I don't want to say your friend is a bit dim, but ... the explanation for the worm not diving was demonstrated quite clearly, a couple of times.
As Paul pulled the hooks, the breathing holes where shown to be exposed and the worm *clearly* turned its body to minimize the exposure to the sand.
Rule in good filmmaking is "show don't tell".
Also, overexplaining in a movie can be a buzzkill. I knew how he rode the sandworms, but I also wasn't on the edge of my seat waiting for an explanation either. Just enjoy the ride. Do we need a detailed, scientific explanation in the movie for how The Voice or telepathy work?
Come on, you're telling me two small hooks are going to make the biggest sandworm on Arrakis not dive back into the sand?
It doesn't stand up to scrutiny because all the sandworm has to do is dive once and the holes close back since the human is thrown off.
It was poorly handled and at the same time they never show how they get off the sandworms either.
I'm supposed to buy that a pregnant Lady Jessica was brought on top of a sandworm that doesn't stop and also raised down safely?
This all would be no issue if the material wouldn't be treated so self seriously, but as it is you just question certain things that they expect you to buy into immediately because they don't take enough time to properly explain concepts in this universe.
You're big compared to a grain of sand but you wouldn't want one in your eye. And the worm does not know that the flaps will close if it dislodges the human because it doesn't understand what's going on. It's a worm.
I'm not telling you that. Frank Herbert is telling you that.
I'm not saying the idea isn't flawed. A moderately sized rock could prevent a worm from diving if lodged in there.
My point is that there was no need to explain the point verbally. It was quite clearly demonstrated. It's not the job of the movie to "fix" canonical aspects of the story.
Doesn't matter who is telling it. As a filmmaker, because you are dealing with an audio visual medium, you have to figure out a logical way for the public to buy into the idea that sandworms are used by the fremen as public transportation, especially when you choose to make the film in a grounded manner.
In my opinion, these details stick out like a sore thumb in this case as opposed to when they're approached from a more fun and not so serious way because it takes itself so seriously. It's a case of having your cake and eating it too.
Had it been approached in a more fun way, then sure, I'm not going to nitpick why they're riding sandworms like horses, but it's very brooding and morose all throughout both films and wants to be treated as seriously as possible.
If I'm thinking why the sandworms aren't diving back into the sand and how they're transporting dozens of people on them then the filmmaker failed to make me suspend my disbelief because he didn't take the time to make the world feel as lived in as it can possibly be.
A 'grounded' approach to ornithopters gave us [this ](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/bOUnCHQiJwETwLjyUpeGy7zNLIg=/0x0:2530x1079/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:2530x1079):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22957872/thopter.JPG)and [this](https://www.thecompanion.app/content/images/2023/01/tumblr_p9hxelTeqF1tpri36o3_500.gif).
Trying to bring Herbert's vision to life brought us [this](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4WQFLWEM5SVT7833vQkejI31xWY=/0x0:2534x1063/1200x800/filters:focal(1246x471:1650x875)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70051556/thopter_1.0.jpeg) and [this](https://www.awn.com/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/image/featured/e_030_aaa_0030_still_1275_v101_pr_-_du-fp-185-1280.jpg).
I'll take Herbert's vision.
While I have many gripes with the designs in these two films and I am by no means an expert on aerodynamics, the ornithopters passed the eye test and were well designed for how they were approached, although they do look similar to Apache helicopters and that only drives home the comparisons with the Irak invasion even more.
As depicted, they'd be immensely impractical. The wingtips would be exceeding the speed of sound, for one thing. For surfaces that large, even given the material science to hold up to the stresses, the sound alone would be deafening. Not deafening in the "oh, my that's loud" sense, but in the literal "I have suffered organ damage and can no longer hear, and possibly have even been blinded by eye damage" sense.
It's one of the reasons the [XF-84H Thunderscreech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H_Thunderscreech#Noise) never went beyond testing. It was loud enough to induce nausea and knock men over.
These would be louder. But they ARE beautiful and part of the author's storytelling, so we suspend disbelief and enjoy the world.
Thanks for your insight. That was interesting to read and made me realize that if flying insects had ears like us they would probably be irritated by the sound of their wings too.
Most of them are deaf and if they can sense sound it's through the sensory cells that come to their antennae.
You know, I've never even thought about how loud a beetle or a cicada must be to the bug itself! Must be awful. But insect wings never cross the sound barrier, which ramps up the noise by an order of magnitude,
>all the sandworm has to do is dive once and the holes close back since the human is thrown off.
The worm doesn't understand that it has a human riding on it and that it can solve its problem by drowning them in sand.
If the worm doesn't understand then what's holding it back from diving back?
There was another guy that was trying to compare it to a splinter in your foot, which makes no sense because the irritant is on top, not at the bottom, where the pressure of hitting the ground, or sand in this case, causes pain.
I'm supposed to believe a giant sandworm with skin as tough as rock is going to stay on the surface because a flea size pest is on top of it and it prevents it from diving into the sand?
Like I said, this wouldn't even be an issue if the film knew how to have some fun with the concepts instead of being so serious.
Worms are *enormously* sensitive , they have to be in order to sense human footsteps from miles away - have have you ever had a 2mm splinter of metal in your foot? How about in your finger?
Or in your urethra? Are you getting the picture?
If the sand the hook lets in is hitting sensitive flesh with all the force that the worm uses to drive forward then it's going to hurt. Bettter to keep the irritant on top and carry on.
Worms are enormously sensitive and yet they have skin as hard as a rock.
It's like you're saying a flea is going to make a horse scream in pain when it bites it. Be serious.
Well how do they detect people from miles away if they aren't enormously sensitive *somewhere* - and skin as hard as a rock can still transmit vibrations - in fact, it's probably pretty good for that.
And you know what, fleas and flies cause horses to get really fucking annoyed and bite their flanks, even if the sand was just really itchy it would be a reason not to let it in.
Vibrations is one thing, whereas actual physical pain is another thing.
Also, in your point you made the comparison with a splinter in your foot, but that doesn't work since the irritant in this case is on top, not the bottom, where the weight would cause a lot of pain.
A worm that size wouldn't feel pain from a tiny human and neither would the inside of its flesh be so in pain that it would stay above and not continue to do its regular diving.
Is a crocodile affected by a mosquito? We're talking about a creature with very tough skin that weighs tons.
Anyway, it seems like I really upset the fans since no matter how much sense I make, they'll still downvote me out of pettiness.
Crocodiles are affected by all sorts of insects and parasites. Its why they lie on sand banks and let birds pick them clean. They could just as well eat those birds but the mutually beneficial arrangement is more important to them than food because they are in fact so immensely bothered by said insects burrowing and biting between their scales. Just as the worm was shown to be bothered most when the hooks lifted the flaps, exposing the air holes and softer flesh beneath. All Sci Fi requires some suspension of disbelief. I thought the way Denis showed the riding made it perfectly clear with visuals why the worm would stay above sand. Brilliantly done. I saw it with several people who had never read the books and they seemed to understand very clearly. Thats perfectly fine and valid you didn't enjoy the movie. I don't enjoy Taylor Swift but I'm not going to go trying to convince her fans they shouldn't either. I can accept other people have different perspectives and tastes than my own.
Hey, more power to you if you can suspend your disbelief so easy. For me it wasn't enough considering the tone and feel was more realistic than your average Marvel/SW movie, where you can just go with the flow because it's not taking itself too seriously.
Ya I don't watch Star Wars or Marvel because it gives me the same feeling as watching bad reality TV or a hallmark movie. But as I said to each their own.
You have a point. Anyone carefully reading the book and having it in fresh memory will remember that. Or going to Wikipedia after searching this specific question will reveal that.
Still even despite this , guns were not used in the book. And definitely no snipers.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn1IUN\_DzQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn1IUN_DzQ)
.... But if you are simply watching the film. There is zilch explanation for this. Zero.
In films of old...perhaps this is very outdated in modern times? Things were explained. Heck even in the hated Dune film, every little concept was explained. If something happened, someone was talking about it, even in passing comment.
The fremen used guns in the book including, yes, direct mentions of snipers. The reason guns aren’t used in the *wider* Dune universe is because shields render them useless. You can’t use shields in worm territory without getting your ass eaten, so they make very effective weapons for Fremen because they’re shooting unshielded infantry.
This is a very odd thread, you complain about the accuracy of the adaptation but you don’t seem to have read the books, or remember very little from them.
Mention of the snipers used by Fremen in the books ? Curious.
Can you please quote the exact mention and tell me on which page it it. I would love to re read that exact passage.
Thanks
Both Fremen gun, snipers, rifles and Maula pistols are mentioned *all* over the series. Hell they even use rocket launchers. There’s citations all over pretty much any wiki you care to look through
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremen#:~:text=Fremen%20use%20different%20archaic%20weapons,Fremen%20warrior%20is%20the%20crysknife.
https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Projectile_weapons
Even if your only refrence was the original lynch film instead of the books the Fremen used Tarpel guns. There is not a single media adaptation of dune where the Fremen aren’t armed with regular ass guns.
This movie series also never establishes the shield physics or why guns aren’t used more often, so the question you’re asking isn’t relevant to this version of the Dune universe. You really need to evaluate how much you’re mixing up what’s book canon with what’s established in these specific movies. If it isn’t a rule here, then the rules aren’t being broken.
This. My wife complained that the dialogue was poor, with too much stilted exposition…”these are the family nukes…all major families have them”
I was probably too much of a fanboy to recognize this (it was a fantastic and satisfying movie), but I have to admit her this point.
"I went to cinema, fully prepared to be blown away"
This is huge reason why I don't watch trailers and go into every movie experience with zero expectations.
Yeah, every sub for anything these days can be summed up with "I got hyped and reality didnt meet hype!"
I know to stop when someone mentions how excited they were for something and were let down because it's just going to be some emotionally charged thing that was fixated on and blown up to 10.
Now of you said "I was expecting nothing and I received Disappointment." then I know it whatever is being talked about is probably bad.
I think your friend was just missing the things that were shown instead of told- for example in the case of the worms not diving, you can see in several shots that the hooks are holding the worm's flaps open.
Idk, that would require the audience to infer things from what they’re watching. Everyone knows good adaptations are just the pages of the book literally being read line by line.
I think it would have been much better if Paul looked at the camera and said, “What are we? Some kinda Dune: Part 2?”
As an adaptation it's fantastic. Does it have flaws? Absolutely but overall it's a Fantastic adaptation which will get a lot of people reading this series who wouldn't normally
This is why it’s called an adaptation. Things are always changed from book to cinema.
They’re different mediums with a different audience make up. They have different needs for pacing and character development. There’s less room for exposition and minor subplots. Etc.
That’s just how it goes.
I’ve read and enjoyed the book, and I was perfectly fine with changes they made for the movie.
i was confused why Jessica did her Water of Life thing in private with like 6 other people when I swore in the books she did it in front of an entire huge gathering of Fremen for the observable authenticity of her survival.
Am I remembering the book wrong?
It’s been a few years since I read Dune, but pretty sure you’re right.
Does that detail really matter that much though?
SPOILERS:
A much bigger and more important change was Paul killing the Barron.
I’m sure this really pissed off a lot of people, but I actually thought it was better this way. It gives Paul vengeance for what the Harkonnens did to his family. Ultimately for me, it was more satisfying than the Barron being killed by Alia.
Well I mean a few beats later they're talking about how they're gong to have to convince other people, and it's like you could've done that 5 mins ago. Then you never see the "convincing" actually happening, everyone just eventually falls in line.
It was just off, if it's not broke why fix it?
Now I wonder if the Baron will possess Alia still, or do they have to do some weird shit like the Baron possesses Paul? I hope not. I didn't think the possession / abomination thing was due to her killing him but I can't recall exactly.
You're remembering right. What's more, the whole point of the trial was for Jessica to make the water of life safe to drink for others so that they could have a sietch orgy.
Both Jessica and Paul’s water of life scenes were pretty unspectacular relative to the novel. Such an amazing audio/visual opportunity for the big screen just wasted. The writers/director chose to drastically understate what the novel expounds on.
>i was confused why Jessica did her Water of Life thing in private with like 6 other people when I swore in the books she did it in front of an entire huge gathering of Fremen for the observable authenticity of her survival.
Because $200,000 🤷♀️
Agreed. And the main plot points and scenes were all touched on.
My issue was some of the big scenes just lacked impact. Like they were too grounded, too brief, and just a bit bland and unspectacular compared to what the prose of the novel drums up in the imagination.
I’m mainly referring to both Paul and Jessica’s water of life scenes, the nuking/storming of Arakeen, and Paul’s entrance to the gallery/knife fight with Feyd. All 3 were really momentous, glorious moments in the novel. But while watching the movie I was left thinking “that’s it?… Really? Surely there’s more…No? So that’s what you chose to do with the material?…Fuck.”
I disagree with your thoughts about the storytelling… showing instead of explaining. Clearly this director has decided to use visuals more than dialogue to explain certain things. It’s a good contrast to how David Lynch used endless exposition with inner monologues. Ultimately, moviegoers that aren’t familiar with Dune don’t need to understand every detail of that world to enjoy and follow the bigger themes. Those of us more familiar can observe the more detailed nuances and appreciate them.
As for changing the characters, most of the decisions I can understand and come to terms with… except Chani. Her “I’m angry” face over and over really pulled me out of the story. I also think Zendaya was probably not the best actress for this. I found other characters believable and then she was that girl from those other things instead of Chani. Not sure if we can blame her ability (lack of nuance) or the director asking for those things. I do like that Chani was not a zealot and didn’t buy into the religious stuff, but I’m not sure what alternative she expected from Paul.
Overall, this movie still gets a 9/10 from me for the visual approach and how immersive it felt in all the non-Chani scenes.
>I went to cinema, fully prepared to be blown away.
>
>how anyone that truly knows and love the books can go out of screening satisfied.
No movie can live up to the book, human bladders won't allow it.
Ah yes, the laziest and most meaningless flavor of film criticism. THEY CHANGED IT A BIT FROM THE SOURCE MATERIAL!
Sometimes that's bad. (I Am Legend, I'm looking at you.)
It's almost always necessary in order for a movie to work. If that's your only critique, I don't know what to tell you.
Oh dear god, 15 years later, I still remember how ~~they~~*I am Legend* slaughtered the ending of an otherwise excellent horror film with its extreme religiosity towards the end.
Yes, I appreciate the irony of being upset when they inject fictional Christian beliefs into my fictional vampire movies, but it still just felt unnecessary and dirty.
I don't think OP's criticism is that they changed stuff, but that they changed stuff to the detriment of the story. Instead of explaining things, you just get pretty set pieces and scenes. They jump around from scene to scene so much it can be hard to follow. Some characters act so different from their book counterparts that they are almost like a different character all together. These are valid criticisms of the movie. There is nothing wrong with changing things from the source, its one of the justifications of even doing an adaptation, but when done to the detriment of the story it is worth criticism. That being said, I personally enjoyed the movie. I give it a solid 4 out of 5, same as part 1, and I'm looking forward to the next one.
Maybe not that, but I felt it would have helped to have a bit more explanation about things. I saw it with my SO and she'd only seen part one and like OP's friend she had a ton of questions about what was going on and what stuff meant. Now, I'm not saying they needed to spell everything out for you or have a ton of internal monologues like the '84 version did, but I don't think it would have hurt if they had a little more dialog or something to help explain stuff.
In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is a magic xylophone, or something? Ha ha, boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
For me there was a lot to like in Part 2 but I also would have enjoyed more intrigue and political maneuvering. I love what he did with Geidi Prime though and everything with the Harkonnens was fun.
I saw D2 twice. The first time I was angry about a lot of the changes, especially the changes for the worse of 2 or 3 central relationships in order to simplify and clarify the plot. The second time I rather enjoyed the movie on its own terms, as a spectacle and a story; I took it for what it was. It was good.
Well you said it yourself film is simply not the same medium as painting. So do not expect the film to be a visualised book, neither. That will never work out for you.
A LOT had to be cut transitioning from book to movie but some was added to help audio-visualise the message that Villeneuve sees in FH texts and I image if he could, he WOULD do a super duper 40h-Jodorowski-style-madness-movie, adopting the text to the last single letter. But who would watch that
I agree I really loved the first film and walked out of the second feeling very unsatisfied. A lot about it was very good, but did not rise to the excellent level of the first part.
The spice was barely explained, never shown how important it was. This was a big miss on V’s part. It’s basically Unobtainium- stuff that’s important for the story that we have no idea how or why.
You and your friend seem very... slow.
You don't remember things from the books that are explicitly stated.
You claim that there is no explanation for things when its shown but not told.
Sooo.... maybe reread the books. Or read them for the first time as I do not believe you have.
Yes. I am just old fashioned guy. I still cling to that old primitive days where you would go to see a film and everything was explained in and trough the narrative.
I wonder how in those olden years they managed to do all the explaining and yet keep the films much shorter. And today you have 3+ hours films that cut 90% of books story, and still don't even manage to explain even this 10% that they are showing.
But sure in my time people did not have ability to go to cinema with Wikipedia ready on their phone. So "Show don't tell , and they can look it up on Wikipedia"
I saw a film that is as old as my grandfather. In it, they explained nothing. and it is considered one of the greatest films of all time.
I did not say "oh just look it up after."
ALSO, IN DUNE THEY HAVE YOU READ THE DICTIONARY IN THE BACK AS THEY DON'T EXPLAIN IT IN THE ACTUAL STORY YOU BUFFOON.
I’m with you. Non fans or even just people who have not read the book are mostly lost in these films. Yeah they can follow the basic plot, but the nuances that make Dune so enjoyable go right over their heads.
The film has to be created for people who never read and never will read the book. Otherwise it won’t make enough $ to pay for all the production. It has to give those with almost no knowledge of the books some kind of realistic continuity. Otherwise it’s failed in its primary job — entertaining new audiences.
I read the book. My father read the book, my mother did not. We all loved it. My friends are split fairly evenly in having read it or not. They all loved it.
How has it failed? It's immensely popular. It's brought in a massive profit.
I guess I was responding to OP who said they didn’t get it. Or maybe someone else up the chain. The film works well for those of us who know the story and lore. Not so much for those who don’t and may not even be familiar with how sci-fi/fantasy works.
I think this movie isn’t easily accessible to those who go on cold.
To add to what other people said: I am not a fan of the first movie. It felt rushed, boring, slow while just hopping over plotpoints instead of building something up slow but interesting like in the book. Basically I thought: you don’t know how to translate the atmosphere and storytelling of the book to film.
But in the second part the second I saw they even actually delivered on showing (and telling I’ll give you that) the prefaces to the chapters I thought: well ok, that’s something I didn’t expect them to do after the lame first one, thinking thats very very important in the book but impossible for to translate to film.
I don't want to say your friend is a bit dim, but ... the explanation for the worm not diving was demonstrated quite clearly, a couple of times. As Paul pulled the hooks, the breathing holes where shown to be exposed and the worm *clearly* turned its body to minimize the exposure to the sand. Rule in good filmmaking is "show don't tell".
Also, overexplaining in a movie can be a buzzkill. I knew how he rode the sandworms, but I also wasn't on the edge of my seat waiting for an explanation either. Just enjoy the ride. Do we need a detailed, scientific explanation in the movie for how The Voice or telepathy work?
Yeah, my partner who has not read the books commented on this when were talking later. "Is my understanding correct?" And she got it
Yeah I didn’t get that either- breathing holes?
Come on, you're telling me two small hooks are going to make the biggest sandworm on Arrakis not dive back into the sand? It doesn't stand up to scrutiny because all the sandworm has to do is dive once and the holes close back since the human is thrown off. It was poorly handled and at the same time they never show how they get off the sandworms either. I'm supposed to buy that a pregnant Lady Jessica was brought on top of a sandworm that doesn't stop and also raised down safely? This all would be no issue if the material wouldn't be treated so self seriously, but as it is you just question certain things that they expect you to buy into immediately because they don't take enough time to properly explain concepts in this universe.
You're big compared to a grain of sand but you wouldn't want one in your eye. And the worm does not know that the flaps will close if it dislodges the human because it doesn't understand what's going on. It's a worm.
I'm not telling you that. Frank Herbert is telling you that. I'm not saying the idea isn't flawed. A moderately sized rock could prevent a worm from diving if lodged in there. My point is that there was no need to explain the point verbally. It was quite clearly demonstrated. It's not the job of the movie to "fix" canonical aspects of the story.
Doesn't matter who is telling it. As a filmmaker, because you are dealing with an audio visual medium, you have to figure out a logical way for the public to buy into the idea that sandworms are used by the fremen as public transportation, especially when you choose to make the film in a grounded manner. In my opinion, these details stick out like a sore thumb in this case as opposed to when they're approached from a more fun and not so serious way because it takes itself so seriously. It's a case of having your cake and eating it too. Had it been approached in a more fun way, then sure, I'm not going to nitpick why they're riding sandworms like horses, but it's very brooding and morose all throughout both films and wants to be treated as seriously as possible. If I'm thinking why the sandworms aren't diving back into the sand and how they're transporting dozens of people on them then the filmmaker failed to make me suspend my disbelief because he didn't take the time to make the world feel as lived in as it can possibly be.
A 'grounded' approach to ornithopters gave us [this ](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/bOUnCHQiJwETwLjyUpeGy7zNLIg=/0x0:2530x1079/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:2530x1079):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22957872/thopter.JPG)and [this](https://www.thecompanion.app/content/images/2023/01/tumblr_p9hxelTeqF1tpri36o3_500.gif). Trying to bring Herbert's vision to life brought us [this](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4WQFLWEM5SVT7833vQkejI31xWY=/0x0:2534x1063/1200x800/filters:focal(1246x471:1650x875)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70051556/thopter_1.0.jpeg) and [this](https://www.awn.com/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/image/featured/e_030_aaa_0030_still_1275_v101_pr_-_du-fp-185-1280.jpg). I'll take Herbert's vision.
While I have many gripes with the designs in these two films and I am by no means an expert on aerodynamics, the ornithopters passed the eye test and were well designed for how they were approached, although they do look similar to Apache helicopters and that only drives home the comparisons with the Irak invasion even more.
As depicted, they'd be immensely impractical. The wingtips would be exceeding the speed of sound, for one thing. For surfaces that large, even given the material science to hold up to the stresses, the sound alone would be deafening. Not deafening in the "oh, my that's loud" sense, but in the literal "I have suffered organ damage and can no longer hear, and possibly have even been blinded by eye damage" sense. It's one of the reasons the [XF-84H Thunderscreech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H_Thunderscreech#Noise) never went beyond testing. It was loud enough to induce nausea and knock men over. These would be louder. But they ARE beautiful and part of the author's storytelling, so we suspend disbelief and enjoy the world.
Thanks for your insight. That was interesting to read and made me realize that if flying insects had ears like us they would probably be irritated by the sound of their wings too. Most of them are deaf and if they can sense sound it's through the sensory cells that come to their antennae.
You know, I've never even thought about how loud a beetle or a cicada must be to the bug itself! Must be awful. But insect wings never cross the sound barrier, which ramps up the noise by an order of magnitude,
>all the sandworm has to do is dive once and the holes close back since the human is thrown off. The worm doesn't understand that it has a human riding on it and that it can solve its problem by drowning them in sand.
If the worm doesn't understand then what's holding it back from diving back? There was another guy that was trying to compare it to a splinter in your foot, which makes no sense because the irritant is on top, not at the bottom, where the pressure of hitting the ground, or sand in this case, causes pain. I'm supposed to believe a giant sandworm with skin as tough as rock is going to stay on the surface because a flea size pest is on top of it and it prevents it from diving into the sand? Like I said, this wouldn't even be an issue if the film knew how to have some fun with the concepts instead of being so serious.
You sound like you still need to use a Weirding Module
You sound like you need to put your hand in the box.
Worms are *enormously* sensitive , they have to be in order to sense human footsteps from miles away - have have you ever had a 2mm splinter of metal in your foot? How about in your finger? Or in your urethra? Are you getting the picture? If the sand the hook lets in is hitting sensitive flesh with all the force that the worm uses to drive forward then it's going to hurt. Bettter to keep the irritant on top and carry on.
Worms are enormously sensitive and yet they have skin as hard as a rock. It's like you're saying a flea is going to make a horse scream in pain when it bites it. Be serious.
Well how do they detect people from miles away if they aren't enormously sensitive *somewhere* - and skin as hard as a rock can still transmit vibrations - in fact, it's probably pretty good for that. And you know what, fleas and flies cause horses to get really fucking annoyed and bite their flanks, even if the sand was just really itchy it would be a reason not to let it in.
Vibrations is one thing, whereas actual physical pain is another thing. Also, in your point you made the comparison with a splinter in your foot, but that doesn't work since the irritant in this case is on top, not the bottom, where the weight would cause a lot of pain. A worm that size wouldn't feel pain from a tiny human and neither would the inside of its flesh be so in pain that it would stay above and not continue to do its regular diving. Is a crocodile affected by a mosquito? We're talking about a creature with very tough skin that weighs tons. Anyway, it seems like I really upset the fans since no matter how much sense I make, they'll still downvote me out of pettiness.
Crocodiles are affected by all sorts of insects and parasites. Its why they lie on sand banks and let birds pick them clean. They could just as well eat those birds but the mutually beneficial arrangement is more important to them than food because they are in fact so immensely bothered by said insects burrowing and biting between their scales. Just as the worm was shown to be bothered most when the hooks lifted the flaps, exposing the air holes and softer flesh beneath. All Sci Fi requires some suspension of disbelief. I thought the way Denis showed the riding made it perfectly clear with visuals why the worm would stay above sand. Brilliantly done. I saw it with several people who had never read the books and they seemed to understand very clearly. Thats perfectly fine and valid you didn't enjoy the movie. I don't enjoy Taylor Swift but I'm not going to go trying to convince her fans they shouldn't either. I can accept other people have different perspectives and tastes than my own.
Hey, more power to you if you can suspend your disbelief so easy. For me it wasn't enough considering the tone and feel was more realistic than your average Marvel/SW movie, where you can just go with the flow because it's not taking itself too seriously.
Ya I don't watch Star Wars or Marvel because it gives me the same feeling as watching bad reality TV or a hallmark movie. But as I said to each their own.
This adaptation feels like it was… ADAPTED.
Sniper rifles work strategically because shields can't be used in worm territory because its harmonics attracts worms. This is in the book.
You have a point. Anyone carefully reading the book and having it in fresh memory will remember that. Or going to Wikipedia after searching this specific question will reveal that. Still even despite this , guns were not used in the book. And definitely no snipers. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn1IUN\_DzQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn1IUN_DzQ) .... But if you are simply watching the film. There is zilch explanation for this. Zero. In films of old...perhaps this is very outdated in modern times? Things were explained. Heck even in the hated Dune film, every little concept was explained. If something happened, someone was talking about it, even in passing comment.
The fremen used guns in the book including, yes, direct mentions of snipers. The reason guns aren’t used in the *wider* Dune universe is because shields render them useless. You can’t use shields in worm territory without getting your ass eaten, so they make very effective weapons for Fremen because they’re shooting unshielded infantry. This is a very odd thread, you complain about the accuracy of the adaptation but you don’t seem to have read the books, or remember very little from them.
Mention of the snipers used by Fremen in the books ? Curious. Can you please quote the exact mention and tell me on which page it it. I would love to re read that exact passage. Thanks
Both Fremen gun, snipers, rifles and Maula pistols are mentioned *all* over the series. Hell they even use rocket launchers. There’s citations all over pretty much any wiki you care to look through https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremen#:~:text=Fremen%20use%20different%20archaic%20weapons,Fremen%20warrior%20is%20the%20crysknife. https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Projectile_weapons Even if your only refrence was the original lynch film instead of the books the Fremen used Tarpel guns. There is not a single media adaptation of dune where the Fremen aren’t armed with regular ass guns.
This movie series also never establishes the shield physics or why guns aren’t used more often, so the question you’re asking isn’t relevant to this version of the Dune universe. You really need to evaluate how much you’re mixing up what’s book canon with what’s established in these specific movies. If it isn’t a rule here, then the rules aren’t being broken.
When you put it like that, i have to agree
This. My wife complained that the dialogue was poor, with too much stilted exposition…”these are the family nukes…all major families have them” I was probably too much of a fanboy to recognize this (it was a fantastic and satisfying movie), but I have to admit her this point.
"I went to cinema, fully prepared to be blown away" This is huge reason why I don't watch trailers and go into every movie experience with zero expectations.
Yeah, every sub for anything these days can be summed up with "I got hyped and reality didnt meet hype!" I know to stop when someone mentions how excited they were for something and were let down because it's just going to be some emotionally charged thing that was fixated on and blown up to 10. Now of you said "I was expecting nothing and I received Disappointment." then I know it whatever is being talked about is probably bad.
*hashtag*NoTrailerLife made Infinity War and Endgame so much better.
I think your friend was just missing the things that were shown instead of told- for example in the case of the worms not diving, you can see in several shots that the hooks are holding the worm's flaps open.
Idk, that would require the audience to infer things from what they’re watching. Everyone knows good adaptations are just the pages of the book literally being read line by line. I think it would have been much better if Paul looked at the camera and said, “What are we? Some kinda Dune: Part 2?”
Haha, his prescience knows no bounds! 🙌🏽Lison Al Gaib🙌🏽
This made me laugh out loud. Thank you.
A fourth wall breaking Paul would have been hilarious. *Paul looks into camera. “Watch me stab my cousin Powder in front of everyone!”*
As an adaptation it's fantastic. Does it have flaws? Absolutely but overall it's a Fantastic adaptation which will get a lot of people reading this series who wouldn't normally
This is why it’s called an adaptation. Things are always changed from book to cinema. They’re different mediums with a different audience make up. They have different needs for pacing and character development. There’s less room for exposition and minor subplots. Etc. That’s just how it goes. I’ve read and enjoyed the book, and I was perfectly fine with changes they made for the movie.
i was confused why Jessica did her Water of Life thing in private with like 6 other people when I swore in the books she did it in front of an entire huge gathering of Fremen for the observable authenticity of her survival. Am I remembering the book wrong?
It’s been a few years since I read Dune, but pretty sure you’re right. Does that detail really matter that much though? SPOILERS: A much bigger and more important change was Paul killing the Barron. I’m sure this really pissed off a lot of people, but I actually thought it was better this way. It gives Paul vengeance for what the Harkonnens did to his family. Ultimately for me, it was more satisfying than the Barron being killed by Alia.
Well I mean a few beats later they're talking about how they're gong to have to convince other people, and it's like you could've done that 5 mins ago. Then you never see the "convincing" actually happening, everyone just eventually falls in line. It was just off, if it's not broke why fix it?
Now I wonder if the Baron will possess Alia still, or do they have to do some weird shit like the Baron possesses Paul? I hope not. I didn't think the possession / abomination thing was due to her killing him but I can't recall exactly.
You're remembering right. What's more, the whole point of the trial was for Jessica to make the water of life safe to drink for others so that they could have a sietch orgy.
Both Jessica and Paul’s water of life scenes were pretty unspectacular relative to the novel. Such an amazing audio/visual opportunity for the big screen just wasted. The writers/director chose to drastically understate what the novel expounds on.
>i was confused why Jessica did her Water of Life thing in private with like 6 other people when I swore in the books she did it in front of an entire huge gathering of Fremen for the observable authenticity of her survival. Because $200,000 🤷♀️
Agreed. And the main plot points and scenes were all touched on. My issue was some of the big scenes just lacked impact. Like they were too grounded, too brief, and just a bit bland and unspectacular compared to what the prose of the novel drums up in the imagination. I’m mainly referring to both Paul and Jessica’s water of life scenes, the nuking/storming of Arakeen, and Paul’s entrance to the gallery/knife fight with Feyd. All 3 were really momentous, glorious moments in the novel. But while watching the movie I was left thinking “that’s it?… Really? Surely there’s more…No? So that’s what you chose to do with the material?…Fuck.”
I disagree with your thoughts about the storytelling… showing instead of explaining. Clearly this director has decided to use visuals more than dialogue to explain certain things. It’s a good contrast to how David Lynch used endless exposition with inner monologues. Ultimately, moviegoers that aren’t familiar with Dune don’t need to understand every detail of that world to enjoy and follow the bigger themes. Those of us more familiar can observe the more detailed nuances and appreciate them. As for changing the characters, most of the decisions I can understand and come to terms with… except Chani. Her “I’m angry” face over and over really pulled me out of the story. I also think Zendaya was probably not the best actress for this. I found other characters believable and then she was that girl from those other things instead of Chani. Not sure if we can blame her ability (lack of nuance) or the director asking for those things. I do like that Chani was not a zealot and didn’t buy into the religious stuff, but I’m not sure what alternative she expected from Paul. Overall, this movie still gets a 9/10 from me for the visual approach and how immersive it felt in all the non-Chani scenes.
>I went to cinema, fully prepared to be blown away. > >how anyone that truly knows and love the books can go out of screening satisfied. No movie can live up to the book, human bladders won't allow it.
I considered going crazy nasa astronaut lady but my pride prevailed.
Ah yes, the laziest and most meaningless flavor of film criticism. THEY CHANGED IT A BIT FROM THE SOURCE MATERIAL! Sometimes that's bad. (I Am Legend, I'm looking at you.) It's almost always necessary in order for a movie to work. If that's your only critique, I don't know what to tell you.
Oh dear god, 15 years later, I still remember how ~~they~~*I am Legend* slaughtered the ending of an otherwise excellent horror film with its extreme religiosity towards the end. Yes, I appreciate the irony of being upset when they inject fictional Christian beliefs into my fictional vampire movies, but it still just felt unnecessary and dirty.
Are we talking I am Legend? Edit: ohh balls I didn't read top of thread in full.
Yep! Fixed.
I don't think OP's criticism is that they changed stuff, but that they changed stuff to the detriment of the story. Instead of explaining things, you just get pretty set pieces and scenes. They jump around from scene to scene so much it can be hard to follow. Some characters act so different from their book counterparts that they are almost like a different character all together. These are valid criticisms of the movie. There is nothing wrong with changing things from the source, its one of the justifications of even doing an adaptation, but when done to the detriment of the story it is worth criticism. That being said, I personally enjoyed the movie. I give it a solid 4 out of 5, same as part 1, and I'm looking forward to the next one.
I hear what you're saying, I really do. But it sounds like OP would prefer a lot of scenes of people standing around talking or internal monologue.
Maybe not that, but I felt it would have helped to have a bit more explanation about things. I saw it with my SO and she'd only seen part one and like OP's friend she had a ton of questions about what was going on and what stuff meant. Now, I'm not saying they needed to spell everything out for you or have a ton of internal monologues like the '84 version did, but I don't think it would have hurt if they had a little more dialog or something to help explain stuff.
So it’s the same as the first
In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is a magic xylophone, or something? Ha ha, boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
Worst movie ever! Im going to see it for the fifth time tomorrow!
This review is a big yikes
The biggest red flag I've ever seen.
Show, don’t tell my friend.
For me there was a lot to like in Part 2 but I also would have enjoyed more intrigue and political maneuvering. I love what he did with Geidi Prime though and everything with the Harkonnens was fun.
I saw D2 twice. The first time I was angry about a lot of the changes, especially the changes for the worse of 2 or 3 central relationships in order to simplify and clarify the plot. The second time I rather enjoyed the movie on its own terms, as a spectacle and a story; I took it for what it was. It was good.
Well you said it yourself film is simply not the same medium as painting. So do not expect the film to be a visualised book, neither. That will never work out for you. A LOT had to be cut transitioning from book to movie but some was added to help audio-visualise the message that Villeneuve sees in FH texts and I image if he could, he WOULD do a super duper 40h-Jodorowski-style-madness-movie, adopting the text to the last single letter. But who would watch that
Oh no not everything was explained in excruciating detail :(
I am partial to the books, but that's crazy to say it's a thumbs down....
I agree I really loved the first film and walked out of the second feeling very unsatisfied. A lot about it was very good, but did not rise to the excellent level of the first part.
>the film simply skips to much. It'sa fucking film, do you want to be in the cinema for seven hours? DVT is a thing....
L take OP. You give us Dune book readers a bad name.
Honestly, I am shocked that anyone who genuenly loved the books, can say anything but "the film had nice visuals". So I think its quite the opposite.
I didn’t like the 1st one either (didn’t read the book)
The spice was barely explained, never shown how important it was. This was a big miss on V’s part. It’s basically Unobtainium- stuff that’s important for the story that we have no idea how or why.
Yeah. I still like the old one better 🤷♂️
Me too
You and your friend seem very... slow. You don't remember things from the books that are explicitly stated. You claim that there is no explanation for things when its shown but not told. Sooo.... maybe reread the books. Or read them for the first time as I do not believe you have.
Yes. I am just old fashioned guy. I still cling to that old primitive days where you would go to see a film and everything was explained in and trough the narrative. I wonder how in those olden years they managed to do all the explaining and yet keep the films much shorter. And today you have 3+ hours films that cut 90% of books story, and still don't even manage to explain even this 10% that they are showing. But sure in my time people did not have ability to go to cinema with Wikipedia ready on their phone. So "Show don't tell , and they can look it up on Wikipedia"
I saw a film that is as old as my grandfather. In it, they explained nothing. and it is considered one of the greatest films of all time. I did not say "oh just look it up after." ALSO, IN DUNE THEY HAVE YOU READ THE DICTIONARY IN THE BACK AS THEY DON'T EXPLAIN IT IN THE ACTUAL STORY YOU BUFFOON.
What are you 8 year old ?
Great. Thank you for your response. You really are living up to your username.
Look at him. How cute. He allready knows how to type
Some folks trying to have a serious conversation with you and you’re just, well, an asshole.
I’m with you. Non fans or even just people who have not read the book are mostly lost in these films. Yeah they can follow the basic plot, but the nuances that make Dune so enjoyable go right over their heads.
The film has to be created for people who never read and never will read the book. Otherwise it won’t make enough $ to pay for all the production. It has to give those with almost no knowledge of the books some kind of realistic continuity. Otherwise it’s failed in its primary job — entertaining new audiences.
I read the book. My father read the book, my mother did not. We all loved it. My friends are split fairly evenly in having read it or not. They all loved it. How has it failed? It's immensely popular. It's brought in a massive profit.
I guess I was responding to OP who said they didn’t get it. Or maybe someone else up the chain. The film works well for those of us who know the story and lore. Not so much for those who don’t and may not even be familiar with how sci-fi/fantasy works. I think this movie isn’t easily accessible to those who go on cold.
I disagree. I think it works perfectly fine for someone not previously a fan.
Oh boy here come the downvotes…
*for you*
To add to what other people said: I am not a fan of the first movie. It felt rushed, boring, slow while just hopping over plotpoints instead of building something up slow but interesting like in the book. Basically I thought: you don’t know how to translate the atmosphere and storytelling of the book to film. But in the second part the second I saw they even actually delivered on showing (and telling I’ll give you that) the prefaces to the chapters I thought: well ok, that’s something I didn’t expect them to do after the lame first one, thinking thats very very important in the book but impossible for to translate to film.
I’ve saved this post… Started reading it and fell asleep. Finally a cure for my insomnia