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 I vaguely knew the gist of the film going in. My expectation was, okay, we’ll start off with a sympathetic and likeable character. Then we slowly reveal the conflict and thematic piece with the big twist that the Atreides aren’t the heroes we thought they were as Paul unintentionally brings ruin to the Galaxy. Think the Starks from Game of Thrones and Bran specifically who George even said was inspired by Paul.

That’s really not what they did. I was struck by just how dislikable all of the Atreides characters were. Like a collection of reptiles not worth the air they breathed. They’re clearly just a bunch of self absorbed nobles in this bizarre civilisation and have nothing likeable about them. The fascist imagery is fully on display from the outset from the beginning so it’s not really surprising. Like when Paul says “I am a freak” I just laughed. I couldn’t care less what this guy felt or if he died in the desert.

They try to paint it as a dark twist when he decides he is going to use the Freman and pretend to be the Messiah. Which, is clearly just a lie being spun by the Beni Gesrit. Like there’s no mystery or doubt to any of this. It’s all presented very dryly and matter fact. Even George R R Martin, who is absolutely an atheist and writing an anti religious text still retains a huge amount of suspense and mystery from making the reader speculate on the supernatural limits of the world.

The actual philosophy is okay I guess. Definitely over hyped. Very by the numbers. Again, thats probably not fair since not everyone will be aware of the Enlightenment critique of religion and well, Animal Farm. 😄.

It’s almost like a macabre spectacle instead of a story.

Like are you just not meant to like the Atreides and root for them? Or is the film assuming you are meant to be seeing them as the heroes.

I found the film a little disjointed in that many of the scenes on their own were very good, but there were few connection points between them. You kind of jump from scene to scene and whilst each one stands well they just lack that little something between them to knit them together.


That said your impression isn't totally wrong but its very different to how many interpret them. Then again many of us have read the book and seen the previous film so impression can be coloured by those previous experiences and interactions. Eg some of the mystery in the book is still there whilst the film makes things far more overt.


Though I'm curious that your view of the Atreides is so dark, in a sense yes they are in it for themselves as any powerful familiy playing politics are. However compared to Harkonans and the Emperor, the Atreides are presented as having far more concern and attention for the people they rule over. They aren't bleeding heart donators, but they are far more forgiving masters

Of course alongside that you have to remember that the Emperor allows Great Houses to fight for their own powerbase. So any Great House has to have a military, has to use it and be ready to use it in times of need. They cannot get away through purely peaceable notions without any military to stand behind them. As the Harkonans attack proves


However I do agree this isn't a story of good vs evil in the pure Walt Disney sense. It's got grey lines; its got dark bits; its got questionable choices and evil characters working for the good side; its got selfish characters and more.

 Overread wrote:
I found the f

Though I'm curious that your view of the Atreides is so dark, in a sense yes they are in it for themselves as any powerful familiy playing politics are. However compared to Harkonans and the Emperor, the Atreides are presented as having far more concern and attention for the people they rule over. They aren't bleeding heart donators, but they are far more forgiving masters

However I do agree this isn't a story of good vs evil in the pure Walt Disney sense. It's got grey lines; its got dark bits; its got questionable choices and evil characters working for the good side; its got selfish characters and more.

Partly it’s because the characters, especially Paul and Jessica, come across as extremely sinister and cold blooded. Maybe it’s acting. With Daenerys or Jon for example George is very consciously putting in scenes to make you like them. You see them show compassion for others around them. You have a sense that they’ve been wronged. There’s a strong family dynamic to latch onto as an audience. Like Dany, she’s all on her own and so you are given space to root for her as she finds herself.

To me that’s totally absent in the film. We see Paul as an entitled brat, preparing for a war and with such blatantly fascist imagery that I felt immediately wary and felt a huge gulf with the character.Plus they’re sent to occupy a planet filled with native people who are fighting for their freedom. Like the intro does them no favours.

Like when Jon convinced Ned to spare the Direwolf pups and says he’s not a Stark. That’s a powerful scene that speaks to the humility, cunning and character of the man. Plus having Cat be suspicious of him and making him the Outcast looking for his place.They really draw you in as a reader. Instead you have weird scenes of him mind controlling his own mother.

Whereas Paul is the son of a warlord. Trained by a killer. His mother is part of a crazed cult. Like superficially it’s hitting a lot of the same beats as Brans story. But there’s almost a presumption that you should like them that feels completely unearned. Before Paul decides he’s going to use the Freman to get petty revenge and doesn’t care if the galaxy burns as a result.

I disagree. I think you have to be able to emphasise with your characters on some level. Which means liking them. Otherwise you either zone out or just become very clinical and detached from the story. You won’t reach the same highs and drama without that. If you want to shock us with then turning evil then you have to be invested in their story. You don’t want Dany to become a monster for example. So Paul having his heel turn isn’t earned because I already thought he was evil and didn’t care what happened to him.

1. Watch the older movie by David Lynch.

2. Read the book(s).

3. Realize you’re not really supposed to like Paul. Herbert used the tropes associated with the heroic savior story specifically because he wanted to push the message that you can’t trust a charismatic leader. (Or most leaders/government as the series goes on.)

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
1. Watch the older movie by David Lynch.

2. Read the book(s).

3. Realize you’re not really supposed to like Paul. Herbert used the tropes associated with the heroic savior story specifically because he wanted to push the message that you can’t trust a charismatic leader. (Or most leaders/government as the series goes on.)

Watched it after the fact. Very strange film with the Sting cameo.

Some point I might get the audiobook though neither film makes me that interested. Same reason I don’t feel the need to watch House of the Dragon. I already know the authors point is, so he has nothing new to say.

But he’s not charismatic at all. 😄 He’s so flat a boot couldn’t crush him. So the points poorly made. I’d see right through Napoleon. He’s the bad pig.

Plus, you’re implying a Daenerys style twist where we’re led into believing that they’re the hero and loving them only to later twist that around. But that’s the issue, the film doesn’t do anything to make them likeable and the Atreides are blatantly the villains. Another brand of evil crushing the Galaxy. They look like the Galactic Empire from Star Wars.

If there’s a Mirri Maz Duur character who later criticises what Paul’s doing and implicitly belittling the reader. Well, I’ve not been rooting for Paul. Iam quite happy to see him die of thirst in the desert. If you’re just going to dryly present a character and lay out the themes like that; well I am just going to view the book very clinically.

Plus Animal Farm makes the same political argument far more succinctly. If you just value a work for its message and for teaching a moral lesson. I think Animal Farm does that far better.

Edit - I am sorry, has there ever been a piece of literature where the message is trust the Government/State? Even Star Wars depicts the institution of the Rebel Alliance/New Republic with distrust and even hostility from the heroes. It’s only really in the High Republic where there’s a conscious effort to try and depict the Republic as unqualified good thing; but that’s the Golden Age before the fall into what we see in the prequels.

Pretty sure you meamt Sting


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The films are trying really hard to turn quite a sense book with a lot of world building into something that fits into normal feature length. In order to hit all the key action scenes and plot points, they have to rather gloss over the character building, which is a shame. I really like both films for their respective visual styles, if you rather have to have read the book in order to get the most out of them.

These are all very valid critiques, and I pretty much agree with everything that's being said in this thread. I will add that a lot of dislike for characters can be chalked up to the director Denis Villeneuve. When I watched Arrival and Annihilation I felt very disconnected from the characters, and a bit of animosity towards a few of them. The minimal dialogue and frankly depressing music in all of these films doesn't help. I don't want to knock big V too much, I do like his style, pacing, visuals, and his overall portrayal of Herbert's work. The two bits at the beginning that got me immediately hooked were the "sleeper must awaken" chant in the opening sequence, which is actually a reference to David Lynch's film, and the inclusion of the bull statue in the Calidan palace, which is a nod to the book I never thought I would see on the screen.

I experienced the film after reading the book several times and watching the Lynch movie and Sci-Fi series. Dune got me into science fiction and adult novels in general, so I'm a little biased. For similar people, I think we bring a lot of our connections to the characters from this other media. I echo what BobtheInquisitor says: definitely check out the book if you want a deeper dive. You'll appreciate the Villeneuve film a lot more. I was in awe over many many many of the movie's scenes. Off the top of my head, the Sardukar training grounds on Selucia Secundus was a feast for the senses, and Paul and Jessica being thopter'd out to the deep desert was superbly dramatic.

It's worth noting that the Fremen aren't actually natives to Dune. They're part of a nomadic tribe that chose to settle on Arrakis a long time ago.

I believe the Atreides are supposed to be likeable, even in the Villeneuve film. They're tragic heroes who flaws end up leading to their doom. Leto admits he knows the whole debacle is a fatal trap but goes in anyway out of his sense of duty and loyalty, but at his core
does want things to work out for his family and the people of his new planet. Jessica is a cold-hearted witch, but she's been manipulated her entire life and cares deeply for her family (also, she did give the Bene Gesserit the middle finger by marrying Leto). Paul is a bit of a Mary Sue on the hero's journey I will grant you. If you can't sympathize with him as the main protagonist I could see how the entire story becomes unenjoyable. I think he does have endearing qualities though: admiration of his teachers, genuine curiosity, and a desire to be loved. A lot of his whining is very legitimate. So I think initially you are supposed to like at least some of the Atreides, at the very least Paul, Idaho, and Thufir. As the book continues you're meant to root for Paul and the Fremen to gain their own autonomy over the Imperium. But at some point you realize they're becoming even worse monsters. The sequels in particular get very overtly philosophical and it becomes impossible to root for anyone. So if you're getting this impression early on, maybe you're just ahead of the curve.

You pretty much nailed all the beats, and the comparison to GoT was spot on and a fun new take for me. I enjoyed that. In the end hype can kill, or at least sour, even the best works.

 Flinty wrote:
Pretty sure you meamt Sting


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The films are trying really hard to turn quite a sense book with a lot of world building into something that fits into normal feature length. In order to hit all the key action scenes and plot points, they have to rather gloss over the character building, which is a shame. I really like both films for their respective visual styles, if you rather have to have read the book in order to get the most out of them.

Agreed. Heck the first film has to speed-run the whole latter half after they enter the Desert and meet the Femen because they simply don't have time to cover all that in depth. A huge span of major events are glossed over at superspeed before the final battle at the end.

The new film has more room, though I honestly feel that for all the added time they don't actually manage to cover more than the first film, if anything the "scene by scene but disjointed" feel that I spoke of earlier, almost makes the characters feel flatter than in the first film.



The book trumps both, but then it has all the time it wants to go into more depth; to get behind the eyes of characters and develop subplots and such which just find it hard to fit onto big screen presentations. Sadly very few books can translate to 1 or even 2 films easily.

Jessica and Leto are interesting though, as she has basically been sold to the Atredies by the Bene Gesserit, but they fall in love to the extent that she disobeys the sisterhood and produces a male heir. This comes out much more in the book. She is fiercely protective of her family, and is calculating enough to make use of protective seeds that the bene Gesserit have planted throughout different planets in case a sister needs to survive. So she plays the mystic for the sake of survival, without particularly caring what impact it might have on The civilisation they have suddenly infiltrated.

Also Dune has the best mantra against fear

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
1. Watch the older movie by David Lynch.

2. Read the book(s).

3. Realize you’re not really supposed to like Paul. Herbert used the tropes associated with the heroic savior story specifically because he wanted to push the message that you can’t trust a charismatic leader. (Or most leaders/government as the series goes on.)

Good advice, wrong conclusion.

Paul Atriedes tried to do what he could to avoid the Jihad, but was unable to escape Ijaz (the immutability of prophesy). He is a tragic figure, to be sympathised with and with strong positive moral qualities whom is nonetheless unable to escape the calamity his arrival would cause.

The best analogy I can give is to compare Dune (as books) the Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. The Bene Gesserit meddling has a lot on common with psychohistory, they manipulate events towards a particular outcome, not unlike the Seldon Plan, which was crowd control via mathematics, with some mind control thrown in to deal with individual will, the Bene Gesserit achieved the same large scale goal of societal shaping by reinforcing entrenched dogma to make some thinking inevitable, and while having an inferior form of mind control to the Second Foundation were able to operate far more openly.

Maud'dib could not turn off the fanatical expansion of the Fremen and the only force that could stop genuinely him or them, the Guild, were unable to kick their habit and say no to either. The Fremen were so locked into the mental conditioning to follow the Bene Gesserit prophesy, reinforced by the unshakable belief in Ijaz, which created a mental imperative to obey the wording of the prophesy. The problem with the prophecy is that the Bene Gesserit were not able to control the outcome because the Kwizatz Haderach was born one gebneration too early, the Bene Gesserit super being was supposed to be the offspring of Feyd Rautha and the woman that Paul Atriedes was supposed to be.

There is way too much to fit into any movie, or even the Dune series that had more time to explore the nuanced political situation. I have to credit David Lynch for attempting to do so, but his big triumph of his film was inventing the neo-Victorian 40K Imperium of Man, which is blatantly based on Lynch's vision of the Padishah Imperium; which appears to be not the style of the original author or known artwork preceeding the 1984 film.

The one critique I have of Paul Maud'dib is that there WAS a way out for him and for the galaxy if taken at the correct time. Suicide, the way out taken by the Bene Tlielax version of the Kwizatz Haderach.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
1. Watch the older movie by David Lynch.

2. Read the book(s).

3. Realize you’re not really supposed to like Paul. Herbert used the tropes associated with the heroic savior story specifically because he wanted to push the message that you can’t trust a charismatic leader. (Or most leaders/government as the series goes on.)

Watched it after the fact. Very strange film with the Sting cameo.

Some point I might get the audiobook though neither film makes me that interested. Same reason I don’t feel the need to watch House of the Dragon. I already know the authors point is, so he has nothing new to say.

But he’s not charismatic at all. 😄 He’s so flat a boot couldn’t crush him. So the points poorly made. I’d see right through Napoleon. He’s the bad pig.

Plus, you’re implying a Daenerys style twist where we’re led into believing that they’re the hero and loving them only to later twist that around. But that’s the issue, the film doesn’t do anything to make them likeable and the Atreides are blatantly the villains. Another brand of evil crushing the Galaxy. They look like the Galactic Empire from Star Wars.

If there’s a Mirri Maz Duur character who later criticises what Paul’s doing and implicitly belittling the reader. Well, I’ve not been rooting for Paul. Iam quite happy to see him die of thirst in the desert. If you’re just going to dryly present a character and lay out the themes like that; well I am just going to view the book very clinically.

Plus Animal Farm makes the same political argument far more succinctly. If you just value a work for its message and for teaching a moral lesson. I think Animal Farm does that far better.

Edit - I am sorry, has there ever been a piece of literature where the message is trust the Government/State? Even Star Wars depicts the institution of the Rebel Alliance/New Republic with distrust and even hostility from the heroes. It’s only really in the High Republic where there’s a conscious effort to try and depict the Republic as unqualified good thing; but that’s the Golden Age before the fall into what we see in the prequels.

The book is full of internal monologues, unspoken feelings and communication, and layers of world building, none of which translate very well into the movies. Unlikeable Paul is the compromise approach to portraying a conflicted child taught to manipulate others.

The first book is pretty decent, although I recommend reading the appendices first or as you read through the story. The third and fourth books are the highlight of the series, and in my opinion worth reading the first two to get to.

There are some truly bizarre takes in this thread. Your expectations going in were flawed to begin with, as were many of your takeaways. Maybe its due to you not having read the books and thus not having the underlying context for many of the things that occur on screen, which is coloring your perception of the story. I could see how without that background information some (though certainly not all) of your observations and perspectives might ring true. its hard to say whether or not I would consider that a flaw with the story or the film specifically, etc.

chaos0xomega wrote:
There are some truly bizarre takes in this thread. Your expectations going in were flawed to begin with, as were many of your takeaways. Maybe its due to you not having read the books and thus not having the underlying context for many of the things that occur on screen, which is coloring your perception of the story. I could see how without that background information some (though certainly not all) of your observations and perspectives might ring true. its hard to say whether or not I would consider that a flaw with the story or the film specifically, etc.

Yeah it puts me off reading the book when people talk about it like it’s this great philosophical text. Because nobodies ever made the case against charismatic leaders and the mob bringing about terror tearing down a corrupt society. To me those are pretty generic to somebody writing in 1790 or 1805. Never mind Animal Farm. Sure if you’re literally never encountered any of this studying history you might think that’s insightful and engaging. But to me these are just trite and cookie cutter points. Which a fair few fantasy and sci books tick off anyway.

It’s certainly not enough to justify having poor and unlikeable characters. To go back to Daenerys from Game of Thrones. It’s a more powerful and impactful story if you like the character before she takes a dark path. It creates suspense as you are left to wonder if she’ll be consumed by her dark nature. George is a master of doing this. It draws the reader in because his characters drive the story. I look at Dune and I am just like “Okay he’s blatantly a fascist. Wonder how he’s going to die.” Like zero interest. You’re watching a block of wood being fed into a machine. Sure I’ll get something nice out the other end, but I am not exactly going to care that much.

Like it will be cringe if film 2 turns around and is like “Surprise! The Freman are bad. Paul’s doomed the galaxy. You all thought he was a hero and should feel bad.” Well, no. If I was in that situation I and every rational person would realise he’s not the messiah and a very naughty boy.

So what you're saying is you didn't like it.
Cool.
I think you may be expecting something different than the film was intending to give, and that's ok.

I read dune at least every other year. I do think familiarity with the source material really helps enjoyment and understanding of the film. It really is a love letter to the book by a fan. I greatly enjoyed the film. Moreso than the miniseries or the Lynch film though both of those had their own strengths.

Haven't read the books but have watched the Lynch film and the miniseries (and Children of Dune) so maybe I had a better understanding of what to expect. The Villeneuve film is excellently done, all the characters come across as they're supposed to, the struggles and schemes range from subtle to extreme.

Characters don't have to be likeable to be interesting. They live in an absurd, dangerous world, they don't have to follow modern, western sensibilities. If anything, they do this too much already.

Cyel wrote:
Characters don't have to be likeable to be interesting. They live in an absurd, dangerous world, they don't have to follow modern, western sensibilities. If anything, they do this too much already.

If you want me to care about Paul’s quest for revenge on those who wronged his family, want to see the Freman succeed and set up pulling the rug under me. Yeah, you really do need to make the characters likeable on some basic level. If instead you’ve clearly telegraphed what they are, what the twist is and have actually actively made them dislikable. Well at that point you’re wanting Paul to die and I don’t really make any distinction between the Atreides and Harkonan I am not sure that’s the writers intent. Occasionally they act like Iam expected to like him and his mother.

Plus, show don’t tell. You have characters tell me this “freak” is the messiah. That’s it’s all lies by some clear idiots. You show visions of the Fremen going bad and burning the galaxy. Not to mention sinister imagery that telegraphs what the Atreides and Freman really are. Oh they’re fascists and religious fanatics. You’re basically tapping your foot waiting for things to play out.

Daenerys doesn’t follow modern Western sensibilities and neither do the Starks.

To leave Game of Thrones for a bit. Lawrence of Arabia. That is a very strange man. But the way the actor plays him is so mercurial and captivating that you do end up rooting for a guy that isn’t what I’d call a typical hero. Basically he’s interesting whereas Paul is not. You can understand why the various Arab characters he meets are so taken aback by the way he acts and think there’s something about him. With the Freman and Paul that’s clearly what they are trying to copy and utterly falling short of the mark. It’s just unearned. Why do they think he’s the messiah? You’re told the witches lied about stuff and that’s supposed to carry your suspension of disbelief.

Plus Lawrence of Arabia’s doesn’t just show you the ending. Oh no if I become the Mahdi then the Freman will destroy the Galaxy in my name. Five minutes later…. “I am the Messiah!” I mean it’s such deep and suspenseful character development.

If you’re saying this is all meant to be laid out. No mystery. No character arcs. Well the ideas presented are just convoluted and could easily be told in a much shorter story. Half an hour kids story probably. Why bother trying to frame Aninal Farm in the form of an epic film 4 hour film like Lawrence of Arabia? You obviously don’t care about any of the characters. The world is presented as a place that’s just there to be gak on. So why should I be interested or care? Sure there’s some cool visuals and spectacle. If I could collect an army of Saudakar I probably would (and already do in a way) but as a film and story.

Characters make story.

At this point all I can really say is to read the books if you want to go a bit deeper, or move on. It’s a piece of classic sci fi literature, and the book and Lynch film have had a non-zero impact on pop culture, but as with most classic stuff it’s not everything to everyone.

It's the same as how the books have had a huge impact on how people interpret Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit films. In particular why The Hobbit ends up ranking lower in people's estimations even if the film in itself is pretty well put together.

There are many films where the source material is perhaps less well known and where it colours fewer people's impressions and the film mostly stands on its own. Or its something like a fairy tail where the original story is quite light on specific detailing and is more a simple story that has been interpreted, reinterpreted, retold and changed for so long that each adaptation mostly stands on its own as its own thing.


In the end both Dune films are always compared back to the books and both films often need an understanding of the books to sometimes appreciate the depths of events and moments and characters and to have a wider view of them. Thus those who have read the books will assess things differently.


Dune as a book is fantastic and I'd strongly recommend reading it. Heck I recall I first read it when Westwood released Emperor Battle for Dune and in a (sadly very rare) case of great promotional thinking they bundled game and book together (seriously how often do you see that, with films hardly never do you see book and film in one package).

I think you are being a bit unfair with Paul. Dune 2021 covers not even half of the original book. Paul is just a lump of iron waiting to be forged still. Of course he is lacking everywhere.
I do think that Lady Jessica's actress dropped the ball, she appeared fearful, and dubitative at times when Jessica was strong, and decisive. According to the interviews it was because she got bored after the first 15 pages of the book, and told Villaneuve to just tell her how to portray her character.

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:
I think you are being a bit unfair with Paul. Dune 2021 covers not even half of the original book. Paul is just a lump of iron waiting to be forged still. Of course he is lacking everywhere.
I do think that Lady Jessica's actress dropped the ball, she appeared fearful, and dubitative at times when Jessica was strong, and decisive. According to the interviews it was because she got bored after the first 15 pages of the book, and told Villaneuve to just tell her how to portray her character.

M.

Ahh yes I'd forgotten that and I do agree that she felt more muted in this newer film compared to the earlier film and her story form. And yep Paul is often shown as being mature and older, but story wise he's still young and most of his life he's been trained, taught, controlled and guided along. Sure he's been raised to lead but he's also surrounded by powerful leaders without his own space as such. Heck in the film and book we see that he's only really just coming to join major meetings and discussions with his father.


It's also interesting that the Sisterhood are also more agreeable during the film - in the previous film and books its very much clearly established that they have no desire to protect Paul - he is outside their control.

 Overread wrote:
I found the film a little disjointed in that many of the scenes on their own were very good, but there were few connection points between them. You kind of jump from scene to scene and whilst each one stands well they just lack that little something between them to knit them together.

My first impression of the movie was that it felt like a random collection of scenes and the story was really hard to follow. It's more of a companion film to the book because, as someone who hadn't read the book, I had no fething idea what was going on.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Yeah it puts me off reading the book when people talk about it like it’s this great philosophical text.

It is.

"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain"

It earns its place right there. Even though Shakespeare said it first, and Shakespeare is no acceptable place to put an entry bar.

There is a lot of wisdom in Dune, and a great depth to its characters and intelligence to its plot. What is especially good is that for the genius plan to work nobody on the other side has to chew stupid pills, Herbert wrote smart and smarter, unlike so many other plot authors.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Because nobodies ever made the case against charismatic leaders and the mob bringing about terror tearing down a corrupt society. To me those are pretty generic to somebody writing in 1790 or 1805. Never mind Animal Farm. Sure if you’re literally never encountered any of this studying history you might think that’s insightful and engaging. But to me these are just trite and cookie cutter points. Which a fair few fantasy and sci books tick off anyway.

A number of us have tried to explain that Maud'dib is not like that. He is no pig Napoleon, and to Orwells credit pig Napoleon only chew stupid pills because Stalin did, Orwell also knows how to write an intelligent antagonist.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

It’s certainly not enough to justify having poor and unlikeable characters. To go back to Daenerys from Game of Thrones. It’s a more powerful and impactful story if you like the character before she takes a dark path. It creates suspense as you are left to wonder if she’ll be consumed by her dark nature. George is a master of doing this. It draws the reader in because his characters drive the story. I look at Dune and I am just like “Okay he’s blatantly a fascist. Wonder how he’s going to die.” Like zero interest. You’re watching a block of wood being fed into a machine. Sure I’ll get something nice out the other end, but I am not exactly going to care that much.

It is subjective opinion to consider the Atriedes unlikeable, but they were not poorly written, neither were their adversaries. Daenerys on the other hand....you can see it coming, and GRRMartin is no master, he is just hyped that way. Though I will give him credit for marketing and his foreshadowing is not half bad, and he is admittedly internally consistent in his lore. No way is he the 'American Tolkien' though. Only a few people have met both Tolkien and Martin but those who have were not impressed by him, and none considered him anything but a thin shadow of Tolkien. There is nothing he does which is anything special, much is predictable but most is hyped to be original. A Song of Ice and Fire is by no means bad, but it is no benchmark for literature, and even for marketing he pales to JK Rowling.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Like it will be cringe if film 2 turns around and is like “Surprise! The Freman are bad. Paul’s doomed the galaxy. You all thought he was a hero and should feel bad.” Well, no. If I was in that situation I and every rational person would realise he’s not the messiah and a very naughty boy.

He is a messiah, is not a naughty boy and wished to be neither and leaves both jobs to his son.

I don’t follow you. What in the film shows the characters to be “not chewing stupid pills”? Never mind the Harkonans even. Their motivations are either babble and nonsense or they’re just run of the mill tropes. Paul spends about ten seconds afraid of how many people will die if lies to these religious fanatics and then five minutes later says I don’t give a dam. To me that’s a pretty stupid and you know, blatantly evil motivation. If he had a brain he’d realise that his vengeance ain’t worth that much and that he’s just going to get everybody killed. So that is making the character stupid so that it all plays out. As is the whole Witch plan about making the super being. Fremen worshipping worms like some goblins from DND. Desert power!!. Walking without rhythm. I was in hysterics at that last one.

I don’t see how anyone could like the Atreides given how they’re presented and what they say. Oh wait. They’re going to ally with the religious fanatics and unleash a brutal war on the galaxy. Who’d have thought. You know, what exactly are the redeeming traits that are supposed to make the audience overlook that? Sure it’s a macabre spectacle. A horror, in which you’re watching a bunch of monsters fight among themselves. But I there’s nothing heroic or charismatic about Paul and the Atreides.

😄 In what way is Animal Farm not touching on the themes presented in Dune? Again, you’re all saying these themes are inherently mind blowing and have never been done before. That they’re excuse for bad characters. It’s so cerebral and mind blowing. But that premise is just something a childrens story can tell you.

He’s not the messiah and he is a very naughty boy. Theres no suggestion of any divine power. You’re told the witches lied and are just trying to manufacture a creature that they can use to control everything. What power he has can and should be common knowledge and isn’t in any way divine. It doesn’t even particularly look divine or holy. To believe somebody is the messiah you have to have a God or deity in the first place. So the witches plan only works because the setting is enabling them to it and the setting is too absurd to be taken serious.

The Harkonans are going to slaughter the Fremen anyway. Paul joining them is going to get many killed, but on the flipside its likely going to give htem the best chance at victory. That gives the Fremen their planet back and gives Paul his revenge over the Harkonans. Both sides benefit from the alliance and his position in their society.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
I don’t follow you.

Very well. I will explain myself sequentially.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

What in the film shows the characters to be “not chewing stupid pills”? Never mind the Harkonans even. Their motivations are either babble and nonsense or they’re just run of the mill tropes.

When it comes to the Harkonnens the Baron Vladimir had it all worked out. The plot to destroy the Atriedes worked as planned, almost without exception, the only mistakes were not killing Paul before feeding him to the worms, either that or gagging him just in case he was taught the Voice. There was an argument that Pieter failed in his mentat calculations by not doing that.
Vladimir did gloat, but that was in his nature and his accomplice, the Emperor, sent a Sardaukar captain to personally ensure the 'Red Duke' did not suffer.

Post ambush everything went according to plan, at least until Paul Atriedes started his rebellion. Which I must iterate would not have happened without him. Beast Rabban was behaving like a cartoon villain, but then again he was intended to. The plan was to allow Rabban to be so hated that Feyd Rautha could take over and use his personal charisma (he was one step removed from Kwizatz Haderach himself) to become saviour of the people of the cities thus cementing Harkonnen rule long term.

Harkoennen plan involved:
- Destruction of their hated rival Atriedes
- Removal of Atriedes power base in Court, same thing but its what the Emperor got out of it.
- Excuse to rape Arrakis leading to increased revenue and profits.
- Greater long term security of Harkonnen holdings on Arrakis because the saviour Feyd Rautha would be beloved.
- Feyd Rautha would rule an arrakis which was satisfied with less and brutally loyal, same mentality as the population of Giede Prime.

It was working, and the psychology does make sense. Think battered wife which always return to her abuser on a planetary scale.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Paul spends about ten seconds afraid of how many people will die if lies to these religious fanatics and then five minutes later says I don’t give a dam. To me that’s a pretty stupid and you know, blatantly evil motivation. If he had a brain he’d realise that his vengeance ain’t worth that much and that he’s just going to get everybody killed. So that is making the character stupid so that it all plays out. As is the whole Witch plan about making the super being. Fremen worshipping worms like some goblins from DND. Desert power!!. Walking without rhythm. I was in hysterics at that last one.

The films do not have the luxury of properly depicting how long Muad'dib contemplated the consequences of his destiny. Both films did make some attempt, and gave indication that Muad'dib did agonize over his decision. Though the 1984 version did this less and ignored consequences post Arrakis liberation. David Lynch's production could be forgiven for stating at the end that Muad'dib would bring peace. For those who know only the film its a self contained story, for those who know what happened next it becomes the voice of Fremen propaganda as the jihad begins. we get some inkling from the dialogue that things are going to turn dark very soon, but you have to know the story to notice it. Instead Paul's anguish is shown in the characterisation and is intended to be written off as grief at the loss of his house for those who only see the film, and as something else for those who are being retold the story.
The new version does handle the coming jihad more directly. Also Muad'dib becomes Fremen and the Fremen are about to win.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

I don’t see how anyone could like the Atreides given how they’re presented and what they say. Oh wait. They’re going to ally with the religious fanatics and unleash a brutal war on the galaxy. Who’d have thought. You know, what exactly are the redeeming traits that are supposed to make the audience overlook that? Sure it’s a macabre spectacle. A horror, in which you’re watching a bunch of monsters fight among themselves. But I there’s nothing heroic or charismatic about Paul and the Atreides.

What this first film does not tell you is that the jihad is a necessary evil. Without it humanity is doomed to extinction. With it things will be gak for a while. In this way the Fremen marching across the known systems in a religious war of slaughter is a 'good thing'. I cant remember if the Fremen jihadists were themselves aware that the Golden Path was necessary. Paul Muad'dib himself shied away from the full implementation which was taken on by his son, but he was aware of this and thus it was not cowardice that stayed his hand.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

😄 In what way is Animal Farm not touching on the themes presented in Dune? Again, you’re all saying these themes are inherently mind blowing and have never been done before. That they’re excuse for bad characters. It’s so cerebral and mind blowing. But that premise is just something a childrens story can tell you.

You are not seeing the whole picture, and the picture sold to you (for now) that this is a righting of a direct injustice caused by the Baron and the Emperor, and the liberation of an indigenous tribe which has been stepped on, is enough for the first book and related films.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

He’s not the messiah and he is a very naughty boy. Theres no suggestion of any divine power.

Muad'dib is an atheist godling. He does age and is mortal, and can be killed as a man, has some prescience but is NOT omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor is he unerring; he is an elevated psychic being, an ascended mortal man. He is the template from what the God Emperor of 40K is clearly based on, though the 40K emperor is far older, tougher, and more psychically powerful, and also has eternal youth which Paul Atriedes and his son lacked. And thus far closer to a divine being, though he always rejected that definition.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

You’re told the witches lied and are just trying to manufacture a creature that they can use to control everything. What power he has can and should be common knowledge and isn’t in any way divine. It doesn’t even particularly look divine or holy. To believe somebody is the messiah you have to have a God or deity in the first place. So the witches plan only works because the setting is enabling them to it and the setting is too absurd to be taken serious.

The Bene Gesserit redefine truth, and are well written. They have some psychic powers but their main tool is manipulation. They follow the Orwellian control doctrines seen in 1984 but without creating a full on dystopia in the process. Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning (we should have listened) and was in turn based on an understanding of the Soviet Union. Herbert was not writing direct allegory, but did use the phycological toolset. They are also based on the Inquisitorial orders of medieval Catholicism, and in turn much of the control mechanics of the 40K Imperium are based on the Bene Gesserit.

The witches may seem stoopid to you, why would people listen to them, but 2+2=5 if you are told often enough. If that sounds incredulous to you ask yourself this. If you asked people 20 years ago and any time prior to that in human history how many genders there are, what answer would you expect? Don't answer that here, it is not fair to the thread, but just keep in mind how far large scale human thought can shift over a short period of time under the right manipulation.

As young Paul Atriedes discovered when he was tested with the Gom Jabar he realised this was an order of nuns invested in pure politics, politics of itself was the purpose of the Bene Gesserit. They were master manipulators to the point that they had already won, centuries ago and were behind everything but accountable to nobody and also not culpable for anything. .This was because they had no direct political agenda, they transcended that and were politics itself. Anything one did which had political consequence had to be done with a Bene Gesserit beside you, not only to have any credibility, but to also ensure the wrong lines were not crossed. Even the Emperor could not gainsay them.
They however they essentially got bored and decided they needed something to do, which is why they forwarded the genetic program to make the Kwizatz Hederach. They already controlled humanity, they needed a task so the sisterhood had a further goal to keep themselves unified.
It all makes sense, but is very very deep.

I feel like nothing demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of what you're talking about more than continuing to refer to Fremen as religious fanatics and Atreides as fascists. Okay, maybe you're not too wide off the mark with the Fremen, but theres a lot of nuance you're missing.

Its really cute that you think you have the story and the various characters motivations, plans, and narrative arcs all figured out - you are wrong on many counts, but its cute that you think you have it all figured out.

Again, I don't know if this is because you haven't read the books and the film is doing a poor job of communicating things to those who aren't aware of where things go, or if its because you just took away the wrong messages entirely. Either one is okay. But the conviction with which you are holding to your red-hot hot-takes are incredible.

My advice: read the books, or wait for the second film. Don't presume you understand it all.

Fremen are very much a religious faction. In fact the books go way more into it and Jessica is also a powerful religious figurehead for them as well alongside Paul.


I think the new film does play heavily on the military side of Atreides which isn't a bad idea all told. They were gearing up armed forces in the book as well, but the impression is that they were more of a defensive measure used to help them protect what they had; whilst the power that Paul's father was securing was more political influence, respect and general popularity.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I feel like nothing demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of what you're talking about more than continuing to refer to Fremen as religious fanatics and Atreides as fascists. Okay, maybe you're not too wide off the mark with the Fremen, but theres a lot of nuance you're missing.

Its really cute that you think you have the story and the various characters motivations, plans, and narrative arcs all figured out - you are wrong on many counts, but its cute that you think you have it all figured out.

Again, I don't know if this is because you haven't read the books and the film is doing a poor job of communicating things to those who aren't aware of where things go, or if its because you just took away the wrong messages entirely. Either one is okay. But the conviction with which you are holding to your red-hot hot-takes are incredible.

My advice: read the books, or wait for the second film. Don't presume you understand it all.

These would be my observations and recommendations as well. If the OP wishes to dislike Dune, they have built a nice fort from which to hold that position. If OP wishes to appreciate -or at least understand- Dune more they have been presented with ample bridges on which to cross over.

Alternatively, OP could just accept that this particular film (and possibly books) are simply not his flavor and will not be to his liking. Dune is regarded by a great many readers as an incredible work (writers far better than us have extolled it's virtues), but not everyone will like it and that's quite ok too. We may not be doing the greatest job at defending Dune, but despite the spending of hundreds of words OP likewise has not thrown up arguments that are likely to sway those who see it in a far more positive light.

Having only read the visual novels, the movie made more sense to me than it would have to someone going in blind. It could definitely have used another 45 minutes to run through more of the important details.

The setting is much like 40k, which is based a lot on Dune. There are no 'good guys'. Just morally conflicted/dubious protagonists and definitely evil antagonists.

The Atreides may not be total paragons, but they are probably as close as you could get in the setting. Leto has the intention to work with the Fremen and not be the oppressive tyrant that the Harkonens were. He will still be the absolute ruler of Arakkis, but fair and benevolent as opposed to tyrannical and rapacious. He makes genuine efforts to integrate with the locals. Overtures which actually work.

Yeah, he is definitely abusing the convenience of the prophecy around Paul and will use that, but at least in a semi-benevolent way. And it will eventually lead to the galaxy burning as the prophecy gets out of hand.