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?

  • lemmur@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Well … The ending is a little bit less cliffhangery than the first film. The worm scenes were super cool tho.

  • Nadru@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      apart from some Harkonnen costume choices.

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

  • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Part 2 is done in the same spirit as 1. The characters and plot don’t get any better, if anything they become outright one-dimensional. Everything (facts, characters) are over-simplified caricatures of themselves — they like to take one thing that’s technically true and run it down into the ground.

    The two things that bothered me the most is how Paul is completely robbed of any agency, and becomes this listless puppet with a sad smile, and how the plot revolves around religious fanaticism with only token mentions about prescience. Hell, I don’t remember if they even mentioned why spice is so important.

    To be honest it’s killed any interest in me about seeing more movies. I mean I’ll watch them, I liked the image and music, but in a detached way like I’d watch an Avengers movie. I can imagine exactly how they’re going to be, shallow as fuck. Which is going to be completely stupid and pointless because the amount of political and sociological intrigue increases exponentially as you advance in the series.

  • ShadowZone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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
      0
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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.

    • And009@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      In the film iirc daughter in womb asked him to drink the water, and Paul didn’t want to because it’d lead to mass bloodshed.

  • biofaust@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I will go against most opinions and I would say give it a try.

    My friends who are into the book quoted much more from the second and style-wise I can tell you this: I LOVED the first one. I HATED the second one.

    So, since the book seems really to be about deception, war and religion (the last 2 I despise to see in movies because I find them boring as hell), I could suggest you watch it.

  • Xbeam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

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

  • beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Liked it, think it’s worth it. Haven’t read the books & I’m not very invested in the story, & I’m a fan of the director’s work. Was cool to see lots of Fremen culture

  • MimicJar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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.

    • EarMaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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…

  • Scratch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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).

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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.

  • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    You won’t like it. I hear Rebel Moon is excellent, though. Powerful stuff from a brilliant, visionary director. A real man’s man. Like, a total dude-bro you’d want to lift with.

  • magiccupcake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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
      0
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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.

  • Donebrach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Either you have a few hours to watch a movie or not. Why do people need to post to the internet to ask stuff like this? You do realize you can stop a movie if you’re not into it right?