The film is actually a desconstruction of the white savior narrative. Paul doesn't want to save or lead the freemen, he wants to be their equal. But through the machinery of the Bene Gesserit - the foundation for him to become a messianic figure has been already laid on Arakkis. He is compelled to aceept his role as he can't see a way to revenger his father and free Arakkis without becoming the thing that will bring horror and destruction to the galaxy. Basically, the film is telling us that white saviours and messianic figures only create more destruction and death even if originally their objective was noble and righteous.
Even by the end of the movie Paul doesn't see himself as a savior, he just accepted the role because it was, in his eyes, the only way forward. In the words of another character with a similar journey, Paul was "A garden-variety idiot who got his hands on power. That's why this was the only outcome".
The freman are not indigenous to arrakis. Humans brought worms to arrakis who made a blue world dry. Everyone in this story is an invader. And freman culture is bene gesserit culture. They invented it.
The absolute kicker is in the books the concept of race isn't even a thing. So much intermingling of bloodlines has caused everyone to be essentially the same skin tone. Obviously the movies had to go another way because there aren't that many racially ambiguous actors in Hollywood. Just cuz th actor is 'white' doesn't mean the character is. It's such a projection its wild.
to be fair, Frank Herbert had literally the same problem happen when the book came out. You have Paul dwelling on his "terrible purpose" that he can't avoid, etc, and that key scene where he reframes everyone demanding he fight Stilgar for the leadership into support for his claim as Duke of Arrakis... at the end of the scene, Paul laments that he has lost Stilgar as a friend and gains him as a follower, because a follower is less capable of free thought. Dune Messiah stating explicitly what Dune merely implies about the morality of Paul's actions really messed with people for years
Dune's problem is that the guy you're supposed to be wary of has a traditional hero story. His family is killed and he beats the clearly evil characters. None of his actions have consequences for years and years
1) u make a fundamental flaw. Just because u oppose evil doesn’t make u morally right urself. Yes, Paul is clearly liberating the Fremann from the oppressive Imperials and Harkenonn house. But the means by which he does it are through manipulation and using false narratives to further his goals. Before drinking the water of life, he yells as much to his own mother. What the Bene Gesserit did to Arrakis is horrible and paul didn’t want to indulge in that. He is forced to by the incoming attacks from Feyd Ratha and the situation he was in. 2) A true hero’s story would have had Paul naturally become one with the Fremann people and aided in their liberation (as a fellow soldier not a messiah, especially a false one) whilst avenging his family. 3) Just because an action doesn’t have immediate consequences doesn’t dictate its moral implications. Even if you were a complete utilitarian and believed “the ends justify the means. Arrakis was freed who cares who it was done” you would still have measure the complete end result before rationalizing that. 4) The end of the movie literally signifies the beginning of the Jihad or “Holy War” that costs billions of lives and Paul was trying to avoid at all costs. That is a severe consequence in itself
That's by design, Frank Herbert had to write Dune Messiah for people to get the point. And then all of the other books because people didn't get the point.
And yeah I agree as a reader of dune, it's a shame they had to dumb it down to make it more obvious but at the same time, the books dialogue is at least half if not mostly the characters thoughts and unless they do it weird like in the Lynch DUNE there's no way to convey all the worries and decision making that went on in their minds. They had no choice but to make it more obvious
What about using cinematography to convey the doubts and feelings? Show Paul sweating through a nightmare sequence of what may come to pass... i mean they basically did the exact same thing for other parts like using the nukes.
i needed this video, for real. i'm glad you picked up on the change they made to chani despite not having read the books. the change seemed jarring at first, but dune part two is one of those movies that you can watch on mute and come away understanding the story, and the adaptation with chani is integral in conveying crystal clear that the "hero's journey" for paul is not a good thing for anybody (also, villeneuve likes to fuck with color theory in his films, and chani's blue band was pretty on the nose). chani's change was even more necessary if you take into account that even the early readers of the book didn't understand how paul being the hero was all around bad. fans of the book found themselves relating to paul's character arc and misunderstanding dune's theme in the same way people misunderstand the satire of starship troopers. it was bad enough that frank herbert wrote the second book as a way to humanize and bring paul down a few notches to the extant that the readers really didn't like it. as for the wokescold misunderstanding of dune - i thought your video had a great explanation, except i wouldn't call it contrarianism. you point out very well that the critique is not a bad thing and is correct on certain instances, and moreover, i think your thumbnail drives the point home - lack of media literacy and a lack of analysis to place the critique in the context of the media. it seems that the major issue is that the use of systemic critique is situating the analysis of the film at a 30,000 foot level and cannot place the proper context. so i don't think it's contrarianism given that the criticism comes from a good faith practice of systemic critique - critiques i'm generally inclined to agree with about culture and society. however, in the end, a 30,00 ft analysis can misplace context which doesn't do much except virtue signal the wrong message.
As far as ideas for other videos go, I can't find any videos from people that have not read the books. I'd be SUPER interested in your view on the 2 movies as I just can't seem to separate the book and lore from my viewings.
What I love to tell people about the Dune series: There IS no good guy in Dune. Everyone is a villain, whether through their own actions, or someone elses.
about the Oppenheimer point while I do agree with your point I do think making a biopic of someone like Oppenheimer humanizes a man that should not be humanized. he is a monster and making him the protagonist of any story inevitably making most audiences empathize with his situation even if it really shouldn’t be emphasized with. same idea as there being no such thing as an “anti-war” movie
The issue I have isn't so much that made Chani against Paul's messianic persona but that she stormed off in a childish rage at the end of the film. It weakens her character, rather than strengthening it. Even without meta-analysis, within the confines of lore and philosophy established in the films themselves, it is equivalent to her failing a Gom Jabbar (the "Put your hand in the box." test). She allows her base, animalist and emotional, instinct to consume her reason and reacts without wisdom or forethought. If they had just given Paul and Chani a little room to breathe and grow in the second half of the film they could still have made Chani against the "Muad'dib" persona but show how her strength could be lent to the "Usul" persona so that he doesn't loose his humanity in the processes of doing what is necessary.
Base, animalistic? The dude is clearly power tripping by the end of the movie and drinking his own coolaid. She's completely rational for not wanting to be side chick to a power tripping messianic figure. She's doing what Frank Herbert wanted the audience to do in the face of such figure: desist and distrust.
I like your take, i read all of Frank Herbert's Dune books and my biggest gripe with this "dumbing down" and need to spoon feed info to the dumb dumbs is that you lose valuable screentime that could have been devoted to the miriad of other interesting and weird aspects of the Dune universe that barely get touched on. We get Chani scowling at Paul and we get her slapping him and being upset but we lose things like the weirding way, spice enlightenment, mentats, the spacing guild/navigators, more than just a montage of Paul's military success. Chani change feels like the worst change because it cost us screentime in favor of spelling things out that didnt need to be spelled out... holy war bad? Really? War = bad regardless of holy or not is already not a difficult message to get. My worry is that they didnt really even need to push the Chani change at all but could have shown the spice change with the water of life same way they did with Jessica but to a more extreme extent while touching spiritual awakening, psychic powers and other cool stuff but they chose to push it through Chani and add teenager drama probably because she is a popular actor atm...
Also just another point to really solidify how unnecessary this change was: Paul is not a hero but he isnt a villain either. He does the wrong thing for arguably the right reason and by being swept up in his personal losses and motivations in the books you also end up getting carried away with the Jihad (what it was called in the books) which even further hits like a truck when you realise that he is a cautionary tale about charismatic leaders. The charismatic leader doesnt need to be evil or bad, any leader even those doing seemingly good things in their area (for the fremen good) can actually end up being dangerous to others 60 billion others in this case.
I liked the chani change because she kind of didn’t have a personality in the books other than Paul’s wife so it’s nice that they gave her the space to be a genuine character
@@ArgoBargo badass warrior mom and Paul's rock wasnt enough of a character? Serious question, do you think this character would have been more fleshed out/ focused on if it was a less popular actor in the role?
@@ArgoBargo also hard to determine how to make a genuine spaceworm riding, spice tripping cannibalistic desert warrior. Id argue that the not teenager type in the book is more realistic than the teenager one we got in the movie. I mean it is hard to take someone being mopey when they easily kill people the scene before. One thing is for sure though, Chani definitely doesnt have a heavy American accent completely different from literally every other fremen...
I had thought they were going to cut this scene from Part 3 due to its hilarious lack of subtlety, but they might have to actually include the bit from Dune Messiah where Paul compares himself to Hitler for some people to get the meaning of the story
"'Genghis... Khan? Was he of the Sardaukar, m'lord?' 'Oh, long before that. He killed... perhaps four million.' 'He must've had formidable weaponry to kill that many, sire. Lasbeams, perhaps, or...' 'He didn't kill them himself, Stil. He killed the way I kill, by sending out his legions. There's another emperor I want you to note in passing - a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.' 'Killed... by his legions?' Stilgar asked. 'Yes.' 'Not very impressive statistics, m'lord.'"
I am a pro black extremist. I love my people abs live my life for us. And!!!!! I love the DUNE series. To complain about the white savior storyline is understandable but it shows that ur not a fan of the actual books and probably lack some critical thinking skills at the moment.
I mean it’s been stated by both frank Herbert and denis that Paul isn’t a savior the vision of dune is something that is not to be celebrated but feared
@user-xw4lo1wn5g as humans its best that we first seek to understand, then be understood. These days people seek to be offended and dayum understanding!....lol
DUNE REVIEW The visuals, acting, costume designs, CG effects, production quality, etc are indeed spectacular.... Still doesn't change the white savior narrative though. 🤷 My thoughts and review of DUNE pt.1 is below. Haven't seen Dune 2 yet but i have heard that Dennis Villeneuve made some good changes to the plot which i would have made to improve the story pushing further away from stereotypical white savior narrative. I hope what i have heard about Dune 2 is true. In this review, i also compared Dune to The FOUNDATION and you will see why. DUNE 1- MOVIE REVIEW I have seen such plot 1000 times....Avatar, Great Wall, Last Mohicans, etc. Paul Atreides does 99% (if not 100%)of worshipped super-savior trope which some folks online rather to as the white savior narrative points... ... Prophesized savior of natives ... Better fighter than all the best native fighters and defeats them easily. In the case of the Dune movie, even his HEAVILY PREGNANT mother was also ass whooping the natives EASILY.🤣🤣 ... *Must smash/ have sex with/ love story with the NATIVE queen/princess/ lead female warrior/ lead female mystic* or whatever equivalent of a very important female native who is supposedly COMPELLED to fall in love with white savior. ... *Instantly able to bond with beasts of the native land at first attempt* BETTER than the natives who have lived with these beasts and use them for generations .... *somehow becomes LEADER of the natives almost instantly* who disregard their native leaders in favor of the white savior. Or even worse, the native leader relinquish their authority to the white savior. ... Learns the native ways *VERY FAST* and becomes better than the natives themselves in their native ways. Dune worshippers claim it is actually a critique on the "white savior narrative" ....LIES....Where is the critique here?!? What?... because Paul dies in the end? Nope, his death only immortalizes him as white savior matryr to the natives who create a religion based on him thus still white savior narrative. And even when this religion became evil, guess what?... same Paul (not his son or anyone else) who is the messiah/ messianic figure in the religion AGAIN saves the natives from the same religion he inspired. This last part is what CONCRETELY and indisputably confirms the white savior narrative above all the other pointers. He literally immortalized himself into the embodiment of white savior martyrdom. In the first Dune, the boy/ Paul and his HEAVILY PREGNANT mother defeat the warriors said to be the best fighters of the tribe..... Yet that was the boy's FIRST real fight against experienced, praised and seasoned fighters. 😂😂😂 Remember what Jason Momoa's character said about the native warriors on the spice planet...how deadly they were and very feared. And we saw how badass Momoa's character was in the movie/ Dune 1 just to tell the audience that if such a badass guy feared the native warriors then they must be really damn superb combatants.....Then some boy/ Paul and heavily pregnant mother defeat all of them easily like wet napkin. Just wide eyed good angles and utterly brilliant CG spectacle with good acting 👍👍 ...... *But story and plotwise gutter trash rubbish* 🚮🚮🚮🚮🚮 *THE FOUNDATION EASILY WIPES IT'S ASS WITH DUNE* and here's why.... *Compare the Dune plot to that of The Foundation and see a massive difference.* (1) Both Dune and The Foundation involves Galactic level empires but u will FEEL the scale, scope and power of such an empire in The Foundation greater than in Dune. Perhaps someone could say that The Foundation has the benefit of being a tv series providing greater landscape to expand the story compared to Dune which is just a movie trilogy My response is.... I can also cut down The Foundation series (well if they complete the story) into a much better movie trilogy than Dune. (2) The Foundation is heavily multi-layered and far more unpredictable compared to Dune. In fact, even by the end of The Foundation sn1 we still can not see the big picture of the entire plot which is one of its major criticisms from most viewers but it is exactly why i enjoy The Foundation. (3) The Hari Sheldon character who creates a religion around himself called "the Church of the Galactic Spirit" in The Foundation literally being worshipped but they took deliberate effort to show some of natives [NOT singular individuals] are NOT INHERENTLY BAFOONS and some began to challenge The Foundation Priests. And even one of the Foundation Priests called "High Clarics" Poly Verisof was shown a crisis of faith because he know he was peddling lies yet his protege was an absolute believer. LOOK AT THIS LEVEL OF NUANCE, BRILLIANT!! Heck, Hari Sheldon even gets killed an See how even Hari Sheldon is a white man who creates a religion around himself as a messiah, it's not just blind worshipping from natives. And even within his "Church of Galactic spirit" there are *TWO separate factions*... the religious faction/ theists who worship Hari Sheldon as a Godlike being and the non-religious/ non-theists/ realists who see Hari Sheldon as a revolutionary visionary *person* but not a God. The whole "white savior narrative" is subverted by.... 3a).... Hari NOT being the real savior who is GAAL 3b)....the religion- Church of Galactic Truth is not exact smooth sailing because some groups of natives (not individuals) tend to test and challenge the "High Clarics"/ priests so it's not just blind worshipping 3c)...we get to see even one of the High Clarics have doubts and crisis of faith in Hari....again even the believers go through some doubt. 3d)... witnessing Hari incur some failure despite being an incredibly hyper-intelligent guy who *created* "psycho-history" which is high probabilistic mathematics he uses to predict multiple sequences of events across entire timelines primarily based on behavioral analytics and tends to have contingencies and yet he has faced and suffered death many times when a plan goes sideways and requires different people to save him in different situations unlike Paul Atreidis in Dune pt.1 where all his efforts are smooth sailing, no failure, no struggles. (4) Even the actual savior in the Foundation who has actual superpowers .. ..GAAL... comes from a poor humble origins compared to Dune's Paul Atreidis comes from imperialist power. We get to see Gaal *struggle to understand the burden of power added with the task of defeating the Galactic Empire because she feels overwhelmed by it so we get to see her grow into the role unlike Dune's Paul Atreidis who just goes from being born into Imperialist power and just EASILY switches to becoming Messianic god leader of the Freemen natives, no struggle here, no growth arc, see this rubbish.
There's one article that classified paul as a hero while critiquing the movie and I stopped reading after that part. Edit: If people want to watch a movie about the consequences of atomic bomb, they should watch grave of the fireflies, a studio ghibli movie. You'll cry, trust me.
Calling Dune a "white saviour" movie represents a profound misunderstanding of Herbert's narrative arc for Paul, who is emphatically NOT a hero or saviour. The story is a cautionary tale about the dangers of colonialism, power, messianic figureheads and charismatic leaders. Paul only cares about himself, vengeance, and restoring his bloodline to the throne, and he and his scheming mother exploit the Fremen to achieve this. In the upcoming Part 3, we'll see his descent from revered messiah to tyrannical antihero. Even the Fremen turn against him.
The film is actually a desconstruction of the white savior narrative. Paul doesn't want to save or lead the freemen, he wants to be their equal. But through the machinery of the Bene Gesserit - the foundation for him to become a messianic figure has been already laid on Arakkis. He is compelled to aceept his role as he can't see a way to revenger his father and free Arakkis without becoming the thing that will bring horror and destruction to the galaxy. Basically, the film is telling us that white saviours and messianic figures only create more destruction and death even if originally their objective was noble and righteous.
Even by the end of the movie Paul doesn't see himself as a savior, he just accepted the role because it was, in his eyes, the only way forward. In the words of another character with a similar journey, Paul was "A garden-variety idiot who got his hands on power. That's why this was the only outcome".
Imagine the mind crash they would have experienced if they had read Herbert's first two books.
The freman are not indigenous to arrakis. Humans brought worms to arrakis who made a blue world dry. Everyone in this story is an invader. And freman culture is bene gesserit culture. They invented it.
The absolute kicker is in the books the concept of race isn't even a thing. So much intermingling of bloodlines has caused everyone to be essentially the same skin tone.
Obviously the movies had to go another way because there aren't that many racially ambiguous actors in Hollywood. Just cuz th actor is 'white' doesn't mean the character is. It's such a projection its wild.
to be fair, Frank Herbert had literally the same problem happen when the book came out.
You have Paul dwelling on his "terrible purpose" that he can't avoid, etc, and that key scene where he reframes everyone demanding he fight Stilgar for the leadership into support for his claim as Duke of Arrakis... at the end of the scene, Paul laments that he has lost Stilgar as a friend and gains him as a follower, because a follower is less capable of free thought.
Dune Messiah stating explicitly what Dune merely implies about the morality of Paul's actions really messed with people for years
The lack of Oppenheimers in Dune was a bit troubling though considering the use of nuclear weapons.
Dune's problem is that the guy you're supposed to be wary of has a traditional hero story. His family is killed and he beats the clearly evil characters. None of his actions have consequences for years and years
1) u make a fundamental flaw. Just because u oppose evil doesn’t make u morally right urself. Yes, Paul is clearly liberating the Fremann from the oppressive Imperials and Harkenonn house. But the means by which he does it are through manipulation and using false narratives to further his goals. Before drinking the water of life, he yells as much to his own mother. What the Bene Gesserit did to Arrakis is horrible and paul didn’t want to indulge in that. He is forced to by the incoming attacks from Feyd Ratha and the situation he was in.
2) A true hero’s story would have had Paul naturally become one with the Fremann people and aided in their liberation (as a fellow soldier not a messiah, especially a false one) whilst avenging his family.
3) Just because an action doesn’t have immediate consequences doesn’t dictate its moral implications. Even if you were a complete utilitarian and believed “the ends justify the means. Arrakis was freed who cares who it was done” you would still have measure the complete end result before rationalizing that.
4) The end of the movie literally signifies the beginning of the Jihad or “Holy War” that costs billions of lives and Paul was trying to avoid at all costs. That is a severe consequence in itself
That's by design, Frank Herbert had to write Dune Messiah for people to get the point. And then all of the other books because people didn't get the point.
@grandsome1 why copy a mistake lol
idk how this hit my recommended but u spitting facts!!
And yeah I agree as a reader of dune, it's a shame they had to dumb it down to make it more obvious but at the same time, the books dialogue is at least half if not mostly the characters thoughts and unless they do it weird like in the Lynch DUNE there's no way to convey all the worries and decision making that went on in their minds. They had no choice but to make it more obvious
What about using cinematography to convey the doubts and feelings? Show Paul sweating through a nightmare sequence of what may come to pass... i mean they basically did the exact same thing for other parts like using the nukes.
Well Herbert would be happy to. The only reason Dune messiah exists is precisely because people didn’t understand the first Dune book
It's like they don't actually watch the movie 😅😅
i needed this video, for real. i'm glad you picked up on the change they made to chani despite not having read the books. the change seemed jarring at first, but dune part two is one of those movies that you can watch on mute and come away understanding the story, and the adaptation with chani is integral in conveying crystal clear that the "hero's journey" for paul is not a good thing for anybody (also, villeneuve likes to fuck with color theory in his films, and chani's blue band was pretty on the nose).
chani's change was even more necessary if you take into account that even the early readers of the book didn't understand how paul being the hero was all around bad. fans of the book found themselves relating to paul's character arc and misunderstanding dune's theme in the same way people misunderstand the satire of starship troopers. it was bad enough that frank herbert wrote the second book as a way to humanize and bring paul down a few notches to the extant that the readers really didn't like it.
as for the wokescold misunderstanding of dune - i thought your video had a great explanation, except i wouldn't call it contrarianism. you point out very well that the critique is not a bad thing and is correct on certain instances, and moreover, i think your thumbnail drives the point home - lack of media literacy and a lack of analysis to place the critique in the context of the media. it seems that the major issue is that the use of systemic critique is situating the analysis of the film at a 30,000 foot level and cannot place the proper context. so i don't think it's contrarianism given that the criticism comes from a good faith practice of systemic critique - critiques i'm generally inclined to agree with about culture and society. however, in the end, a 30,00 ft analysis can misplace context which doesn't do much except virtue signal the wrong message.
Your comments are spot on!
To double down on your point, I feel like Dune is a parody or critique on white savior tropes
It was a super heavy critique in the books, even Frank Herbert is disappointed in his fans for failing to recognise this
Keep making videos man. I really liked your take on it!
As far as ideas for other videos go, I can't find any videos from people that have not read the books. I'd be SUPER interested in your view on the 2 movies as I just can't seem to separate the book and lore from my viewings.
What I love to tell people about the Dune series: There IS no good guy in Dune. Everyone is a villain, whether through their own actions, or someone elses.
Audiences are getting dumber by the year. Idiocracy in action.
about the Oppenheimer point while I do agree with your point I do think making a biopic of someone like Oppenheimer humanizes a man that should not be humanized. he is a monster and making him the protagonist of any story inevitably making most audiences empathize with his situation even if it really shouldn’t be emphasized with. same idea as there being no such thing as an “anti-war” movie
Yeah it's sad, I prefer if it was more subtle. Thank you for standing up for reason and sanity.
manda vids be hittin when they drop every once in a blue moon
The issue I have isn't so much that made Chani against Paul's messianic persona but that she stormed off in a childish rage at the end of the film. It weakens her character, rather than strengthening it. Even without meta-analysis, within the confines of lore and philosophy established in the films themselves, it is equivalent to her failing a Gom Jabbar (the "Put your hand in the box." test). She allows her base, animalist and emotional, instinct to consume her reason and reacts without wisdom or forethought. If they had just given Paul and Chani a little room to breathe and grow in the second half of the film they could still have made Chani against the "Muad'dib" persona but show how her strength could be lent to the "Usul" persona so that he doesn't loose his humanity in the processes of doing what is necessary.
Base, animalistic? The dude is clearly power tripping by the end of the movie and drinking his own coolaid. She's completely rational for not wanting to be side chick to a power tripping messianic figure. She's doing what Frank Herbert wanted the audience to do in the face of such figure: desist and distrust.
I like your take, i read all of Frank Herbert's Dune books and my biggest gripe with this "dumbing down" and need to spoon feed info to the dumb dumbs is that you lose valuable screentime that could have been devoted to the miriad of other interesting and weird aspects of the Dune universe that barely get touched on. We get Chani scowling at Paul and we get her slapping him and being upset but we lose things like the weirding way, spice enlightenment, mentats, the spacing guild/navigators, more than just a montage of Paul's military success. Chani change feels like the worst change because it cost us screentime in favor of spelling things out that didnt need to be spelled out... holy war bad? Really? War = bad regardless of holy or not is already not a difficult message to get. My worry is that they didnt really even need to push the Chani change at all but could have shown the spice change with the water of life same way they did with Jessica but to a more extreme extent while touching spiritual awakening, psychic powers and other cool stuff but they chose to push it through Chani and add teenager drama probably because she is a popular actor atm...
Also just another point to really solidify how unnecessary this change was: Paul is not a hero but he isnt a villain either. He does the wrong thing for arguably the right reason and by being swept up in his personal losses and motivations in the books you also end up getting carried away with the Jihad (what it was called in the books) which even further hits like a truck when you realise that he is a cautionary tale about charismatic leaders. The charismatic leader doesnt need to be evil or bad, any leader even those doing seemingly good things in their area (for the fremen good) can actually end up being dangerous to others 60 billion others in this case.
I liked the chani change because she kind of didn’t have a personality in the books other than Paul’s wife so it’s nice that they gave her the space to be a genuine character
@@ArgoBargo badass warrior mom and Paul's rock wasnt enough of a character? Serious question, do you think this character would have been more fleshed out/ focused on if it was a less popular actor in the role?
@@ArgoBargo also hard to determine how to make a genuine spaceworm riding, spice tripping cannibalistic desert warrior. Id argue that the not teenager type in the book is more realistic than the teenager one we got in the movie. I mean it is hard to take someone being mopey when they easily kill people the scene before. One thing is for sure though, Chani definitely doesnt have a heavy American accent completely different from literally every other fremen...
I think you need to chill and your complains are just angry nitpicks not much different to those who hated the LOTR movies
I had thought they were going to cut this scene from Part 3 due to its hilarious lack of subtlety, but they might have to actually include the bit from Dune Messiah where Paul compares himself to Hitler for some people to get the meaning of the story
"'Genghis... Khan? Was he of the Sardaukar, m'lord?'
'Oh, long before that. He killed... perhaps four million.'
'He must've had formidable weaponry to kill that many, sire. Lasbeams, perhaps, or...'
'He didn't kill them himself, Stil. He killed the way I kill, by sending out his legions. There's another emperor I want you to note in passing - a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.'
'Killed... by his legions?' Stilgar asked.
'Yes.'
'Not very impressive statistics, m'lord.'"
I am a pro black extremist. I love my people abs live my life for us.
And!!!!!
I love the DUNE series. To complain about the white savior storyline is understandable but it shows that ur not a fan of the actual books and probably lack some critical thinking skills at the moment.
I mean it’s been stated by both frank Herbert and denis that Paul isn’t a savior the vision of dune is something that is not to be celebrated but feared
@user-xw4lo1wn5g as humans its best that we first seek to understand, then be understood. These days people seek to be offended and dayum understanding!....lol
On point, good job!
I just kinda see people who say Paul is a "white savior" as racists, in that they are only judging the characters and there actions based on race.
If Zone of Interest becomes mainstream we'll see people complaining that it didn't condemn the Nazi family or show the Jewish perspective
They're doing it already. Saw an artivle yesterday that literally stated the movie is "obfuscating the victims' suffering" or some bs like that
DUNE REVIEW
The visuals, acting, costume designs, CG effects, production quality, etc are indeed spectacular.... Still doesn't change the white savior narrative though. 🤷
My thoughts and review of DUNE pt.1 is below. Haven't seen Dune 2 yet but i have heard that Dennis Villeneuve made some good changes to the plot which i would have made to improve the story pushing further away from stereotypical white savior narrative. I hope what i have heard about Dune 2 is true.
In this review, i also compared Dune to The FOUNDATION and you will see why.
DUNE 1- MOVIE REVIEW
I have seen such plot 1000 times....Avatar, Great Wall, Last Mohicans, etc.
Paul Atreides does 99% (if not 100%)of worshipped super-savior trope which some folks online rather to as the white savior narrative points...
... Prophesized savior of natives
... Better fighter than all the best native fighters and defeats them easily. In the case of the Dune movie, even his HEAVILY PREGNANT mother was also ass whooping the natives EASILY.🤣🤣
... *Must smash/ have sex with/ love story with the NATIVE queen/princess/ lead female warrior/ lead female mystic* or whatever equivalent of a very important female native who is supposedly COMPELLED to fall in love with white savior.
... *Instantly able to bond with beasts of the native land at first attempt* BETTER than the natives who have lived with these beasts and use them for generations
.... *somehow becomes LEADER of the natives almost instantly* who disregard their native leaders in favor of the white savior. Or even worse, the native leader relinquish their authority to the white savior.
... Learns the native ways *VERY FAST* and becomes better than the natives themselves in their native ways.
Dune worshippers claim it is actually a critique on the "white savior narrative" ....LIES....Where is the critique here?!?
What?... because Paul dies in the end?
Nope, his death only immortalizes him as white savior matryr to the natives who create a religion based on him thus still white savior narrative.
And even when this religion became evil, guess what?... same Paul (not his son or anyone else) who is the messiah/ messianic figure in the religion AGAIN saves the natives from the same religion he inspired. This last part is what CONCRETELY and indisputably confirms the white savior narrative above all the other pointers.
He literally immortalized himself into the embodiment of white savior martyrdom.
In the first Dune, the boy/ Paul and his HEAVILY PREGNANT mother defeat the warriors said to be the best fighters of the tribe..... Yet that was the boy's FIRST real fight against experienced, praised and seasoned fighters. 😂😂😂
Remember what Jason Momoa's character said about the native warriors on the spice planet...how deadly they were and very feared. And we saw how badass Momoa's character was in the movie/ Dune 1 just to tell the audience that if such a badass guy feared the native warriors then they must be really damn superb combatants.....Then some boy/ Paul and heavily pregnant mother defeat all of them easily like wet napkin.
Just wide eyed good angles and utterly brilliant CG spectacle with good acting 👍👍 ...... *But story and plotwise gutter trash rubbish* 🚮🚮🚮🚮🚮
*THE FOUNDATION EASILY WIPES IT'S ASS WITH DUNE* and here's why....
*Compare the Dune plot to that of The Foundation and see a massive difference.*
(1) Both Dune and The Foundation involves Galactic level empires but u will FEEL the scale, scope and power of such an empire in The Foundation greater than in Dune.
Perhaps someone could say that The Foundation has the benefit of being a tv series providing greater landscape to expand the story compared to Dune which is just a movie trilogy
My response is.... I can also cut down The Foundation series (well if they complete the story) into a much better movie trilogy than Dune.
(2) The Foundation is heavily multi-layered and far more unpredictable compared to Dune. In fact, even by the end of The Foundation sn1 we still can not see the big picture of the entire plot which is one of its major criticisms from most viewers but it is exactly why i enjoy The Foundation.
(3) The Hari Sheldon character who creates a religion around himself called "the Church of the Galactic Spirit" in The Foundation literally being worshipped but they took deliberate effort to show some of natives [NOT singular individuals] are NOT INHERENTLY BAFOONS and some began to challenge The Foundation Priests.
And even one of the Foundation Priests called "High Clarics" Poly Verisof was shown a crisis of faith because he know he was peddling lies yet his protege was an absolute believer. LOOK AT THIS LEVEL OF NUANCE, BRILLIANT!!
Heck, Hari Sheldon even gets killed an
See how even Hari Sheldon is a white man who creates a religion around himself as a messiah, it's not just blind worshipping from natives. And even within his "Church of Galactic spirit" there are *TWO separate factions*... the religious faction/ theists who worship Hari Sheldon as a Godlike being and the non-religious/ non-theists/ realists who see Hari Sheldon as a revolutionary visionary *person* but not a God.
The whole "white savior narrative" is subverted by....
3a).... Hari NOT being the real savior who is GAAL
3b)....the religion- Church of Galactic Truth is not exact smooth sailing because some groups of natives (not individuals) tend to test and challenge the "High Clarics"/ priests so it's not just blind worshipping
3c)...we get to see even one of the High Clarics have doubts and crisis of faith in Hari....again even the believers go through some doubt.
3d)... witnessing Hari incur some failure despite being an incredibly hyper-intelligent guy who *created* "psycho-history" which is high probabilistic mathematics he uses to predict multiple sequences of events across entire timelines primarily based on behavioral analytics and tends to have contingencies and yet he has faced and suffered death many times when a plan goes sideways and requires different people to save him in different situations unlike Paul Atreidis in Dune pt.1 where all his efforts are smooth sailing, no failure, no struggles.
(4) Even the actual savior in the Foundation who has actual superpowers .. ..GAAL... comes from a poor humble origins compared to Dune's Paul Atreidis comes from imperialist power. We get to see Gaal *struggle to understand the burden of power added with the task of defeating the Galactic Empire because she feels overwhelmed by it so we get to see her grow into the role unlike Dune's Paul Atreidis
who just goes from being born into Imperialist power and just EASILY switches to becoming Messianic god leader of the Freemen natives, no struggle here, no growth arc, see this rubbish.
There's one article that classified paul as a hero while critiquing the movie and I stopped reading after that part.
Edit: If people want to watch a movie about the consequences of atomic bomb, they should watch grave of the fireflies, a studio ghibli movie. You'll cry, trust me.
Calling Dune a "white saviour" movie represents a profound misunderstanding of Herbert's narrative arc for Paul, who is emphatically NOT a hero or saviour. The story is a cautionary tale about the dangers of colonialism, power, messianic figureheads and charismatic leaders. Paul only cares about himself, vengeance, and restoring his bloodline to the throne, and he and his scheming mother exploit the Fremen to achieve this. In the upcoming Part 3, we'll see his descent from revered messiah to tyrannical antihero. Even the Fremen turn against him.
I though it was warning on how not to get high on worm piss?.😑
3:00 exactly because the Fremen were white in the book thus whole white savior thing is nonsense.
"Wit anyting dats not explained tu u liek they toddlas"
This movie destroy woke propaganda and I love It 😂