I just finished part 1 and, well, I’m kinda disappointed. It’s not bad, I think it’s actually pretty solid, but compared to the book it’s much worse in terms of story progression and characters. Some parts felt really rushed. I didn’t expect it to be better than the book, but I still expected better adaptation considering that (at least as far as I know) it was well received and I knew that it didn’t adapt whole book so I expected it to don’t skip too much. Is part 2 any better?

  • magiccupcake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m a bit surprised at a lot of the criticisms for the movies here, and I say this as a huge fan of the Dune novels too.

    Villeneuve has a particular film style like blade runner 2049, and Arrival.

    If you don’t like his style you won’t like the 2nd movie.

    But on the other hand part 1 sets the stage for everything that happens in part 2, and overall I think it is an excellent adaption. Dune is not an easy book to adapt to film, and some changes had to be made, but they’re aren’t any glaring changes that make me go “why the hell did you change it that way?”

    It’s extremely faithful to the book, and in cases where it’s not, I can see the reasoning for the change.

    • roofuskit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Honestly Chani is so much better in the movies. Her character makes zero sense in the first book. She’s a strong capable warrior but just follows Paul around like a puppy and accepts his every decision as if she has no choice or will of her own.

      • magiccupcake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Honestly given how Frank Herbert wrote other female characters in the books, I interpreted chani as a satirization of settler/colonizer wife.

        It’s rather subtle, and would not likely come across well with a movie audience.

  • ShadowZone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 months ago

    As an avid Dune books reader (all of them), I think Villeneuve did the best adaptation possible. As a character, Chani is much more fleshed out in the films and Rebecca Ferguson CRUSHED it as Jessica. Oscar Isaac also was a very good Leto.

    My big gripe is with Stilgar and Paul. Stilgar in the second movie was almost relegated to comic relief. Yes, he is also portrayed as a believer in the books, but it felt like a caricature in Dune Part 2.

    As for Paul, I had hoped for more focus on why he actually went to drink the water of life. In the books he wanted to avoid it. But events he couldn’t foresee and put people he loved in danger pushed him over the edge. In the film I didn’t get any of that.

    Still, loved both parts. Definitely worth a watch.

    • frigidaphelion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      I agree first and foremost. I personally strongly disliked Chani’s representation in the films, however. Especially the second film. Part of it was the writing, part of it was the acting. I think Zendaya is a good actor, but I don’t think she was a good fit for the role. I feel the same way about Bardem in his role as Stilgar, but to a lesser degree.

      • jacksilver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I agree with you about Chanis character. It felt like they butchered her character and motivations to make her more palatable to modern audiences.

  • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s impossible to adapt, see all previous adaptations. I think you’ve pretty accurately summed up the shortcomings of the medium for that story. Watch the movie to marvel at the setting brought to life with a nice soundscape, ideally see it on a big screen. If you read the book you’ll have some attachment to the characters and universe anyway so pacing and skipped detail shouldn’t be too much of a problem for you. Just don’t expect it to be perfect. IMO the second part is a bit stronger, maybe because the scope is tighter.

  • Cad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    The second is watchable but is worse as an adaption.

    The events in the first book are concluded in it. It’s not a trilogy adaption of Dune the book. Many of the characters have their actions and motivations swapped onto other characters. The ending changes some significant points. Feels like the third movie might end up being a freestyle attempt to start a “Dune Universe” IP rather than caring about the source material.

    It’s kind of a mess but still fun in some bits. Not sure if I’ll bother to watch the third when it comes out.

  • Xbeam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    Since you are a fan of the books and you have already seen the first one, you should watch it, even you were disappointed with part one. You may find you like or you might be just as disappointed. Either way, it’s about a 3 hour commitment. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it again. If you do, you’ve found a movie you enjoy.

    • fpslem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      100% agree with this. Dune 1 sets up the world, Dune 2 gets to tell more of a story.

  • B0NK3RS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I say it’s worth a watch. Also when it comes to movies/tv and books it’s best not to compare them too much and just take them for what they are individually.

  • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    If you didn’t care for the first movie I don’t think the second will solve any of your complaints. I say this as someone who really liked both movies. I have criticisms, and I don’t think they’re close to being Villeneuve’s best work, but the worst Villeneuve movie is still better than most directors on their best day. But two is very definitely more of one, and if anything it amplifies the first movie’s flaws rather than diminishing them, so it’s very unlikely to address anything you didn’t like. That said, I will throw it out there that it may be worth watching anyway just to experience Austin Butler’s incredible take on Feyd Rautha, which is easily the best thing about the movie.

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    It is, even just for the spectacle alone. It’s impossible to adapt everything in the book to a 2 or 3 movie series, so there will always be changes and things that will be left out when translated to the big screen. Having said that, Villenueve was the best person for the job and he delivered what he intended: a film that reflects the spirit of the book as much as possible while at the same time making it mainstream enough for general audiences to appreciate.

    If you’re just going by sticking to the source material as your barometer, then the SyFy series is the “best”.

    The pacing was better in part 2, too fast even IMO; since they crammed all the events into less than 9 months since Alia wasn’t born in this version.

    • EarMaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I can imagine the sandworm ride was a blast on the big screen and with the big speakers. I haven’t felt so much being blown into my seat since Fury Road…

    • jdeath@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      i took my kids to see it in IMAX and they came out calling it the best sci fi movie of all time haha. it was a ton of fun

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think any story that has so much inner dialogue, thinking, tripping, and goes on for 6 volumes is impossible to communicate in the medium of film, but I loved these movies just because they were visually stunning, and the story kept my interest. I don’t think you will feel like your time was wasted, just accept the film is its own thing, and be entertained.

  • Scratch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think if you dislike the first movie you will also dislike the second.

    I, personally, really liked both (outside of some pacing, as you say and some character changes).

  • Nadru@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The 2nd movie is very rushed story wise but was better than the first. I hate the choice of Timothee and I hate some unnecessary stroy decisions they took but it’s hollywood.

    The mini series from 2000 did a better job, apart from some Harkonnen costume choices.

    • fpslem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      apart from some Harkonnen costume choices.

      Oh, man, I forgot about those. 😄 The miniseries is good, though.

  • MimicJar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ve not read the books and after watching part 1 I was left confused why everyone loved them. I didn’t dislike the film, it was just fine, but it didn’t get me excited for part 2. Sure I’d watch it, but if it were delayed or cancelled I wouldn’t have minded.

    For me part 2 is everything I wanted in a film. I would nearly go so far to tell someone unsure about the films to skip part 1 and just watch part 2. In reality I think doing that would be a bad idea, but part 2 is better than part 1 in nearly every way.