-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dune 2
- Thread starter libre
- Start date
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Going Sunday. Looking forward to it.
BUT, this version of Dune is shallow on the storyline; also trying to contemporize the dialogue is a fail IMO. Not much dialogue at all from the books.
BUT, this version of Dune is shallow on the storyline; also trying to contemporize the dialogue is a fail IMO. Not much dialogue at all from the books.
libre
Skylark
True. The 'desert power' lines in the first made me cringe a little.
I really liked the score, excited to see if it holds up.
I'm looking forwards to it, but I'm trying not to compare it to anything else as much as possible (particularly the books). It pales a little if I do.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sequels have always been a hit or miss affair. I guess the only way to find out is to see the movie.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I'm looking forward to seeing it, mainly because I plan to go with my partner, buy a large bucket of popcorn, and then when she reaches into the bucket for some popcorn I will hold her by the wrist, look into her eyes and say
"Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death."
I hope she gets it. Otherwise, I might look a bit weird.
"Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death."
I hope she gets it. Otherwise, I might look a bit weird.
Lynch's version was & wonderful.
But it's definitely not for everyone.
After all....It's David Lynch.
It's too bad that only the shortened version was released.
idea
Question Everything
Just saw it.
Warning - read no farther if you haven't seen it yet.
Warning - read no farther if you haven't seen it yet.
The first half was great.
From when he drinks the water, it was all downhill for me. He was like Jekyll and Hyde. After drinking the water Paul turns into just another warlord dictator power hungry ego- maniac.
The first half was good, good message of Fremen ruling themselves, Paul refusing to go along with delusional religious fanatics, equal roles of men and women.
Paul drinks the kool-aid, and the story changes to foreigners taking control of natives, and religious fanatics being used to promote oppressive regimes. Sad message.
From when he drinks the water, it was all downhill for me. He was like Jekyll and Hyde. After drinking the water Paul turns into just another warlord dictator power hungry ego- maniac.
The first half was good, good message of Fremen ruling themselves, Paul refusing to go along with delusional religious fanatics, equal roles of men and women.
Paul drinks the kool-aid, and the story changes to foreigners taking control of natives, and religious fanatics being used to promote oppressive regimes. Sad message.
Last edited:
I haven't seen the movie yet, but yeah. A central tenant of the book was a cautionary tale about heroes and messiahs, and how putting your faith in them makes you vulnerable to being used in the demise of your own and other's freedoms. It's meant to be the antithesis to the Heroes Journey. Also antithesis to stories like Dances with Wolves (and their derivatives like Avatar) as the colonist hero, instead of helping anyone, used the Indigenous people and their beliefs as fodder to enact his own desires for vengeance and power, all but killing their culture in the process and dooming the universe to years of bloody jihad (the actual term used).
It's not meant to be a rousing story of the success of free inquiry and multiculturalism. It's literally about how Paul was wrong, and made things worse.
idea
Question Everything
I haven't read it, glad to know it preaches against such things in the end.
The people I saw it with have... different political views, and were upset that I didn't like Paul, that the storyline turned my stomach and was revolting to me. They loved Paul, I loved Chani. (They thought Chani ruined the movie, didn't like her at all)
Now I am disturbed by the people I saw the movie with.
libre
Skylark
I completely understand where you are coming from, but I think you may be pleasantly surprised by how they respond to the rest of the story if they continue.
When Herbert wrote Dune, white saviourism was a dominant trope in stories about colonialism and he was writing for an audience who were pretexted to find some sense of relief in there being a white saviour.
However he does not engage in the white saviour trope uncritically. Herbert's very intention is to make you come to see Paul as a noble protagonist, only to later reveal that this is in fact a 'white devil' story, rather than a white saviour story. This is gradual and different people will come to be appalled by Paul at different points. In my view the movie does sort of force some foreshadowing of this tonal shift earlier than in the books, which you have picked up on.
When Herbert wrote Dune, white saviourism was a dominant trope in stories about colonialism and he was writing for an audience who were pretexted to find some sense of relief in there being a white saviour.
However he does not engage in the white saviour trope uncritically. Herbert's very intention is to make you come to see Paul as a noble protagonist, only to later reveal that this is in fact a 'white devil' story, rather than a white saviour story. This is gradual and different people will come to be appalled by Paul at different points. In my view the movie does sort of force some foreshadowing of this tonal shift earlier than in the books, which you have picked up on.
Last edited:
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Fascinating (the comments, not the movie). I bought the book when it first came out, loved it and read and reread it countless times. I didn't like the 1984 movie, too much messing with the basics (it started to rain, give me a break!). The TV series was a lot better. The 2021 movie I quite liked, as it stuck to the book reasonably well. Of course as I almost know the book by heart, I'm going to keep going "Hey, that's not right", but I have to remember that a movie that followed the book line by line would be impossibly long. I have yet to see part 2, I look forward to it.
What I enjoyed about the book, apart from the story line, was the way different circumstances dictated different adaptations. The invention of personal shields brought back sword fighting. The proscription of computers led to the development of advanced mental powers. The amazing adaptation of the Fremen to a practically waterless environment. And so on and on.
I must say I never heard any of this criticism based on colonialism and so on. I suppose to me the whole thing was set so far into the future that I simply suspended disbelief and accepted it all at face value. Thinking about it now though, wasn't it two stories, one the struggle between two medieval style families and the other the struggle of an oppressed group against domination? The Fremen weren't "saved" by Paul, it seems to me more like a co-operative effort. Years of survival in an almost impossible environment had produced a fighting force in the Fremen that would have won in the end, though their plan was slower. Paul provided leadership and direction at a critical time, but could have done nothing without them. And yes, the Fremen's drive for revenge turned them into an oppressive force in their turn.
Incidentally, the following books were a disappointment to me, and seemed to get worse as each appeared.
What I enjoyed about the book, apart from the story line, was the way different circumstances dictated different adaptations. The invention of personal shields brought back sword fighting. The proscription of computers led to the development of advanced mental powers. The amazing adaptation of the Fremen to a practically waterless environment. And so on and on.
I must say I never heard any of this criticism based on colonialism and so on. I suppose to me the whole thing was set so far into the future that I simply suspended disbelief and accepted it all at face value. Thinking about it now though, wasn't it two stories, one the struggle between two medieval style families and the other the struggle of an oppressed group against domination? The Fremen weren't "saved" by Paul, it seems to me more like a co-operative effort. Years of survival in an almost impossible environment had produced a fighting force in the Fremen that would have won in the end, though their plan was slower. Paul provided leadership and direction at a critical time, but could have done nothing without them. And yes, the Fremen's drive for revenge turned them into an oppressive force in their turn.
Incidentally, the following books were a disappointment to me, and seemed to get worse as each appeared.
libre
Skylark
I see it as more Paul and his mother using the Fremen for their own personal benefit to save their own skin and then later for revenge and power.
idea
Question Everything
Good to hear, I'll await for Dune 3 to come out and want to read the book now.
Thanks for showing me how to add spoiler
idea
Question Everything
Yes.
Have to also remember why Paul and his mother came to the planet in the first place. Is one invader better than another?
In the books there's quite a few factions, even including the Space Guild whom monopolized space travel.
But the most important factions are the Fremen under Paul, the Bene Gesserit, Emperor Shaddam and the emperium at large, and the Harkonnen noble family and their army.
Paul would never have been accepted by the Fremen had the Bene Gesserit not seeded the idea of the Kwisatz Haderach into their cultural mythos. A coming (white) messiah from a century of eugenics (breeding program and genetic experiments leading to the 'perfect' culmination of genetic memory.)
Despite knowing the artifice of those prophecies, Paul used them to take leadership for vengeance and power. He promised the Fremen self-determination, but really just became a religious tyrant, and displaced their cultural mythos with the narrative fed to them by the Bene Gesserit.
When he drank the waters of life, he basically started buying into his own hype. Allowing himself to believe he *was* their savior and *did* have a noble agenda. And that's why he overthrew the empire, seized control of all
Alien826
No religious beliefs
If you don't think so, then you haven't understood the difference between the Harkonnens and the Atreides. The setup was essentially feudal, yes, but I know which I would prefer to be ruled by. Incidentally, I'm not sure that "invader" is an accurate term. Arrakis was almost uninhabitable and didn't have a "native" population as such. The inhabitants were brought there as labor. (Though I'm not sure it says how the Fremen got there. They weren't native to the planet, certainly).
The Harkonnens had ruled Arrakis for a long time and got rich off the spice, which was about the only reason anyone would bother with the place. Their "ownership" of the planet was more a lease from the Emporer. That was taken away and it was transferred to the Atreides, but it all turned out to be a trap. I'm not sure I see it as colonialism, more the shifting of power within an existing empire.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
How then do you explain his forseeing the coming attack on the "galaxy" by the Fremen, and his constant attempts to avoid it? He failed, certainly, but I don't see him as ever embracing the idea of being an all powerful ruler. As presented, the underlying power was the need of the (human) race to mingle genetic lines again and that was something that was going to happen regardless.
The Fremen are not analogous to American Indigenous but they are strongly analogous to middle-eastern indigenous. Fremen descend from the Zensunni Wanderers who came fleeing, were forced relocated, or who settled of their own free will by the guild (there are numerous contradictory stories that suggest the history is from unreliable narrators, go figure.)
They're basically stand-ins for Bedouin. And the story of the Fremen is getting caught up in a literal struggle between feudal colonists over
Even Paul states that the Jihad was avoidable if he died or removed himself by joining the guild, but those were sacrifices he wasn't willing to make. And, at least in subsequent books, he was told frankly that he did *not* see every possibility, by his son. He was just convinced he did. And in fact created the future he wanted to avoid because he thought it was in his nature to take charge (buying into his own artificial mythos.)
Paul was the crystallization to the fanatic totalitarianism set up for him to take the reins for.