Dune (2020) - Denis Villeneuve

But still seemed surprised when the bad guy said that she was dead. He was holding out for it. It was a convenient plot piece and agreed, it was a bit lazy and sloppy

There is some theory doing the rounds that the wife has been changed into the spider creature that gets told to leave the room. Makes sense as it has human hands at the end of the legs.
 
And the "personal" video book viewer/hologram things.

A proper computer would be out due to the ban on thinking machines, but as you say they certainly had comm implant/buttons behind their ears and radios.

This explains why you don't ever see anyone playing FIFA 10191 in Dune.
 
There is some theory doing the rounds that the wife has been changed into the spider creature that gets told to leave the room. Makes sense as it has human hands at the end of the legs.
Owww that's yucky!! Imagine that, imagine if she could still think like she used to. Horrific
 
It was pretty good 7/10 but no higher.

It was beautiful and the pace wasn't bad and the plot was fairly faithful. But there is no emotional impact of the film. I liked it but I wasn't moved by the film. No peril, no thrill, no elation. Also given how long it was there is a lot unsaid. Paul's sense of otherness is lost without internal monologue. The fact he is a manufactured person is kind of lost. Lynch makes Gurney, Yueh and Thuffir more real and that they are training Paul for a higher purpose ismore obvious. This is lost under Villeneuve. Most of the secondary characters are little thin. Finally the Arrakis portion feels like only a week has gone by from handover to invasion. There is no sense of time passing on Arrakis which kind of undercuts the foreboding a few scenes about Leo's remoteness and Paul having to fulfil governance tasks might have added to the sense they are there for longer living before the fall.

That might seem like a lot of negatives but they're more missteps than big problems for me. It was good but it wasn't close to great.
 
It was pretty good 7/10 but no higher.

It was beautiful and the pace wasn't bad and the plot was fairly faithful. But there is no emotional impact of the film. I liked it but I wasn't moved by the film. No peril, no thrill, no elation. Also given how long it was there is a lot unsaid. Paul's sense of otherness is lost without internal monologue. The fact he is a manufactured person is kind of lost. Lynch makes Gurney, Yueh and Thuffir more real and that they are training Paul for a higher purpose ismore obvious. This is lost under Villeneuve. Most of the secondary characters are little thin. Finally the Arrakis portion feels like only a week has gone by from handover to invasion. There is no sense of time passing on Arrakis which kind of undercuts the foreboding a few scenes about Leo's remoteness and Paul having to fulfil governance tasks might have added to the sense they are there for longer living before the fall.

That might seem like a lot of negatives but they're more missteps than big problems for me. It was good but it wasn't close to great.

What do you rate Lynch's version? Worth watching for someone who only watched the new one and never read the books?
 
Lynchs version is very different, it departs from the books more and it is undoubtedly flawed. The problem is I saw it in the 80s and liked and appreciated it then. It has aged and modern sensibilities may not do it justice.

Personally having seen Villeneuves it’s probably marginally the better but utterly different. Lynchs film brings the characters on faster and the secondary characters seem deeper despite less run time. There is a grand degenerate pomp to the universe in Lynch’s film that is lacking in the new one. There are elements of each I’d keep from both.

I think the 80s Dune is well worth a watch.
 
There is some theory doing the rounds that the wife has been changed into the spider creature that gets told to leave the room. Makes sense as it has human hands at the end of the legs.

It’s a silly theory. The Baron is always good to his word - at least from his point of view - and when he tells Yueh he can join his wife again he’s not lying.

In the book Yueh knows his wife had likely been dead for a long time and he’s being given false hope in order to carry out the betrayal, but he needs to look into the Baron’s eyes on Arrakis to know for certain to finally let go (which he does the moment they meet). His betrayal was ultimately about creating the opportunity to get revenge rather than truly believing he’d see her again.

In universe, the only people that could manufacture a creature like that are the Tleilaxu; they’re the only ones who have the knowledge and… ‘facilities’ to grow chimera creatures like that (which they do already with sligs and chairdogs which they sell across the galaxy for food and comfort, respectively). The Tleilaxu take cells/DNA and use them to grow new (or cloned) things that have no right to exist normally, so whatever human DNA is in that thing came from a donor - dead or living - rather than once being something else.

There are various novel, cruel methods of torture in Dune, but there’s no brain transplants or human centipede stuff. The weirdest human alternations are navigator mutations after years in spice gas, but even then the Lynch film and mini-series made them dramatically more mutated than they are in the books.

I took the whole thing as just a subtle wink to book fans that though the Bene Tleilaxu themselves don’t appear until Dune Messiah their products, much like the Ixians and their machines, are still being used by the Great Houses.
 
So did Paul lose hope of the golden path when his wife died. Him not carrying it out does it mean leto 2 is more gifted/powerful?

Why did it take thousands of years for humanity to be saved?

Why did some fremen betray Paul?

Does the Baron know Jessica is his daughter?
 
So did Paul lose hope of the golden path when his wife died. Him not carrying it out does it mean leto 2 is more gifted/powerful?

Paul has a crisis of confidence and faith with the Golden Path. He becomes disillusioned with the politics and practical problems of running the empire, the changes in Fremen society, and the many deaths caused by the Jihad that he figureheads, but is not necessarily in control of. The death of Chani and the possibility of getting her back as a ghola is the final straw. IIRC, Paul comes to believe that a Kwizats Haderach defining where humanity goes is effectively enslaving humanity to one person's will, taking away humanity's freedom and is a terrible fate for the future.

Leto II is more powerful. He's a Kwizats Haderach bonded to and mutated by sandfish (the precursor to sandworms). He's the absolute tyrant ruler of Arakkis and the Empire, worshipped as a god by his own religion and lives for 3500 years. His prescience bring his future visions into reality.

Why did it take thousands of years for humanity to be saved?

Leto II has to shepherd humanity through another diaspora, and breed into humanity the genetic ability to be invisible to the prescience of superhumans like himself, and therefore outside of the influence of superhuman visions. He also makes massive changes in the ecosystem of Arakkis and the organisation of the wider empire. This takes thousands of years.

Why did some fremen betray Paul?

Politics, power, avarice and jealousy. When Paul takes power, the Jihad takes a life of it's own, with Paul as it's figurehead. There are massive changes in Fremen society and the environment of Arakkis itself. Some Fremen see this as an opportunity for a power grab or outside of their religious beliefs.

Does the Baron know Jessica is his daughter?

Not while he's alive, no. Obviously the genetic memories/personalities of the Baron present in Paul, Alia and Leto II do know, but that not really the Baron Harkonnen.
 
I read a few things differently.
Paul IMO couldn’t bear the burden of the Golden path, 3500 years of stagnation..
Leto 2 doesn’t aid the diaspora so much as bottle up humanity in such chains that when it breaks free it will never be chained again. He creates the outward urge with his overbearing empire.
But otherwise agree with Steampunk.
 
Last edited:
I read a few things differently.
Paul IMO couldn’t bear the burden of the Golden path, 3500 years of stagnation..
Leto 2 doesn’t aid the diaspora so much as bottle up humanity in such chains that when it breaks free it will never be chained again. He creates the outward urge with his overbearing empire.
But otherwise agree with Steampunk.

Yes, I'd agree with that. Leto II knows what he's doing, setting himself up as a God Tyrant so that humanity has no choice but to escape from his overbearing (and seemingly unending) rule. He wants humanity to escape from his prescience and the iron fist with which he rules the empire. He forces humanity into that future where they eventually become immune to superbeings just like him and escape (some to eventually return) from his empire.
 
So was there no one who could rival him or a rebel group of some sort?
So there were others with prescience power?

How come baron punished feyd when he tried to kill him. Why didn't he kill him like his men?
 
It'd be nice if people label their spoilers as book or movie spoilers. At least the first spoiler in a conversation. This is a thread for the movie, and people might want to read the book after watching the movie...
 
Last edited:
So was there no one who could rival him or a rebel group of some sort?
So there were others with prescience power?

How come baron punished feyd when he tried to kill him. Why didn't he kill him like his men?

”All rebels are closet aristocrats, that’s why I can convert them so easily.”

Leto II was a god in more than name and willingly gave up his humanity (something Paul could not do) to be able to facilitate the Golden Path to ensure humanity escaped stagnation and eventual extinction. It necessitated a being like himself who had absolute power over all humans, prescient vision of all possible futures and access to the memories/ego personalities of men and women across all of human history, coupled with the immortality oversee it over millennia. Nobody could challenge him because he knew everything that was and would be. His reign ended by choice only when he knew humanity’s survival was ensured… at least until Brian retconned the whole thing.

Feyd - it’s pretty clearly laid out in the conversation they have. Feyd doesn’t believe the Baron means to let him be heir and that he’s an old fool. The Baron thinks Feyd has potential to take over “and I don’t waste potential” and he will step aside for him one day, but he’s not intelligent or cunning enough yet - as evidenced in his failed attempt - and lacks respect where it should be warranted. Thus if he agrees to shut up, learn and not try and kill him again he’ll get what he wants, but if he does try again he’ll be the one doing the killing.
 
So was there no one who could rival him or a rebel group of some sort?

There is a rebel group in book 4, but only because Leto II wants them to exist. He wants a rebel group challenging him, though they don't get anywhere until he wants them to. He's effectively making humanity stronger by making himself something that people will want to rebel against. This helps prepare humanity against any future Kwizats Haderach.

So there were others with prescience power?

There is the potential for other Kwizats Haderachs, but they can never exist while Leto got there first and is manifesting the future. By doing so, he can ensure that no other superhumans can be created or can usurp him.

How come baron punished feyd when he tried to kill him. Why didn't he kill him like his men?

The Baron is creating another monster in Feyd, so while he's being trained, he's expecting a few murder attempts. The Baron's training would not be working if Feyd didn't try the odd assassination against him now and again. Baron Harkonnen expects it and isn't going to throw away all his hard work. It's just part of the process. You're not going to train a vicious dog and then get rid of it just because it tries to bite you now and again.
 
Back
Top Bottom