And the book is literally divided in 2 parts by the author, and is quite long at 600+ pages in mass market paperback.TCTTS said:A is A said:The problem I have with this is, other than Dune, that is a list of sequels following a full, complete movie. Dune Part 2 is just the second half of the first movie. I do not think it is a fair comparison.TCTTS said:I don't find it to be hyperbole to immediately place #DunePartTwo in the pantheon of greatest sequels. From Terminator 2 to The Dark Knight to even The Godfather: Part 2, #Dune2 is every bit as good as any sequel I've ever personally seen. The common thread that binds all these… pic.twitter.com/EBo02mgEYo
— Cinema Tweets (@CinemaTweets1) February 16, 2024
Am I the only one that does not consider this a sequel?
Part One is the first half of a BOOK.
But it's a complete movie.
Paul, the Baron/Harkonnens - they all have full arcs, and the plot definitely has three acts/reaches *a* conclusion.
The bad guys win.
Game over.
House Atreides is no more.
And yet… unbeknownst to the Baron, Paul is still alive, having finally found his purpose. From "a little boy" to a would-be leader.
No different than Batman Begins reaching a conclusion, but Bruce Wayne's/Batman's story not yet being over (and, in fact, just beginning).
*** DUNE: PART TWO ***
154,311 Views |
1415 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by oragator
In honor of opening Aggie baseball, a bit of a subtle spoiler for Dune 2! Don't worry, sietch warrens, it won't spoil the movie!
Ags win!
Ags win!
no you NOT the only won KNOWS this is just an obscene Hollywood grab for more money. These long, drawn out, dare I say DULL, misportrayals of ***classic*** literature are only slurped up by the very sycophants who see no reason to question ThE AbSoLuTe GeNiUs of DV.A is A said:The problem I have with this is, other than Dune, that is a list of sequels following a full, complete movie. Dune Part 2 is just the second half of the first movie. I do not think it is a fair comparison.TCTTS said:I don't find it to be hyperbole to immediately place #DunePartTwo in the pantheon of greatest sequels. From Terminator 2 to The Dark Knight to even The Godfather: Part 2, #Dune2 is every bit as good as any sequel I've ever personally seen. The common thread that binds all these… pic.twitter.com/EBo02mgEYo
— Cinema Tweets (@CinemaTweets1) February 16, 2024
Am I the only one that does not consider this a sequel?
People will be talking about this movie for ones of years.
Gonna disagree, first Dune movie definitely felt like it was cut off in the middle of Paul's story. Like if A New Hope ended right when's about to join the rebellion.
My wife after I drug to the very first LOTR -- "that's it? that's the end? 3 hours for that???"Brian Earl Spilner said:
Gonna disagree, first Dune movie definitely felt like it was cut off in the middle of Paul's story. Like if A New Hope ended right when's about to join the rebellion.
Needless to say I watched the other 2 without her. But my kids really enjoyed them as marathon during early days of the shutdown.
RED AG 98 said:My wife after I drug to the very first LOTR -- "that's it? that's the end? 3 hours for that???"Brian Earl Spilner said:
Gonna disagree, first Dune movie definitely felt like it was cut off in the middle of Paul's story. Like if A New Hope ended right when's about to join the rebellion.
Needless to say I watched the other 2 without her. But my kids really enjoyed them as marathon during early days of the shutdown.
Agreed. I can't believe this argument going on right now, such a typical semantics TexAgs argument.
It's a dang sequel. Plenty of sequel movies take place immediately after a movie before it that wasn't fully resolved.
Al Bula said:no you NOT the only won KNOWS this is just an obscene Hollywood grab for more money. These long, drawn out, dare I say DULL, misportrayals of ***classic*** literature are only slurped up by the very sycophants who see no reason to question ThE AbSoLuTe GeNiUs of DV.A is A said:The problem I have with this is, other than Dune, that is a list of sequels following a full, complete movie. Dune Part 2 is just the second half of the first movie. I do not think it is a fair comparison.TCTTS said:I don't find it to be hyperbole to immediately place #DunePartTwo in the pantheon of greatest sequels. From Terminator 2 to The Dark Knight to even The Godfather: Part 2, #Dune2 is every bit as good as any sequel I've ever personally seen. The common thread that binds all these… pic.twitter.com/EBo02mgEYo
— Cinema Tweets (@CinemaTweets1) February 16, 2024
Am I the only one that does not consider this a sequel?
People will be talking about this movie for ones of years.
The filmmakers have said multiple times that they simply couldn't fit the entire story into one movie, thus the reason for splitting it in two. Considering the sheer length of the book, anyone with an ounce of common sense would agree with that decision, and sees it for exactly what it was - a creative choice, not a "Hollywood grab for money." Especially since there was no guarantee Part Two was even going to be made, and depended solely on the performance of Part One, which was released during the tail end of a global pandemic, at that. In other words, again, the exact opposite of a money grab, and was instead actually a massive gamble.
That said, it's clear I'm wasting my time addressing someone who is nothing more than a provocateur, if not a slightly unhinged one, based, among other factors, on the way you seem to be yelling at/arguing with yourself.
Those of us who read the books actually appreciate the thing he is railing against. The character development and storytelling is a massive part of fantasy in general and Dune specifically. Really really strange take.
ETA: We even wanted more scenes from part 1 to be included!
ETA: We even wanted more scenes from part 1 to be included!
RED AG 98 said:
Those of us who read the books actually appreciate the thing he is railing against. The character development and storytelling is a massive part of fantasy in general and Dune specifically. Really really strange take.
ETA: We even wanted more scenes from part 1 to be included!
Book reader here. Perfectly content and pleased with the first movie. Sure, I wish the dinner scene was in there, but I also wouldn't want it to be in and not be fleshed out. The gripes y'all have are not new at all to any book to movie story adaptations. Harry Potter, LOTR, etc. Movies are a completely different medium and you just can't fit in all of the detail of a lengthy book.
Villeneuve did a masterful job of getting part 1 out there.
Edit to add: Sure it would have been cool to know more about the cyborg characters (I'm rusty on the literature so I can't remember their names) too, but not explaining what they were explicitly to the audience also made the movie more authentic and less cheesy for the serious story it was trying to tell.
Strange take indeed. Then again, his posts read like he just snorted multiple lines of spice, so I guess it's on brand.
I get all of that. I just think the depth provided in the book is really hard to capture in a 2 hour film, even considering just part 1 or wherever DV chose to end it. I didn't necessarily want more scenes, but the nuance of the character development and the why behind just was so much clearer in the book. I loved the movie -- it was beautiful and really well done. Had I not read the books it would stand alone. Having read the books I knew more background about stuff that I know my family of non-bookreaders didn't know about. That's all I meant, if that makes sense.
To clarify my post, I had no issue with the unresolved story at the end of Part 1, knowing 2 was coming.
I read the book not long before the first one came out and thought, as far as adaptations go, the first movie was brilliant for the choices made to split it in two. Plus, I'd rather have six hours of Villeneuve's Dune than three.
I do not consider it a sequel. I also don't care because it was an obvious, practical decision considering the medium change.
Are you referring to the Sardauker?Quote:
Sure it would have been cool to know more about the cyborg characters (I'm rusty on the literature so I can't remember their names) too, but not explaining what they were explicitly to the audience also made the movie more authentic and less cheesy for the serious story it was trying to tell.
I'm going to re-watch Part 1 before seeing Part 2, but had no issue with how DV split it. I get calling Part 2 a sequel, but I don't really consider it a sequel per se. It's the second half of the first movie. Semantics.
What I recall from my theatrical viewing of the first was a group of guys seated behind me apparently did not pay close attention to the actual title. So when Paul and Chani are following the Fremen into the desert, and the movie ends, those guys had a definite "WTF" reaction. I just laughed at them.
This isn't rhetorical I'm genuinely curious what a sequel is? I've always thought of any follow-up or continuation of the same story as a sequel personally. And whether it was known or unknown at the time of the previous work is irrelevant.
RED AG 98 said:
This isn't rhetorical I'm genuinely curious what a sequel is? I've always thought of any follow-up or continuation of the same story as a sequel personally. And whether it was known or unknown at the time of the previous work is irrelevant.
Don't know that I've ever thought about too much. In this case, the source material was from one book and not two books so that is my simple man's definition here. Also, according to Herbert Dune is book 1 of a trilogy with Messiah and Children of Dune being books 2 and 3. Those two books take quite the divergent path from book 1 and was semi-controversial to the fan base at the time for reasons I will not spoil here.
I also just read the first four books last year so I'm probably only commenting on it because it's still fairly fresh in my mind.
That makes sense. I haven't either hence my question.
Dune 1 was already what a 2:35 runtime, and that's with DV ending it about 1/2 way through the first book near the part 1 part 2 split. I think it would be extremely difficult to do the story justice by trying to fit it all in one movie so more than one movie always made sense to me. I love that DV put this on the big screen but it would also be awesome as a series where you can afford a lot of time for character development.
Dune 1 was already what a 2:35 runtime, and that's with DV ending it about 1/2 way through the first book near the part 1 part 2 split. I think it would be extremely difficult to do the story justice by trying to fit it all in one movie so more than one movie always made sense to me. I love that DV put this on the big screen but it would also be awesome as a series where you can afford a lot of time for character development.
Agree on reasoning for splitting it. Thats just practical transferring from book medium to film. I readily admit this is all just semantics.RED AG 98 said:
That makes sense. I haven't either hence my question.
Dune 1 was already what a 2:35 runtime, and that's with DV ending it about 1/2 way through the first book near the part 1 part 2 split. I think it would be extremely difficult to do the story justice by trying to fit it all in one movie so more than one movie always made sense to me. I love that DV put this on the big screen but it would also be awesome as a series where you can afford a lot of time for character development.
Fair question.RED AG 98 said:
This isn't rhetorical I'm genuinely curious what a sequel is? I've always thought of any follow-up or continuation of the same story as a sequel personally. And whether it was known or unknown at the time of the previous work is irrelevant.
Are any of the 007 movies that came after Dr. No sequels? Technically, I suppose they are, but each tells a stand-alone story with very little connection, other than primary characters, to Dr. No.
Are any of the Indiana Jones that followed Raiders of the Lost Ark sequels? (Yes, I know The Temple of Doom is actually a prequel).
I look at it as - does a film tell a story that can stand on its own? If so, I consider it to be a sequel. So something like Aliens, The Dark Knight, Terminator 2, Die Hard with a Vengeance, etc, are sequels. But The Lord of the Rings, another poster mentioned his wife's upset reaction to sitting through 3 hours of the first movie and bailing on the subsequent movies. To me, LOTR is one story with 3 films (and books) to tell it. There is no clear resolution in The Fellowship of the Ring; nor in The Two Towers. The resolution comes in The Return of the King.
I see Dune Part 1 and Dune Part 2 in the same light as The Lord of the Rings.
This is one of those peak EB arguments I look forward to
I was thinking of LOTR as well. Agree with this.Cinco Ranch Aggie said:Fair question.RED AG 98 said:
This isn't rhetorical I'm genuinely curious what a sequel is? I've always thought of any follow-up or continuation of the same story as a sequel personally. And whether it was known or unknown at the time of the previous work is irrelevant.
Are any of the 007 movies that came after Dr. No sequels? Technically, I suppose they are, but each tells a stand-alone story with very little connection, other than primary characters, to Dr. No.
Are any of the Indiana Jones that followed Raiders of the Lost Ark sequels? (Yes, I know The Temple of Doom is actually a prequel).
I look at it as - does a film tell a story that can stand on its own? If so, I consider it to be a sequel. So something like Aliens, The Dark Knight, Terminator 2, Die Hard with a Vengeance, etc, are sequels. But The Lord of the Rings, another poster mentioned his wife's upset reaction to sitting through 3 hours of the first movie and bailing on the subsequent movies. To me, LOTR is one story with 3 films (and books) to tell it. There is no clear resolution in The Fellowship of the Ring; nor in The Two Towers. The resolution comes in The Return of the King.
I see Dune Part 1 and Dune Part 2 in the same light as The Lord of the Rings.
Exactly. To me, it's all about whether the main character's arc/mission is actually completed or not.
LOTR, Kill Bill, Dune, those were clearly stories that were split into multiple movies, but it's one story.
Whether or not you want to call them sequels is another argument, but there's a clear difference between these movies are your standard sequel.
LOTR, Kill Bill, Dune, those were clearly stories that were split into multiple movies, but it's one story.
Whether or not you want to call them sequels is another argument, but there's a clear difference between these movies are your standard sequel.
But then there's the case of multiple sequels filmed concurrently, such as Matrix 2-3, BTTF 2-3, and Pirates 2-3.
Those are more of a gray area, specifically for the third movies.
Those are more of a gray area, specifically for the third movies.
So is end game a sequel or a continuation of infinity war?
I tend to consider those parts 1 and 2 of one long movie, but admit that goes against my sequel "definition" I posted earlier. Those movies can stand on their own.Definitely Not A Cop said:
So is end game a sequel or a continuation of infinity war?
Definitely Not A Cop said:
So is end game a sequel or a continuation of infinity war?
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Exactly. To me, it's all about whether the main character's arc/mission is actually completed or not.
LOTR, Kill Bill, Dune, those were clearly stories that were split into multiple movies, but it's one story.
Whether or not you want to call them sequels is another argument, but there's a clear difference between these movies are your standard sequel.
"Complete" is the wrong way to look at it, because there's no unified definition of "complete."
Paul's arc isn't "complete" by the end of Part One, but again, he does have a FULL arc in Part One. 100%.
No different than Bruce Wayne's arc not being being "complete" by the end of Batman Begins, but he does have a full arc in Batman Begins.
No different than Neo's arc not being "complete" by the end of The Matrix, but he does have a full arc in The Matrix.
Also, by all accounts, Part Two takes place roughly a few weeks/months after Part One. However long it is, there's some kind of gap, and it doesn't pick up immediately where the last one left off. If only because Gurney's hair is so much longer, but I'm sure book readers can attest as well, unless the time jump is something Villeneuve added. Either way, you know what other sequels take place just a few weeks/months after the first movie? The Dark Knight and The Matrix Reloaded, movies that no one here has any issue calling sequels.
And like I said earlier, for all intents and purposes, half of the characters - the bad guys - believe the story is OVER at the end of Part One. They believe they've won, and that House Atreides is no more. Just like the good guys think they've won at the end of so many other first movies in a ton of other franchise.
It's just reversed here.
And yes, I do admit, slightly more untraditional.
But Paul joining the Fremen at the end of Part One, to me, is no different than Gordon giving Batman the Joker card at the end of Batman Begins, or Neo in the phone booth, warning the machines, before flying off at the end of The Matrix. There are dozens more examples, and it's roughly the same vibe as all of them.
I don't know, this whole argument is just so weird to me, one started by a guy who was clearly off his rocker, did a drive by, and bailed the thread. And now we're all here arguing over his nonsense. In this case, I think people are simply blinded by the source material. But if there was no source material, and Villeneuve & co were telling this story for the first time, there would be ZERO argument as to whether Part Two was a tried and true sequel or not, for all the reasons I've listed and more.
#DunePartTwo selling this many seats at 3AM is INSANE! 😭 pic.twitter.com/IJTTHc9gsX
— Physical Media President (@PhysicalMedia_) February 17, 2024
RED AG 98
Joined:
Sep 8, 2011
Posts:
20,768
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great post. Let's just let the semantic argument end, you put the nail in the proverbial coffin.
Time to move on to talk about the movie again!
Time to move on to talk about the movie again!
One quick clarification...
I just did some quick research and apparently, in the book, nearly TWO YEARS pass between the events of Part One and Part Two, which makes them even more distinctly separate. But Villeneuve has said he significantly condensed that time here. No idea if it's days/weeks/months (I still say months because of Gurney's hair), but either way, it's not some super long period of time, same as a long period of time not passing between the events of the first and second movies in The Dark Knight or Matrix trilogies.
I just did some quick research and apparently, in the book, nearly TWO YEARS pass between the events of Part One and Part Two, which makes them even more distinctly separate. But Villeneuve has said he significantly condensed that time here. No idea if it's days/weeks/months (I still say months because of Gurney's hair), but either way, it's not some super long period of time, same as a long period of time not passing between the events of the first and second movies in The Dark Knight or Matrix trilogies.
Pouring myself a drink and putting on Dune.
Haven't seen it since it first dropped on Max.
Haven't seen it since it first dropped on Max.
Good call. I'm going to do the same in about 30 minutes.
Gotta say I don't know of many people that grow a better beard than Oscar Isaac.
btk55
BREAKING: The Dallas #Cowboys and head coach Mike McCarthy have decided to part ways.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
124
Scoopen Skwert
BREAKING: The Dallas #Cowboys and head coach Mike McCarthy have decided to part ways.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
63