I think DV did it this way to convey messiah warning if this film was the last. If no one watched the film he couldn't show this. And now there's a head start on her character arc for the next one.
What I've been trying to say to downgrade Dune Pt 2 and Chani not pushing Herbert's lesson any all over reaching leaders followed blindly esp thru religion is wrong bad foor humanity' but DENIS actually just pushing modern anti colonial imperialism per our race relations history of modern Europe ruining under developed cultures using religion as if Fremen themselves(ie POC cultures as humans) without Bene Gessrit(white invaders) don't have the seed of Adam towards evil of revenge slaughter genocide without Paul Atreides becoming their leader unlocking it.
The first Dune trilogy can be very simply explained. In order to save his life, and his family, Paul Atreides made the breakthrough, and gained prescience. Unfortunately, his very power showed him that prescience was a dead end for the Human Race, and once the djinni's bottle was opened, it was too late. Even if he had accepted death for himself, Chani and his mother, inevitably, persons with prescience would appear among humans. Not even the extermination of the Bene Geserit could return the djinni back into the bottle. So, he saw that he himself was not strong enough to follow the Golden Path, and sacrificed himself to ensure the survival of Leto. Leto was the absolute tyrant of the Human Race, ensuring the existence of mechanical star traveling technology, and humans and technology invisible to prescience were born/created. With his death, endless, open possibilities were restored to Humanity, and no one individual could ever again stifle the endless possibilities of Humanity.😮
Very good, Denis can punch that up to satisfy modern audiences for you. The women sound strong, interesting... but are they really empowered? Let's give them an insatiable drive for power. Sure, that goes against the idea of the Bene Gesserit being all female. Females are less selfish and driven by personal gain than males in general, but let's lose that horse and buggy thinking.(We don't believe in stereotypes in Canada)The Bene Gesserit goals are now as selfish and evil as any Emperor or Baron. So why not just take over everything using their unique skills and abilities? Maybe they will? Maybe they will? The movies still will take place on a desert planet and in the future. Just some little details adjusted. Oh yes, Chani tells everyone Paul is a fake (even though he can see the future), and she is now his enemy, not the love of his dreams. Denis really loves this story and only wants to X the Spacing Guild, the convention against thinking machines, the convention against Atomics isn't getting mentioned. (Maybe only the Atraides have Nukes? Cool!). We are all in agreement that "chair dogs": the less said, the better? Let us also apply that to Mentants in movie part II. Jason Momoa better not even visit the set of Denis Dune 3. Cutting the Duncan Idaho return stuff, he isn't important to the Dune books. Well, he isn't in all six. Bye Duncan. And take the twins with you, Denis is cutting them too. Two types of Freemen, city and desert? No enlightened North and superstitious "Bible Belt" Southern fundamentalists. Just like you silly Americans. Except the Freemen aren't fat. Got you, Denis! Very clever, very subliminal. It will go right over their heads. Want to re-write anything else? Paul is going to kill his mother, Lady Jessica before going into the desert to die. Wow, shockingly sad. No one will see that coming you genius. That will teach her to become evil for the movies. I see a woke Oscar in these tiny changes for you, Denis. I don't have to tell you, though, do I?
"Misreading" is a very polite way of putting it. BH/KJA flat-out made shit up in direct contradiction to the original novels, right down to claiming that Frank Herbert intended to write "Dune 7."
If you go from Frank's 6 books into Brian's 27 cash grabs (at all), it is amazing he has sold any of K.J. Andersons story's. I listened to a few on audio books, and I gave them a chance. It is like going from Stanley Kubrick to a director of an employee acted office party skit. He should stick with Star Wars. Anyone can write those. Star Wars is a dumb downed Dune.
Paul Atreides is not a villain in Dune Messiah. He is a Tragic Hero, echoing the same path of Oedipus in Oedipus Rex and The Theban Trilogy. The first Dune book follows the same ascension of Oedipus to Kingship and Dune Messiah is the downfall of Oedipus in as being the King but carrying the burden of his position and how that affects his subjects.
I totally agree! Ppl seem to think only in absolutes (they're Sith, lol) . You're either a saint or a total devil. But books like Dune, Game of Thrones, etc. give us more nuanced characters. Messiah has a specific quote comparing Paul to Hitler (in terms of numbers). But I dont see Paul as an evil character. He is a powerful guy who tried and failled. And considering Dune's universe. At the time of Paul, Atreides are definitely way better then other factions (Harkonnens, BG, Tleilaxu)
I agree. In fact it seems that the first trilogy of books and then God Emperor of Dune is like a tragic ancient Greek family saga. It is full of deeply tragic figures. Politics and democracy is always going to be a difficult, murky and highly complex business with only least bad options. The angel with the flaming sword will always stop any successful attempt at a political Eden. Unfortunately many people still crave something simpler and more attractive and more shiney than murky democracy and compromise. That is where the flawed figure of the political hero comes in with his or her personality cult. This craving for the simple and THE NEED TO HATE AND BLAME is more commonly felt in times of great communal stress - especially economic stress. What fascism is, is a knee jerk reaction to simplistic jungle hero worshiping out group blaming principles at times of great communal stress. You can see this primitivism in fascist art and symbolism. The fremen go for Paul because they have also been spritually manipulated by the Bene Gereset. But they are also oppressed under the Harkonan yoke and patronised in an imperialistic way by Shaddam IV . They are a dignified highly sophisticated people who treat their environment with respect. And they have suffered. Herbert is a great author because he dwells on old fascinating questions. He is not stupid enough to dish out any easy answers (or any answers at all for that matter)
In book 1 Paul is supposed to seem to be the Hero. In Book 2, we are supposed to gradually realize hes not really a hero. In book 3 we learn why Paul turned from the Golden Path (and by doing so, only ensured that it would still happen). In book 4 we learn that the Golden Path required not a great hero, but the ultimate villain in order to give humanity a shot at survival.
paul wasn’t a villain though and he was a hero in many ways the point isn’t that he isn’t a hero the point is that even worshipping a hero will have bad consequences for society. It’s not like paul is going around eating babies, it’s irrelevant no matter what he did even if he killed himself his followers would take up the Jihad in his name. He was put into a terrible position by forces outside of his control.
@@clololown I've read books #1-5 so far, and the only confusion I have is this (although it may be answered in #6): How is this story a warning against blindly following messianic figures if, in the end (albeit thousands of years), the Golden Path is achieved and humanity is now in it's most peaceful and prosperous state in all of human history? I understand that it is a warning against figures such as Hitler, but then why does Herbert conclude the story with humanity's paradise? Would love to hear others' opinions and possible explanations of this! ^_^
I hope that Villeneuve can resist changing the lore of the book by making the third movie a definitive end to the Paul Atreides story. As Nerd Cookies said the story of Paul doesn't end until 'Children of Dune.' IMO Paul is neither a hero or villain but a victim of his visions which result in heroics -> villainy -> tragedy -> cowardice -> redemption -> defeat.
@@gary4books Yes, but Paul could not bring himself to follow the Golden path and left it to his son Leto II who made the sacrifice needed to avoid kralizec.
@vergyltantor3211 well, also, Paul was at the end of the day born a man, and was going to die a man. Leto II was born as a man with no true way to escape and made the most of it. Leto II was both the villain mankind needed and the hero it deserved.
Paul's story is Campbell's "call to action" but one where the protagonist declines to answer the call- only the audience doesn't realize what the true call to action is until later when his son answers the call.
Great job on the video! With audiences craving a good theatrical experience, many critics and reviewers see Villeneuve as the savior of cinema. While he does deliver a stunning visual and audio experience, some overlook any flaws in the film. It's rare to find a fair analysis that looks past the spectacle, delves into the thematic elements as Herbert intended, and assesses how well Villeneuve conveyed them. You did an excellent job of doing just that. While Villeneuve made many changes and omissions in the film adaptation of Dune, most were forgivable, except for Chani's character arc. Her opposition to Paul and unwillingness to stand by him, combined with the ending where she leaves in a huff after Paul declares his intention to marry Irulan and then goes out to the desert to ride a worm, left a bitter taste in my mouth. Although Paul stated he would marry Irulan at the end of the book, Jessica's words to Chani confirm that this is purely political and that, like her, Chani will go down in history as a beloved wife, not a concubine. Also, in the book, Paul and Chani spent years together, living as Fremen husband and wife. Their shared mourning after their son, Leto, died in an attack brought them closer, underscoring their love. Instead, Villeneuve had a defiant and dubious Chani stand as a proxy for the audience to hammer the point that Paul is no hero. Suppose the woman who loved him refused to acknowledge Paul's leadership and was betrayed by him cruelly. In that case, viewerswill undoubtedlyl seethat Paul is no hero,a strictly self-centered utilitaria,who doesg what he must to gain power. Paul is not Sheeev Palpatine, nor is he Anakin Skywalker. Paul is just Paul, a boy raised for greatness who lost everything and fled to the desert, where he found safety with the indigenous people of the Dune. In trying to avenge his father and unify Dune under Fremen's control, he was gifted/cursed with the knowledge that his actions would lead to the Galactic War and the death of trillions. The burden of knowing there was no way to avoid this was that rather than be a hero, the only path to the least worst of all possible futures was to be a "benevolent" yet absolute tyrannic leader. Dune is far more complex than "Don't trust politicians/leaders who promise prosperity to their people. They lie. No one person entrusted with absolute power can fulfill such a promise because they will always turn into megalomaniacal killers." However, not all people who lead do so because of a desire to control. The greatest rulers during bad times did what needed to be done to prevent the worst when all others with power failed to act. It is a burden to lead a people out of the depths of despair and have them rise to prominence, for it always means war. Imagine what horrors the future would bring in the hands of a charismatic ruler who cared only for his own ends and was not the empathetic Paul Atredies, Duke of Caladan, the Kwitzach Haderach, the Lisan al Gaib, and Muad dib. He saw all possible futures and knew that to save the universe from destruction, he must wage a war among every planet, killing countless innocents. And worse, his son, Leto, would follow in his stead, transform into a behemoth, a human-worm hybrid, and become the lone source of Spice, thus ruling as the God Emperor of the Universe for thousands of years. As Henry IV Part 2 said, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown."
Chani had to change. No 21st century audience, certainly not the women fans, want to see what is basically a 1950s era wife or teenager on the big screen as Chani. And that's what book Chani is. She has no opinion of her own, follows her lover without question, is strictly stuck with childcare and preoccupied at the end with jealousy and sadness because Paul is marrying someone else. Because of the shortened timeline, Paul is still a stranger to her and it's great to see her fighting on the front lines, still having doubts and opposing what he's doing.
@@benjalucian1515Here's a 20th-century woman who would have preferred that version. However, I don't view supportive wives and mothers as lacking agency, character, nor as relics of antiquity.
@@agesflow6815 *Do you think books should have a B-W test for publication approval* Do movies have that? Don't think so It would be just another way of analyzing a book as the Bechdel test does for movies.
'Dune Messiah' is one of the shortest books of the original six... shortest, perhaps, but absolutely critical to the whole saga. In it, we get to see Paul not only make mistakes, but also the extent of his actual powerlessness, as the plotting of different factions begin to twist and pull at the lives and actions of those around him. If 'Dune' was meant to show what happens when people blindly follow a charismatic leader, then 'Dune Messiah' shows us what happens when ambitious people start to manipulate a religion for their own ends and gains... especially when that religion is not only young, but also its focal point is still extant. But hearing that DV feels that 'Dune' itself is misunderstood goes a long way to explain why he has veered way off course. He has, in fact, gone in the opposite direction to what he thinks and feels many readers of the book have, which is as bad, if not worse, that the misconception he feels exists. For me, Paul is not a ''hero' in the traditional sense, rather, he is a young man with special abilities, caught up in a pivotal time and place, and finds himself the focus for events that he comes to realise are completely beyond his control. He tries, obviously, but finds he cannot divert the course of things in even the slightest detail. Perhaps he never could, the path being set solid from the moment his father accepted the Emperor's decree to take over governance of Arrakis. Jessica's allusion to 'sticks in the flood' early on in the book, whilst meant to depict her and Paul's place in the plottings of Shaddam IV and Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, more accurately depict Paul's state when he meets up with the Fremen and is hailed their Lisan Al-Gaib. So perhaps it is better to call Paul the main protagonist of the first and second books, rather than the more defined word, 'Hero'.
Interesting that Jessica said “sticks in the flood”. Obviously implying that they are insignificant in the large maelstrom of events. In Heretics of Dune there is mention of key logs, where loggers must remove the log that is jamming up the rest from getting down river.
@@jonathanwright5338 Yes, I remember this scene, too. Clearly, when a book is written, thr writer has a specific story to tell. But I can't help wondering what would have happened, had Paul explored the Key-Log idea further in his attempts to prevent the Jihad, and rather than focus on himself to stop it, tried to find the true 'key log' that would set the Jihad in motion...
The new films also gloss over one of the most profound themes of the whole Dune series: the idea of humanity as a collective, prescient consciousness that will produce black swans to forge new paths away from stagnation and extinction. The powers of the Imperium had set humanity upon a dangerous, stagnant course, and the "race consciousness" (that Paul perceived as "Terrible Purpose") produced him as a remedy. The films implied that the Bene Gesserit were the ultimate victors "no matter who prevailed on Arrakis." They killed the message that Paul utterly thwarted their path to ascension.
The culture we live within today could never tolerate that idea. It's too mystic, too dangerous. Nor would it allow explicit mention that the Noble Families are a legitimately eugenic aristocracy. But I'm glad to see occasional Dune readers who can still read a book on its own terms.
I like to think that Frank intentially wrote Paul as a charismatic, likeable character so the reader will also see him as a hero, further illustrating just how easily someone could fall into the trap of following such a person. When you get to Dune Messiah and learn of the atrocities of the Fremen, you are also forced to confront the idea that YOU may have done the same.
100%. I loved part 1 for its accuracy and my opinions on part 2 have only soured with some of the drastic changes that lower the quality of the overall story
I remember when I read the trilogy as a teenager - oh so long ago! - and how shocked I was when I read Messiah, but now it's probably my favourite novel of the series.
Thanks Nerd Cookies. I can stop scratching my head, now. I never thought Dune Messiah was written for “clarification”. I always considered it simply a continuation of the first book.
It makes totally sense when you know the whole story I don't know it was intended or not but the end of 2nd movie of Villeneuve is too far from the original book
Just leaving a comment to say, I love this channel. You are well spoken, imaginative and have brilliant presentation. Keep up the good and hard work. Hope you have a very nerdy day!
You say that and I do agree with you. He’s a very bad man. But a lot of commentators and people have said stuff like “I didn’t get why Chanie left over Irulan” “they just killed all the bad guys what’s the big deal” and “yay Holy War wonder how that will go”. You have a guy dominated by his evil mother who literally says “do it”. Doesn’t get more on the nose and critical than that. People have an issue that if you depict somebody with dignity, power and success you have to really go out of your way to convince people they’re a monster. It does annoy me that people were lining up to throw Daenerys under the bus since book 1 but will insist Paul Atreides is a nuanced and morally grey character. He’s an utter monster.
I keep hearing this take! It’s simply not true. Because if that was the case, Denis didn’t need to come out afterwards and say what he said as the audience who are the supposed “dumbed down” people don’t really listen to a director’s interviews. They watch the film and go home and enjoy or don’t enjoy. But it’s also a pretty false notion that wider audiences would not understand the true point that FH made, if it was explained well enough, which is exactly a directors job…look at Nolan’s work! Kubrick! Tarkovsky! I’m sorry I think Denis dropped the ball with his own political bias affecting his interpretation…he’s not a messiah you know and is capable of getting things wrong, or being influenced by cultural bias! 😂 Also it’s really ironic! If Denis wilfully changed the message and didn’t just dumb it down but will fully flipped it on its head, that is the exact distortion and twisting and manipulation of messiah issue that FH was talking about! so Denis is now the false prophet himself! In this situation…not working with the true message! Either wilfully or from misunderstanding!
Problem is... a lot of people, particularly the ones who probably need to hear the message of Dune the most... STILL didn't get it. A lot of right-wing and/or religious people are interpreting the movies as being pro-religion and see Paul as a hero. This is the problem with nuance and leaving things open to interpretation: You're likely just preaching to the choir. The only people who will interpret nuance the way it's intended are the ones who already think that way, and thus will be inclined to see that in the abstraction. Anybody else... will just see what they already believe, and interpret anything they can as backing up their preconceived notions. Leaving things open to interpretation will never challenge the audience. It will only coddle their existing beliefs.
Thank you for this. Another quote of Frank Herbert: “I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: "May be dangerous to your health." One of the most dangerous presidents we had in this century was John Kennedy because people said "Yes Sir Mr. Charismatic Leader what do we do next?" and we wound up in Vietnam. And I think probably the most valuable president of this century was Richard Nixon. Because he taught us to distrust government and he did it by example.” The problem is, Villeneuve had Paul act like Nixon is his adaptation. Paul being the obvious bad guy undercuts the core message of the worst thing to happen to the Fremen would be for them to "fall into the hands of a hero," and lessens them, and the story, far too much. Stilgar is another example - in the book, Paul noted that Stilgar had been lessoned after their victory. He was religious, but not a fool.
They said they did, but did they? I think their prescience made them slaves. It gave them a certainty that didn't really exist. Plus, the idea that Leto II could turn people off of authoritarianism and charismatic leaders by being a tyrant is... completely ridiculous. It misses the mark entirely. If it really worked that way, there would be no tyrants or systems of oppression in our modern world.
@@DreamersOfReality There have been no tyrants or oppressions in our history approaching anywhere near the horror of the reign of God Emperor Leto II. Hitler and Stalin were kindergarteners throwing tantrums compared to the 3-millenium regime of the God Emperor. It makes sense it would have unprecedented effects.
Your assessment is correct. Frank Herbert is highly unlikely to have blithely been unaware the his message might be misinterpreted. The depth and complexity of the story line shows a mind with deep perception and understanding. However, I can understand why Villeneuve made it more explicit because he could hardly expect with 100% certainty that Messiah would be made so it was important to have that message overtly stated. If Messiah is funded and made, he can then bring it to full flower.
The biggest problem I have with Dennis' adaptation is how he placed way to much power into the Sisterhood. For me the Sisterhood place in DUNE is there plan for making a super being that they could control to bring humanity under there influence. The real power is the Guild. Nothing can happen without the Guild. Even the scene where The Baron orders to sell his Spice reservoir to pay off for the attack, there is no mention of the Guild. This,to me, is the biggest oversight in this adaptation.
Except the Bene Gesserit DO have tremendous influence over the Empire, they simply choose not to wield it openly. The Guild merely hold a monopoly on space travel, and this gives them a major bargaining chip, but their power is ultimately sapped by their reliance on spice. The freman were easily able to bribe them to keep satellites out of Dune's orbit, and Paul showed just how little power the Guild actually held when he threatened to destroy the spice.
Villenueve has a hard-on for female empowerment, so he took every chance to make the sisterhood have an expanded role, to the point of completely undermining the Emperor's agency from the book. The movie makes them look like utter morons.
Though undeniably weird and wonderful the Guild are (as I'm sure we'll see in "Messiah"), it's clear by the end of the first Dune book that they're a paper tiger in any event. (In the films, there was, arguably, not enough time to flesh out this subplot only to snuff it out at the end: Villeneuve will have to find another way to explain "Edric" and his interests in the "Messiah" conspiracy...) It's true Villeneuve does play the BG up somewhat more than I thought necessary in a couple of places, but this is a set-up for the realization to come that even they were little more than sorceror's apprentices in the game of power. (Villeneuve HAS read the full Frank Herbert series...)
Not quite. There’s some kind of equilibrium between powers in dune, until Paul gains control of the spice. The guild is glad to stay neutral and do its thing as long as it gets payed. The sisterhood is very influential as it has members in every house, but its real power comes from the ability to plan in the long term (i.e. their breeding program).
FINALLY. Someone understands the books and is addressing the issues with Part 2’s interpretation. It’s killing me the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding of the source material circulating right now
Great topic and one that I think really revolves around the heart of Dune's philosophy itself. I completely agree with your thought on DV skipping ahead to drive the ultimate point home. Unfortunately, it comes at the expense of the actual message and ends up slapping you over the head with it instead of challenging the audience to realize it for themselves. Ultimately I think the message ends up being lost altogether because it takes no wisdom or self reflection to get there and ends up being a "this is bad because I said it is". The characters are also clumsily handled to make the new plot work and it just further frays out from there. Last few times I went to my book store the Dune books were wiped out so I'm hoping more people will be able to experience the books and take the lessons deeper.
Thanks for making this. I bought the explanation that Messiah was a course-correction because I didn't know any better. Thanks for setting me straight 😊
I think he made the decision for Chani to embody the message of the book 'Messiah' a while ago, with no real intention of making the film. Then when he realized a 3rd film would be possible it was too late to change.
@@DerHammerSpricht100% people seem to have forgotten DV and Dunep.1 got screwed out of the Oscars due to Social politics, this is DEI blackmail from Zendaya and the woke Hollywood execs
Paul was purposefully created to be a tool for the Bene Gesserit. When he looked into the future, he saw something the Sisterhood had never even thought might be…human extinction. In order to stop it he knew he’d have to make choices, decisions that ended up being beyond him. What if people are looking at Dune and Dune Messiah in a microcosm and that the context absolutely changes once you embrace a long enough timescale…?
Merci! Je me bats sur internet depuis un mois face à des enragés qui répètent ce propos de Villeneuve. Et pourtant les interviews sont faciles à trouver sur TH-cam. Dune, Dune Messiah and Children of Dune are one book, but it was too big to be published in one tome. Keep on your good works !!!
I fail to see how Paul is a villain. Feyd was a potential as well. If Paul lost and Feyd takes the throne, then a Harkonnen dystopian future for humanity? Is Paul guilty of manipulating the Fremen and their religion or does he just ride the wave of what was already built up by the Bene Gesserit? There is a whole lot made about his failure to control the galactic jihad, but it always seemed to me when reading the books this was more telling than showing.
It's clear, in Herbert's own words, audio and video recordings that his intent was to explore the phenomenon of the charismatic leader. Your commentary is well crafted. Brian's bio of his father is a must read for anyone stepping out on the path. Tnank you.
Fantastic work. It seems you nailed it. I agree that Herbert was intending to show the dangers of unlimited power, and the danger of blind devotion to those that have it. Paul had good intentions but succumbs to the same thing that nearly all humans would.
Thanks Nerd Cookies to be brave enough to try and clear up the idea that Dune written in 1965 is some backwards story that now needs help to stay relevant. It was way ahead of its time and that is why it is loved. The Women are the most powerful characters in the books and it isn’t forced at all. Denis acts like because a middle aged white guy wrote the story 60 years ago,of course it needs a big re-write. That would be true most of the time but Frank and his Dune are the exception. How can Denis not see that? And worst of all he implies it to the general audience (most of whom haven’t read the books) that it was necessary to do some updating. It is irritating.
@@wackyvorlon Then maybe you can clear up why the sisterhood decided to wipe out the Atradies bloodline when after centuries of manipulation they are nearly at their goal. Why not kill Paul pass or fail when you have a poison needle at his neck. His death will rip apart Leto and Jessica. Why does Paul exist? Jessica gave Leto a son because she loved the Duke? No, because of evil and power mad desire she wants to be the mother of the universe’s Super Being. Why test Feyd ? He is an animal not a human. Feyd passing shows the test pointless and broken. He has no Bene Gesserit training. We will wipe out the Atradies and before getting a sperm sample risk killing Feyd and the Harkonen bloodline. Chani loves Paul? No she hates him. As a surprise , next movie Paul kills Jessica. Wow! No re-write?
@@wackyvorlon Chani loves Paul? No-hates him. Jessica gave Leto a son out of love? No-she has a evil power mad scheme to be the mother of the Universe's Super Being. The Sister Hood wants the Atradies dead but could have killed Paul during the Human test pass or fail destroying the Duke and Jessica as well. They test Feud who is a animal. He cannot pass, if he does the test is pointless.He has no Bene Gesserit training.They don't obtain a sperm sample first. He passes.They seem to want both blood lines gone after centuries of blood line manipulation they are near their goal? As a big surprise next movie Paul kills Jessica before walking into the desert alone. Unless Denis can't resist having Chani do it. Mentants gone. No Spacing Guild. No face dancers. No Twins. No re-write because takes place on Dune. Right?
As one of your Sword Masters, I'd like to point out that Villeneuve is making this his own project, his own version of "what would happen if Paul had decided to go on the path of the "other" dream he witnessed during the spice agony. I think it'll be along the lines of the destruction of the imperium and fall of the great houses. The destruction of spice and the scattering of humanity. in short, expedite Kralizec. That's the vibe I'm sensing
I always saw it as the first three books where the rise and fall of Paul. That gaining power changed him in a fundamental way and it was the choices he made that made him human.
Thank you for this video. I have been fighting this misconception for years. (before the movies) The warning was always about how legend and hero worship takes on a life of it's own and that people, once they see you as a hero, project all of their hopes, dreams, and expectations upon you and then demand that you 'live up' to those expectations, that you smite their enemies, praise what they love, and embrace them as the only righteous ones even when the group is doing horrible things. And in the end the people always come to hate their hero for not living up to those thousands, millions of contradictory and impossible expectations. It is pointed out by Paul that even if he lost the battle with Feyd (by letting him win and thus killing himself in a way) that it would still not stop what was to come because he would be a martyr and the Fremen would go forth and purge the universe with his name upon their lips. He chose to steer the 'elephant'' of the cause as best he could and did every thing he could in the later book to demystify his own legend.
Frank Herbert's scale as far as how long of a time period his stories take place, it is clear that he intended, from the beginning, for this story to encompass more than just Paul's lifetime.
I feel some kinda way about Paul getting so much hate. He may not be a traditional hero but he fathered the God Emperor who ended up saving humanity as a species.
That's because Leto did what Paul was too cowardly to do. At the end of the series, a resurrected Paul even states he is happy saving the Universe was Duncan's responsibility and not his.
Thank you, Nerd Cookies. Does anyone know if DV had final cut for his _Dune?_ Or did the studio/producers? David Lynch (re: _Dune ‘84_ )stated he 'sold out', "even in the script phase knowing I didn't have final cut." Since he is such a great fan of _Dune,_ in years to come will DV lament his own 'selling out'? Thankfully Lynch learned from his "failure" and thereafter maintained final cut authority. A win. I wonder what sort of lesson DV will learn from _his_ "triumph".
People like a hero, in books or in movies so making Paul one is probably easier to digest for many reader or watcher. Paul did not want to be a hero, nor a anti-hero, but was manipulated in being very conflicted both. He just wanted to be human, but manipulated into foresight he had to make the steps he took, trying later in Messiah and as a prophet that he really was just a messenger of Kralizec. His son took the next step. As for Villenueve: he made a movie that was always seen as almost unmakable, but still wanted to sell this amazing story, so he made choices. If we agree with that? Well, thats everyones own opinion.
Based. The internet loves to parrot opinions and pretend they understand the creative process, and then retcon the actual intent. It’s a staple of people who don’t create.
As a recent DUNE reader, I am very thankful for this video. Because in addition to Velnueve's interviews regarding the matter, so many channels saying the same argument as Denis regarding DUNE and DUNE MESSIAH; as i was reading (currently waiting to read Heretics) i was constantly wondering "if there is something wrong with the way i was reading these books" because i didn't get why would Frank write Paul in such a way and then "say" the 'character' of Paul was "misunderstood". I watched DUNE lore videos after videos and kept thinking "Frank is kind of contradicting his writing with what he's saying about his characters"... And thankfully i found this channel. I've been in tune more in depth with the DUNE lore regarding the messages and philosophy of the books. I am watching Denis' filmography and his movies are amazing and i appreciate his efforts as a storyteller. However, i have noticed a theme in his movies that nobody addresses when discussing his filmography is that, Denis is always portraying specifically Christianity in a bad light in 90% of his movies. So as i have progressed watching his movies i have noticed this (not saying he shouldn't, but it's a theme he has in his movies). So it'll make sense that he'll seize the opportunity to bring down the most 'known' messianic figure in history, and what better way to do it than including it in the biggest sci-fi saga of all times.
Nothing completes Herbert's message better than the 4th, and I feel essential, book: God Emperoror of Dune. Seeing the Golden Path play out over millennia, tyes everyhing together where the completion of Children of Dune only scratches the surface. Paul M. Atlanta, GA
In the end it is a take on Herbert’s message and the nature of adaptations is…adaptation. I think it’s a clever way to explore the theme. DV should have spent more time exploring Paul’s reasons for going south. But it’s not DV’s job to slavishly follow the original. And I’m not saying this from the perspective of a person who loved every aspect of this film. The last quarter was jarring. But utilising Chani the way he did I think is smart from a filmic perspective. Paul is still a hero within the context of the film, we just know where it’s going and the foreshadowing is heavy handed, but that’s also the director’s style.
The problem is not the adaptation. Of course a director has to make changes. The problem is Villeneuve justifying the changes in his adaptation by speaking on behalf of Herbert, and pretending Herbert said things when actually he said the opposite.
In FH's book Dune, the need for a Hero dominated the initial story-line. Unfortunately, the hero was Bene Gesserit defined to such an intimate degree that Paul could not alter his galectic mandate for a religious-jihad. Dune Messiah confirms the true scope of that jihad and the ultimate tyranny it produced. At the end of that book, Paul walks away from his inescapable hero-turned-tyrant victory after the death of Chani. Children of Dune then has Pauls son take on the mantle of hero-tyrant, but as a genetically rogue demi-god. Paul's vision of the future made him realize that he must allow his son to inherit the empire and make the greater heroic sacrifice as a human-species proactive though decisively inhuman (or perhaps super-human), benevolent galactic tyrant. Ultimately (as revealed in GE of Dune), it was the Bene Gesserit that won this genetic game-of-thrones, but not how it wanted to.
I went into this video with dread, but felt great relief and appreciation that you actually did some research and gave some citation. We'll have to keep waiting for a perfect Dune movie. If that ever happens, then the attempts we currently have will remain fascinating studies. At very least, they keep the torch lit in popular imagination.
I would love to have a Dune trilogy of films to accompany the Lord or the Rings trilogy as the best adaptations ever, alas, this is impossible with the current state of Hollywood. I am just enjoying the visualizations of the novels, nothing more, nothing less.
There are plenty of hints in the original Dune novel that Paul's ascension to become the Fremen Messiah was very far from a good thing and carried great potential for disaster. On multiple occasions in the text we are privy to Paul's inner monologue that shows clearly just how concerned he is over the ultimate price his 'terrible purpose' will carry. Paul also foresees the horrors of the looming Fremen Jihad in the original novel, desperately tries to find a means of averting it, only to ultimately realise that there is no way he can avert it, since even if he dies he will be seen simply as a martyr, something that will only intensify the bloodshed to come. Indeed, part of the reason why Paul takes the Water of Life in the books is to perfect his prescient vision in the hope that it will allow him to find some way out of the looming disaster of the Fremen Jihad without massive loss of life and yet still allow him to have his vengeance on the Baron Haarkonen and the Padasha Emperor, a hope that ultimately proves futile as Paul comes to realise just how tightly the trap of precognition holds him in its jaws. Ultimately, and despite knowing all of this and with all his fears for the future, Paul still chooses to continue to use the status and power afforded to him among the Fremen by his status as the Lisan Al Ghaib to pursue his personal vendetta with the Haarkonens anyway, which leads directly to the calamity he foresaw but refused to turn away from by the only means that might have actually worked - by comprehensively repudiating his own status as a messianic figure and abandoning his quest for revenge entirely, even if the consequence was his own death and that of his mother at the hands of the Fremen. The hints of future trouble may not be rammed crudely down the throats of the readership, but they are there if one pays attention. It is, at a minimum, highly questionable to suggest that Dune Messiah was principally (or even solely) written simply to correct some perceived failure of the readership to grasp the more sinister aspects of Paul's characterisation in the original Dune novel. Indeed, if anything, I think Frank Herbert fully intended from the get go that the readership would like Paul and find themselves rooting for him to have his revenge and take power in spite of the hints that he carries the potential for calamity and darkness within his persona, the idea being that the reader is so swept up in Paul's journey and his charisma as a character that we ourselves choose to ignore the more sinister aspects of his rise to power and find ourselves backing him largely uncritically by the end of the original Dune, so that Herbert can show us the calamitous consequences of that mindset in Dune Messiah and the rest of the Dune Saga, and make it clear to us how easy it is for a charismatic leader to cause their followers to ignore sensible caution and back them almost without thinking anyway, since it has already happened to us, the readership. I don't think Dune Messiah was written as some correction of an improper reception of the first book by the reading public - I think Herbert's idea was always to lure people in with a seemingly classically structured Hero's Journey in the first novel, only to show us the dire consequences that follow when 'heroes' (and similar types of charismatic leaders) gain power based upon their charisma rather than any actual fitness to lead. As much as I admire Villeneuve as a film maker and artist, I think he misinterpreted Frank Herbert's intent, saw a flaw that was not actually present in the original Dune novel, and took it upon himself to 'fix' it by rewriting one of the greatest sci fi narratives ever committed to paper because he thinks he can do better than Frank Herbert himself, which, while it may have been well intentioned arrogance, is still towering arrogance.
Very well articulated, you hit a lot of points that I take exemption with. One of the other issues that I take, and nearly everyone of a certain bent does, is focus on the oppression of the Fremen and use it to assign them moral superiority. The Fremen have been exploited as have every people who have existed, but it doesn't then give them the sanction to cause widespread slaughter as they do after freeing arrakis. Also coincidentally their dream ends up being their undoing and relegates them to a footnote in history remebered much like the commanche, for their ferocity, prowess in combat, and the tragic futility of their struggle for paradise on this earth.
@@isaiahsmith7123 I see your point - a great many people seem to operate on the simplistic binary division that any group is either 'the oppressed' or 'the oppressor' and there can be no nuance between those two poles. To such people, the suffering of the Fremen leaves them as the inherently morally blameless members of 'the oppressed' who somehow are thus granted the right to do essentially anything to resist that oppression, up to and including killing tens of billions of people across the galaxy in the Fremen Jihad apparently. The idea of proportionality of response in the use of force, or that a group can be oppressed and yet still behave unethically or cleave to dangerous ideologies itself at the same time, never seems to even cross their minds.
I look at the movies and the books as two separate entities. I'm a fan of the books. I watched the first movie and I wasn't impressed. I didn't like the changes from the book and I thought they weakened the story. I will not watch the second movie. Ultimately, I don't care what Denis Villeneuve says or does.
Movies due to their brevity have to take shortcuts in the story telling. I don't have an issue with what Villeneuve has done. I trust we'll get to the same place in the end.
I met Frank Herbert during his God Emperor promotion tour and he intended to write a trilogy from a start. I take such missteps in the directors words as serious red flags.
As a big Dune fan I've listened to commentary about V's adaptation and am now quite glad I've not seen it. Will l ever? Maybe. But, l get the impression l won't enjoy it.
Yeah, I really didn't like the change he made to Chani. The character as Frank wrote it had a purpose. And it wasn't just to bear Paul's children. She represented Paul's emotional connection with Fremen. His bond with Chani, who is as ferocious and fanatical as any other Fremen, is what pulls him more deeply into their ethical system and makes the Fremen more truly his people rather than mere allies as his father had originally intended. This bond is what eventually involves him in atrocity. The Fremen are monsters. We, liberal white audiences, are meant to sympathize with them as we often do with oppressed peoples because of the underdog principle. We often mistakenly attribute noble qualities to a culture in virtue of their oppression, which is a mistake (supporting the Taliban when the Soviets were in Afghanistan for example). But when the Fremen take over, we see what they are truly capable of. DV's changes to the source material, although not entirely ruinous, have the effect of diluting the experience that the audience is meant to have. We are supposed to be shocked by Messiah when we see what our 'heroes' eventually get up to once they are in power. Frank wants to acquaint us with our own capacity to be deceived and seduced. DV puts it too much on the nose up front. He's true to the theme generally speaking but his delivery is less powerful.
I feel by the end of the second movie the idea of Paul being a hero is much more ambiguous, and hopefully setting up for a really interesting character arch that is not often seen in current movies. The hero becoming what he originally set out to destroy.
I think we have a case of life reflecting art reflecting life here. Villeneuve's leadership is unsubtly pulling a complex and subtle story apart with his misguided directorial visions.
I wonder what it is exactly what makes people choose a hero at all from the cast of the original book. Why must one of the many powerful people in the story be the 'good guy'? The story gives no reason to assume that there must be.
Then the entire point of existence is moot and there is no story at all. That’s why. There will always be good and evil. Justice and injustice. Paul is portrayed as having many virtues and acting brave and selflessly for much of that first book when he is only 15. He is a virtuous hero to contrast with the deeply immoral Guild, House Harkonnen, The Bene orders, etc
@@janette2422 Virtue does not a hero make. To a villain, virtue is on the other side. That's because it's impossible to see the objective quality of a virtue. Virtue, especially when revered blindly, leads to destruction and suffering more often than it doesn't.
I never saw Paul as inherently evil as much as a man who couldn’t escape his fate. Every character in the stories has this inescapable destiny and half of it is just due to the human condition.
Despite being such a short book, there was so much to take in. Messiah was such a trip and an insane character study of Paul and Alia. I'm excited for how Denis will adapt it into film form.
The changes to chani seemed based on modern politics and arrogance. People don’t need things spelled out for them, people are just as smart as authors and directors and can figure things out for them self.
*The changes to chani seemed based on modern politics and arrogance* The changes needed to be made because Chani of the book is a 1950s housefrau or teenager. Modern audiences would roll their eyes if Chani in 2021 was filmed as a in love woman following her lover with no opinion of her own and at then end, with the entire universe at risk, she's sad and jealous because Paul is marrying someone else. 🙄
They think they're being progressive by removing Chani bearing Paul's child, but don't bat an eye at removing Alia pretty much entirely. I wonder if it has anything to do with Anya being in "The Norseman", that movie Hollywood hated.
@@DerHammerSpricht *I wonder if it has anything to do with Anya being in "The Norseman* I think it had more to do with the difficulty of finding a very young child who could act like an adult and avoiding the camp image of a little person child.
First time I hear this rumor of Herbert having decided to write Messiah to correct the perception of Dune. But seriously? How would any human being able to read and a bit knowledgeable about mankind history understand from Dune that Paul is a hero beyond his followers? "God created Arrakis to train the faithful." " You cannot loose these people upon the universe!" "You will think back to the gentle ways of the Sardaukar!" Frankly when I read Dune, I was a teenager but had already learnt enough in history courses at school to understand that what Paul and his mother were doing was extremely dangerous. Fanatics when created are extremely difficult to control. And when I read Dune Messiah, I was only hoping that Paul would go from being a cult leader to being a real political leader who would understand how to have a more balanced entourage not composed only of fanatics. But, perhaps, it is very personal since I have always been very wary of people telling me what I should think and believe.
When you read comments about Dune, some people are proud to "unveil" that Paul is not the hero of Dune. Unfortunately, they develop adding that Paul is henceforth the villain of the story, as if any narrative had to be a hero/villain duality. As you said, there was this ominous atmosphere of a disaster looming in Paul's future. Reading Dune was like reading some classical revenge story, but with that strange feeling that you shouldn't enjoy the triumphant end of the book.
Yes you are correct hate the over simplification of first book ! You would need 3 movies too express all of details and ideas from the first book I think David Lynch said 6 1/2 hours was required to make the first book correctly
Really didn't need it explained to me. And I say that even though I have seen all of the live action Dune adaptations. So many people say they couldn't follow the 80s Dune and that's why they made the intro with the emperor's daughter at the beginning. I didn't need that intro as a kid. It is so ridiculously obvious that I find it insulting that the director used the audience not understanding Paul as an excuse and think he changed Chani for ideological reasons. I still enjoyed Dune 2, but 1 was better and I think I prefer the 80s movie to both modern adaptations. The character performances in it were more unique and memorable.
Yes, I do agree. I also consider that major deviations from source material are almost a treason to the Author. I also think Denis Villeneuve stating that was just a major excuse for studio impositions and current Hollywood politics, specially, for instance, Lady Jwssica and Chani's postures make them not only much less enjoyable but also a lot weaker compared to their book characters. I've seen the subtilness and keen Villeneuve's approach in previous movies, just to memtion "Arrival" and "Blade Runner 2049". I just think he was compeled to do so, the same way he left out the extroadinary importance of the Mentats, the way why Fremen are the way they are, why Sardaukars fear them so much, nothing is said about the Guild etc.... I did enjoy both Dune movies but I came out disappointed... Not yet, not nearly yhere yet... Thank you very much for your keen appreciation of the first 3 Books (for me the saga should have ended there). Best regards.
Frank wanted his audience to believe in Paul, then he wanted to pull the rug from under them therefore teaching them a valuable lesson from his point of view. The Audience wasn't supposed to get it straight away. Thats the genius and why we still talk about it today.
I just wish Paul could have lived long enough to know about futars and honored matres with Duncan’s ghola and see how they would have went about business lmaooo
THANK YOU! I have repeatedly argued this, DV was full of DOO DOO. I have NO respect at all for his BS marketing lies for "HIS" total REWRITE of Frank Herberts masterpiece. Paul was WRITTEN AS A HERO intentionally by Frank and then the Messiah was to show the complexity, regrets, traps, guilt, and tragedy of Paul.
Excellent video that I'm glad you made. I found myself a bit annoyed at some of his interviews and people using his misinterpretation to defend their points. I also recently listened to the biography of Frank Herbert and nowhere in it is Denis' beliefs validated.
It’s harder for me to buy that Denis made a mistake or was misinformed. I have intimate knowledge of how Hollywood at this level works, though not on this particular project. Pressure to modernize and inject political/cultural agendas is real, very real. The giveaway is Chani’s radical transformation into a super soldier antagonist who only loves Paul conditionally. If Denis wanted to use her as a tool to educate the audience, he didn’t have to shoehorn Chani into a modern ultra feminist role that is all too common (and tiresome) today. Chani could’ve been more feminine, unconditionally loving, vulnerable and still communicated the heartbreak of Paul’s transformation. In my view, “modernizing” Chani was deliberate and agenda driven. Was Denis pressured or was it his choice? I’d like to know.
If both DV and HB wanted people to NOT look up to Paul, they shouldn't have made it clear over and over again that the "Golden Path" was the actually the most ideal outcome for human destiny and cosmic justice.
Heres a thing... The first book IS divided in three books. And, I don't think Herbert was serious when he said he always planned 3 separated books That's because, he clearly forget some things that are in the first book when writing the third. Want a example? Stilgar says in Children of Dune that he never met Leto, the father. And we know that's not right.
People often misunderstand the writing process for large works. If a writer has an idea for a scene in the middle of the story why would they force themselves to ignore it and try to write a part of the story they don't have ideas for at the time. Or maybe they are stuck on a particular challenging piece so the put it down and write a whole different book that is more in the forefront of their mind.
i think my favorite is still the scifi miniseries. that's what this story should have been remade as. a game of thrones level of production series. oh well. it had good production value, and mostly good casting - minues chani and kynes.
No he added dialogue to make his intentions with the character more obvious. Not that he only wrote the sequel to clarify his views. That’s missing the point.
Dune Part 2 is an adaptation! For making a movie, films rarely follows the source material entirely as it is a different medium and feeds a different audience, like the majority whom haven't read the books (e.g. Frank Baum's classic vs that movie with Judy Garland). Having read Herbert's books I thought it was done extremely well and have no major issues with the film adaptation. Also, consider that the studios had yet to greenlight Dune Messiah when Dune Part 2 was completed and 1st shown.
Adapting the novel is not the issue. Directors have to make changes of course. But do you find it ethical to pretend the changes were met to stay faithful to Herbert's declarations, when Herbert consistently said something opposite. If, as a director, you feel that chnages are necessary, take your responsibility, but it's disrespectful to distort the words of a dead man to solidify your opinion.
Villeneuve has himself to blame for his predicament. Nolan compared Dune 2 to Empire well Empire ends with lovers being separated but knowing they are in love. Villeneuve is speeding up time lines but in doing so he makes for a unsatisfying ending. I would have preferred he not have changed Chani into a petulant child and made a wise fierce advocate of a woman who through no fault of her own brings forward the next step in Paul’s vision. That and I wish Villeneuve made a happier ending yet committed to selling the idea of a third film. I would not call the story Herbert’s Dune now I call it Villeneuve’s dune an altered version I increasingly am less interested in because of the facets and factions omitted from the film that are in the books.
I loved how he changed Chani into a woman warrior who fights on the front lines, has her own opinions, doesn't follow her lover blindly, not afraid to voice her opposition to him and cares for things other than having a child for her lover and being his wife.
@@benjalucian1515 Chani does a lot of the things you list in book where Villeneuve goes awry is in creating a division between the Fremen. Chani in the book is believer but she is pragmatic too. She wants to free her people she is related to Keynes and she accepts Paul’s affections seeing him as a man accepted among her people and as a leader of men. One can argue Chani in the book doesn’t fall for Paul but she chooses Paul as a suitable husband for her station and stature among the Fremen. On the flip side of the coin Paul’s father tells him to marry for the best strategic and political alliance yet Paul’s father has a mistress in Jessica. Paul ends up doing the same thing with Chani but Villeneuve screw his sensibilities doesn’t show the mirror between Paul and his father that’s in the book. And a link between Paul and his mother. Jessica came to Paul’s father to get pregnant and leave but she stayed for love. Paul came for spice but he stays for love too and more. Anyway both Legendary and WB have screwed themselves. They should have recognized that if they are going to make an epic they should have sat Villeneuve down and told him from the get go that Dune must be filmed in one long shoot like Lord of the Rings. It should have been told in three movies and not two. In twenty years maybe the rights will have changed hands and a chance to make Herbert’s Dune will come and if I’m working on it it will get done right, but for now I sincerely hope Lucasfilm hires me because I’d really enjoy helping to kick Villeneuve’s behind at the box office in the future.
@@LordLawwritesforfans *and she accepts Paul’s affections* Because that's what young women do. She has nothing else going on, no other BF. She's conveniently single when the irresistible offworlder shows up. *Paul ends up doing the same thing with Chani but Villeneuve screw his sensibilities doesn’t show the mirror between Paul and his father that’s in the book* Yet the movie Paul tells Jessica that Chani will understand and be back, so like father like son is still there. *Jessica came to Paul’s father to get pregnant and leave but she stayed for love* Um, I don't remember that being in the book. She was given to him and she was to stay with him and raise their child. *Paul came for spice but he stays for love too and more* No, Paul didn't come for anything. He came because his family was assigned the stewardship of the planet. Not like he had a choice. *if they are going to make an epic they should have sat Villeneuve down and told him from the get go that Dune must be filmed in one long shoot like Lord of the Rings* Except the studios didn't want to pay for that. That's why we have the movies we do. Funding another movie totally depends on if each movie makes money.
@@benjalucian1515 Paul’s family comes to take over spice harvesting. Jessica was supposed to have a girl by Duke Leto and when it comes to making epics like Dune filming them in one go is more economical. It is expensive yes but if Legendary and WB are doing good business they’ll figure out how to profit but then again Legendary and WB are partners but they don’t appear to be in lock step with one another. Unfortunate and a shame.
Thank you for watching this video! If you enjoy my content, please consider supporting me on PATREON: www.patreon.com/nerdcookies
I think DV did it this way to convey messiah warning if this film was the last. If no one watched the film he couldn't show this. And now there's a head start on her character arc for the next one.
What I've been trying to say to downgrade Dune Pt 2 and Chani not pushing Herbert's lesson any all over reaching leaders followed blindly esp thru religion is wrong bad foor humanity' but DENIS actually just pushing modern anti colonial imperialism per our race relations history of modern Europe ruining under developed cultures using religion as if Fremen themselves(ie POC cultures as humans) without Bene Gessrit(white invaders) don't have the seed of Adam towards evil of revenge slaughter genocide without Paul Atreides becoming their leader unlocking it.
denis is zack snyder 2.0..
The first Dune trilogy can be very simply explained. In order to save his life, and his family, Paul Atreides made the breakthrough, and gained prescience. Unfortunately, his very power showed him that prescience was a dead end for the Human Race, and once the djinni's bottle was opened, it was too late. Even if he had accepted death for himself, Chani and his mother, inevitably, persons with prescience would appear among humans. Not even the extermination of the Bene Geserit could return the djinni back into the bottle. So, he saw that he himself was not strong enough to follow the Golden Path, and sacrificed himself to ensure the survival of Leto. Leto was the absolute tyrant of the Human Race, ensuring the existence of mechanical star traveling technology, and humans and technology invisible to prescience were born/created. With his death, endless, open possibilities were restored to Humanity, and no one individual could ever again stifle the endless possibilities of Humanity.😮
Well written!
Very good, Denis can punch that up to satisfy modern audiences for you. The women sound strong, interesting... but are they really empowered? Let's give them an insatiable drive for power. Sure, that goes against the idea of the Bene Gesserit being all female. Females are less selfish and driven by personal gain than males in general, but let's lose that horse and buggy thinking.(We don't believe in stereotypes in Canada)The Bene Gesserit goals are now as selfish and evil as any Emperor or Baron. So why not just take over everything using their unique skills and abilities? Maybe they will? Maybe they will? The movies still will take place on a desert planet and in the future. Just some little details adjusted. Oh yes, Chani tells everyone Paul is a fake (even though he can see the future), and she is now his enemy, not the love of his dreams. Denis really loves this story and only wants to X the Spacing Guild, the convention against thinking machines, the convention against Atomics isn't getting mentioned. (Maybe only the Atraides have Nukes? Cool!). We are all in agreement that "chair dogs": the less said, the better? Let us also apply that to Mentants in movie part II. Jason Momoa better not even visit the set of Denis Dune 3. Cutting the Duncan Idaho return stuff, he isn't important to the Dune books. Well, he isn't in all six. Bye Duncan. And take the twins with you, Denis is cutting them too. Two types of Freemen, city and desert? No enlightened North and superstitious "Bible Belt" Southern fundamentalists. Just like you silly Americans. Except the Freemen aren't fat. Got you, Denis! Very clever, very subliminal. It will go right over their heads. Want to re-write anything else? Paul is going to kill his mother, Lady Jessica before going into the desert to die. Wow, shockingly sad. No one will see that coming you genius. That will teach her to become evil for the movies. I see a woke Oscar in these tiny changes for you, Denis. I don't have to tell you, though, do I?
Brian Herbert criticizing someone for misreading his dad’s books is quite a take.
kinda like a pot and kettle
Seriously.
I view Brian’s books like how I view the Star Wars sequels.
Not f**king canon.
"Misreading" is a very polite way of putting it. BH/KJA flat-out made shit up in direct contradiction to the original novels, right down to claiming that Frank Herbert intended to write "Dune 7."
If you go from Frank's 6 books into Brian's 27 cash grabs (at all), it is amazing he has sold any of K.J. Andersons story's. I listened to a few on audio books, and I gave them a chance. It is like going from Stanley Kubrick to a director of an employee acted office party skit. He should stick with Star Wars. Anyone can write those. Star Wars is a dumb downed Dune.
@@jennabronson4704 He didn't intend to write a sequel to Chapterhouse?
Paul Atreides is not a villain in Dune Messiah. He is a Tragic Hero, echoing the same path of Oedipus in Oedipus Rex and The Theban Trilogy.
The first Dune book follows the same ascension of Oedipus to Kingship and Dune Messiah is the downfall of Oedipus in as being the King but carrying the burden of his position and how that affects his subjects.
Alas, in some minds, if a character is a hero this character has to be boyscoutish Superman, and if not, Space Hitler.
His forces do murder 60 billion people and establishes a totalitarian theocracy. That’s not very heroic.
@@stefbeg Drusus germanicus, the Pied piper
I totally agree! Ppl seem to think only in absolutes (they're Sith, lol) . You're either a saint or a total devil. But books like Dune, Game of Thrones, etc. give us more nuanced characters.
Messiah has a specific quote comparing Paul to Hitler (in terms of numbers). But I dont see Paul as an evil character.
He is a powerful guy who tried and failled.
And considering Dune's universe. At the time of Paul, Atreides are definitely way better then other factions (Harkonnens, BG, Tleilaxu)
I agree. In fact it seems that the first trilogy of books and then God Emperor of Dune is like a tragic ancient Greek family saga. It is full of deeply tragic figures. Politics and democracy is always going to be a difficult, murky and highly complex business with only least bad options. The angel with the flaming sword will always stop any successful attempt at a political Eden. Unfortunately many people still crave something simpler and more attractive and more shiney than murky democracy and compromise. That is where the flawed figure of the political hero comes in with his or her personality cult. This craving for the simple and THE NEED TO HATE AND BLAME is more commonly felt in times of great communal stress - especially economic stress. What fascism is, is a knee jerk reaction to simplistic jungle hero worshiping out group blaming principles at times of great communal stress. You can see this primitivism in fascist art and symbolism. The fremen go for Paul because they have also been spritually manipulated by the Bene Gereset. But they are also oppressed under the Harkonan yoke and patronised in an imperialistic way by Shaddam IV . They are a dignified highly sophisticated people who treat their environment with respect. And they have suffered. Herbert is a great author because he dwells on old fascinating questions. He is not stupid enough to dish out any easy answers (or any answers at all for that matter)
In book 1 Paul is supposed to seem to be the Hero. In Book 2, we are supposed to gradually realize hes not really a hero. In book 3 we learn why Paul turned from the Golden Path (and by doing so, only ensured that it would still happen). In book 4 we learn that the Golden Path required not a great hero, but the ultimate villain in order to give humanity a shot at survival.
paul wasn’t a villain though and he was a hero in many ways the point isn’t that he isn’t a hero the point is that even worshipping a hero will have bad consequences for society. It’s not like paul is going around eating babies, it’s irrelevant no matter what he did even if he killed himself his followers would take up the Jihad in his name. He was put into a terrible position by forces outside of his control.
@@bloodaonadeline8346 the focus isn't really about heroes/villians but about the problems of blindly following messianic leaders
@@clololown I've read books #1-5 so far, and the only confusion I have is this (although it may be answered in #6): How is this story a warning against blindly following messianic figures if, in the end (albeit thousands of years), the Golden Path is achieved and humanity is now in it's most peaceful and prosperous state in all of human history?
I understand that it is a warning against figures such as Hitler, but then why does Herbert conclude the story with humanity's paradise?
Would love to hear others' opinions and possible explanations of this! ^_^
@@DropBear_42 Im speaking in context of the first 2 (maybe 3) books. The later books have different primary themes entirely
Book 3 was to teach us not to believe in Messiahs.
I hope that Villeneuve can resist changing the lore of the book by making the third movie a definitive end to the Paul Atreides story. As Nerd Cookies said the story of Paul doesn't end until 'Children of Dune.'
IMO Paul is neither a hero or villain but a victim of his visions which result in heroics -> villainy -> tragedy -> cowardice -> redemption -> defeat.
Paul knew a Stone Burner moment was in his future and faced it and the results with good grace and courage. Leto 2 followed up to save Humanity.
@@gary4books Yes, but Paul could not bring himself to follow the Golden path and left it to his son Leto II who made the sacrifice needed to avoid kralizec.
@vergyltantor3211 well, also, Paul was at the end of the day born a man, and was going to die a man. Leto II was born as a man with no true way to escape and made the most of it. Leto II was both the villain mankind needed and the hero it deserved.
Paul's story is Campbell's "call to action" but one where the protagonist declines to answer the call- only the audience doesn't realize what the true call to action is until later when his son answers the call.
Paul is a tragic hero
Finally someone sets the record straight! Absolutely spot on with all your info. Thank you for doing this.
Right? So glad to see this video making the rounds
Great job on the video! With audiences craving a good theatrical experience, many critics and reviewers see Villeneuve as the savior of cinema. While he does deliver a stunning visual and audio experience, some overlook any flaws in the film. It's rare to find a fair analysis that looks past the spectacle, delves into the thematic elements as Herbert intended, and assesses how well Villeneuve conveyed them. You did an excellent job of doing just that.
While Villeneuve made many changes and omissions in the film adaptation of Dune, most were forgivable, except for Chani's character arc. Her opposition to Paul and unwillingness to stand by him, combined with the ending where she leaves in a huff after Paul declares his intention to marry Irulan and then goes out to the desert to ride a worm, left a bitter taste in my mouth. Although Paul stated he would marry Irulan at the end of the book, Jessica's words to Chani confirm that this is purely political and that, like her, Chani will go down in history as a beloved wife, not a concubine.
Also, in the book, Paul and Chani spent years together, living as Fremen husband and wife. Their shared mourning after their son, Leto, died in an attack brought them closer, underscoring their love. Instead, Villeneuve had a defiant and dubious Chani stand as a proxy for the audience to hammer the point that Paul is no hero. Suppose the woman who loved him refused to acknowledge Paul's leadership and was betrayed by him cruelly. In that case, viewerswill undoubtedlyl seethat Paul is no hero,a strictly self-centered utilitaria,who doesg what he must to gain power.
Paul is not Sheeev Palpatine, nor is he Anakin Skywalker. Paul is just Paul, a boy raised for greatness who lost everything and fled to the desert, where he found safety with the indigenous people of the Dune. In trying to avenge his father and unify Dune under Fremen's control, he was gifted/cursed with the knowledge that his actions would lead to the Galactic War and the death of trillions. The burden of knowing there was no way to avoid this was that rather than be a hero, the only path to the least worst of all possible futures was to be a "benevolent" yet absolute tyrannic leader.
Dune is far more complex than "Don't trust politicians/leaders who promise prosperity to their people. They lie. No one person entrusted with absolute power can fulfill such a promise because they will always turn into megalomaniacal killers."
However, not all people who lead do so because of a desire to control. The greatest rulers during bad times did what needed to be done to prevent the worst when all others with power failed to act. It is a burden to lead a people out of the depths of despair and have them rise to prominence, for it always means war.
Imagine what horrors the future would bring in the hands of a charismatic ruler who cared only for his own ends and was not the empathetic Paul Atredies, Duke of Caladan, the Kwitzach Haderach, the Lisan al Gaib, and Muad dib. He saw all possible futures and knew that to save the universe from destruction, he must wage a war among every planet, killing countless innocents. And worse, his son, Leto, would follow in his stead, transform into a behemoth, a human-worm hybrid, and become the lone source of Spice, thus ruling as the God Emperor of the Universe for thousands of years.
As Henry IV Part 2 said, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown."
Chani had to change. No 21st century audience, certainly not the women fans, want to see what is basically a 1950s era wife or teenager on the big screen as Chani. And that's what book Chani is. She has no opinion of her own, follows her lover without question, is strictly stuck with childcare and preoccupied at the end with jealousy and sadness because Paul is marrying someone else. Because of the shortened timeline, Paul is still a stranger to her and it's great to see her fighting on the front lines, still having doubts and opposing what he's doing.
@@benjalucian1515Here's a 20th-century woman who would have preferred that version. However, I don't view supportive wives and mothers as lacking agency, character, nor as relics of antiquity.
@@minakat369 I do. If books had a Bechdel-Wallace test, Dune would fail it.
@@benjalucian1515 Do you think books _should have_ a B-W test for publication approval?
Why not Gom Jabbar the authors while we're at it?
@@agesflow6815 *Do you think books should have a B-W test for publication approval* Do movies have that? Don't think so It would be just another way of analyzing a book as the Bechdel test does for movies.
'Dune Messiah' is one of the shortest books of the original six... shortest, perhaps, but absolutely critical to the whole saga. In it, we get to see Paul not only make mistakes, but also the extent of his actual powerlessness, as the plotting of different factions begin to twist and pull at the lives and actions of those around him. If 'Dune' was meant to show what happens when people blindly follow a charismatic leader, then 'Dune Messiah' shows us what happens when ambitious people start to manipulate a religion for their own ends and gains... especially when that religion is not only young, but also its focal point is still extant.
But hearing that DV feels that 'Dune' itself is misunderstood goes a long way to explain why he has veered way off course. He has, in fact, gone in the opposite direction to what he thinks and feels many readers of the book have, which is as bad, if not worse, that the misconception he feels exists. For me, Paul is not a ''hero' in the traditional sense, rather, he is a young man with special abilities, caught up in a pivotal time and place, and finds himself the focus for events that he comes to realise are completely beyond his control. He tries, obviously, but finds he cannot divert the course of things in even the slightest detail. Perhaps he never could, the path being set solid from the moment his father accepted the Emperor's decree to take over governance of Arrakis. Jessica's allusion to 'sticks in the flood' early on in the book, whilst meant to depict her and Paul's place in the plottings of Shaddam IV and Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, more accurately depict Paul's state when he meets up with the Fremen and is hailed their Lisan Al-Gaib. So perhaps it is better to call Paul the main protagonist of the first and second books, rather than the more defined word, 'Hero'.
Thank you. Such an underrated comment.
Interesting that Jessica said “sticks in the flood”. Obviously implying that they are insignificant in the large maelstrom of events. In Heretics of Dune there is mention of key logs, where loggers must remove the log that is jamming up the rest from getting down river.
@@jonathanwright5338 Yes, I remember this scene, too. Clearly, when a book is written, thr writer has a specific story to tell. But I can't help wondering what would have happened, had Paul explored the Key-Log idea further in his attempts to prevent the Jihad, and rather than focus on himself to stop it, tried to find the true 'key log' that would set the Jihad in motion...
I had felt something didn’t ring true with the news articles you mentioned. Thank you for clarifying the issue.
I think you have the heart of it: Paul was supposed to seem like the hero because that helps drive home the point that heroes are dangerous later on.
The new films also gloss over one of the most profound themes of the whole Dune series: the idea of humanity as a collective, prescient consciousness that will produce black swans to forge new paths away from stagnation and extinction. The powers of the Imperium had set humanity upon a dangerous, stagnant course, and the "race consciousness" (that Paul perceived as "Terrible Purpose") produced him as a remedy. The films implied that the Bene Gesserit were the ultimate victors "no matter who prevailed on Arrakis." They killed the message that Paul utterly thwarted their path to ascension.
The culture we live within today could never tolerate that idea. It's too mystic, too dangerous. Nor would it allow explicit mention that the Noble Families are a legitimately eugenic aristocracy.
But I'm glad to see occasional Dune readers who can still read a book on its own terms.
I like to think that Frank intentially wrote Paul as a charismatic, likeable character so the reader will also see him as a hero, further illustrating just how easily someone could fall into the trap of following such a person. When you get to Dune Messiah and learn of the atrocities of the Fremen, you are also forced to confront the idea that YOU may have done the same.
He wrote political scripts for the likes of Nixon and Ford and that’s what inspired the books
Exactly. BINGO!
I love how deep you dive into Dune lore. More videos like this please
Wow, excellent analysis. I hope that Denis watches this. Honestly, I struggled a bit with some of the changes he made in Dune 2.
100%. I loved part 1 for its accuracy and my opinions on part 2 have only soured with some of the drastic changes that lower the quality of the overall story
I remember when I read the trilogy as a teenager - oh so long ago! - and how shocked I was when I read Messiah, but now it's probably my favourite novel of the series.
THANK YOU, Elaine!
Thank you for setting the record straight.
Thanks Nerd Cookies. I can stop scratching my head, now. I never thought Dune Messiah was written for “clarification”. I always considered it simply a continuation of the first book.
It makes totally sense when you know the whole story
I don't know it was intended or not but the end of 2nd movie of Villeneuve is too far from the original book
Just leaving a comment to say, I love this channel. You are well spoken, imaginative and have brilliant presentation.
Keep up the good and hard work. Hope you have a very nerdy day!
Wow, thank you!
I think Villeneuve’s mistake was wanting to spell it out for the audience, as opposed to keeping it nuanced and leaving it open to interpretation...
You say that and I do agree with you. He’s a very bad man.
But a lot of commentators and people have said stuff like “I didn’t get why Chanie left over Irulan” “they just killed all the bad guys what’s the big deal” and “yay Holy War wonder how that will go”.
You have a guy dominated by his evil mother who literally says “do it”. Doesn’t get more on the nose and critical than that.
People have an issue that if you depict somebody with dignity, power and success you have to really go out of your way to convince people they’re a monster.
It does annoy me that people were lining up to throw Daenerys under the bus since book 1 but will insist Paul Atreides is a nuanced and morally grey character. He’s an utter monster.
I keep hearing this take! It’s simply not true. Because if that was the case, Denis didn’t need to come out afterwards and say what he said as the audience who are the supposed “dumbed down” people don’t really listen to a director’s interviews. They watch the film and go home and enjoy or don’t enjoy.
But it’s also a pretty false notion that wider audiences would not understand the true point that FH made, if it was explained well enough, which is exactly a directors job…look at Nolan’s work! Kubrick! Tarkovsky!
I’m sorry I think Denis dropped the ball with his own political bias affecting his interpretation…he’s not a messiah you know and is capable of getting things wrong, or being influenced by cultural bias! 😂
Also it’s really ironic! If Denis wilfully changed the message and didn’t just dumb it down but will fully flipped it on its head, that is the exact distortion and twisting and manipulation of messiah issue that FH was talking about! so Denis is now the false prophet himself! In this situation…not working with the true message! Either wilfully or from misunderstanding!
Problem is... a lot of people, particularly the ones who probably need to hear the message of Dune the most... STILL didn't get it.
A lot of right-wing and/or religious people are interpreting the movies as being pro-religion and see Paul as a hero. This is the problem with nuance and leaving things open to interpretation: You're likely just preaching to the choir. The only people who will interpret nuance the way it's intended are the ones who already think that way, and thus will be inclined to see that in the abstraction. Anybody else... will just see what they already believe, and interpret anything they can as backing up their preconceived notions. Leaving things open to interpretation will never challenge the audience. It will only coddle their existing beliefs.
@@spiralgold9760that makes zero sense.
Most people interpret it incorrectly
Thank you for this. Another quote of Frank Herbert:
“I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: "May be dangerous to your health." One of the most dangerous presidents we had in this century was John Kennedy because people said "Yes Sir Mr. Charismatic Leader what do we do next?" and we wound up in Vietnam. And I think probably the most valuable president of this century was Richard Nixon. Because he taught us to distrust government and he did it by example.”
The problem is, Villeneuve had Paul act like Nixon is his adaptation. Paul being the obvious bad guy undercuts the core message of the worst thing to happen to the Fremen would be for them to "fall into the hands of a hero," and lessens them, and the story, far too much. Stilgar is another example - in the book, Paul noted that Stilgar had been lessoned after their victory. He was religious, but not a fool.
Stop the Republican propaganda!
Paul and Leto 2 actually do save humanity even with huge collateral damage
They said they did, but did they?
I think their prescience made them slaves. It gave them a certainty that didn't really exist. Plus, the idea that Leto II could turn people off of authoritarianism and charismatic leaders by being a tyrant is... completely ridiculous. It misses the mark entirely. If it really worked that way, there would be no tyrants or systems of oppression in our modern world.
@@DreamersOfReality There have been no tyrants or oppressions in our history approaching anywhere near the horror of the reign of God Emperor Leto II. Hitler and Stalin were kindergarteners throwing tantrums compared to the 3-millenium regime of the God Emperor. It makes sense it would have unprecedented effects.
@@DreamersOfReality you don't think society developed a big suspicion of dictators following world war 2?
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes! Thank you for this, I'm so tired of seeing people just blindly parrot that myth with no proof.
Envy the country that has heroes, I say pity the country that needs them.
Literally.
For the algorithm
My algorithm... my comments... my likes
Vladimir Harkonnen
The Nerd Cookies must flow...
I wonder why the new movie is called "Dune" it barely have any ecological aspect in it 🤔
Another huge oversight that proves DV is no Dune fan.
Your assessment is correct. Frank Herbert is highly unlikely to have blithely been unaware the his message might be misinterpreted. The depth and complexity of the story line shows a mind with deep perception and understanding. However, I can understand why Villeneuve made it more explicit because he could hardly expect with 100% certainty that Messiah would be made so it was important to have that message overtly stated. If Messiah is funded and made, he can then bring it to full flower.
The biggest problem I have with Dennis' adaptation is how he placed way to much power into the Sisterhood. For me the Sisterhood place in DUNE is there plan for making a super being that they could control to bring humanity under there influence. The real power is the Guild. Nothing can happen without the Guild. Even the scene where The Baron orders to sell his Spice reservoir to pay off for the attack, there is no mention of the Guild. This,to me, is the biggest oversight in this adaptation.
Except the Bene Gesserit DO have tremendous influence over the Empire, they simply choose not to wield it openly.
The Guild merely hold a monopoly on space travel, and this gives them a major bargaining chip, but their power is ultimately sapped by their reliance on spice. The freman were easily able to bribe them to keep satellites out of Dune's orbit, and Paul showed just how little power the Guild actually held when he threatened to destroy the spice.
Villenueve has a hard-on for female empowerment, so he took every chance to make the sisterhood have an expanded role, to the point of completely undermining the Emperor's agency from the book. The movie makes them look like utter morons.
Though undeniably weird and wonderful the Guild are (as I'm sure we'll see in "Messiah"), it's clear by the end of the first Dune book that they're a paper tiger in any event. (In the films, there was, arguably, not enough time to flesh out this subplot only to snuff it out at the end: Villeneuve will have to find another way to explain "Edric" and his interests in the "Messiah" conspiracy...)
It's true Villeneuve does play the BG up somewhat more than I thought necessary in a couple of places, but this is a set-up for the realization to come that even they were little more than sorceror's apprentices in the game of power. (Villeneuve HAS read the full Frank Herbert series...)
Not quite. There’s some kind of equilibrium between powers in dune, until Paul gains control of the spice. The guild is glad to stay neutral and do its thing as long as it gets payed. The sisterhood is very influential as it has members in every house, but its real power comes from the ability to plan in the long term (i.e. their breeding program).
FINALLY. Someone understands the books and is addressing the issues with Part 2’s interpretation. It’s killing me the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding of the source material circulating right now
Great topic and one that I think really revolves around the heart of Dune's philosophy itself. I completely agree with your thought on DV skipping ahead to drive the ultimate point home. Unfortunately, it comes at the expense of the actual message and ends up slapping you over the head with it instead of challenging the audience to realize it for themselves. Ultimately I think the message ends up being lost altogether because it takes no wisdom or self reflection to get there and ends up being a "this is bad because I said it is". The characters are also clumsily handled to make the new plot work and it just further frays out from there. Last few times I went to my book store the Dune books were wiped out so I'm hoping more people will be able to experience the books and take the lessons deeper.
Elaine… 👏👏👏 thank you!
Thanks for making this. I bought the explanation that Messiah was a course-correction because I didn't know any better.
Thanks for setting me straight 😊
Thank you Elaine for an outstanding explanation of the books.
THANK YOU.
My pleasure 🙏 ❤️
I think he made the decision for Chani to embody the message of the book 'Messiah' a while ago, with no real intention of making the film. Then when he realized a 3rd film would be possible it was too late to change.
I'm not sure how he's going to reconcile events in Messiah with the massive changes he made in Dune.
@@ChrisHinton1967 What "massive changes"?
@@ChrisHinton1967 What 'massive' changes?
I think Zendaya made pretty much all decisions about Chani including making sure Anya Taylor-Joy/Alia doesn't compete with her for screen time.
@@DerHammerSpricht100% people seem to have forgotten DV and Dunep.1 got screwed out of the Oscars due to Social politics, this is DEI blackmail from Zendaya and the woke Hollywood execs
Paul was purposefully created to be a tool for the Bene Gesserit. When he looked into the future, he saw something the Sisterhood had never even thought might be…human extinction. In order to stop it he knew he’d have to make choices, decisions that ended up being beyond him.
What if people are looking at Dune and Dune Messiah in a microcosm and that the context absolutely changes once you embrace a long enough timescale…?
Merci! Je me bats sur internet depuis un mois face à des enragés qui répètent ce propos de Villeneuve. Et pourtant les interviews sont faciles à trouver sur TH-cam.
Dune, Dune Messiah and Children of Dune are one book, but it was too big to be published in one tome.
Keep on your good works !!!
Complètement et toute l'histoire a un sens du coup concernant l'aspect dramatique du personnage et le fait que lui même soit une victime
I fail to see how Paul is a villain. Feyd was a potential as well. If Paul lost and Feyd takes the throne, then a Harkonnen dystopian future for humanity? Is Paul guilty of manipulating the Fremen and their religion or does he just ride the wave of what was already built up by the Bene Gesserit? There is a whole lot made about his failure to control the galactic jihad, but it always seemed to me when reading the books this was more telling than showing.
Paul is not a villain, the IDEA of a messiah is.
The ham fisted rewriting of Chani and the anachronistic cynicism of the northern fremen is explained by his misstake of why Dune Messiah is written.
It's clear, in Herbert's own words, audio and video recordings that his intent was to explore the phenomenon of the charismatic leader. Your commentary is well crafted. Brian's bio of his father is a must read for anyone stepping out on the path. Tnank you.
How about wait till Dune Messiah comes out ? it’s always prescient to criticise your expectations of another persons work.
Fantastic work. It seems you nailed it. I agree that Herbert was intending to show the dangers of unlimited power, and the danger of blind devotion to those that have it. Paul had good intentions but succumbs to the same thing that nearly all humans would.
Always look forward to your videos.Thanks for everything you do.
100% agree.
Any good cautionary tale about following heroes needs a hero.
Thanks Nerd Cookies to be brave enough to try and clear up the idea that Dune written in 1965 is some backwards story that now needs help to stay relevant. It was way ahead of its time and that is why it is loved. The Women are the most powerful characters in the books and it isn’t forced at all. Denis acts like because a middle aged white guy wrote the story 60 years ago,of course it needs a big re-write. That would be true most of the time but Frank and his Dune are the exception. How can Denis not see that? And worst of all he implies it to the general audience (most of whom haven’t read the books) that it was necessary to do some updating. It is irritating.
What's wrong with middle-aged white guys? Especially writers?
Calling the changes in Villeneuve’s movies a “rewrite” is a gross exaggeration. It hews quite closely to the book.
@@wackyvorlon Then maybe you can clear up why the sisterhood decided to wipe out the Atradies bloodline when after centuries of manipulation they are nearly at their goal. Why not kill Paul pass or fail when you have a poison needle at his neck. His death will rip apart Leto and Jessica. Why does Paul exist? Jessica gave Leto a son because she loved the Duke? No, because of evil and power mad desire she wants to be the mother of the universe’s Super Being. Why test Feyd ? He is an animal not a human. Feyd passing shows the test pointless and broken. He has no Bene Gesserit training. We will wipe out the Atradies and before getting a sperm sample risk killing Feyd and the Harkonen bloodline. Chani loves Paul? No she hates him. As a surprise , next movie Paul kills Jessica. Wow! No re-write?
@@travisbishop782 Nothing. Why?
@@wackyvorlon Chani loves Paul? No-hates him. Jessica gave Leto a son out of love? No-she has a evil power mad scheme to be the mother of the Universe's Super Being. The Sister Hood wants the Atradies dead but could have killed Paul during the
Human test pass or fail destroying the Duke and Jessica as well. They test Feud who is a animal. He cannot pass, if he does the test is pointless.He has no Bene Gesserit training.They don't obtain a sperm sample first. He passes.They seem to want both blood lines gone after centuries of blood line manipulation they are near their goal? As a big surprise next movie Paul kills Jessica before walking into the desert alone. Unless Denis can't resist having Chani do it. Mentants gone. No Spacing Guild. No face dancers. No Twins. No re-write because takes place on Dune. Right?
As one of your Sword Masters, I'd like to point out that Villeneuve is making this his own project, his own version of "what would happen if Paul had decided to go on the path of the "other" dream he witnessed during the spice agony. I think it'll be along the lines of the destruction of the imperium and fall of the great houses. The destruction of spice and the scattering of humanity. in short, expedite Kralizec. That's the vibe I'm sensing
So he’s trying to create God Emperor without Leto II? That’s going to fail
I always saw it as the first three books where the rise and fall of Paul. That gaining power changed him in a fundamental way and it was the choices he made that made him human.
current culture wants to retell all great stories to drive a narrative that suits their worldview. very disappointing...
Thank you for this video. I have been fighting this misconception for years. (before the movies) The warning was always about how legend and hero worship takes on a life of it's own and that people, once they see you as a hero, project all of their hopes, dreams, and expectations upon you and then demand that you 'live up' to those expectations, that you smite their enemies, praise what they love, and embrace them as the only righteous ones even when the group is doing horrible things. And in the end the people always come to hate their hero for not living up to those thousands, millions of contradictory and impossible expectations. It is pointed out by Paul that even if he lost the battle with Feyd (by letting him win and thus killing himself in a way) that it would still not stop what was to come because he would be a martyr and the Fremen would go forth and purge the universe with his name upon their lips. He chose to steer the 'elephant'' of the cause as best he could and did every thing he could in the later book to demystify his own legend.
Frank Herbert's scale as far as how long of a time period his stories take place, it is clear that he intended, from the beginning, for this story to encompass more than just Paul's lifetime.
Well done.
I feel some kinda way about Paul getting so much hate. He may not be a traditional hero but he fathered the God Emperor who ended up saving humanity as a species.
That's because Leto did what Paul was too cowardly to do. At the end of the series, a resurrected Paul even states he is happy saving the Universe was Duncan's responsibility and not his.
Does humanity deserve to be saved? Shouldn't we just let nature take its course? We're keeping something else from evolving.
Thank you, Nerd Cookies.
Does anyone know if DV had final cut for his _Dune?_ Or did the studio/producers?
David Lynch (re: _Dune ‘84_ )stated he 'sold out', "even in the script phase knowing I didn't have final cut."
Since he is such a great fan of _Dune,_ in years to come will DV lament his own 'selling out'?
Thankfully Lynch learned from his "failure" and thereafter maintained final cut authority. A win.
I wonder what sort of lesson DV will learn from _his_ "triumph".
People like a hero, in books or in movies so making Paul one is probably easier to digest for many reader or watcher. Paul did not want to be a hero, nor a anti-hero, but was manipulated in being very conflicted both. He just wanted to be human, but manipulated into foresight he had to make the steps he took, trying later in Messiah and as a prophet that he really was just a messenger of Kralizec. His son took the next step. As for Villenueve: he made a movie that was always seen as almost unmakable, but still wanted to sell this amazing story, so he made choices. If we agree with that? Well, thats everyones own opinion.
Based. The internet loves to parrot opinions and pretend they understand the creative process, and then retcon the actual intent. It’s a staple of people who don’t create.
As a recent DUNE reader, I am very thankful for this video.
Because in addition to Velnueve's interviews regarding the matter, so many channels saying the same argument as Denis regarding DUNE and DUNE MESSIAH; as i was reading (currently waiting to read Heretics) i was constantly wondering "if there is something wrong with the way i was reading these books" because i didn't get why would Frank write Paul in such a way and then "say" the 'character' of Paul was "misunderstood".
I watched DUNE lore videos after videos and kept thinking "Frank is kind of contradicting his writing with what he's saying about his characters"...
And thankfully i found this channel. I've been in tune more in depth with the DUNE lore regarding the messages and philosophy of the books.
I am watching Denis' filmography and his movies are amazing and i appreciate his efforts as a storyteller.
However, i have noticed a theme in his movies that nobody addresses when discussing his filmography is that, Denis is always portraying specifically Christianity in a bad light in 90% of his movies. So as i have progressed watching his movies i have noticed this (not saying he shouldn't, but it's a theme he has in his movies). So it'll make sense that he'll seize the opportunity to bring down the most 'known' messianic figure in history, and what better way to do it than including it in the biggest sci-fi saga of all times.
Nothing completes Herbert's message better than the 4th, and I feel essential, book: God Emperoror of Dune. Seeing the Golden Path play out over millennia, tyes everyhing together where the completion of Children of Dune only scratches the surface.
Paul M.
Atlanta, GA
In the end it is a take on Herbert’s message and the nature of adaptations is…adaptation. I think it’s a clever way to explore the theme. DV should have spent more time exploring Paul’s reasons for going south. But it’s not DV’s job to slavishly follow the original. And I’m not saying this from the perspective of a person who loved every aspect of this film. The last quarter was jarring. But utilising Chani the way he did I think is smart from a filmic perspective. Paul is still a hero within the context of the film, we just know where it’s going and the foreshadowing is heavy handed, but that’s also the director’s style.
The problem is not the adaptation. Of course a director has to make changes. The problem is Villeneuve justifying the changes in his adaptation by speaking on behalf of Herbert, and pretending Herbert said things when actually he said the opposite.
In FH's book Dune, the need for a Hero dominated the initial story-line. Unfortunately, the hero was Bene Gesserit defined to such an intimate degree that Paul could not alter his galectic mandate for a religious-jihad.
Dune Messiah confirms the true scope of that jihad and the ultimate tyranny it produced. At the end of that book, Paul walks away from his inescapable hero-turned-tyrant victory after the death of Chani.
Children of Dune then has Pauls son take on the mantle of hero-tyrant, but as a genetically rogue demi-god. Paul's vision of the future made him realize that he must allow his son to inherit the empire and make the greater heroic sacrifice as a human-species proactive though decisively inhuman (or perhaps super-human), benevolent galactic tyrant.
Ultimately (as revealed in GE of Dune), it was the Bene Gesserit that won this genetic game-of-thrones, but not how it wanted to.
I went into this video with dread, but felt great relief and appreciation that you actually did some research and gave some citation.
We'll have to keep waiting for a perfect Dune movie. If that ever happens, then the attempts we currently have will remain fascinating studies. At very least, they keep the torch lit in popular imagination.
Good analysis. Sharing on Facebook's DUNE Groups.
Thanks for sharing!
Thank you so much for this!🙏🏻👍🏻
It is very important, imo.
What a huge mistake from Villeneuve…
I would love to have a Dune trilogy of films to accompany the Lord or the Rings trilogy as the best adaptations ever, alas, this is impossible with the current state of Hollywood.
I am just enjoying the visualizations of the novels, nothing more, nothing less.
There are plenty of hints in the original Dune novel that Paul's ascension to become the Fremen Messiah was very far from a good thing and carried great potential for disaster. On multiple occasions in the text we are privy to Paul's inner monologue that shows clearly just how concerned he is over the ultimate price his 'terrible purpose' will carry. Paul also foresees the horrors of the looming Fremen Jihad in the original novel, desperately tries to find a means of averting it, only to ultimately realise that there is no way he can avert it, since even if he dies he will be seen simply as a martyr, something that will only intensify the bloodshed to come. Indeed, part of the reason why Paul takes the Water of Life in the books is to perfect his prescient vision in the hope that it will allow him to find some way out of the looming disaster of the Fremen Jihad without massive loss of life and yet still allow him to have his vengeance on the Baron Haarkonen and the Padasha Emperor, a hope that ultimately proves futile as Paul comes to realise just how tightly the trap of precognition holds him in its jaws. Ultimately, and despite knowing all of this and with all his fears for the future, Paul still chooses to continue to use the status and power afforded to him among the Fremen by his status as the Lisan Al Ghaib to pursue his personal vendetta with the Haarkonens anyway, which leads directly to the calamity he foresaw but refused to turn away from by the only means that might have actually worked - by comprehensively repudiating his own status as a messianic figure and abandoning his quest for revenge entirely, even if the consequence was his own death and that of his mother at the hands of the Fremen. The hints of future trouble may not be rammed crudely down the throats of the readership, but they are there if one pays attention.
It is, at a minimum, highly questionable to suggest that Dune Messiah was principally (or even solely) written simply to correct some perceived failure of the readership to grasp the more sinister aspects of Paul's characterisation in the original Dune novel. Indeed, if anything, I think Frank Herbert fully intended from the get go that the readership would like Paul and find themselves rooting for him to have his revenge and take power in spite of the hints that he carries the potential for calamity and darkness within his persona, the idea being that the reader is so swept up in Paul's journey and his charisma as a character that we ourselves choose to ignore the more sinister aspects of his rise to power and find ourselves backing him largely uncritically by the end of the original Dune, so that Herbert can show us the calamitous consequences of that mindset in Dune Messiah and the rest of the Dune Saga, and make it clear to us how easy it is for a charismatic leader to cause their followers to ignore sensible caution and back them almost without thinking anyway, since it has already happened to us, the readership. I don't think Dune Messiah was written as some correction of an improper reception of the first book by the reading public - I think Herbert's idea was always to lure people in with a seemingly classically structured Hero's Journey in the first novel, only to show us the dire consequences that follow when 'heroes' (and similar types of charismatic leaders) gain power based upon their charisma rather than any actual fitness to lead.
As much as I admire Villeneuve as a film maker and artist, I think he misinterpreted Frank Herbert's intent, saw a flaw that was not actually present in the original Dune novel, and took it upon himself to 'fix' it by rewriting one of the greatest sci fi narratives ever committed to paper because he thinks he can do better than Frank Herbert himself, which, while it may have been well intentioned arrogance, is still towering arrogance.
Very well articulated, you hit a lot of points that I take exemption with.
One of the other issues that I take, and nearly everyone of a certain bent does, is focus on the oppression of the Fremen and use it to assign them moral superiority. The Fremen have been exploited as have every people who have existed, but it doesn't then give them the sanction to cause widespread slaughter as they do after freeing arrakis. Also coincidentally their dream ends up being their undoing and relegates them to a footnote in history remebered much like the commanche, for their ferocity, prowess in combat, and the tragic futility of their struggle for paradise on this earth.
@@isaiahsmith7123 I see your point - a great many people seem to operate on the simplistic binary division that any group is either 'the oppressed' or 'the oppressor' and there can be no nuance between those two poles. To such people, the suffering of the Fremen leaves them as the inherently morally blameless members of 'the oppressed' who somehow are thus granted the right to do essentially anything to resist that oppression, up to and including killing tens of billions of people across the galaxy in the Fremen Jihad apparently. The idea of proportionality of response in the use of force, or that a group can be oppressed and yet still behave unethically or cleave to dangerous ideologies itself at the same time, never seems to even cross their minds.
I watched this about an hour an ago amd had to come back and Elaine, you are spot on with this analysis.👌🏾
Much appreciated!
@@NerdCookies honestly thank you for saying it, some of us have been here before the films and will be here long after.
I look at the movies and the books as two separate entities. I'm a fan of the books. I watched the first movie and I wasn't impressed. I didn't like the changes from the book and I thought they weakened the story. I will not watch the second movie. Ultimately, I don't care what Denis Villeneuve says or does.
Thank you for this video 🙏❤
My pleasure
Movies due to their brevity have to take shortcuts in the story telling. I don't have an issue with what Villeneuve has done. I trust we'll get to the same place in the end.
I met Frank Herbert during his God Emperor promotion tour and he intended to write a trilogy from a start. I take such missteps in the directors words as serious red flags.
Whao ! I am not surprised as there is alway a need to justify his choices
But would that be so hard to respect all the aspect of the original story?
This shows that DV is not what PJ was for LOTR.
As a big Dune fan I've listened to commentary about V's adaptation and am now quite glad I've not seen it. Will l ever? Maybe. But, l get the impression l won't enjoy it.
I agree with you. Great video.
Yeah, I really didn't like the change he made to Chani. The character as Frank wrote it had a purpose. And it wasn't just to bear Paul's children. She represented Paul's emotional connection with Fremen. His bond with Chani, who is as ferocious and fanatical as any other Fremen, is what pulls him more deeply into their ethical system and makes the Fremen more truly his people rather than mere allies as his father had originally intended. This bond is what eventually involves him in atrocity. The Fremen are monsters. We, liberal white audiences, are meant to sympathize with them as we often do with oppressed peoples because of the underdog principle. We often mistakenly attribute noble qualities to a culture in virtue of their oppression, which is a mistake (supporting the Taliban when the Soviets were in Afghanistan for example). But when the Fremen take over, we see what they are truly capable of. DV's changes to the source material, although not entirely ruinous, have the effect of diluting the experience that the audience is meant to have. We are supposed to be shocked by Messiah when we see what our 'heroes' eventually get up to once they are in power. Frank wants to acquaint us with our own capacity to be deceived and seduced. DV puts it too much on the nose up front. He's true to the theme generally speaking but his delivery is less powerful.
The Freman can be summed up easily “never forgive, never forget”
Thank you Cookies for correcting the ghafla. Thank you!
I feel by the end of the second movie the idea of Paul being a hero is much more ambiguous, and hopefully setting up for a really interesting character arch that is not often seen in current movies. The hero becoming what he originally set out to destroy.
I think we have a case of life reflecting art reflecting life here. Villeneuve's leadership is unsubtly pulling a complex and subtle story apart with his misguided directorial visions.
I wonder what it is exactly what makes people choose a hero at all from the cast of the original book. Why must one of the many powerful people in the story be the 'good guy'? The story gives no reason to assume that there must be.
Then the entire point of existence is moot and there is no story at all. That’s why. There will always be good and evil. Justice and injustice. Paul is portrayed as having many virtues and acting brave and selflessly for much of that first book when he is only 15. He is a virtuous hero to contrast with the deeply immoral Guild, House Harkonnen, The Bene orders, etc
@@janette2422 Virtue does not a hero make. To a villain, virtue is on the other side. That's because it's impossible to see the objective quality of a virtue. Virtue, especially when revered blindly, leads to destruction and suffering more often than it doesn't.
I never saw Paul as inherently evil as much as a man who couldn’t escape his fate. Every character in the stories has this inescapable destiny and half of it is just due to the human condition.
Well we have Dune84 and the miniseries. Villaneuve's hatred of religion was made clear in that crappy movie entitled arrival
I don't recall religion being brought up in Arrival
I just miss the weirdness, and since there is a lot more of it in Messiah I'm kinda subdued about the whole idea of the next movie.
Despite being such a short book, there was so much to take in. Messiah was such a trip and an insane character study of Paul and Alia. I'm excited for how Denis will adapt it into film form.
Totally agree.
The changes to chani seemed based on modern politics and arrogance. People don’t need things spelled out for them, people are just as smart as authors and directors and can figure things out for them self.
*The changes to chani seemed based on modern politics and arrogance* The changes needed to be made because Chani of the book is a 1950s housefrau or teenager. Modern audiences would roll their eyes if Chani in 2021 was filmed as a in love woman following her lover with no opinion of her own and at then end, with the entire universe at risk, she's sad and jealous because Paul is marrying someone else. 🙄
They think they're being progressive by removing Chani bearing Paul's child, but don't bat an eye at removing Alia pretty much entirely. I wonder if it has anything to do with Anya being in "The Norseman", that movie Hollywood hated.
@@DerHammerSpricht *I wonder if it has anything to do with Anya being in "The Norseman* I think it had more to do with the difficulty of finding a very young child who could act like an adult and avoiding the camp image of a little person child.
Thank you!!! This explains a lot of his choices, not only in Part 2, but in Part 1 as well. Very disappointing.
First time I hear this rumor of Herbert having decided to write Messiah to correct the perception of Dune.
But seriously? How would any human being able to read and a bit knowledgeable about mankind history understand from Dune that Paul is a hero beyond his followers?
"God created Arrakis to train the faithful." " You cannot loose these people upon the universe!" "You will think back to the gentle ways of the Sardaukar!"
Frankly when I read Dune, I was a teenager but had already learnt enough in history courses at school to understand that what Paul and his mother were doing was extremely dangerous. Fanatics when created are extremely difficult to control. And when I read Dune Messiah, I was only hoping that Paul would go from being a cult leader to being a real political leader who would understand how to have a more balanced entourage not composed only of fanatics.
But, perhaps, it is very personal since I have always been very wary of people telling me what I should think and believe.
When you read comments about Dune, some people are proud to "unveil" that Paul is not the hero of Dune. Unfortunately, they develop adding that Paul is henceforth the villain of the story, as if any narrative had to be a hero/villain duality.
As you said, there was this ominous atmosphere of a disaster looming in Paul's future. Reading Dune was like reading some classical revenge story, but with that strange feeling that you shouldn't enjoy the triumphant end of the book.
Yes you are correct hate the over simplification of first book ! You would need 3 movies too express all of details and ideas from the first book I think David Lynch said 6 1/2 hours was required to make the first book correctly
Really didn't need it explained to me. And I say that even though I have seen all of the live action Dune adaptations. So many people say they couldn't follow the 80s Dune and that's why they made the intro with the emperor's daughter at the beginning. I didn't need that intro as a kid. It is so ridiculously obvious that I find it insulting that the director used the audience not understanding Paul as an excuse and think he changed Chani for ideological reasons. I still enjoyed Dune 2, but 1 was better and I think I prefer the 80s movie to both modern adaptations. The character performances in it were more unique and memorable.
Guys is there action in dune messiah? How do you imagin denis version of dune messiah without action?
Yes, I do agree. I also consider that major deviations from source material are almost a treason to the Author. I also think Denis Villeneuve stating that was just a major excuse for studio impositions and current Hollywood politics, specially, for instance, Lady Jwssica and Chani's postures make them not only much less enjoyable but also a lot weaker compared to their book characters. I've seen the subtilness and keen Villeneuve's approach in previous movies, just to memtion "Arrival" and "Blade Runner 2049". I just think he was compeled to do so, the same way he left out the extroadinary importance of the Mentats, the way why Fremen are the way they are, why Sardaukars fear them so much, nothing is said about the Guild etc.... I did enjoy both Dune movies but I came out disappointed... Not yet, not nearly yhere yet... Thank you very much for your keen appreciation of the first 3 Books (for me the saga should have ended there). Best regards.
Frank wanted his audience to believe in Paul, then he wanted to pull the rug from under them therefore teaching them a valuable lesson from his point of view. The Audience wasn't supposed to get it straight away. Thats the genius and why we still talk about it today.
I just wish Paul could have lived long enough to know about futars and honored matres with Duncan’s ghola and see how they would have went about business lmaooo
Leto II saw it because he caused it
@@irishnotsane9365 yes but I wish Paul still lived with chani and ruled to be able to witness these new factions trying to overthrow them
@@Anduresu he did to a certain extent and he created some of them as The Preacher
THANK YOU! I have repeatedly argued this, DV was full of DOO DOO. I have NO respect at all for his BS marketing lies for "HIS" total REWRITE of Frank Herberts masterpiece.
Paul was WRITTEN AS A HERO intentionally by Frank and then the Messiah was to show the complexity, regrets, traps, guilt, and tragedy of Paul.
A mellow then suddenly intense charismatic leader who is also openly mocked by his Fremen mate is a good thing... sez the hype algorithm.
Excellent video that I'm glad you made. I found myself a bit annoyed at some of his interviews and people using his misinterpretation to defend their points. I also recently listened to the biography of Frank Herbert and nowhere in it is Denis' beliefs validated.
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for your support!
It’s harder for me to buy that Denis made a mistake or was misinformed. I have intimate knowledge of how Hollywood at this level works, though not on this particular project. Pressure to modernize and inject political/cultural agendas is real, very real. The giveaway is Chani’s radical transformation into a super soldier antagonist who only loves Paul conditionally. If Denis wanted to use her as a tool to educate the audience, he didn’t have to shoehorn Chani into a modern ultra feminist role that is all too common (and tiresome) today. Chani could’ve been more feminine, unconditionally loving, vulnerable and still communicated the heartbreak of Paul’s transformation. In my view, “modernizing” Chani was deliberate and agenda driven. Was Denis pressured or was it his choice? I’d like to know.
If both DV and HB wanted people to NOT look up to Paul, they shouldn't have made it clear over and over again that the "Golden Path" was the actually the most ideal outcome for human destiny and cosmic justice.
Heres a thing... The first book IS divided in three books.
And, I don't think Herbert was serious when he said he always planned 3 separated books
That's because, he clearly forget some things that are in the first book when writing the third. Want a example? Stilgar says in Children of Dune that he never met Leto, the father.
And we know that's not right.
People often misunderstand the writing process for large works. If a writer has an idea for a scene in the middle of the story why would they force themselves to ignore it and try to write a part of the story they don't have ideas for at the time. Or maybe they are stuck on a particular challenging piece so the put it down and write a whole different book that is more in the forefront of their mind.
i think my favorite is still the scifi miniseries. that's what this story should have been remade as. a game of thrones level of production series. oh well. it had good production value, and mostly good casting - minues chani and kynes.
No he added dialogue to make his intentions with the character more obvious. Not that he only wrote the sequel to clarify his views. That’s missing the point.
Dune Part 2 is an adaptation! For making a movie, films rarely follows the source material entirely as it is a different medium and feeds a different audience, like the majority whom haven't read the books (e.g. Frank Baum's classic vs that movie with Judy Garland). Having read Herbert's books I thought it was done extremely well and have no major issues with the film adaptation. Also, consider that the studios had yet to greenlight Dune Messiah when Dune Part 2 was completed and 1st shown.
Adapting the novel is not the issue. Directors have to make changes of course. But do you find it ethical to pretend the changes were met to stay faithful to Herbert's declarations, when Herbert consistently said something opposite.
If, as a director, you feel that chnages are necessary, take your responsibility, but it's disrespectful to distort the words of a dead man to solidify your opinion.
Villeneuve has himself to blame for his predicament. Nolan compared Dune 2 to Empire well Empire ends with lovers being separated but knowing they are in love. Villeneuve is speeding up time lines but in doing so he makes for a unsatisfying ending. I would have preferred he not have changed Chani into a petulant child and made a wise fierce advocate of a woman who through no fault of her own brings forward the next step in Paul’s vision. That and I wish Villeneuve made a happier ending yet committed to selling the idea of a third film. I would not call the story Herbert’s Dune now I call it Villeneuve’s dune an altered version I increasingly am less interested in because of the facets and factions omitted from the film that are in the books.
I loved how he changed Chani into a woman warrior who fights on the front lines, has her own opinions, doesn't follow her lover blindly, not afraid to voice her opposition to him and cares for things other than having a child for her lover and being his wife.
@@benjalucian1515 Chani does a lot of the things you list in book where Villeneuve goes awry is in creating a division between the Fremen. Chani in the book is believer but she is pragmatic too. She wants to free her people she is related to Keynes and she accepts Paul’s affections seeing him as a man accepted among her people and as a leader of men. One can argue Chani in the book doesn’t fall for Paul but she chooses Paul as a suitable husband for her station and stature among the Fremen. On the flip side of the coin Paul’s father tells him to marry for the best strategic and political alliance yet Paul’s father has a mistress in Jessica. Paul ends up doing the same thing with Chani but Villeneuve screw his sensibilities doesn’t show the mirror between Paul and his father that’s in the book. And a link between Paul and his mother. Jessica came to Paul’s father to get pregnant and leave but she stayed for love. Paul came for spice but he stays for love too and more. Anyway both Legendary and WB have screwed themselves. They should have recognized that if they are going to make an epic they should have sat Villeneuve down and told him from the get go that Dune must be filmed in one long shoot like Lord of the Rings. It should have been told in three movies and not two. In twenty years maybe the rights will have changed hands and a chance to make Herbert’s Dune will come and if I’m working on it it will get done right, but for now I sincerely hope Lucasfilm hires me because I’d really enjoy helping to kick Villeneuve’s behind at the box office in the future.
@@LordLawwritesforfans *and she accepts Paul’s affections* Because that's what young women do. She has nothing else going on, no other BF. She's conveniently single when the irresistible offworlder shows up. *Paul ends up doing the same thing with Chani but Villeneuve screw his sensibilities doesn’t show the mirror between Paul and his father that’s in the book* Yet the movie Paul tells Jessica that Chani will understand and be back, so like father like son is still there. *Jessica came to Paul’s father to get pregnant and leave but she stayed for love* Um, I don't remember that being in the book. She was given to him and she was to stay with him and raise their child. *Paul came for spice but he stays for love too and more* No, Paul didn't come for anything. He came because his family was assigned the stewardship of the planet. Not like he had a choice. *if they are going to make an epic they should have sat Villeneuve down and told him from the get go that Dune must be filmed in one long shoot like Lord of the Rings* Except the studios didn't want to pay for that. That's why we have the movies we do. Funding another movie totally depends on if each movie makes money.
@@benjalucian1515 Paul’s family comes to take over spice harvesting. Jessica was supposed to have a girl by Duke Leto and when it comes to making epics like Dune filming them in one go is more economical. It is expensive yes but if Legendary and WB are doing good business they’ll figure out how to profit but then again Legendary and WB are partners but they don’t appear to be in lock step with one another. Unfortunate and a shame.