Видео

An antagonist isn’t always a villain and a protagonist isn’t always a hero. She can be a loving mother to her son but still be an obstacle and serving as an antagonist. Just as a protagonist we follow can be a complex villainous character.

Glad I wasn't the only one annoyed by Count Fenring's omission.

You’re not stupid! You’re actually brilliant! This made me want to read the books.

It would be great if there was a scene where Paul asks here "What's with the face tats?" (I'm guessing they are tattoos)

You have to be borderline schizophrenic to call yourself a fan of the book and at the same time think this was a good adaptation.

ive never head someone pronounce alia like that

Well done, sir

I think the movie also did a good job portraying the Emperor as someone who just wants himself and his bloodline to survive, like Jessica.

In Dune Messiah, Alia is 16. In Children of Dune she is 25, but still looks younger. She's using Bene Gesserit techniques to slow her aging.

Learn how to pronounce the names. "Villeneuve" is not "Vill-noo." There are videos that explain how to pronounce this. "Alia" is pronounced AH-li-a. Emphasis on the FIRST syllable. Quit copying Quinn, who just makes shit up.

the vilification of jessica was the only major change that I genuinely loved, I understood the reasoning for the other changes, mainly the omission of children characters for practical filming reasons makes sense, it would be tough to get child actors in the desert. Some of the other changes, like scrapping the conflict between Gurney and Jessica, and removing Thufir did sadden me, I thought those were important character moments, and I was excited to see how they would be shown.... only for it to be scrapped. Specifically the conflict between gurney and jessica was what i was most excited for going into the theater, I thought it had so much cinematic potential.

One only has to look to the confusion Starship Troopers still causes among the media illiterate, to understand why Denis needed to be more direct with his imagery and the cast performances.😅

I never saw Jessica as an antagonist. I was unsettled but quickly accepting her change in character as something that came about do to unavoidable circumstances. As I see it she's as much a victim as paul is to her, as Alia is to the water of life and as the Fermen are to Bene Gesserit propaganda. Edit: I never read the books this is my take on the movies.

A interesting idea for Jessica in Dune part 3 is for Jessica to undergo a attitude change once she no longer has Alia in her womb _and in her head._ .... What if it was Alia that was making Jessica be so _unapologetically_ manipulative? Once Jessica is her own woman again, she feels the doubts and regrets over her part in the prophecy like she did in the book. Did she become more villainous after drinking the water of life in the movie? If so then her motivation becomes clear - it wasn't her motivation but that of the *Abomination* inside her [and that the Bene Gesserit were correct to fear such a being being created]. As well Paul became more Machiavellian after drinking the water of life himself, if you watch Timothy Chalamet's performance you can see he plays Paul as having a harder expression immediately afterwards. Paul is more accepting of his role in the prophecy, or at least the usefulness of the prophecy as a tool. He shamelessly uses it when appearing as the leader before the conclave to claim his _divine_ leadership. Then there's when he tells his mother "Let's be Harkonnens" when discussing tactics and strategies for the war. Perhaps he also implies in their attitude for politics, for using people. Something that Duke Leto would have found abhorrent.

I hated this change. Along with Zendaya's terrible portrayal of Chani. Both were there for a reason but it takes all the teeth out of Paul's burgeoning abilities. They spent very little time on what spice actually does in these movies. The ending was annoying. I like these movies a lot but can't love them. The changes sucked.

good video! I've been really torn about my feelings about the new movie, this has more than any video I've watched so far has helped me actually appreciate it, so thanks!

I love the background art and tapestry very dune vibes lol and great video! When I saw the first movie I was instantly obsessed

Great video! I hope that you'll continue to talk about Dune.

Count Fenring is like the Tom Bombadil of Dune. I get why they cut him out and it was objectively the right call, but I'm still mad I didn't get to see him "mmmmmm"-ing and "aahhhhhh"-ing all over the place 😄

Brother, you keep using the words villain and antagonist interchangeably, and they don't mean the same thing, even if sometimes both word apply to a character. It would require argumentation to say that Jessica is both, but in general, you also need to argue why she is either. If you don't want to call Paul a protagonist, then it makes even LESS sense to call Jessica an antagonist. Beyond saying Jessica is an aid to the big villain of the story (Paul), she isn't portrayed as a villain or antagonist to our "protagonist". She pushes Paul onto a path he doesn't want to walk, but the movie doesn't communicate this as being in opposition to Paul, but rather in spite of him. In other words, Jessica paves the way for something the movie presents as being Paul's decision. She doesn't serve as an antagonist in either movie, but rather she's presented as an aid to Paul's choice of becoming the villain.

The thing is, the Fremen are all about survival. In their pursuit of survival, they were going to murder Paul and Jessica and drain their water, or at least throw them out to die in the desert. Conversely Paul and Jessica used the Bene Gesserit planted prophecies and manipulated the Fremen for their own survival as well, which required the Harkonens to die and the emperor to be overthrown. Jessica isn't an antagonist, she supports the protagonist, though she also manipulates him. She is a villain to the Fremen, maybe, but remember that the Fremen were working to change Arrakis' climate, which would have eventually brought them into conflict with the Harkonens anyways, and without the support of a literal prophet who could see the future, they would have been slaughtered.

The subtle subliminal messaging in the background is hilarious.

I thought that Chani's skepticism and departure was a bigger change from the novel. Not sure how they're gonna tie that up. You know ... for there to be Children of Dune.

I never read Jessica as a villain in dune part 2. There’s a very clear distinction between her and the baron/rabban/feyd. She’s just given way more strength and agency than in the book

Frank Herbert wrote Dune: Messiah because he felt like the themes of the first were not picked up on or completely misunderstood. I think that's ample enough proof that even great authors are not experts of their own work sometimes, at least not in the way we think. They're too close to the material and get so precious about every minute detail that they lose sight of the big picture. It's GOOD when an adapter can understand a piece of work so well that they can more clearly express what a writer is trying to convey.

This video made me realize that it’s very much a callback to the iconic scene from part 1 between Jessica and Leto-“I’m not asking his mother, I’m asking the Bene Gesserit”. The book very much deals with Jessica’s struggle with her split loyalties and desire to rebel against the will of the Bene Gesserit. But the movie has her really lean into that part of her identity, thus protecting Paul as both his mother and as an agent of the Bene Gesserit.

Great video, excellent analysis. However, for future content a spoiler warning dor other books would be awesome. I started Children of Dune and now that surprise is spoiled lol

Excellent use of comic sans, king

Wow, ok you totally convinced me! At first I’m both movies, Jessica was a low for me, in the first she show too much emotion for me at first, but then I noticed that she was always alone in this parts and she was just externalizing emotions that in the book are internalized. Since this is a movie they have to show them. In the second one I was not sold on her until your video, I thought that they took too much of the loving mother (one of her core personality traits and the biggest reason she betrayed the BG, her capacity for love), but you are totally right. She does the same things in the book but is portrayed in a less negative light. I remember a lot of scenes about the power play with the Freeman, (one of my favorites has she, Alia and Jamis ex that belongs to Paul now). She is a Reverend Mother and the religious figure among the freeman. Yeah in the end she regrets how much politics guide her life and her children (when she say to Paul to marry Chani), but she still continues to help him.

I love the Fenrings too and is always so sad that they are never in the adaptation. We got a little Margot in this one and was amazing but come on I wanted him and his weird way of speaking, lol.

Dune PT 2 is was less Dune than Lynch Dune.

why everyone calling him villnoo like bro cmooooon

A full Dune series needs to be made

I definitely got the feeling that it was Alia's influence partially taking over Jessica and it will be interesting to see how this plays out in Messiah.

Good vid but your lack of understanding basic narrative vocabulary bothers me

More like " how paul learned how to stop fearing, and love being an autocrat!!"

I’d have to disagree. I didn’t read the book, but I didn’t get antagonistic vibes from Jessica at all. I think the fact that there is no internal monologue in the movie to tell people what she’s feeling, is what may bring people to believe she’s a “villain”. But I thought the film did a great job at conveying she is doing what she has to do.

Maybe the only antagonist is the abomination she carries. Who knows just how much Alia poisons Jessica...

In the books Jessica is not an antagonist structurally - as she does not conciously oppose Paul, the protagonist. However she is a bad person.

My problems with Dune 1 & 2 is the total cutting out of Mentats (with the exception of Thufir’s eye flickering), explanation of why they exist, and that Paul was trained by Thufir Hawat. Totally missing out of Mentat Piter of the Harkonnens. Also, missing in both movies was an explanation of how the Space Guild Navigators use spice see thru space as their ships fold space.

While I agree that the changes from the book for Jessica are for the better, I don't agree for Alia. Not for Alia herself (here I would rather agree with you), but what it means for the overall story. It means that the second movie, instead of taking place in the span of a bit more then 4 years as in the book, are more likely rather in the span of a bit more than 4 months (from Jessica's belly). And there's no way that everything happening on screen can occur in such short time (we see only the action scenes, each of them do need quite some time to be prepared). More important, there's no way an entire planet of millions of Fremen can be converted and rallied behind Paul in such short time... within four years yes this can be believable, but not within few months as changed for the movie...

This movie hit my ego - I've always that the best adaptations aren't afraid to depart from the source material, since movies and books aren't the same language, and just like individuals, each has to find the thing it's best at. Just like Kubrick's Shining, which is one of my favorite examples - it differs heavily from the novel, and creates a different, and amazing, experience. I really missed Alia, I felt sad when they removed the line about history making honor to concubines, and many other moments. But I'm a cinematographer, a cinephile, and all in all, I think it's a great film, something worthy to be called a masterpiece. But also, now I understand why people who love Stephen King hate Kubrick's adaptation. I read the King novel at age 33, and I had already seen the movie a million times. But I first read Dune at age 14, and I've been a fan for 20 years straight. It's sad to see it deviate from what I love, but I'm also very excited to see the amazing film that came out of it. Plus, the brief snippet of Anya Taylor Joy was amazing. We didn't get the scene where Alia kills the Baron, but we have everything to expect a major representation of her in the following film. Absence is a great tool of seduction.

Okay your use of the words Antagonist and Protagonist seems to be fundamentally flawed. The protagonist is the central character of the story. Due is Paul's story. He is the protagonist. An antagonist is a character who actively goes against the protagonist. They do not need to evil or a villain to do so, but they have to have goal/motivations that puts them against the protag. Jessica is Paul's greatest supporter, making her a supporting character, not an antagonist. I think the terms you meant to use were the classical hero and villain. Paul and Jessica are not heroes or villains but they have traits of each due to the complexity of their character and epicness of their story.

If you view Paul or Jessica as antagonistic or “the bad guy” then the point clearly went over your head. Or you’re simply weak and the book wasn’t meant for you anyway.

I cannot understand people thinking Jessica or Paul are particularly bad. Morally ambiguous perhaps but they at least are sympathetic. Did no one pick up on the Baron’s order to exterminate the fremen? It was there in the book too. He ordered to clear out the native inhabitants and bring in a new labor pool, the Atreides had contaminated thier minds. Does anyone think the emperor or the houses of the lansraad would have done any differently? Paul and Jessica gave the fremen the unity and direction they needed to survive. The jihad was inevitable, even without the Paul. In this generation or the next the empire would fall and galactic war would be upon us. Paul’s way gives the fremen back thier planet and keeps at least some of them alive. What is so wrong with using thier religion to strengthen them? Besides, Paul is fulfilling thier prophesies, so what if the prophesies were meant to be lies, he is making thier dreams a reality. Those prophesies were shaped to appeal to thier nature. Paul is fulfilling the desires those prophesies were intended to appeal to. I don’t see the big problem. Hard times were coming and Paul gives the fremen what they need to make it through. That’s what I saw.

I really think Villeneuve is gonna combine Messiah with Children and GEOD. Alia is gonna be Paul's Ghani, and Chani's gonna be his Siona.

The film doesn’t make sense, there are big plot holes "ahh yes good old artillery", bad combat, shallow characters, corny lines and shots of a perfume add. Total lack of dialogue that isn’t expressed in the acting. The film is mid story wise but is a pretty perfume add.

Not understanding what a protagonist is and isn't doesn't bode well for a narrative review's credibility

Protagonist does not mean a good guy, I don't understand why you don't want to call Paul a protagonist, he is by definition one of the protagonists of the story (both book and movie), since he is one of the main characters. Antagonist also does not mean a bad guy, you can't just say that Jessica is almost an antagonist because she does bad stuff. The main character and protagonist of the movie Joker is the Joker, it doesn't matter that he is not a good guy. It does not matter that Superman is a good guy, he would be an antagonist in a story about Lex Luthor.

Omg, Dune series should’ve just been a series of animated movies for a true adaptation. Alia could finally be portrayed exactly as a grown woman born as a powerful baby growing up with no identity, and how much of tragic character she was since conception. Leto II, Gholas etc, unfortunately can only be executed with animation.