Some thoughts on Dune 2 part 2...

Dune 2 is not a one-for-one retelling of Frank Herbert’s classic Dune novel. And honestly, I don’t really mind.

The changes that Villenueve made to the story will probably make some people mad. And that’s fine, but as someone who talks and thinks about the art of adaptation a lot, I can’t bring myself to hold these changes against this incredible piece of science fiction storytelling. Because movies like this, getting made in today’s climate, give me a lot of hope for the future of fantasy and Sci-fi filmmaking.

So before we start comparing and contrasting, let’s talk about what worked in this movie. (This is going to contain Dune spoilers. Beware.)

Visually, Dune 2 is a feast. Its cinematography is incredibly fluid, while still taking long moments to linger on gorgeous cinematic snapshots. The filmmakers knew which moments die-hard fans would be looking to see (the worm ride, the Fremen council, Feyd and Paul’s fight) and let those moments breathe with beautiful symmetry and symbolic imagery. I’m not a cinematic expert of any kind, but it was just beautiful; incredibly dramatic while still having the grit and realism you want from Arrakis.

The soundtrack and sound design were just as stunning. Paul and Chani’s theme was a particular standout, it captures the sweetness of their relationship, along with the sorrow inherent to it. Hans Zimmer created such an interesting soundscape, especially with the low, grinding noises that came in at particular universe-altering moments. It was like you could feel the gears of space and time turning. I think my favorite thing in terms of soundtrack sound design were how many moments of silence there were. Rather than punctuating key moments like Feyd’s death with a musical moment, telling the audience how they should feel, it was just dead silence.

The acting was very strong all around, especially Zendaya. There was significantly more humor in this film, and most of it landed well. I especially love the moments when Paul feels like a new kid on the first day of school. All of the relationships, from Paul and Stilgar, to Chani and Jessica, to Chani and Paul developed very naturally in short periods of time, and are both enjoyable and complex.

Now, let’s talk about some of the more significant changes from book to movie (this will also be its own video someday so I won’t go too in depth, but still…)

The largest gripe you could probably have is that Villenueve removed many of Dune’s wackier elements, and I was certainly missing them. For example, I love that toddler-aged Alia kills the Baron Harkonnen in the book. It’s very funny, but it’s also a poignant moment of showing him his place. There’s not a lot that’s more humiliating than being killed by your own toddler granddaughter.

However, this would look ridiculous onscreen. It just would. And Villenueve was not going for ridiculous.

Instead, they have Alia “possessing” Lady Jessica, which both incorporates hercharacter, (without the sentient toddler problems) and also evokes Alia’s later storyline. Villenueve does not plan on making a Children of Dune movie, so I understand trying to work in a possession plotline where you can.

This does, of course, alter Jessica’s character, but I don’t mind. I think we could already see this coming in the first film, when they emphasize her conceiving of Paul not as a result of love for Leto, but out of pride. She is a much more villainous character, and though I miss her book character, this will solve the problem of her absence from the entirety of Messiah’s story.

I also missed a lot of the Harkonnen trickery, especially with Feyd Rautha. In the books, Feyd’s secret poison darts are such a key part of the character. It proves that the Harkonnens are planners to their bones. They always have a trick up their sleeves.

Meanwhile, in the final battle between Paul and Feyd, Paul is supposed to have a secret kill word that will shut Feyd down, something that didn’t make it into the film. I assume this was cut for the sake of simplicity, which I do understand, but the contrast of Feyd having an ace up his sleeve and using it, and Paul having one too, but choosing not to, is so important. Like his grandfather, Paul Atreides faces the bull head-on, with no safety measures in place.

It’s a beautiful moment from the book, but the scene still retained its dramatic integrity without it.

Dillon pointed out the very interesting fact that the Feyd of the movies is actually pretty honorable. He’s a sociopath, and quite cruel, but he has a twisted sort of valor, respecting at least the tenets of Battle. It sets him up far more clearly as a parallel to Paul, someone who could have been the Kwisatz Haderach,

Then of course, there’s the changes made to Chani. I think these were made for two main reasons.

There’s the simple fact that Villnueve couldn’t make use of internal monologue like Herbert could. We couldn’t see Stilgar’s complex internal journey from skepticism to acceptance. Instead, Villenueve gave us Chani and Stilgar as the two ends of the spectrum, and allowed Paul to bounce between their poles, as he tries to determine if he is man or messiah. This allowed the internal debates of these characters to be externalized, and far more visible to new audiences.

The changes made to Chani also, frankly, gave her more of an actual character. I enjoy Chani in the books, but she really does get set on the backburner. Her love for Paul is never changing, never really challenged. They are a done deal from the first few moments of their meeting. In a book, where we’re reading about a faceless character, this is easier to swallow. In a movie, where we would be watching a human actor in this role, buffeted about by cruel fate, never really fighting back against the men around her, it would be a harder pill to swallow.

Instead, Villnueve gave Chani a very significant journey, introducing complex conflict into their relationship. I think I’ll have to reserve final judgements on her character until movie 3 when their relationship is resolved, because if she never comes around to accept Paul, A. the movie would not work and B. I would be sad because I love the two of them.

I won’t try to say that these are not very significant changes. However, most of them felt incredibly intentional, and I could trace the logic behind them. When he took out something, like Feyd’s poison darts, he added something else in, like making Feyd a more honorable man, and a stronger opponent.

It’s easy to forget, when almost every other part of a movie is perfect, that the medium of film is so different to a novel. There are things that Herbert achieved in the original tale that are just impossible to do in the story Villenueve was telling. But I think we were very fortunate that this movie was made by someone who understands those differences and allows the story to thrive, and change, for worse and for better.

The fact remains, if you want an exact, page for page recreation of Dune, you’ll have to read the book. While Dune 2 isn’t a perfect recreation, it is an excellent adaptation, and its slower pace, attention to detail, and well-crafted storytelling make it stand out in the realm of modern entertainment.

Needless to say, if we get more sci-fi films in the future like Villenueve’s Dune 2, I will be a very, very happy camper.

If any of you have thoughts, feel free to share! And if you haven't gotten out to see it, I highly recommend you check it out while it's still in theaters.