Dune : part 3 2026

Looking suitably epic in all the right ways. Might be down in London for the holidays, gotta see if I can grab a BFI ticket later on! I haven't read the books but heard they go to weird(er) places as they go on. I guess that's one reason to end on the third part.
 
Missed the first two at the cinema.

Early last year I went "Full Dune"
Reading the books, while rewatching the films, while playing the old command and conquer style games.

So I'll be seeing this at the cinema. Will likely go myself due to childcare, but I just don't want to miss it.

Thile book it's from wasn't great but I'm sure they will have done something good with the film.
 
Manbatius said:
Missed the first two at the cinema.

Early last year I went "Full Dune"
Reading the books, while rewatching the films, while playing the old command and conquer style games.

So I'll be seeing this at the cinema. Will likely go myself due to childcare, but I just don't want to miss it.

Thile book it's from wasn't great but I'm sure they will have done something good with the film.
Click to expand...

Keep an eye out they'll be some cinemas likely doing a run of all 3.
 
If he sticks the landing, this is going to be a heck of a trilogy. I love the first 2. Watched the first one in Singapore in a vaccinated screening, which added to the memorable aspect of it.
 
I'm very curious how they are doing scytale.
It looks like it's just Robert Patterson all the time, as he'd want to actually be on screen obviously, but there must be scenes of him "doing what he does"
If you know you know.

Then characters will just interact with him as is?

I'm fine with that.

C0WeW6x.png
 
Last edited:
It looks like they are leaning heavily into the non-canon "trouble with Chani" they introduced in Dune 2. I know many really like these movies and the aesthetics are great but the plot of the first 2 was very thin compared to the source material. I accept books generally need cutting to make that transition but Denis seems to find a lot of screentime for stuff that was never in the books.
 
PlacidCasual said:
It looks like they are leaning heavily into the non-canon "trouble with Chani" they introduced in Dune 2. I know many really like these movies and the aesthetics are great but the plot of the first 2 was very thin compared to the source material. I accept books generally need cutting to make that transition but Denis seems to find a lot of screentime for stuff that was never in the books.
Click to expand...
I think you need to separate the two and treat them differently. The plot will differ. Most people watching the films won't have read the books.
 
sigma said:
I think you need to separate the two and treat them differently. The plot will differ. Most people watching the films won't have read the books.
Click to expand...
I think you're point is reasonable but I still think the first 2 films were very thin given their length. Then knowing the books I disliked the changes (even ignoring omissions) that were made. Stilgar was infantalised and angry Chani perma glare didn't work for me.
 
PlacidCasual said:
I think you're point is reasonable but I still think the first 2 films were very thin given their length. Then knowing the books I disliked the changes (even ignoring omissions) that were made. Stilgar was infantalised and angry Chani perma glare didn't work for me.
Click to expand...
Dumbed down for the masses unfortunately. Everything is middle-of-the-ground now and people are generally stupid. It seems that a lot of the top writers are on TV shows currently, but even they have gone stale in recent times.
 
Last edited:
Yes, for me it's more than just the film is pretty but shallow, they've really thinned out really important things in the story, and making Chani the antagonist so Paul has someone to explain things to doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We could just get more of Paul's inner dialogue. They just wanted a girl-boss, but Zendaya really doesn’t have the range beyond her usual frowny-scowl face. In the books Chani supports Paul completley, he is her husband, father of her children, Emperor, prophet of her god sent to bring her people to paradise. She has bought into Paul completely because of who he is, and what he's done. He is the embodiment of the great prophesy of her people, one step down from their god Shihalud as well as someone she loves more than her own life.

It's annoying to me that they aren't explaining important things, like how Paul loves Chani and is only marrying Irulan to consolidate his grip on the Imperial Throne, and will have nothing to do with the princess. It doesn't explain that he's not doing this for power, he's doing it because he's seen that if he doesn't do this, not only does House Atredies die, but so does the human race. He's literally taking over because he's trying to save humanity and inoculate them to future Kwizatch Haderachs. He's killing millions to save hundreds of billions, he knows he's doing monstrous things but can he justify them to himself? Is he ultimately right, or is there nothing that can justify his terrible actions? Is it the case that Paul agrees with Chani, but every other alternative is far, far worse? I think Paul would be more than happy to avenge his father's death, and then live a quiet life with Chani as a Fremen, but his manifest destiny and future vision won't let him.

These are some of the more interesting questions that are glossed over or ignored in the film. Yes, Herbert is always interpreted as writing Dune as a warning against charasmatic leaders, but there's interesting questions regarding what Paul is doing with that power, not just the story of how he gets it. In the end of course
Paul cannot follow through, what he's done is too monstrous even for his own conscience, and it's down to Leto II to finish his vision of the Golden Path.

I think it's right that you have to look at the Villeneuve movies as another, different interpretation of the books, just as the Syfy mini-series, and Lynch's movie was another translation of the original work. They are all interesting in themselves, and they all bring something of value, but even Villeneuve's movies, with their great visuals and audio, great casting (Zendaya notwithstanding), don't accomplish a complete or faithful adaptation beyond the surface level.
 
Last edited:
He's just condensed the themes down into characters. I assume In 3/Messiah chani is going to be the plot against him from the fremen side. She is basically condensed Farok the priest, faydakin whatever he was. I thought this from part 1, the way she was hostile and defensive.

I don't like her either, she's got angry frown face and that's nearly her entire character.

I don't mind it. As said every filmed interpretation is different and uniquely brilliant.


Oh god it's come to my attention, could he possibly have gone down a single mum route for chani ? Them separated as Paul goes deeper and deeper into his presciant destiny...... Strong confident woman.... Always at work dad trope lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom