Messages

I fail to see how "self-centered" Chani was depicted in this adaptation. She was clearly defined as part of the Fremen who didn't believe in the prophecies and was driven by their own lifestyle. By the end, everyone who didn't believe was either dead or blindly converted by the circumstances that unfolded, as Lady Jessica wanted it to be.

The reason I say she's self-centred is because she puts her emotions ahead of the cause that Paul and the Fremen have been fighting for and abandons Muad'dib at a difficult time when he could've used her support. This is the opposite of what she does in the novel. In the novel she's hurt by Paul marrying Irulan, but she accepts it as a necessary political move to legitimise his claim to the throne. Just as Jessica accepted her status as concubine with Leto, so Chani makes this sacrifice to help facilitate Paul's ascendancy. The book ends with the following exchange between Paul, Chani and Jessica:

"I swear to you now," he whispered, "that you'll need no title. That woman over there will be my wife and you but a concubine because this is a political thing and we must weld peace out of this moment, enlist the Great Houses of the Laandsraad. We must obey the forms. Yet the princess shall have no more of me than my name. No child of mine nor touch nor softness of glance, nor instant of desire."

"So you say now," Chani said. She glanced across the room at the tall princess.

"Do you know so little of my son?" Jessica whispered. "See that princess standing there, so haughty and confident. They say she has pretensions of a literary nature. Let us hope she finds solace in such things; she'll have little else." A bitter laugh escaped Jessica. "Think on it, Chani: that princess will have the name, yet she'll live as less than a concubine – never to know a moment of tenderness from the man to whom she's bound. While we, Chani, we who carry the name of concubine – history will call us wives."

Lynch adapted this scene faithfully.

And here's another version of it in the 2000 miniseries, from the 10 minute mark.

In the novel Chani puts the cause they've been fighting for ahead of her own pride or emotional satisfaction. In the movie she publically abandons Paul and seemingly rejects him out of jealousy of Irulan. Of course their relationship is different in the film owing to the compression of the timeframe. In the novel they've spent two years together by this point and have even had a child and shared in the bereavement of his death. In the movie they've only been together a few months, and throughout that time she's constantly questioning him and never seems to fully trust him or have faith in his mission. Paul in turn doesn't take Chani into his confidence as much as he does in the novel, and he spares comparatively little consideration for her feelings during the finale.

I get why Villeneuve ended the film like this. He made the creative choice to emphasise Chani's perspective on Paul's story, and throughout the movie we constantly see her reacting to everything Paul says and does. He wanted to give the female character agency by showing her reject concubinage and assert her independence, and also to offer an ideological counterpoint to the fundamentalists that accept the impending jihad without any moral reservations (one of the book's central themes is the danger of following charismatic leaders without question).

Chani's rejection of Paul also allowed Villeneuve to end the film on an emotional crescendo, with the music swelling and the spectacular image of the worm rising from the sand. It's one of those changes from the source material that wouldn't have bothered me if I hadn't read the books. It works in the context of Villeneuve's version of the story. But I find it inferior and less subtle than the way Herbert ended the story. Having Chani stoically accept her lot because she loves Paula and believes in him is, for me at least, far more moving than having her run away in a rather blunt display of emotionality. But ultimately the cinematic Chani is a different character from her literary namesake. She doesn't have faith in Paul or his cause and she doesn't stand by him at the end.

I've seen some fans speculating that Chani's reaction will impact the next film, seeing as one of the central conflicts in Dune Messiah is the rivalry between her and Irulan. Some are even predicting that the ending of Part 2 is positioning Chani as the central protagonist in the next movie. Chani plays a crucial role in Dune Messiah, but she isn't the book's protagonist. Paul might be an antihero, but Dune Messiah is still his story. We'll just have to wait and see how Villeneuve handles the adaptation.

These were all decent changes for an updated adaptation of the story, compared to the rather dated material of the original, like said acceptance of Paul and Irulan's marriage.

I don't find the novel dated. Dune is set 20,000 years in the future. The values and customs depicted in it were never meant to reflect those of our modern western society, but rather a feudalistic Imperium that has more in common with various medieval cultures.

The Baron in the '84 is grotesque and over the top and gets a death that warrants that. This Baron is depicted as a dangerous mass of flesh, largely reminiscent of Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now. His counterpart's death worked in that regard as well. It was very smart of Villeneuve to depict the character in this fashion, especially eliminating his pedophilic nature so that it wouldn't upset audiences seeing the only homosexual depicted in the series being represented by the villains. It also has been brought to light that Frank Herbert didn't take too kindly to his own homosexual son.

I don't mind those changes. Aside from his lack of red hair, the Villeneuve version of the Baron is faithful to the book. The Lynch version has a hilarious pantomime quality, but Villeneuve's version is more chilling. I just would've liked to have seen more made of his death. I wanted to see him react to learning that Muad'dib is Paul Atreides. Perhaps have Paul show him the Ducal signet ring Vladimir had for so long coveted, thereby disclosing his lineage and letting the Baron know that House Harkonnen had finally lost their vendetta. After everything the Baron did to his family, Paul should have rubbed his face in it more. His death was too quick and clean.

The whole absence of Alia is a result of the decision to streamline the story from years to months and was another welcome change that definitely leaves questions for how this will hopefully lead to the eventual sequels.

This is another change I was ok with. Having Alia communicate through Jessica was an interesting alteration, and it helped dramatise the concept of pre-born consciousness for the audience. I just hope that Jessica will shed some of her more sinister qualities once she's given birth to Alia. 

The whole lineage of Lady Jessica with the Harkonnens came later on but was brought forth here.

The revelation about Jessica being the Baron's daughter occurs earlier in the book than it does in Villeneuve's film. In the novel Paul finds out about his lineage after he and Jessica crash in the desert, before they meet the Fremen. I never understood why Lynch omitted this detail from his version. It's a good twist.

What if Christopher Walken played Emperor Shaddam IV in Dune '84? 

Judging from this thread, it looks like I'm the only Dune fan on the site. That's a shame, as I think of lot of speculative fiction fans who are disillusioned with modern Star Wars, Trek, etc, would enjoy Herbert's universe.

I went to see Dune: Part 2 again today, only this time I saw it in IMAX. The sound system was so powerful the seats were constantly vibrating. I still like the film, but on reflection some other criticisms have sprung to mind:

•   The movie depicts Chani as less emotionally mature and more self-centred than her literary counterpart, and the final scene robs her of her self-sacrificing stoicism in accepting Paul's political marriage to Irulan.

•   We never see what happens to Thufir Hawat in Villeneuve's version of the story. He just disappears and is never mentioned again.

•   There isn't really a Weirding Way in Villeneuve's universe. The 1984 film represented it in auditory fashion via the Weirding Modules, and the 2000 miniseries represented it as super fast motion, but in Villeneuve's films Paul just fights like a normal human. He's a good fighter, yes, but his physical prowess lacks the superhuman qualities suggested in other versions of the story.

•   The Baron's death is anticlimactic. In the Lynch version he gets slashed across the face with a Gom Jabbar, poisoned, has tubes ripped out of his chest that somehow sets his antigravity harness haywire, gets blasted out of a wall into a sandstorm and is eaten by a passing worm. Now that's how a villain should get his comeuppance. By contrast, he gets off easy in the new film. The fact Paul kills him instead of Alia could also impact a future adaption of Children of Dune, since the Baron's vengeful haunting of Alia is an important plot point in that story.

But Dune: Part 2 is still a fine film that gets more things right than wrong. That said, having watched both of Villeneuve's Dune movies in the past few weeks, and having lately re-watched the 2000 miniseries, I've decided my favourite screen version of Dune is the Spicediver edit of the 1984 film. This combines all the best elements from the various extended cuts of Lynch's Dune into a superior three-hour edit. For anyone who's interested in seeing this version of the film, you can watch it free on YouTube.

I've sometimes wondered if Lynch's Dune influenced Burton's Batman films at all. The dieselpunk aesthetic on the technology is similar, and Bob Ringwood's stillsuits clearly foreshadow the cinematic batsuits.

Lynch's super grotesque and perverted take on the Baron also foreshadows Burton's version of the Penguin.

I'm sure there are other stylistic parallels to be noted, but those are the most immediately striking.

Well deserved. The fact they accomplished such impressive effects on such a miniscule budget should be a wakeup call for western studios. Had it not been for the release date, I expect Minus One would've taken home the best foreign language film award as well. But never mind. The fact remains it's now an Oscar-winning film.

I don't know if Keaton was in on this beforehand, or if he just winged it on the spot, but his reaction couldn't have been more perfect or Batmanlike.

This also appeals to my headcanon, wherein Keaton's Batman defeated Mr. Freeze.

This is another terrific interview, KeatonisBatman. I had no idea about Gems' involvement in Batman '89 until now. It's fascinating to hear another perspective on the film's development, especially since many of his statements are at odds with the established narrative we've grown accustomed to hearing. I thoroughly enjoy this sort of candid long-form interview.

I only recently learnt of Charles McKeown's involvement in the Batman '89 writing process, so it was good to hear Gems clarify where both his and McKeown's contributions fit into the timeline. Burton was clearly a fan of Terry Gilliam's Brazil (1985). The 1989 Gotham is heavily indebted to Brazil's production design, and Burton hired Gilliam's DP Roger Pratt to serve as his cinematographer. In addition to playing the character Harvey Lime, McKeown also co-wrote the Oscar-nominated screenplay for Brazil before doing uncredited work on the Batman '89 script. I expect many of the film's funniest lines came from his pen.

The more I hear about the evolution of the Batman '89 script, the more I realise how important the other writers were. Hamm gets most of the credit, and indeed he did compose the basic structure of the first two acts, but it sounds like many of the best elements came from other writers. How many people altogether worked on the Batman '89 screenplay? Sam Hamm, Jonathan Gems, Charles McKeown, Warren Skaaren and even Jack Nicholson by the sound of it.

You're very welcome. I wanted some more insight in '89 Batman than we've been able to get in the past. Some of the more interesting points I found talking with him... it seems that Kim Basinger & Jon Peters (or possibly Nicholson!) were probably the ones responsible for Alfred "letting Vicki into the cave." (My thoughts on that were that Alfred didn't let her in, that she had figured it out, but I digress).

I'm with you though. I caught on to her putting the pieces together once she discovers his parents were murdered. I'm not sure why this has since been turned into a big deal. I'm also glad that they cut a scene of Bruce telling her he's Batman. I think Vicki figuring that out on her own is much more in line with the character.

There was a YouTube video of Burton being interviewed in which he confirmed this theory, but unfortunately the interview in question has been taken down. Burton stated that Vicki already knew Bruce was Batman before she went to Wayne Manor, having figured it out during the scene where Knox shows her the newspaper detailing the Wayne murders.