Batman-Online.com

This thread, as the title suggests, is for all things related to Frank Herbert's Dune. The books, the David Lynch movie, the Westwood Studios videogames, the TV miniseries and the upcoming film adaptation directed by Denis Villeneuve.

I used to be a big fan of Herbert's Dune novels and read the entire series when I was a teenager. The original book is clearly the best and remains one of the greatest sci-fi novels ever written. God Emperor of Dune is my second favourite book in the series, followed by Children of Dune and Heretics of Dune. I rate Dune Messiah and Chapterhouse: Dune as the worst of the bunch and have a low opinion of both.


I own some of the sequel and prequel books written by Herbert's son and Kevin J. Anderson, but have never really gotten into them. While the original 1965 book is a masterpiece, the quality of the series as a whole is very inconsistent. If you're new to the Dune universe, my recommendation is to simply read the first book and not worry about the sequels or prequels.

As far as previous screen versions go, I admit I love the David Lynch film. It's a total train wreck of a movie, but it has such a unique ambience and artistic vision that I can't help but like it. The soundtrack is excellent and for the most part I like how Lynch and his team visualised Herbert's universe. The performances range from solid to hilariously over the top, and the quality of the special effects is equally variable. But still, I love it.


I'm less fond of the TV miniseries from 2000. Some of the visuals are nice, but other than that it's forgettable.


The Children of Dune miniseries is better. Only the second and third episodes are actually based on Children of Dune, while the first is an adaptation of Dune Messiah. Overall, it's ok.


Then there are the Dune videogames. Dune II (1992) helped define the real-time strategy genre and is often cited as one of the most influential games ever made.


Westwood Studios, who also made the Command & Conquer series, would go on to produce sequels such as Dune 2000 and Emperor: Battle for Dune. I still have my copy of Emperor: Battle for Dune. I was always more of a console gamer than a PC gamer, but this is one PC game I played extensively back in the day.


I have my doubts about whether Dune can ever be successfully translated to screen. So much of what makes the book great lies in abstract ideas and internal musings that are difficult to express on film. But if any filmmaker can do it, Denis Villeneuve might be the guy. He directed two of the best proper science fiction films of the past decade with Arrival (2016) and Blade Runner 2049 (2017). Dividing The Hobbit into three films was a terrible idea, but dividing Dune into two might just be the key to making it work. The first images have appeared online in the last few days, and so far it looks promising.


Are there any other Dune fans on the site? Is anyone else looking forward to the new film? With Star Wars and Star Trek both dying a slow death, it's time we had a new science fiction film series to restore dignity to the genre. Dune should accomplish this, provided Villeneuve doesn't drop the ball.

The trailer for Villeneuve's Dune is scheduled to arrive in early September. In the meantime these Empire covers provide an early look at the film, including our first glimpse of a sandworm.

Here's the first trailer.

Timothee Chalamet would make a damn good Robin. Especially alongside Pattinson with this darker tone.

New trailer.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 22 Jul  2021, 18:37
New trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g18jFHCLXk

Looking forward to an edit of the movie that removes these forced attempts at humor.

Not only did I read that Dune is debuting on HBO Max a day before it opens in theaters, I'm reading comments elsewhere online that it has already leaked on the Internet.

I can only imagine Denis Villeneuve is feeling really pissed off right now.

I recommend seeing Dune: Part I in theatres while it's still showing. It's a good adaptation of the first half of the first Dune novel, though I won't be able to fully judge its quality until I've seen how well the second film turns out. The production values in this first instalment are excellent, combing strong set and costume design with beautiful cinematography to create a picture that is very pleasant to look at. The cast acquit themselves well (Chalamet's acting is good, though I think he's too wimpy for the part of Paul), the pacing is deliberate but effective, and the action scenes don't drag on too long. If you enjoyed Villeneuve's earlier science fiction films, you should enjoy this one too.

One thing that struck me about Dune as an adaptation is how much it leaves out. I don't mean in terms of missing scenes, but rather in terms of significant characters, factions and lore that are glossed over or postponed until the sequel. For example, the Imperium is mentioned frequently, but we never actually see House Corrino, the imperial capital of Kaitain, the Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV, Princess Irulan, Count Fenring or any of the other important players associated with that faction. The Saurdauker are depicted well, and there is a brief scene on the imperial prison planet of Salusa Secundus. But other than that, the Imperium remains very much a shadowy presence lurking in the wings. For me, this creative decision works. It prevents the first half of the story from feeling overstuffed, while also building anticipation for the second half.

The Imperium isn't the only major aspect of the novel to be sidelined. Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen, one of the main villains from the book, is also absent. The Landsraad is mentioned, but no explanation is given for how it functions. The Spacing Guild is mentioned, but the influence it holds over the Emperor and other political parties is not explored. The film also glosses over important matters of lore such as the Butlerian Jihad and the ban on machines that imitate the human mind (hence the need for Mentats). The mechanics of futuristic warfare remain equally obscure, with no mention being made of the outlawing of atomics, or the Holtzman Effect that prevents lasers from being deployed against energy shields. Newcomers might be left scratching their heads wondering why the combatants of the future favour blades over guns. If you've read the book, you'll know why. But if you haven't, then the futuristic battle scenes might strike you as quaint. The movie even glosses over the cause of the vendetta between Houses Atreides and Harkonnen. Again, this isn't a problem for fans of the book, but it might make the plot less accessible to newcomers.

None of these omissions are necessarily points of criticisms, mind. Merely observations. A major part of the book's appeal is the world building component and the feeling it evokes of being immersed in a rich and layered mythology. By holding so much back for the sequel, the film doesn't quite convey the epic scope of the novel (the sequel should though). Not for me, at least. However, the benefit of postponing or downplaying certain elements of the mythology is that the narrative in this first half is effectively streamlined, allowing for a central conflict that feels more intimate and a plot that feels more focused than in Lynch's earlier adaptation. That said, there are aspects of Lynch's version that I definitely prefer over this newer film. For example, (SPOILER) Lynch did a better job of illustrating the trusting relationship between Dr. Yueh and the rest of House Atreides, which made his betrayal of them more impactful. But all in all, Dune: Part I is a good start to the duology and the best new sci-fi movie I've seen in a while. Villeneuve has left himself with quite a lot of characters and ideas to introduce in the second film, and his success or failure at doing that will likely colour my overall perception of this cinematic enterprise. But right now, it's off to a good start.

The new trailer and poster for Dune: Part Two have been released.



I'm not sure about Feyd's hairless look.


In the novel he's described as having short dark hair, which is how he appeared in the TV series.


In Lynch's movie he had a Super Saiyan hairstyle that made him look like an anime villain.


I always preferred the look of Sting's Feyd. Granted, it wasn't accurate to Herbert's description, but then neither is how he looks in the new film.

I went to see Dune: Part 2 today. As I was leaving the theatre the song playing in the lobby was 'Every Breath You Take' by The Police, which made me think of Sting's turn as Feyd-Rautha in the 1984 Dune movie.

The new film is very good. In fact I liked it more than Part 1. The production design (a fusion of Afrofuturism and dieselpunk) and special effects are both superb, as is the sound design. It's a visually stunning film that's worth experiencing on the big screen if you get the chance. Arrakis and Giedi Prime are particularly well realised, with the Atreides, Fremen and Harkonnen cultures each having a distinctive aesthetic of their own.

The one area where I found the production design underwhelming, and the film as a whole lacking, was in the depiction of the Imperial House Corrino. The sets and costumes on Kaitain are simply less interesting than those on the other planets, and the performances aren't as spirited. Maybe it's because those characters get less screen time and are somewhat removed from the main action, or maybe it's because they were introduced too late in the narrative. At any rate, I think the depiction of House Corrino is something the 1984 movie and 2000 miniseries both did better.   

My biggest gripe with Dune: Part 1 was that they left out so many key players from the story and postponed their entry until the sequel. I remember thinking at the time that I'd have to wait and see how Part 2 handled those elements before judging the first film. Aside from the comparatively uninteresting depiction of the Imperial House Corrino, I'm mostly happy with how those elements turned out. But there are still quite a few things from the book which didn't make it into the movie. Some of these, like the subplot about Paul and Chani's first child who is slain by the Sardaukar, I can understand excising. But other omissions, such as the absence of the Spacing Guild, are more frustrating.

The Spacing Guild is one of the most important political factions in the novel, and their reliance on the spice melange to facilitate interplanetary travel is crucial to the functioning of the Imperium. That's one of the reasons the spice is so valuable. The absence of the Guild in the movie is unlikely to bother people unfamiliar with the books, and the film works fine without them. But this is one aspect of Dune: Part 2 that might disappoint fans of the novel. The Guild play a villainous role in the second book, Dune Messiah, and it could be the case that Villeneuve is holding back on depicting them now so they'll have more impact in the next movie.

Another change is the rather sinister portrayal of Lady Jessica, who comes across less sympathetically than she does in the book. Frank Herbert modelled Jessica on his wife and portrayed her in a positive light. The movie gives us a darker version of the character, and the decision to condense the timeframe and have Alia remain in her womb (the name 'abomination' is here applied to Jessica rather than Alia) is a further deviation from the novel. This is another of those times when I'll have to wait and see how they follow up on this in the sequel before making a judgement. They wouldn't have cast Anya Taylor-Joy in the role of Alia if they weren't planning to bring her back in an adaptation of Children of Dune. But again, the changes to Jessica and Alia's story aren't detrimental to the film and won't bother anyone who hasn't read the book.

None of the performances really blew me away in Dune: Part 2, but the acting is generally adequate. The actor who makes the strongest impression is Austin Butler as Feyd. If anything, the cinematic Feyd is even more psychotic and bloodthirsty than his literary counterpart, and that's saying something. He makes a suitably loathsome villain and a worthy threat for Paul. Villeneuve nails the dark depravity of Harkonnen culture, with the scenes on Giedi Prime evoking a hellish nightmare world worthy of David Lynch's vision in the 1984 adaptation. I sensed they were taking some inspiration from H. R. Giger's unused Dune concept art, and the idea of the black sun rendering every outdoor scene monochrome was an inspired artistic choice. I was very pleased with how dark and twisted the Harkonnen scenes were.

Equally satisfying are the numerous action scenes, which the stunt team do an excellent job staging. The battles are well executed and don't drag on too long. They're pretty much perfect and put to shame the forgettable battles from the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy. The sequence where Paul rides the sandworm for the first time is also breathtaking and effectively conveys what it must feel like to engage in such a dangerous but exhilarating activity. The depiction of the Weirding Way is more grounded than in the earlier adaptations, but again, it works. I loved how dark Arrakis looked during the opening action scene set during the eclipse. The bleak orange sky reminded me of Lynch's Arrakis, and I wish the planet had looked like that throughout the rest of the film.

I know I keep comparing it to the 1984 movie, but that's inevitable. While Villeneuve's adaptation is in many ways superior, there are still things I prefer about Lynch's version. For one, Lynch managed to condense the entire first book into a single movie while maintaining a decent pace of storytelling. Sure, he left things out. But so did Villeneuve. I prefer Lynch's depiction of House Corrino and José Ferrer's performance as Shaddam IV over Walken's. Lynch did a good job portraying the Spacing Guild's role in the story, which is something Villeneuve largely ignored. I also like the soundtrack to the 1984 movie more than Hans Zimmer's work on the new films.

In general though, I expect the new films will be remembered as the definitive screen adaptation of Dune. They're not perfect, but they are very, very good. And perhaps Villeneuve will address their minor shortcomings in Dune: Part III. Rumour has it he's combining the novels Dune Messiah and Children of Dune into a single cinematic project. John Harrison did the same thing with the 2003 miniseries and the strategy worked well there. Hopefully Dune: Part 2 will be successful enough that we'll get another film.

To conclude, this is a solid thumbs up from me. I do have some issues with it, but those mostly relate to how it adapts the book, and specifically the things it leaves out. None of these issues, however, detract from its quality as a standalone film. It's a solid adaptation and an excellent sci-fi epic in its own right. Had Dune: Part 2 been released last year, as originally intended, it might have challenged Godzilla Minus One as my pick for film of the year. As it is, it's set a high benchmark for other 2024 movies to reach. I recommend seeing it on the big screen. You don't need to have read the book to understand it, but you do need to have seen Dune: Part 1.

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


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.

QuoteThe 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.

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. I didn't find Paul to be "emotionally mature" to be barging in on the Fremen council meeting for that matter. 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.

QuoteThe 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.

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.

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. They definitely are utilizing the laid out storylines of the books for these films instead of confining to just the individual books for their adaptations. The whole lineage of Lady Jessica with the Harkonnens came later on but was brought forth here.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 17 Mar  2024, 01:13I 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:

Quote"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.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 17 Mar  2024, 01:13These 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.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 17 Mar  2024, 01:13The 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.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 17 Mar  2024, 01:13The 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. 

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 17 Mar  2024, 01:13The 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.

QuoteThe 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 deal is that Chani in the book and other adaptations makes her a doormat character with hardly any purpose at all but to serve this truly dated sensibility of women simply accepting their place made by men. The bit from the book made me cringe when I first read it, especially how it was the final words of the book. It's necessary adapting this material to 2024 audiences to include a voice of reason to the circumstances Herbert wanted to convey about blindly following a prophecy, despite good intentions, which was an issue he faced after the first book was written and had to reiterate in the later books.

QuoteIn 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.

She has every right to be emotional after being told repeatedly that Paul doesn't believe in the prophecy and condemns it for the same reasons she did, only wanting to help free her people from their oppressors, and ends doing exactly the opposite of what he said. Chani isn't storming out because she's scorn over being rejected for another woman. She's upset over him betraying everything he's said he wanted to be be and causing the billions of deaths that will occur. They just want to be left alone with their way of life, not be whisked away to another to likely die over the holy war that has been started.

QuoteIt'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 spent many years trying to understand the wide appeal of the Dune saga and I freely admit that elements like Chani being a doormat really turned me off from it. This new adaptation is much more satisfying and I look forward to what's next. A character like Chani is more relatable than the protagonist, especially if you're like me, and totally lose your relatability when he accepts his role as their role as their prophesies savior.

QuoteI'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.

I think everyone's biggest fear is that they want Chani to be the true Muad'Dib in this adaptation. Whether or not that's worse than making it actually rain on Arrakis is all down to execution. Really hope that it isn't that predictable and we'll get a decent third part to this story that isn't as disappointing as something like The Dark Knight Rises.

QuoteI 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.

Right, but in our present, audiences are more interested in subversions of that system than playing it as it was. It really is dated to have the most powerful women of Dune be witches nobody can trust and that says a lot about the author's beliefs, which is a whole other rabbit hole to dive into. Thankfully, these changes have helped make this story appealing enough to be as big of a success it is now at $500 million and climbing!

Here's the first teaser trailer for the Dune: Prophecy prequel series.


The special effects, cinematography and production design all look great, but I'm not sold on the premise. I gather this is drawing from the prequel books by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson, which never captivated me the way the original novel did. Even Frank Herbert's sequel novels, all of which I've read, fall short of the first book. They're going to be adapting inferior source material from here on out, but you never know – the screen versions might surpass the books.