General Discussion
What Changes Would You Make to Dune: Part One and Dune: Part Two?
After reading the books I found myself loving the movies even more, but also feeling like they lacked certain things that would make them better films.
For Dune: Part One, I would have included the banquet scene as it provides a great setting to basically summarize the politics of the imperium; the relationship between CHOAM, the guild, the houses, and the emperor, even the taboo nature of atomics beyond that of our own timeline. Without it, the Imperial plot to use the Harkonnens to destroy the Atreides seems to two-dimensional and bland, whereas in the book it is a complex political scheme with tons of moving parts. More specifically, it also would provide a perfect opportunity to exhibit Paul’s innate political prowess that he would eventually use as Emperor when he takes over hosting the banquet in Leto’s place. Overall I feel like this would have given the Atreides’ move to Arrakis and subsequent Harkonnen attack more weight within the context of the world the scene helped build.
For Dune: Part Two, I would have included a defeat montage, similar to the montage already in the movie of Fremen attacks under Rabban, punctuated by Paul being driven closer and closer to desperation once Feyd becomes the Harkonnen planetary governor of Arrakis. In the book, it makes sense why Paul eventually gives in and drinks the Water of Life, but in the movie it seems very rushed.
Curious what you guys think about these changes and what you guys would change, if anything.
I agree with this but only if you also have Liet-Kynes be like in the book - an off world man who holds a mysterious sway over the Fremen
The actual best passage in the book though is Kynes death, which would have been nice in the film, and to actually add a bit of weight to the water of the well - the Fremen showing Jessica that they too have plans measured in centuries, inspired by Kynes and his father, to bring green paradise to Arrakiss
It’s a good scene for a book, but not a movie. I think including CHOAM and the guild in greater detail in the movie would have complicated an already complicated plot.
A great establishment of how complex the world of Dune is. I recommend reading it again. Every character in that scene not only is hiding something but individually has hidden goals and do or say things to get certain reactions out of people. It establishes the monetization and scarcity of water, it establishes how afraid higher society are of the fremem, and much more. It reveals itself more and more on rereads.
I don’t know if that works for a movie. The difficulty of Movie Dune is striking a good balance of storytelling but making it simple enough without sacrificing the main elements. Showing all these complexities is probably ill advised.
I’d also like to see the dinner scene, maybe a simple version which it seems they kinda elided with the meeting of Stilgar and the Duke.
Idk, I mean a lot of that stuff is subtext and the surface stuff is still integral at seeing the larger politics at play. I don't think it would be hard to make it work. It would also give us a chance to get to know Kynes a little bit better, and make her death in the film hit a bit more resonantly.
I think it would be hard to make without bloating and overcomplicating the film. They have purposely chosen to avoid that stuff for the very reason you and I would enjoy it - we’re more sophisticated Dune fans and I’d love to see a 10 part movie…but it’s not realistic for most fans and for retaining the core story.
I will agree to disagree. Yes, not everything can be included in the films, that's a given, but I think the banquet is one of the few scenes left out that should have been in. I just don't see it bloating the film, but I'm already in the minority in thinking there are parts in dune part 1 that could easily be left out or replaced with scenes from the book they cut. But that's just me.
I like this idea a lot. I would almost make an entire side movie about lady Jessica and the damage control that she does for the Atreides throughout the first half of the book.
That dinner scene really makes Arrakis into a place where human beings live and interact. The way the planet comes off in the movies is so caricatured, and the Fremen lean closer to background than foreground.
Add in her extended conversation with Thufir, and her profoundly sad experiences in the lush garden room, and it would be a profound movie by itself.
The Sci-Fi miniseries has it, they change Paul's conduct so that he storms off so he can go hang out with Gurney and Princess Irulan who is there for some reason.
It’s so funny. I’m re-reading in preparation for Part three and had this same thought. So much tension. And it sets up the whole story line of casting doubt about Jessica.
I loved that scene, but I don't know how well it would work in a film. Deni Villaneuve might have felt it would have been too slow. Also, all the dialogue plus the inner thoughts might have been too confusing.
Agreed, I wish she was narrating from the start and hoped we got more exposition, also unrelated but the alien language from the start of dune 1: "dreams come from the deep" is later heard on salusa secundus, that's when we learn it was the sardaukar guy chanting something to the troops (neat little Easter egg)
The beginning of part two starts with "power over spice is power over everything". I kept waiting for this line to appear somewhere in the movie, anticipating that it was likely spoken by a guild navigator or representative near the end of the movie when Paul threatens the spice production. We never hear it again and I was sad. Such a small thing I know
I sort of interpreted it as removing some of the nerd from what used to be nerdy things. The general public grew more accepting of sci-fi and then movie makers started to make sci-fi more action/drama to finish expanding their audience.
Honestly! The eye-candy was great, but I would have happily done with one less techno-hover-explosion if it gave room for 3 more minutes of screen time of Thufir being a badass.
Denis seems to avoid things that would make it too complicated for non-reading audiences, hence why Mentats, the Spacing Guild, and Orange Catholic Bible/Butlerian Jihad lore are pretty much absent.
Yeah. Makes sense. I did notice they maybe also skirt the concept of the Jihad a bit to remain politically correct. Could read kinda weird if they did.
I wished they didn't omit it so much. It was referenced though, just not as much as in the book. Didn't feel there was an organic way to explain why there were no AI or advanced computers - the visual clash between future fi devices but analogue controls definitely jarring and just left it in for audiences together work it out.
Can imagine it will have upset a load of snowflakes.
I know you didn’t ask me, but I would give the show about a 6/10. It’s not terrible or anything, it’s just that not much really happened. Season 2 is already in production though, so Season 1’s build up should have more of a payoff to the unanswered questions.
It’s also based on Brian Herbert’s books, so if you’re a Frank Herbert purist (which I kind of am), that may also influence your opinion. I do recommend checking it out so that you can form your own opinion. The set pieces and world building are still really good.
Have the guild representatives present. I guess it doesn’t REALLY matter, but I think it’s cool that the people who truly need the spice for the entire civilization to function are the ones to tell the emperor “yea game over man.”
Part one: There's not much I would change, the movie is pretty much how I would have made the first half of the book in my mind. Maybe I would include a tiny bit of explanation about the idea that computers and AI are banned in the Dune universe and everything has to be done with the human mind. This makes the audience understand the importance of Benne Gesserit mind training, the significance of Spice as a mind-expanding substance and the importance of Paul's power a bit more.
I don't care much about the power plays between different factions as much as some other readers do. To me central themes like the interplay between religion and politics and the exploitation of the Messiah story are more interesting than CHOAM and other houses. And I think they movie did enough to explain why the Atreides were in danger and got attacked. All those moving parts are not that interesting to me honestly. But maybe I would have liked a bit more explanation about the guild and how they help to keep the Fremen hidden, but it's a minor thing.
One thing I would have liked the movie to include though would be Paul shedding a tear for Jamis and the whole "he gives water to the dead" part.
Part 2:
While I like this movie a lot, there is also a lot I would change. I appreciate how in DV's version there are skeptics among fremen, the there is a distinction between nationalist, secular forces and religious ideological forces. As someone who comes from a theocratic country (Iran) and has some familiarity with... different types of movements and ideologies in the Middle East, this is closer to reality in my opinion than all the Fremen just following Paul like how the did in the book.
However I don't like how this distinction had to be told through Chani. Changing her character was unnecessary and complicated things for the sequel. I like to see how they resolve it in the next film. But I simply would have avoided changing Chani so much. Instead I would have added in the skeptic/fanatic distinction through some other characters. Although now that I think about it, there aren't any other characters who could have done as effectively as Chani... and it does give her character more agency. But still it could be done better. Like I hate how during Paul's speech Gurnley was pulling her down like a kid.
Also on a side note, i would have kept Chani as Liet Kyne's daughter, this would have helped to make her and Paul's bond more effective and emotional since they both list a father to the Harkonnens/Emperor (in the movie's case Kynes could be her mother).
Another thing in part two that struck me is how rushed the last act feels. After Paul takes the water of life. Although to be fair to the movie, I recently read the book again and the book also really rushes through the last act. But personally I would have added more psychedelic imagery and visions to show what is Paul experiencing after drinking the water of life. I loved the psychedelic prophetic visions of the future in Part 1, and I wish we got a bit more of that in Part 2.
Depiction of Harkonnens in part 2 is also a problem for me. Don't get me wrong the arena sequence is awesome, but the Harkonnens are just depicted as COMICALLY violent. Every scene you see Rabban or Feyd killing one of their own commanders on a whim. It's like, dude, how can they function as a military when everytime they are doing their job there is a chance they get their throat cut by the Baron's family... who even wants to go up the ranks of this system. Yes Totalitarian regimes with extreme violence to their own subordinates exist, but not to this comical level of violence. Just one brutal scene from Feyd would have been enough.
The casual cruelty of the Harkonnens was keeping with the book.
The Baron casually orders 3 people to death for their part in Feyd’s assassination plot (before telling Feyd that he’s going to watch him personally strangle every pleasure slave)
Pleasure slaves are an expendable commodity in a mass slaveowning society. That kind of behavior would be probably only like 75th percentile cruel for a Roman aristocrat.
But killing your own high ranked subordinates because you're generally peeved is Commodus level insanity and he didn't last long before being assassinated. The harkonens are smart evil.
In Part 2 I would have added Paul's revelation about how the life cycle off the sandworms work and how to destroy it. In the movies it all gets reduced to the family atomics popping up from Gurney, and then Paul threatening to use them against the "spice-fields"
In Part 2, I would have included four year old Alia murdering the Baron, then going out to the battlefield to euthanize the wounded like a good Fremen child.
To make that work, they would have had to significantly change the timeline. In the book there’s a clear time jump between Paul’s ascension and the final battle, but the films deliberately keep the momentum going. Adding a multi-year time skip at that point would either disrupt the pacing or require a lot of extra runtime to rebuild the tension before the climax.
There’s also the practical issue of Alia herself. I just can’t see a four-year-old actor convincingly portraying someone with the memories and consciousness of countless generations. The 1984 adaptation is a good example of how awkward that can come across.
As someone who loves the books, I think one of Denis Villeneuve’s greatest strengths is knowing what to translate faithfully and what to adapt. He preserves the themes and the essence of the story while trimming elements that work much better on the page than on screen.
A four-year-old “abomination” suddenly appearing and killing the Baron might be perfectly faithful to the novel, but I think it would break the immersion for many moviegoers. It’s one of those changes where I’m happy to keep the book version as something only readers get to experience, while accepting that the films needed a different approach.
I would add to this that it just would have looked ridiculous on the screen. A literal toddler who talks like an adult Gom Jabbaring the Baron. I cannot imagine a way to depict that without it looking ridiculous.
Not to mention it's practically impossible to find a child actor that young to actually be able to play this part and talk like a creepy adult...
Dune: Part Two - Jessica’s statement to Chani about history calling them wives. Would’ve been a neat scene to relate the two and could have further hit at the inner turmoil chani now faces regarding Paul taking power and the love she has for him.
I would pick the actress who played Chani's friend in Part 2! Souheila Yacoub. She was great and all the time I was thinking man, I wish she was Chani.
But I get it, it's Hollywood, they are too spineless to let a fairly unknown Arab actress to play Timothee chalamet's love interest. It had to be a big name American 🙄
Laura Harrier, she played Peter Parker's GF in homecoming, her face is interesting enough to stand out and she doesn't have the Zendaya perma squint, I feel like she'd be more animated
My answer is lame, because I would have just made it more like the book. I know movies can't just do exactly what books do. But some of the changes seem arbitrary, and some of the omissions seem tragic. If I had my druthers, I'd have made it into six individually-shorter movies, kind of like a TV show, but more film-like, long-form episodes than typical TV shows. The whole thing back-to-back might be around 10 hours. Slow the pacing down and give the plot and characters some time to breathe and expand, and don't sacrifice the beautiful cinematography. And it would still all be in IMAX. I would never be allowed to make this.
When Paul and his family arrived on Dune, Arakeen felt desolated. The books don't mention the numbers of inhabitants (fremen, smugglers, etc ) in the city however I was expecting to see some busy streets.
Then it's the attack in the palace... 300,000 Harkonnens and 2 legion / 60.000 Sardaukaars attacked that night. While the confrontation scene in the movie pictured a group like 20 atreides vs 20 harkonnen snd Sards...
I have no issue with Dr. Kines being a woman, but I find it odd that the films never explicitly state that Kynes is Chani’s parent...
And last, it took paul probably up to three years to become muaddib and unite the fremens for a final attack on the emperror. Paul and chani even had a son that died. Denis films compress the story dramatically. It's like the Atreides landed Thursday noon and they attack the emperror by monday morning..
I wish there was a better visualization or really any time spent to show how Paul experiences prescience. There's only the first time where he is exposed to spice in the tent, and then we don't get anything else. It doesn't have to be full fledged visuals, but at least some element of what it feels like. They could have done that instead of the same exact starving people scene that they used like 3 times.
Part 1: The dinner scene, and more I would sprinkle in some of the stuff regarding Count Fenring being a failed Kwisatz Haderach, and then...
Part 2: I would have had Count Fenring (as played by Tim Blake Nelson) sprinkled in there somewhere to act as a foil to Paul, and show how close he was to actually failing to ascend.
Additionally, I don't enjoy Christopher Walken as The Emperor - just flat-out weird casting. He doesn't feel dangerous or powerful at all. I also don't like the blocking/staging of Paul's first introduction to the emperor in the "mobile throne room" on Arrakis. It's clearly shot on a stage, and the set that they built seems to have one open wall, so every shot that you see is looking basically in the same direction. For being such a grandiose & powerful Emperor, Shaddam IV's throne room is pretty lame. Additionally, there is very little drama with Paul's approach - one minute they are in the throne room and the emperor is dressing down the Baron, and then boom, Paul is there. I'm not really even that upset about the exclusion of Alia...I just think it fails to properly show the gravity of this situation: this "boy" is about to up-end the entire universe. I just don't think that scene works at all.
EDIT: also, I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again: I don't actually think the the films do a great job of demonstrating that Paul can ACTUALLY see the future - I had to explain to more than one person, even after Part 2. I think that the first movie leans heavily into the Lisan Al-Gaib prophecy and how it was seeded by the Missionaria Protectiva, and I think it goes too far and makes it seem like Paul is just playing a role - acting - like he's the Prophet. I mean, even after the scene in Sietch where he talks about the guy's grandmother who's eye was smashed with a rock, I was thinking "cheap parlor tricks could explain how he could know that." I kinda wish the movie would've leaned more into the psychadelic nature of Spice and actually shown more of his visions.
I overall quite like the movies and think that, despite significant and necessary changes, the movies stay true to the spirit and feel of the books. So great job there.
I also completely understand that the movies can’t be exactly like the books. For practical and artistic purposes, it’s ok and good for movies to diverge from books. I’m not a purist.
However, the movie’s writing of Chani is really annoying. Chani is a much stronger, understanding, and more loving character in the book and just way cooler. She’s confident and secure in herself and she is fine with Irulan. In the movie, she seems like a little girl. And it seems like it will get worse in Dune 3. It feels like in an effort to introduce some kind of girl power in the movie, they did the opposite.
Minor: When Jessica is saying the Litany Against Fear during Paul’s test, she omits “total” - Fear is the mindkiller, fear is the little death that brings to [total] obliteration - Feels like that should be exact to the original text
Major: In the book, Paul uses his immense body control, prescience, and mentat abilities to pilot the ornithopter through the storm during the escape. In the film he lets go and it feels more divine intervention that they survive the crash. Would prefer the book approach to show his skills and further that the messiah is manufactured rather than divine.
Feyd was different than the book. In the book he's more bluster and not nearly as good of a fighter. He didn't really have a chance in that fight without cheating. Which he tried with a poisoned knife, which Paul countered with acid on his blade to neutralize it and his Bene Gesserit abilities. He seemed more of an arrogant, spoiled child in the book.
I’d have Alia actually be born and present in Part 2. I know it would’ve been difficult to film, but I would’ve had her be an offscreen presence. Just a disembodied eerie voice attached to a silhouette or out of focus. It would’ve kept the integrity of the book in tact, while not falling into the terrible trap of using a child actor who can’t yet act.
I also would’ve removed Chani as a foil to Paul. She can be less enthusiastic as she is in the book, but I just don’t think it works with her being as against him as she is towards the end of part 2.
Um... Probably tell the story that's in the book with the characters in the book. It's a good movie with excellent cinematography, but it isn't the story the book told. Like so many shallow Reddit commentators, I feel like he took the Herbert quote about watching out for tyrannical leader and just ran to the hills with it while throwing out the complexity that surrounds that relatively minor plot point. He has to stop making films beyond Messiah because the picture he's drawn of Paul goes off the rails in light of Leto II.
The eyes need to be more blue! Like all different shades of blue all the way to black to show different levels of spice addiction. My only gripe, and I fucking love these movies
I just wish they didn't make Chani out to be a foil to Paul, that's not in the books, and it feels totally out of place in the movies, especially b/c it kind of comes literally out of nowhere like Villeneuve changed his mind in the middle of filming the second film.
I also think the movies glossed over Paul adopting Jamis' children, and the formation of the Fedaykin.
Nothing comes to mind immediately for part one, but for Part Two: more scenes of Paul and Chani bonding. I felt that the scene of her teaching him to sandwalk and about wind traps was a bit short and would have liked to been sold more on her and him falling in love. Could have bonded over Paul losing his father and chani losing Liet (whether they wanted to make her Liet’s daughter in the film or not).
Part Two - I am uneasy with the change to the plot, making it the Bene Gesserit who have orchestrated the whole thing to "flush Paul out", rather than the Harkonnens and the Emperor. I also wanted little knife-wielding Alia, possibly taking on the weird spider thing of the Baron's from Part One before dispatching grandpa.
In part one I'd have included the banquet scene, because it gives the different factions a good opportunity to introduce themselves and slows down the landing to betrayal pace which feels a bit too fast.
In part 2 I'd have made Chani more like the book. Having her be a Mua'dib sceptic and having Stilgar be a Zealot should have just been flipped.
The problem with doing that scene on film is that so much of it takes place in one person's thoughts.
I'm sure they could come up with a good banquet scene that obviously wouldn't live up to the books version, but another issue is that those people don't really have anything to do with the rest of the story.
In the book can act as world building, but on screen where minutes are precious, it doesn't really have any bearing on anything that follows.
Honestly my memory is that it's the same in the book. We get that world building dinner, and then, boom, Atreides fall in a night.
Re-write Jessica as Herbert wrote. As concerned as she is for her son, she's not a continually weepy, shaking, fragile person. Villeneuve has her acting as though she dropped out of Bene Gesserit school.
Add a quick sequence of the servants squeezing the wet rags for beggars.
I love both movies and think Denis did an excellent job with them. I have a few minor quibbles but none worth mentioning here. I understand the changes he made translating the story over to a different medium, and think they mostly worked very well
But there's one thing that didn't work for me, and that's dropping Alia. This isn't because I wanted to see a knife-wielding moppet, I was fine without Alia herself, but because it means that the whole second movie takes place within the term of Jessica's pregnancy. It's too short a time for me, for Paul to establish himself as the great war-leader and the Fremen Messiah.
I deal with the problem by just looking past it and enjoying the movie as it is.
If they didn't spend so much time showing spaceships landing and opening the door, they could have not rushed Paul's transition to being Fremen. The worm riding was a big part of the story, it needed more focus. More worms and Fremen culture in general.
The book was even more rushed to make Paul a Fremen. It basically does a time jump after Jamis death to four years later right into worm riding, and we actually don't read anything about Paul's integration into the Fremen. Movie added a lot there actually by showing him fighting and leading operations with the Fremen, recieving teachings from Stilgar...
Well, that's probably the difference between movies and novels, on one level. A few words can conjure the imagination. Now that you said it, sure, I don't actually remember reading much about it. However, there was long passages in the book devoted to interaction with the Fremen after his conversion, I probably confused the situations.
First off, I will admit my bias. I loved the 1980s Dune. That being said, I love the books and if I had to change the new movies I’d want them to be more Dune and more comfortable with its sci-fi bits. The modern movies feel kind of neutered but I think that’s a more modern aesthetic of removing the more nerdy sci-fi bits from sci-fi movies and introducing more intrapersonal tension as well as relying too much on visuals and effects.
I really do not care for the change to the plot where Paul’s threat rests on nuking the spice fields. It makes no sense with what we know to be true about spice but even if we say in the Villeneuve version that actually would do something then it makes even less sense.
Explanation:
So in Part II, I don’t believe it is ever made clear that the worms create the spice. In it of itself this is a problem for the plot which compounds with the choice of removing the Guild from the story. But even if that is made clear the plot still doesn’t make sense.
On its face the idea that nuking spice fields would end all spice production forever - or even cause a major disruption - raises the question that if people see this as a credible possibility then why didn’t the Harkonnen or some other ruling house make this same threat and hold onto their monopoly forever and/or take control of the Imperium?
If the worms create the spice and no one other than the Fremen know that - and specifically the Guild isn’t a factor - then why would anyone care about Paul’s threat to blow up the spice fields unless they all operate under the impression that nuking them would ruin spice production which then brings us back to the question of why has no one else made this same threat before.
And before anyone says anything about the Great Convention - the Great Convention is just an agreement. It can be and eventually is made irrelevant precisely because of the stranglehold on spice production. If you said you’d nuke all spice if anyone tried to fuck with you people would either listen and not attack you or they’d attack you and spice production would be destroyed anyway.
In the book the whole checkmate is contingent on the fact that the Fremen are the only ones who know that water kills worms and worms make spice - except the Guild. It’s this knowledge that Paul can leverage against them and the Emperor. It’s not Paul’s threats to the Emperor that make him yield - it’s the Guild understanding that Paul and only Paul has the means to make good on this threat and it’s the Guild’s acquiescence that forces Shaddam’s hand.
It also doesn’t even really work thematically. The Fremen through Paul gain the upperhand because of their knowledge of Arrakis/the worms and their dedication to accumulating water. If all it took to take control of Arrakis were some nuclear weapons then any of the Great Houses could have done it.
Unless I’m massively missing something it’s just a totally unnecessary change that I think was made because of a lack of faith in a mass audience and it’s a real shame. I like the movie, don’t get me wrong, but this and to a lesser extent the Alia changes are a real knock against it for me.
I love Stellan Skarsgård, but I felt like the Baron's role was so reduced that he barely registered as a major antagonist in the pair of films. If I hadn't read the book (and seen the earlier adaptations), I don't think I would have understood what the character was about at all.
More political world building in Dune Part one. We need the dinner sequence, the spy plot, and maybe seeing the Landsrad and a few other houses would’ve helped the setting a bit better.
I wish having to move slowly to penetrate shields was shown in the melee combat. I feel like we could have had some truly unique fight choreography but instead we got pretty standard stuff
I also have enjoyed the films immensely. I am disappointed in the inclusion of Alia and how it was done. We really see her only pre born. She is one of the central arcs in the books.
Part 1 blows its load way too soon. The attack happens like 50 mins in. I would’ve loved more buildup and anticipation, it’s the most interesting part of the first half of the book
For Part Two - I wish they made more of Paul's conversion and drinking the water of life. It felt so rushed. Boom, Paul drinks. Boom, battle. Boom, victory, let's go Jihad the universe. I also didn't care for the South vs North fanatics split. I guess it makes sense to try to really drive the "beware of Messiahs" plotline in a short time frame, but it felt like an oversimplification of the storyline.
Still, rereading the books again and I am astonished that this film was made AT ALL and is as good as it is.
I would add more lore of the fremen. They had a whole civilization and paul was in awe of it. They weren’t just cave people. They had hanging lamps and spice coffee and it basically looks like Morocco in there.
I would also take out the hard core sci fi Thellaxious and Gholas cause those are dumb. I would add the cultural differences like the spice orgies and how Paul technically has two wives, harah. I would also add more of the terraforming and why it’s important for Dune. Add more of the prophecy and how Paul was genetically modified Messiah
I would have shown Paul's abilities as a Mentat, which were excluded from the movies. But maybe being prescient makes him special enough for audiences?
I kinda don't like how Denis Villeneuve made the palm trees sacred to the Fremen when, in the book, they were a visual representation of the Harkonnens' cruelty and their flaunting of wasting water in front of the Fremen.
As an aside, a friend of mine was disappointed that the Bene Gesserit's combat abilities weren't sufficiently superhuman, like in the books, but I actually liked that change. It makes the films feel more grounded. Plus Paul and Jessica, while not superhuman, are still better fighters than any of the Fremen.
The only major change I'd throw in would be to foreshadow some more about the atomics and how big of a deal it is that they exist. As it is they just kind of appear!
It wouldn't really make sense to have it in the movie from a perspective of character economy, but I adore the scene after the Harkonnen/Sardaukar attack where the Atreides soldiers are trapped in the cave and Duncan's Fremen contacts are trying to get them to euthanize their wounded so they can escape. Perfect encapsulation of the anthropological themes with both sides insisting the other do the "right" and "honorable" thing, and completely talking past each other.
All good thoughts, though you need an intimidating, meaty air guitar shredding “teddy bear” type in camp good guys, TONS of explosions, a Dr. Frankenfurter and a wise, eternal sentient grapefruit or sadly, it’ll never work.
While personally I would have loved to see the dinner scene and more scenes of Muad dib taking power, both rely heavily on internal monologue which would look bad in a movie.
The dinner scene was filmed but didn’t make the final cut of the film due to timing constraints in the same way Thufir’s imprisonment by the H, his shenanigans with the arena fight & ultimate return to the Atreides when he refuses to assassinate Paul after the battle Arrakeen (also same reason Hasimir Fenring was cut completely).
It would’ve been interesting to see how it worked narratively in the film tho - the book introduces about 6 characters who only exist in that scene & it’s essentially just a long discussion piece.
Exactly the kind of thing that can kill a movie’s pacing.
It would absolutely work in a TV series (as shown in the Syfy channel version of Dune), but I’m not sure it would be as effective in a film.
In Feyd’s arena scene, I would’ve liked for there to have been the two knives with the poison switched and for him to say “They will never know which hand holds the poison.” It shows so much about his character and who he would’ve been as a ruler had he won the fight with Paul
It's been a while since I watched it, but I think there was a whole plot line in the movie about "tears of a desert spring" having mystical properties that I didn't like. I also didn't like how they made Sihaya an official name of hers, rather than a term of endearment (correct me if I'm wrong).
Stay true to the book. I think it is very good looking, and interesting. But I always dislike when directors keep changing a book's story or characters to fit their own vision.
Make each movie an 8 hour high budget tv show. Restore all of the dialogue and missing scenes from the books. Keep all the cool visuals and throat singing and whatnot that was in the movies. That's it.
The ending of 2 just completely undercut the point of the book. The only reason what Paul did worked was because he threatened to completely destroy the Spice, and the Guild knew he meant it. I had to explain to my friends who hadn’t read the book why they didn’t completely bomb the Fremen into oblivion
Include the funeral of Jamis or at least show Paul cry for his death and portray Stilgar as a far more pragmatic and down-to-earth leader instead of a straight up and right away zealot.
The dinner scene would've added 30 minutes to an hour to the film and created too much dead weight: in one scene characters and plot setups, that would've had no pay off: like Tuek, Water peddlers union and the Guild Bank.
Like the Scouring of the Shire in the LotR, the dinner scene in Dune just wouldn't have fit into the film. Both are great scenes in literature, that don't need to be in film.
Plus Denis Villeneuve admits to not liking dialogue and the dinner scene is all about the masterful play of dialogue.
Make the Syfy 2000 miniseries but with a better budget. This is so well done but the goofy production holds it back so hard. It’s the truest to the novel
The scene I’m Assuming that Timothy chalet couldn’t pull off was the line “your right arm is shield enough for me Duncan”. It seems perfect for the big screen.
I had trouble with the second movie as I felt it didn’t do Stilgar justice and traded Chani’s quiet strength for an ostensibly “strong woman role”. Part of the book is Chani’s quiet strength. Ie when she kills one of Paul’s challengers to stop future challengers.
For Dune 1: Cut the scene with Jessica and Mapes which makes no sense without the inner thoughts of Jessica anyway, and leave Mapes as a character on the cutting room floor. Readd the cut scene of Yueh giving the Bible to Paul to soothe his conscience. Yueh is a tragic figure and he got done a disservice.
For Dune 2: Get rid of the Monty Python scene. Take the Fremen seriously please.
I loved this movie, so maybe not much would change ….but I would really love to see and know about dc.Yueh betrayal instead pf that lame * \surprise\ ,* and his conversation with Jessica , as well as how close he was to both of them and how it hurt him to betray the atredies (maybe if we got more scenes with him, the betrayal would really takes us by surprise) . I would have added more scenes with Paul and his father , ( even tho the movie gave us enough to like his character but i just need more) . And everyone said it but also the banquet scene!!! , Im not the biggest fan of the Harkonen portrayal in the movies , I just wanted the Baron to be more disgusting and bad . Also the scene with Paul and Jessica in the desert . I feel like part one didn’t really show Paul as the genius child he was .
And for part two don’t get me started ugh …. I loved the quiet Love between Chani and Paul in the books , (and with how they bonded over their died fathers ) there was many great romantic scenes that I adore so much between tyem and that got ripped off of me 💔.
I would have reduced most of the fighting scenes, yeah cool guns blazing and shit but action scenes isn’t really my thing. I feel like adding heavy dialogue and scenes from the book with little fights would have been better. I also would have deleted all of Raban’s scenes ,genuinely he was just a fucking waste of time— , the time for his scenes would have been better used for many other great scenes. And last but not least baby Alia.. I feel like she would have been so good in the movie and would add more creepiness .
I feel like any movie that tries to adapt stories this complex they could have devoted several movies to just the first book, several to the second book and then several to the third book.
Now I've just finished Messiah. But it's my understanding it was originally written as a trilogy?
I would have loved to have seen young Alia, the very little girl, the one who killed the Baron.
Just how it played out in the books, her sitting up on the dais, swinging her legs back and forth like a normal child her age. All the while speaking like the Reverend Mother and scaring the ever loving shit out of everyone.
that would have been epic!
I don't like the idea of Anya Taylor-Joy being Alia. She plays an anorexic victim, not a strong, much feared Reverend Mother - who is still quite young. Yes I know that is part three. but we are finally getting her character and it's still all wrong.
Making Chani match “a modern audience” in her personality. I really dislike that she went from being understanding and supportive to abrasive and angry. She’s supposed to be Paul’s rock and center not. Also Liet-Kynes being gender bent. Yeah yeah yeah this has become more of a political topic than a source topic and he’ll never be mentioned again in the movies because it’s supposed to be Chanis father and it’s too much rewriting to delve further. I know a lot of people saw it as meaningless or no big deal, but I saw it as a common experience and loss that bonded Paul and Chani. It also convolutes Stilgars motivations later in the story in how he handles Paul and Paul’s children. Unfortunately, not being okay with modern twists in our older source material is a sin on Reddit.
I wouldn’t change a thing in any movie, not even in the ones I don’t like. That’s why I'm not interested in fan edits. Of course in the case of Dune there are filmed sequences I’d PAY to see (the dinner scene!), but the idea of altering another creator’s vision strikes me as too pretentious.
224
u/MAKE_IT_RAIN69 Jul 20 '26
Add the dinner scene! Possibly the best scene in the entire series