New review critical of DUNE: PART TWO based on the depiction of Chani

[Paul Farquhar]

My question would have been, "Which one?"

Isn’t the joker’s whole superpower being unpredictable? That’s what makes him such a good foil to Batman.

 

[Hatmatter]

My question would have been, "Which one?"

The one she had in mind, of course.

I used the point as an example (as was drawing from Jackson's Hobbit films) in order to substantiate an idea.

 

[Ryujin]

Isn’t the joker’s whole superpower being unpredictable? That’s what makes him such a good foil to Batman.

Yes, but that's interpreted in different ways, by different writers. And then you have the Robin Joker, for variety. I vaguely remember something about the only creature being alive at the end of the DC universe being The Joker, for some reason.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, but that's interpreted in different ways, by different writers

If it was always interpreted the same way, it wouldn’t be unpredictable.

 

[The Soloist]

What my review was addressing though (feel free to read it from the link in the OP if you would like; you may be surprised to realize it is not about Jackson's Hobbit trilogy) is how Villeneuve's "bad idea" (described in the review) reduces the depiction of sexuality and politics to the most unrealistic of children's fairy tales, a decision that ends up doing violence to Herbert's story. What is more, it is a superficialization of sexuality and politics that disrupts the greater conversation going on between cinema and culture by dumping into that conversation an abominably silly idea with regard to sex and love and political stability.

Upon this (what I find offensive) decision I base my critique of the film, irrespective of it being "action-paced" or "epic" in scope.

It could have been 'Anakin-Padme-Senate-Jar-Jar-Binx' worst.

We didn't see the same movie. Chani stifled her emotions for Paul, instead of following him down the Dictatorship-mass-murderer spiceroad. She affirmed her independence of thought. A very mature attitude. Chani is Villeneuve telling us Paul is NOT a hero. An efficient way to fix Herbert's avowed mistake with the first book.

The silly Hollywood imature romance cliché would have been for Chani to stay with him and think 'she can change him' before it's too late. That would have been revolting on many levels.

I reserve judgment about Villeneuve's Dune after I've watched the third movie. The sum effect could be greater than its parts.

 

[pukunui]

I reserve judgment about Villeneuve's Dune after I've watched the third movie. The sum effect could be greater than its parts.

Indeed. We’ll have to wait for Part 3 to see who is right here. That being said, I would interpret Chani’s leaving in the same way you did. It is consistent with her portrayal throughout the film preceding that point.

 

[gban007]

She affirmed her independence of thought. A very mature attitude. Chani is Villeneuve telling us Paul is NOT a hero. An efficient way to fix Herbert's avowed mistake with the first book.

Just on this part - my impression was that Herbert was saying that Paul is a hero, but that heroes aren't necessarily good - a warning against hero worship /charismatic leaders.

“The bottom line of Dune is beware of heroes. It's much better to rely on your own judgment, and your own mistakes.”

So I didn't think failure was around not conveying that Paul isn't a hero, but the failure was not showing well until subsequent books that they shouldn't have made Paul / a hero their leader.

 

[billd91]

I would go as far as to say that the LotR movies essentially followed the major story beats of the books, while The Hobbit movies threw a Jazz drummer in at random points. I still haven't seen more than a few minutes of the last one because I just... can't.

HAH! I only WISH it was a jazz drummer. At least then there may have been some subtlety and complexity to the indulgent drum fills (i.e. filler action scenes that do nothing to really advance the plot).
I have seen the last of the Hobbit trilogy in the theaters but, unlike the LotR trilogy of which we own DVDs of the theatrical release and extended editions, we did not see fit to buy much of the Hobbit trilogy for home viewing and I have watched NONE of it since initial viewing in the theater.

 

[billd91]

First, I agree with you that it is impossible to like any screen depiction of TB (is it a coincidence or destiny that he can be summarized the same way as tuberculosis ... I'll let you decide). The best decision Peter Jackson ever made was to remove TB from the films. When TB does show up (cough cough Rings of Power) it is always a painful watch. It's like Tolkien has a DM NPC, but with extra suckage.

But as someone who loves the books, I also never got the fan-love for TB on the written page either. I feel like some Tolkien fans are "TB is like Boba Fett in Empire Strikes Back, all cool and mysterious!" and I just see him as Boba Fett in Return of the Jedi, if you catch my drift.

I don't know about best decision, per se, but it was a good decision to omit Tom Bombadil and the events around his appearance for movie pacing purposes, if nothing else. An interlude like that works OK for a printed novel because it can impart a number of different elements and themes (as well as serve as a crossover appearance for a prior character - in this case Bombadil himself) but would just slow down a 2-ish hour movie unnecessarily.

 

[pukunui]

I don't know about best decision, per se, but it was a good decision to omit Tom Bombadil and the events around his appearance for movie pacing purposes, if nothing else. An interlude like that works OK for a printed novel because it can impart a number of different elements and themes (as well as serve as a crossover appearance for a prior character - in this case Bombadil himself) but would just slow down a 2-ish hour movie unnecessarily.

Exactly. I used to dislike Tom Bombadil a great deal and was overjoyed that Jackson had chosen to skip over that part in the movie. However, the last time I read LotR, I actually came to understand and appreciate that part of the novel. I think Tom has his place - but that place is better served on paper than on the screen.