Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So when Leto is showing the state of the harvesting operations and the missing silos, did anyone else think 'you must build additional silos'? Just me?

Anyhow, I thought it was great. Amazing how a book written so heavily around thoughts and plotting stands or falls on its visuals, but it does. Dune is a staggeringly beautiful movie, all the more so because it was showing the beauty of a harsh, unforgiving climate. I don't think you could do a better job of distilling the book down to something that's even remotely workable on screen than they did with Dune. Even then, just because there's so much complexity packed in you really just need to go with it, and the beauty of the film really goes a long way to helping people do that.

My wife said she liked it but she found it a bit hard to follow as some dialogue was hard to hear. I thought she had a fair point but honestly I'm not sure it would have helped, I don't think its possible to follow along with every detail unless you were already familiar with the book, or watched the film multiple times. A person can't learn Atreides is being invited to Arrakis to maintain the spice harvest but its a trap, then learn about a whole second story about the Bene Gesserit's plans to create a Kwizats Haderach, then 100 minutes later understand why Dr Yeuh had deduced, possibly mistakenly, that House Artreides was doomed and he might as well use it to extract his revenge on the Baron.

Which is why it mattered so much that it was such a beautiful film. Helped people go along with it, accept there's bits of subtle plotting they probably don't understand, and just get caught up in the wonder and emotions of the story.

trexmeyer wrote:
The Fremen don't take meaningful losses. The Atreides do.

Maybe. We don't really the conclusions of any fighting involving the Fremen, only implications. In their one fight against the Sardukar, the Fremen are shown ambushing the Sardukar, the outcome of the battle isn't shown, and then the next time anyone from that fight is shown, we see Sardukar and no Fremen.

The problem with the Sardukar being shown as relatively weak comes from how Duncan hacks through so many of them, and doing it with ease. That wasn't great, but really that thing, main characters killing loads of extras with ease, is so common in so many movies these days I'm just resigned to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:
If i had to guess, the fremen were mega-ultra-badasses because this story was probably told around when it was really in vogue to heavily lionize the taliban fighters in afghanistan fighting against the soviet union.

Whoops!

Hindsight, eh folks?

Your guess is a bit off. The Fremen are based on the Bedouin. Who inhabit Saudi Arabia, the UAE etc, a desert land where oil is discovered, making a backwater suddenly become the geopolitical focus of all of civilisation. In this case the inspiration came pretty directly from Lawrence of Arabia, released in 1962, with Dune published in 1965. It's likely the idea for the blue eyes came from Olivier's blue eyes in the movie, as well.

So yeah, the Fremen aren't fierce fighters just to make the story work, but because like Lawrence of Arabia the story is very much about harnessing a fierce warrior culture to suit your political ends. This concept is explored further with the insane violence of the Jihad the Fremen embark on after victory on Arrakis.

There's also an idea explored in the book that the best soldiers come from being raised in the harshest conditions. Before the Fremen the Sardaukar were the best soldiers, and that was because like the Fremen, they were raised in brutal living conditions under extreme discipline.

That's the thing about Dune, like most good books. Things don't exist just to make the story work. They exist because they are ideas and setting elements that the authors believes or thinks are interesting, and the story is then written to factor them in as causes and complications within the plot. Its stuff like that which really made the setting work for me, that feeling that there is a world beyond whatever is needed to make the plot happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I always thought it was roughly based on the rise of the Arabic tribes, united by Mohammed, overrunning the Sassanid Persian empire and expanding from there. They were a vigorous desert people who came together under a new religion and embarked on a jihad, reminiscent of the Arabs under Islam. There’s a bit more worked into Dune to keep it from feeling like Mohammed In Space, but that framework seems evident.

Anyway, Dune and the rest of the series seem to have a motif where societies that stagnate must fall, and more …basic types must overrun them and revitalize humanity.

There are definitely elements in there. The Arabic tribes defeating the elite Byzantine troops was definitely an inspiration. But I think Herbert drew inspiration from multiple points in history from the middle east. Its really hard to look past the role ME oil played in 1960s politics, and the role spice plays in Dune.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Esmer wrote:
Doctor Yueh, who, in the book version, was obviously not so naive as to believe he would somehow get his wife back and make it out of the conspiracy alive but deliberately planned things in such a way to ensure his wife dies (thus being spared more suffering), he dies (as punishment for his betrayal) and the Baron dies.
Thufir Hawat, who in the book is involved in a game of wits against Lady Jessica with both of them wrongly suspecting each other of being the traitor.

And of course the Duke Leto is actually also smarter in the books than in the movies, as he had deduced very early that him being granted lordship over Arrakis was a conspiracy on behalf of the Emperor and the Harkonnens, and even correctly predicted that the anticipated strike would involve Sardaukar posing as Harkonnens (whereas in the movie they're not making any attempt to mask their identity, which kinda dumbs down the politics of the Dune Empire).

Yeah, this is the kind of stuff where a film has to make tough choices, and I think in most cases the new film did a great job with its choices, with a couple of exceptions. They cut down a lot of Leto's plotting, which really just came down to time, but did give enough there for him to show he knew all along it was coming and had plans to defeat the trap ("desert power", "I just thought I'd have more time" etc). So that one is fine, I think.

The Sarduakar wearing their full regalia is also fine, because film is a visual medium, and you need to show the Sardaukar as different. Having them shown as Harkonnen and having people observe they are fighting like Sardaukar just doesn't work in film. So they instead had the line there's no satellites on Arrakis and the Atreides will die in darkness as a handwave. This is okay.

Thufir and the Lady Jessica's subplot was a shame to cut. I think this really came down to time limits, but even just a brief scene or two showing deception within the leadership of House Atreides would have done wonders to show how difficult Leto's position was. How the politics of the galaxy mean you can't even be in complete control of your own house, and it also would have brought the idea of treachery to the audience mind, so when the betrayal did come it wasn't out of the blue.

And yeah, I think they missed a trick with Doctor Yueh. His reasoning behind his betrayal was so well thought through by Herbert, and was so well done because it didn't just make internal sense to Yeuh, it touched on the greater political situation and how that situation is perceived within the galaxy. His betrayal was based on the assumption that Leto was doomed anyway, so he might as well accept that use it to exact his revenge on the Baron. But if he had known Leto's plan with the fremen, would he have done differently? Would it have mattered? All that is missed in the film and it was a shame. Maybe cut the pictures of the bull and they could have found some time for that.

Small complaints, though, I think


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
I chewed on the creative decision about Sardaukar operating openly also. I agree that it goes to the politics of the Imperium. The movie makes it seem like the Emperor is all-powerful and can endure no matter what actions he takes against the great Houses. In the books we know that's far from the case.

I agreed with your post overall, but just had to argue with this one bit. The movie directly addresses the Emperor's use of the Sardaukar, saying there are no satellites over Dune so the attack won't be seen, and after the attack Paul and Jessica's initial plan was to escape the planet and testify that the Emperor directly aided one Great House against another. It wasn't just subtext or implied like some other elements from the book were, it was straight up text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
It isn't rushed. It simply isn't the point. It isn't a war story, its an ecological/prescience/sociological story. The end is an epilogue to set up Messiah, not to be a detailed battle.

Nah. You don't create an intergalactic feudal empire, have your core plot driven by the political machinations of those feudal factions, invent an entirely alien form of war driven by new technologies, then have the political balance of those factions massively changed twice, each time by war... and then declare your book isn't actually about war so we're not going to worry about those elements. War is a central element of Dune.

The fact Herbert didn't write the final battle in as much detail as other elements doesn't change that. It just means Dune, like countless highly ambitious great novels, still does contain some missteps.

Nah. You don't create an intergalactic feudal empire, have your core plot driven by the political machinations of those feudal factions, invent an entirely alien form of war driven by new technologies, then have the political balance of those factions massively changed twice, each time by war... and then declare your book isn't actually about war so we're not going to worry about those elements. War is a central element of Dune.

Politics is a central element, war is background or just left to the time skips. It isn't just the final battle, he barely wrote _any_ battles, or any of the supporting elements for war.

The 'alien form of war' is... sword fighting. The lasguns are barely used for fear of shield interactions creating almost-nuclear explosions

The political balance is changed first by pure politics (the emperor swapped which House was in charge of Arrakis) and then by politics, betrayal and an ambush, not warfare.

Then the second half of the book is entirely off screen guerilla operations followed by nukes and an off screen attack. The following books follow the same pattern- almost all fighting is off screen, aside from a few duels. Large engagements, logistics, troop movements, that's all elsewhere. Fighting is mostly small bands or personal duels, what's on screen is politics, which is where the feudal empire and factions come in.

Voss wrote:
Politics is a central element, war is background or just left to the time skips. It isn't just the final battle, he barely wrote _any_ battles, or any of the supporting elements for war.

I think you're confused by what I'm saying. I am not saying that that war took up a large chunk of the literal text of the story. I am saying it is important to the story, war, its ramifications and what drives it outcomes are explored heavily.

I'll put it this way - the book spends a lot of time telling us Fremen are great fighters. This is important to how the plot plays out, and the reason why they are great soldiers is explored through the books considerations of environment and culture. But the book spends little time showing us the Fremen as great fighters. Which is a flaw in the book. Nothing that diminish all the book's exceptional qualities, but still something we can talk about.

The 'alien form of war' is... sword fighting. The lasguns are barely used for fear of shield interactions creating almost-nuclear explosions

Making personal shields a part of your story, then making up ways to bypass those shields and the fighting techniques that evolve from that isn't just 'there is sword fighting'.

The political balance is changed first by pure politics (the emperor swapped which House was in charge of Arrakis) and then by politics, betrayal and an ambush, not warfare.

What? Before they moved to Arrakis and once on Arrakis they were among the most powerful of the Great Houses. What changed that was the attack by the Baron. Which was, you know, a battle. The second major shift came with Paul's Fremen new army taking Arrakeen. Which they did by having a battle.

Arguing those two moments weren't battles but were betrayals, ambushes or whatever is just not sensible. The Sardaukar were sent to aid the Baron's attack... because they were elite soldiers and elite soldiers are very helpful when you're going to attack someone and have a battle. The Fremen were noted as great fighters, which was very important because they then went about fighting a war to defeat the occupiers of their planet.

The way I see it, warfare and battles etc are important to the story Herbert tells, but critically they aren’t the story he is telling. Not giving much detail on warfare and fighting techniques isn’t a flaw but a deliberate narrative choice that I think strengthens the story he is telling.

In the same way a heist/robbery is important to the story being told in Reservoir Dogs, but the robbery isn’t the story and we know it happened but don’t get details or any focus on it.

If he had poured more effort into the combat descriptions, just imagine what the WELL ACKCHYUALLY crowd would have done with it.

Aash wrote:
The way I see it, warfare and battles etc are important to the story Herbert tells, but critically they aren’t the story he is telling. Not giving much detail on warfare and fighting techniques isn’t a flaw but a deliberate narrative choice that I think strengthens the story he is telling.

In the same way a heist/robbery is important to the story being told in Reservoir Dogs, but the robbery isn’t the story and we know it happened but don’t get details or any focus on it.

Exactly this. Things couldn't played out without the battles happening, but they aren't a part of the story in any meaningful sense and neither are the details.

The Fremen as an army (the Great Jihad) is _entirely_ skipped over between books. Coping with winning matters, seeing how they won does not.

Aash wrote:
The way I see it, warfare and battles etc are important to the story Herbert tells, but critically they aren’t the story he is telling.

Sure, but here's the thing - if you were taking a course on writing fiction and the lecturer told you that your story should tell the story of things that are important to your story, you'd think that was such an obvious truism you'd wonder why you were spending time and money listening to him. Yet here we are, with people actually arguing that not telling the story of the things that are important to the story is a narrative choice.

It isn't. It's a mistake to leave something which is important to the story off the page. Dune is still a fantastic book, of course, but just because something is great and we really like it doesn't mean we have to pretend the fault isn't there.

Voss wrote:
Exactly this. Things couldn't played out without the battles happening, but they aren't a part of the story in any meaningful sense and neither are the details.

The fact the Fremen are great fighters is actually really important, both to the plot and to the themes of the book. Having people say 'Fremen are good fighters' a bunch of times is telling, detailing some of the battles would have been showing, and show don't tell is one of the few rules of writing that everyone agrees on.

 sebster wrote:

Aash wrote:
The way I see it, warfare and battles etc are important to the story Herbert tells, but critically they aren’t the story he is telling.

Sure, but here's the thing - if you were taking a course on writing fiction and the lecturer told you that your story should tell the story of things that are important to your story, you'd think that was such an obvious truism you'd wonder why you were spending time and money listening to him. Yet here we are, with people actually arguing that not telling the story of the things that are important to the story is a narrative choice.

It isn't. It's a mistake to leave something which is important to the story off the page. Dune is still a fantastic book, of course, but just because something is great and we really like it doesn't mean we have to pretend the fault isn't there.

Voss wrote:
Exactly this. Things couldn't played out without the battles happening, but they aren't a part of the story in any meaningful sense and neither are the details.

The fact the Fremen are great fighters is actually really important, both to the plot and to the themes of the book. Having people say 'Fremen are good fighters' a bunch of times is telling, detailing some of the battles would have been showing, and show don't tell is one of the few rules of writing that everyone agrees on.

I don’t dispute “show, don’t tell” as a useful tool in telling stories, and agree that Dune has its faults. Enough so that we don’t need to make up additional ones where they don’t exist. You don’t like a particular aspect of the story, that doesn’t make it “bad writing”. And not focussing on something important to the story is true of every story, otherwise we’d get bogged down in the detail and never tell the story at hand. Various forms of shorthand exist to do just that, signalling to an audience without having to waste word count/screen time on superfluous details.

Again the heist in Reservoir Dogs is a great example of not showing an important detail adjacent to the story at hand.

Aash wrote:

I don’t dispute “show, don’t tell” as a useful tool in telling stories, and agree that Dune has its faults. Enough so that we don’t need to make up additional ones where they don’t exist. You don’t like a particular aspect of the story, that doesn’t make it “bad writing”. And not focussing on something important to the story is true of every story, otherwise we’d get bogged down in the detail and never tell the story at hand. Various forms of shorthand exist to do just that, signalling to an audience without having to waste word count/screen time on superfluous details.

To make your argument, you've started using "important" and "superfluous detail" interchangeably. But the point is if something is important, it isn't a superfluous detail.

Again the heist in Reservoir Dogs is a great example of not showing an important detail adjacent to the story at hand.

The whole idea in Reservoir Dogs is characters descriptions give their POV of the heist & escape. What happened in the heist is a direct focus of the text, it just uses a different technique to add character viewpoint error.

 sebster wrote:

Aash wrote:

I don’t dispute “show, don’t tell” as a useful tool in telling stories, and agree that Dune has its faults. Enough so that we don’t need to make up additional ones where they don’t exist. You don’t like a particular aspect of the story, that doesn’t make it “bad writing”. And not focussing on something important to the story is true of every story, otherwise we’d get bogged down in the detail and never tell the story at hand. Various forms of shorthand exist to do just that, signalling to an audience without having to waste word count/screen time on superfluous details.

To make your argument, you've started using "important" and "superfluous detail" interchangeably. But the point is if something is important, it isn't a superfluous detail.

Again the heist in Reservoir Dogs is a great example of not showing an important detail adjacent to the story at hand.

The whole idea in Reservoir Dogs is characters descriptions give their POV of the heist & escape. What happened in the heist is a direct focus of the text, it just uses a different technique to add character viewpoint error.

The fact that something is important doesn’t mean we need to know the details, sometimes the broad strokes are sufficient as it is important to know that an event happened but the nitty gritty isn’t relevant.

As for reservoir dogs, the details of the heist isn’t a direct focus, the aftermath of the heist is the focus.

It seems we’re going to have to agree to disagree here though since I don’t see either of us convincing each other.

The more (military) fighting we see in Dune, the more issues we need to ignore to suspend disbelief. Frank Herbert’s combat is like Isaac Asimov’s sex scenes: unconvincing and really best left to your imagination.

 sebster wrote:
So when Leto is showing the state of the harvesting operations and the missing silos, did anyone else think 'you must build additional silos'? Just me?

No, it was not just you. The look of the new Carry-all's/Harvesters also disappointed me a bit.

When I picked up the RPG hardcover book, I was saddened to see they did not have any sly references to House Ordos.

House Ordos was something made up out of whole cloth for the computer games.
It's not something from the original books.

 chromedog wrote:
House Ordos was something made up out of whole cloth for the computer games.
It's not something from the original books.

Yes..... and?

Verrrrrrrrrryyyy late to this party.

Whilst I’m a fan of the original film, I’ve never read the book, or indeed the other books in the series.

Rented it off Amazon Prime, and I’m thoroughly enjoying it.

Plot wise there’s far more detail than the Lynch take. That is the joy of the modern age where you can more or less guarantee a sequel unless your box office is disastrous.

Yet. It doesn’t feel overly long. And I’ve noticed more than a few nods to the original, but done in a respectful way.

It’s an absolutely beautiful movie. Whilst it takes its time, it doesn’t outstay any scene’s particular welcome.

My sole criticism is the Baron Harkonnen feeling overly restrained. I prefer the boisterous nutter from the Lynch film.

 chromedog wrote:
House Ordos was something made up out of whole cloth for the computer games.
It's not something from the original books.

Not quite. It was in the Dune Encyclopedia, which predated the Westwood game by around a decade. I don't know a lot, but I know the history around the Encyclopedia is a bit of mess. At the time it was endorsed by Herbert and he wrote the forward, and anything in it that wasn't in the books was meant to come from Herbert's notes. Was that true, and did it include Ordos, or were they just something that was made up by one of the encyclopedia's writers? I don't know, I don't know if anyone knows.

Anyhow, Ordos and a bunch of stuff in the encyclopedia didn't appear in the subsequent novels, and were later declared non-canon when they contradicted stuff in Brian Herbert's books. The encyclopedia got declared non-canon and its just the same old drama about canon that every popular setting has. I don't know, I liked Ordos in the game and don't like the Brian Herbert books, but that doesn't really mean anything to anyone else

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Verrrrrrrrrryyyy late to this party.

Whilst I’m a fan of the original film, I’ve never read the book, or indeed the other books in the series.

Rented it off Amazon Prime, and I’m thoroughly enjoying it.

Plot wise there’s far more detail than the Lynch take. That is the joy of the modern age where you can more or less guarantee a sequel unless your box office is disastrous.

Yet. It doesn’t feel overly long. And I’ve noticed more than a few nods to the original, but done in a respectful way.

It’s an absolutely beautiful movie. Whilst it takes its time, it doesn’t outstay any scene’s particular welcome.

My sole criticism is the Baron Harkonnen feeling overly restrained. I prefer the boisterous nutter from the Lynch film.

You really really need to watch the sci fi miniseries. The recent film just focuses on Paul's journey and leaves out the politics which are frankly integral to the story and make Dune great. The sci fi mini series captures that, as much as a lower budget version can.
Plus the Baron in that is absolutely badass.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/

I always feel bad when people recommend the Sci Fi miniseries because I know I’ve seen it—my wife (then girlfriend) and I rented it and watched it with her roommates at the time—and I don’t remember anything about it at all. It left no impression on me.

I did try watching the mini series, but found it convoluted, being solely used to the Lynch movie.

Perhaps these two (in theory) movies will prove the bridge?

See, I love the Dune miniseries. I've probably watched it at least 50 times as it's one of the things I liked to pop into my computer's Blu-ray drive while working on models over the years.

I did watch (most of) the miniseries, and honestly the biggest impact on me was in realising how much production matters in storytelling. The miniseries is very faithful to the book and covers all the key plot and character elements, but it mostly just looks like small sound stages filled with people dressed in the civilian clothes from early Next Gen Star Trek. I mean, I know that is fine for a lot of people, because lots of people really liked that mini-series, but for me to evoke a world there's gotta be something in the imagery, in the music, in the performances that make me buy in to that world.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I always feel bad when people recommend the Sci Fi miniseries because I know I’ve seen it—my wife (then girlfriend) and I rented it and watched it with her roommates at the time—and I don’t remember anything about it at all. It left no impression on me.

Same. (And for sebster's Next Gen Star Trek clothes comment).
I know it existed, and I was watching the Sci-Fi channel regularly at the time, but... yeah.
I put it in the same bin as the Sci-Fi Jurassic Park knock-offs with Lorenzo Lamas.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Verrrrrrrrrryyyy late to this party.

Whilst I’m a fan of the original film, I’ve never read the book, or indeed the other books in the series.

Rented it off Amazon Prime, and I’m thoroughly enjoying it.

Plot wise there’s far more detail than the Lynch take. That is the joy of the modern age where you can more or less guarantee a sequel unless your box office is disastrous.

Yet. It doesn’t feel overly long. And I’ve noticed more than a few nods to the original, but done in a respectful way.

It’s an absolutely beautiful movie. Whilst it takes its time, it doesn’t outstay any scene’s particular welcome.

My sole criticism is the Baron Harkonnen feeling overly restrained. I prefer the boisterous nutter from the Lynch film.

You really really need to watch the sci fi miniseries. The recent film just focuses on Paul's journey and leaves out the politics which are frankly integral to the story and make Dune great. The sci fi mini series captures that, as much as a lower budget version can.
Plus the Baron in that is absolutely badass.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/

Is that the one with Princess Irulan being much more involved - sad that Virgina Maddeson was not in the film more as her

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Verrrrrrrrrryyyy late to this party.

Whilst I’m a fan of the original film, I’ve never read the book, or indeed the other books in the series.

Rented it off Amazon Prime, and I’m thoroughly enjoying it.

Plot wise there’s far more detail than the Lynch take. That is the joy of the modern age where you can more or less guarantee a sequel unless your box office is disastrous.

Yet. It doesn’t feel overly long. And I’ve noticed more than a few nods to the original, but done in a respectful way.

It’s an absolutely beautiful movie. Whilst it takes its time, it doesn’t outstay any scene’s particular welcome.

My sole criticism is the Baron Harkonnen feeling overly restrained. I prefer the boisterous nutter from the Lynch film.

You really really need to watch the sci fi miniseries. The recent film just focuses on Paul's journey and leaves out the politics which are frankly integral to the story and make Dune great. The sci fi mini series captures that, as much as a lower budget version can.
Plus the Baron in that is absolutely badass.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/

Honestly, just add the banquet scene to the movie and it'd be enough, politics-wise. I'm hoping it ends up on an extended cut at some point. It *may* have been filmed.