I LOVE your analysis. I think you’ve brought out really great points. I can’t remember exactly where I abandoned reading the books, but I want to say like half-way through the third book… and it’s been decades since I read that. So, I’m approaching both your review and the movie by way of the prism of time.
I loved Dune (the first book) when I was a teen. The worldbuilding, the coherent culture, the rituals, and how everything and everyone (Spacing Guild, Trade Federation, Great Houses… all of it) are entirely reliant on spice. It was just masterful and unlike anything that I had ever before encountered. Even now, Herbert has few peers in those areas.
The issues I’ve had with the movie is that so much of that nuance is lost. Villaneuve does a fantastic job of capturing a lot of the subtlety (better than anyone before) but the books just do it better. I don’t hold that against him because movies can only do so much.
I think that bit about ‘movies can only do so much’ also explains several of the changes that are causing problems for you. I don’t know how many Dune movies there will be, but I’m sure there will be fewer than there are books in the series. Yes, he could have kept some of the issues the same and I believe you do make great arguments for why he should have, but at the same time he has to be thinking about how many more chances will he have to resolve this story in a satisfying way. For that reason, he’s had to make compromises. All in all though, I think you’re dead right.
As far as the tone of the story, you’re also right. I haven’t read the latter books, but based off of what I do know about them it does continue to spiral into darkness. I think there may be some hope for a green Arakis as well, but I can’t say with any certainty. I have a funny meme to share with you, but I can’t post images in this comment; so, I’ll tag you and share it on Notes instead.
Instead of reading this grim dark story about sandworms, why not try some hopeful and elevating, feel good fiction instead? Have you read George R. R. Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire?
Thanks for the comment, John. I agree that the worldbuilding is incredible in Dune, since all the levers of power and ecology put incredible levels of stress onto the characters; and it all goes back ultimately to Dune itself, to Arrakis, and to the spice! "The spice must flow."
Similar to your note that the movies flattens nuance: I also enjoyed the Dune 1 movie less after I read the books. I obviously couldn't know how much was missing until I'd read the book and gone back to it. I still think the movies stand on their own though. But a lot of it comes down to that "movies can only do so much," especially once Villeneuve removes (rightly in my mind) the internal monologues of the characters. That narrative distance forces certain choices, and I think that drove a lot of the changes we see on screen.
The tipping point for me was once I realized that the jihad at the end of D: Part 2 wasn't an invention but was just moved forward in Herbert's multi-book timeline. Definitely confirms that descent into darkness.
Really enjoyed your analysis! And I agree with you and John Ward that a lot of nuances are lost, perhaps a function of the medium and the times.
Have you read the beginning of Dune Messiah? I've read Dune around 7 times. It's my favorite book, because I've seen how I've changed over the 29 years I've been re-reading it. Who will I identify with on this pass? What details will I see now? Has my life experience changed the meaning?
But I could never get into Dune Messiah after multiple attempts.
After watching Dune: Part 2, I started it that night.
Because after watching the film, which I loved, I was numb with a feeling of disconnection with the work. I didn't understand why Villeneuve had ended with the tone he had or the tweaking of events to show Paul as an anti-hero.
So I started reading Dune Messiah immediately to set the record straight.
The version on my kindle includes an explanation from Herbert's son, explaining that Herbert wrote Book 2 to set the record straight, as people got the wrong idea from Dune. They were too pro-Paul.
They'd missed the message. So my reading of the films now is that Villeneuve is "correcting" that mistake of the author. Ensuring the three movies speaks to his "true" intention.
It's an interesting experience having a narrative you thought you understood your whole life change so much in under three hours.
Wow, Zane. You've really summed up my feelings better than my article did! The narrative I thought I understood was changed so radically in a few hours with Villeneuve's film. And as others pointed out to me, clearly Dune: Messiah was meant as Herbert making abundantly clear that Paul is meant as a bad guy and we're not supposed to sympathize with him! It's a relief to know others, like you, had the same experience. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.
Haha, high praise! I'm starting to think the reason I haven't been able to get into Dune: Messiah is that it reframes the story I love so much... Thanks for writing your piece, it helped me clarify my own thoughts and feelings, since watching the film on Tuesday.
I haven’t read all of the Dune books (only the first), but I know enough about them to agree with this article… I don’t like Dune, either.
I can appreciate the books for the worldbuilding, the intricate political system, the craft shown. I can appreciate the movies for the same way—they’re beautiful, starkly artistic, well-acted, well-scored.
This is a really detailed and interesting take, Eric. I only read Dune in the last 6 months and did not like it. I think my problem was I had no affinity with any of the characters, particularly Paul who I actively disliked. Which is some going as I thought he was meant to be the hero 😁. I appreciate now that he’s not but it made for a tough read
I think the films are fine but I did enjoy them, certainly more than the book. I think from a film making point of view, you need the conflict Chani brings to show the dangerous zealotry the Fremen are following but the issues you raise with her have been reflected in other readers of the book
As I’ve said, I may not be a huge fan but it’s great to see a hugely complex, blockbuster science fiction movie filling out cinemas. Certainly need more of that!
I really enjoyed this! I came into Dune in a very similar way that you did. Watched Dune I, picked up the books after in preparation for Dune II, and Whoah — it wasn’t going where I thought it was. It is a dark story, darker than I too thought. But, a powerful cautionary tale that’s very relevant for us today.
Thanks for the read and the comment. Clearly its taken me too long to figure out the cautionary tale that it's meant to be! But I'm glad I'm not the only one that was caught a bit off guard.
When I first read Dune, I also read it as a happy ending. The succeeding books made it abundantly clear I was wrong about that. Villeneuve has the benefit of knowing how it all plays out, so he's just excising the feelgood stuff and foreshadowing what's to come with the ending of Dune: Part Two. I loved the movie, but I didn't particularly like the changes they made to Chani either. If you're so inclined, you can read my thoughts on the movie here:
I really enjoyed this article. Some people have the ability to see artistic nuance and plot chemistry on a first viewing--I am not one. I have loved every movie I've seen in theaters and hated many of them three days later when I could finally think about them.
I've heard someone describe that the three (maybe four) conflicts possible in fiction are Man vs. Man, Man vs. Self, Man vs. God, and/or Man vs. Nature (if you distinguish nature from God). The conflict of Dune--both movie and book--feels to me a Man vs. God story.
The Bene Gesserit are NOT omnipotent, and while the first movie was spent building up the facade that they were, this movie was spent subverting that facade. Jessica spends the whole movie being a jealous and political schemer--Dr. Yueh's warning from the first movie comes to mind: "They also serve their own designs." That's the crack in the armor, and it was on full display in movie 2.
The reason I said the conversation at the end of the movie was significant is this. First, reminder of the conversation:
Jessica: "You chose the wrong side! You should have seen the signs."
RM Mohaim: "You of all people should know, Jessica, there are no signs."
I was chewing on this comment for a long time, but I think it inserts fate/God/destiny, whatever you want to call it, into the movie as an active character. That the Bene Gesserit can influence, but *cannot ride* the giant-sand-worm-that-is-Fate.
Paul is struggling against his belief that his mother set him up for this, and was avoiding going south for that reason, and then fate intervenes and he has to go anyway.
The conflict that Paul is experiencing is the heavy, heavy weight that comes with power--both political and supernatural, and how hard it is to make decisions from the top. It's an admonition that we shouldn't want to be kings because their decisions are life or death on massive scales.
That's a 30,000 foot view. I found your close-reading of the movies to be accurate, and unfortunately some of the things you've observed will probably annoy me. Yes, Paul does seem to just lean in to becoming the bad guy, it does look like the Bene Gesserit win. I think also he "takes control" of his fate when he drinks the water of life. That's when he "becomes" the Kwisatz Haderach, but its also when he decides he will not fight against fate but work with it. He begins to play a part, in order to use his powers for the "best possible", if not the truly good. And it's complicated, there's political nuance. I genuinely don't understand why he can't explain all this to Chani. She would react the same but at least it wouldn't look like a betrayal.
So anyway, I view the big picture arc of the story differently, but your observation of the details is spot on. I can't wait to watch this movie again.
Final thought: Dune Messiah, as I understand it, follows the decline and fall of Paul and his fall from grace. In the book, it sounds like it's about how Paul could claim the power of a God (victory in Man vs. God conflict) and he refuses. So ultimately it's the victory of man, but not over God, over himself: we can always choose our fate, and we can rise to meet life as it comes at us, but we can always walk away at any time.
I can see how this intersects the themes established in the movie, though I am sure it will be told differently. This is definitely not a story with a happy ending for these characters, though I think it's a happy ending for Paul in his own way, and he sets humanity on a path for a civilizational happy ending that he will never get to see.
Thanks for your thoughts, Scoot. I think the framework of Man v. God (or Man v. Fate) is a useful one for viewing Dune. You make an excellent point about the Bene Gesserit and their actual inability to control fate. RM Mohaim knows that fate/God is uncontrollable, but the entire breeding program is meant to conquer and control the uncontrollable. Effectively: "if we can make God, we can conquer God." I like what you said: "they can influence, but cannot ride the sandworm of Fate."
Jessica's free-will choice to have a son instead of a daughter smashes the original BG plan, but then she herself tries to do the same thing by crafting Paul into the Master of Fate, whom she can control.
The main difference I saw between book and movies is that Book-Paul becomes the Master of Fate but remains uncontrolled, whereas Movie-Paul becomes the Master of Fate and just leans into what his mother wanted all along.
In the end, from your comments and others', clearly Herbert isn't trying to elevate Paul as a free, transcendent hero. He's trying to show his descent into the tool of a terrible fate that happens through his folly in believing he can master it. It is, as you said, ultimately an admonition that power corrupts. Period.
I LOVE your analysis. I think you’ve brought out really great points. I can’t remember exactly where I abandoned reading the books, but I want to say like half-way through the third book… and it’s been decades since I read that. So, I’m approaching both your review and the movie by way of the prism of time.
I loved Dune (the first book) when I was a teen. The worldbuilding, the coherent culture, the rituals, and how everything and everyone (Spacing Guild, Trade Federation, Great Houses… all of it) are entirely reliant on spice. It was just masterful and unlike anything that I had ever before encountered. Even now, Herbert has few peers in those areas.
The issues I’ve had with the movie is that so much of that nuance is lost. Villaneuve does a fantastic job of capturing a lot of the subtlety (better than anyone before) but the books just do it better. I don’t hold that against him because movies can only do so much.
I think that bit about ‘movies can only do so much’ also explains several of the changes that are causing problems for you. I don’t know how many Dune movies there will be, but I’m sure there will be fewer than there are books in the series. Yes, he could have kept some of the issues the same and I believe you do make great arguments for why he should have, but at the same time he has to be thinking about how many more chances will he have to resolve this story in a satisfying way. For that reason, he’s had to make compromises. All in all though, I think you’re dead right.
As far as the tone of the story, you’re also right. I haven’t read the latter books, but based off of what I do know about them it does continue to spiral into darkness. I think there may be some hope for a green Arakis as well, but I can’t say with any certainty. I have a funny meme to share with you, but I can’t post images in this comment; so, I’ll tag you and share it on Notes instead.
Instead of reading this grim dark story about sandworms, why not try some hopeful and elevating, feel good fiction instead? Have you read George R. R. Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire?
That’s a joke.
Thanks for the comment, John. I agree that the worldbuilding is incredible in Dune, since all the levers of power and ecology put incredible levels of stress onto the characters; and it all goes back ultimately to Dune itself, to Arrakis, and to the spice! "The spice must flow."
Similar to your note that the movies flattens nuance: I also enjoyed the Dune 1 movie less after I read the books. I obviously couldn't know how much was missing until I'd read the book and gone back to it. I still think the movies stand on their own though. But a lot of it comes down to that "movies can only do so much," especially once Villeneuve removes (rightly in my mind) the internal monologues of the characters. That narrative distance forces certain choices, and I think that drove a lot of the changes we see on screen.
The tipping point for me was once I realized that the jihad at the end of D: Part 2 wasn't an invention but was just moved forward in Herbert's multi-book timeline. Definitely confirms that descent into darkness.
To quote: "Paul is bad".
Really enjoyed your analysis! And I agree with you and John Ward that a lot of nuances are lost, perhaps a function of the medium and the times.
Have you read the beginning of Dune Messiah? I've read Dune around 7 times. It's my favorite book, because I've seen how I've changed over the 29 years I've been re-reading it. Who will I identify with on this pass? What details will I see now? Has my life experience changed the meaning?
But I could never get into Dune Messiah after multiple attempts.
After watching Dune: Part 2, I started it that night.
Because after watching the film, which I loved, I was numb with a feeling of disconnection with the work. I didn't understand why Villeneuve had ended with the tone he had or the tweaking of events to show Paul as an anti-hero.
So I started reading Dune Messiah immediately to set the record straight.
The version on my kindle includes an explanation from Herbert's son, explaining that Herbert wrote Book 2 to set the record straight, as people got the wrong idea from Dune. They were too pro-Paul.
They'd missed the message. So my reading of the films now is that Villeneuve is "correcting" that mistake of the author. Ensuring the three movies speaks to his "true" intention.
It's an interesting experience having a narrative you thought you understood your whole life change so much in under three hours.
Wow, Zane. You've really summed up my feelings better than my article did! The narrative I thought I understood was changed so radically in a few hours with Villeneuve's film. And as others pointed out to me, clearly Dune: Messiah was meant as Herbert making abundantly clear that Paul is meant as a bad guy and we're not supposed to sympathize with him! It's a relief to know others, like you, had the same experience. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.
Haha, high praise! I'm starting to think the reason I haven't been able to get into Dune: Messiah is that it reframes the story I love so much... Thanks for writing your piece, it helped me clarify my own thoughts and feelings, since watching the film on Tuesday.
I haven’t read all of the Dune books (only the first), but I know enough about them to agree with this article… I don’t like Dune, either.
I can appreciate the books for the worldbuilding, the intricate political system, the craft shown. I can appreciate the movies for the same way—they’re beautiful, starkly artistic, well-acted, well-scored.
But I do not like them.
This is a really detailed and interesting take, Eric. I only read Dune in the last 6 months and did not like it. I think my problem was I had no affinity with any of the characters, particularly Paul who I actively disliked. Which is some going as I thought he was meant to be the hero 😁. I appreciate now that he’s not but it made for a tough read
I think the films are fine but I did enjoy them, certainly more than the book. I think from a film making point of view, you need the conflict Chani brings to show the dangerous zealotry the Fremen are following but the issues you raise with her have been reflected in other readers of the book
As I’ve said, I may not be a huge fan but it’s great to see a hugely complex, blockbuster science fiction movie filling out cinemas. Certainly need more of that!
I really enjoyed this! I came into Dune in a very similar way that you did. Watched Dune I, picked up the books after in preparation for Dune II, and Whoah — it wasn’t going where I thought it was. It is a dark story, darker than I too thought. But, a powerful cautionary tale that’s very relevant for us today.
Thanks for the read and the comment. Clearly its taken me too long to figure out the cautionary tale that it's meant to be! But I'm glad I'm not the only one that was caught a bit off guard.
When I first read Dune, I also read it as a happy ending. The succeeding books made it abundantly clear I was wrong about that. Villeneuve has the benefit of knowing how it all plays out, so he's just excising the feelgood stuff and foreshadowing what's to come with the ending of Dune: Part Two. I loved the movie, but I didn't particularly like the changes they made to Chani either. If you're so inclined, you can read my thoughts on the movie here:
https://joshtatter.substack.com/p/the-thoughts-must-flow
Sounds like you and I had similar experiences haha. I'll definitely check out your piece. Thanks for sharing, Josh!
I really enjoyed this article. Some people have the ability to see artistic nuance and plot chemistry on a first viewing--I am not one. I have loved every movie I've seen in theaters and hated many of them three days later when I could finally think about them.
I've heard someone describe that the three (maybe four) conflicts possible in fiction are Man vs. Man, Man vs. Self, Man vs. God, and/or Man vs. Nature (if you distinguish nature from God). The conflict of Dune--both movie and book--feels to me a Man vs. God story.
The Bene Gesserit are NOT omnipotent, and while the first movie was spent building up the facade that they were, this movie was spent subverting that facade. Jessica spends the whole movie being a jealous and political schemer--Dr. Yueh's warning from the first movie comes to mind: "They also serve their own designs." That's the crack in the armor, and it was on full display in movie 2.
The reason I said the conversation at the end of the movie was significant is this. First, reminder of the conversation:
Jessica: "You chose the wrong side! You should have seen the signs."
RM Mohaim: "You of all people should know, Jessica, there are no signs."
I was chewing on this comment for a long time, but I think it inserts fate/God/destiny, whatever you want to call it, into the movie as an active character. That the Bene Gesserit can influence, but *cannot ride* the giant-sand-worm-that-is-Fate.
Paul is struggling against his belief that his mother set him up for this, and was avoiding going south for that reason, and then fate intervenes and he has to go anyway.
The conflict that Paul is experiencing is the heavy, heavy weight that comes with power--both political and supernatural, and how hard it is to make decisions from the top. It's an admonition that we shouldn't want to be kings because their decisions are life or death on massive scales.
That's a 30,000 foot view. I found your close-reading of the movies to be accurate, and unfortunately some of the things you've observed will probably annoy me. Yes, Paul does seem to just lean in to becoming the bad guy, it does look like the Bene Gesserit win. I think also he "takes control" of his fate when he drinks the water of life. That's when he "becomes" the Kwisatz Haderach, but its also when he decides he will not fight against fate but work with it. He begins to play a part, in order to use his powers for the "best possible", if not the truly good. And it's complicated, there's political nuance. I genuinely don't understand why he can't explain all this to Chani. She would react the same but at least it wouldn't look like a betrayal.
So anyway, I view the big picture arc of the story differently, but your observation of the details is spot on. I can't wait to watch this movie again.
Final thought: Dune Messiah, as I understand it, follows the decline and fall of Paul and his fall from grace. In the book, it sounds like it's about how Paul could claim the power of a God (victory in Man vs. God conflict) and he refuses. So ultimately it's the victory of man, but not over God, over himself: we can always choose our fate, and we can rise to meet life as it comes at us, but we can always walk away at any time.
I can see how this intersects the themes established in the movie, though I am sure it will be told differently. This is definitely not a story with a happy ending for these characters, though I think it's a happy ending for Paul in his own way, and he sets humanity on a path for a civilizational happy ending that he will never get to see.
Thanks for your thoughts, Scoot. I think the framework of Man v. God (or Man v. Fate) is a useful one for viewing Dune. You make an excellent point about the Bene Gesserit and their actual inability to control fate. RM Mohaim knows that fate/God is uncontrollable, but the entire breeding program is meant to conquer and control the uncontrollable. Effectively: "if we can make God, we can conquer God." I like what you said: "they can influence, but cannot ride the sandworm of Fate."
Jessica's free-will choice to have a son instead of a daughter smashes the original BG plan, but then she herself tries to do the same thing by crafting Paul into the Master of Fate, whom she can control.
The main difference I saw between book and movies is that Book-Paul becomes the Master of Fate but remains uncontrolled, whereas Movie-Paul becomes the Master of Fate and just leans into what his mother wanted all along.
In the end, from your comments and others', clearly Herbert isn't trying to elevate Paul as a free, transcendent hero. He's trying to show his descent into the tool of a terrible fate that happens through his folly in believing he can master it. It is, as you said, ultimately an admonition that power corrupts. Period.
Thanks again!