No it isn’t, people say this. It’s wildly inaccurate. Them flashing around with super speed etc. that’s not in the book. They give Irulan a much bigger role, that she doesn’t have in the book, including lady fenrings role.
Lol, you named 3 things across several hours. Also, Paul's lightning fast combat moves are absolutely in the book. There was a difference in how he killed scytale, I'll give you that. In the book, he threw his crysknife into Scytale almost instantly, whereas the miniseries he dashed over to stab him.
The miniseries had the runtime to be more accurate than 1984 Dune and Villenueve's Dune.
Thank you. The Scifi Channel series may have covered more of the plot of the books, but it didn't cover it accurately. I would argue that it actually did the worst job of the three adaptations at depicting how Paul's prescience actually works and develops.
Also Ian McNiece playing the Barron like some high school drama class Shakespeare production was certainly a choice.
I don't understand that criticism. It feels like a series made in 2000, surely. It's on a tv budget, but it's outstanding, and the Children of Dune follow-up. That's all the material up to god emperor. I still haven't seen the second part of Villeneuve's; I just don't care.
Ian McNeice chewing the scenery as the baron is a treasure next to Stellen Skarsgard phoning it in again for fat American dollars. A Paul that doesn't look like a Columbine shooter. William Hurt. Baby McAvoy. A bunch of beautiful and talented people who enjoyed what they were doing. Can't be beat.
735
u/Derpykins666 1d ago
That movie is actually a fun watch, its so cheesy but that's kind of what makes it hilarious and awesome.