the David Lynch version, which even as a huge fan of the book I can't even begin to follow.

> David Lynch version, which even as a huge fan of the book I can't even begin to follow.

What Lynch did very well was the feeling of 'old and decadent' for the society everyone lived in.

Star wars was inspired by dune

Reply on news.ycombinator.com