I think it was good choice to leave out the inner monologues becuase if they were to ADR the thoughts from the book 100% and keep everything already in, the movie would way to long and for most people lisenting to the thoughts of them would get old quick. Example original the Blade Runner flim had a cut a where you can hear the thoughs of Deckard most of time it just made the movie unwatchable, sometimes it did add insight to SOME scenes. On the other hand it would have been nice to have a cut where we can hear it but like i said earlier you would a long ass that most people would find boring. I do agree that more from the harkonnens would be cool, Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen is such a ball to watch, I love his energy. I find it a little goofy how you havent read the books and you say "the movie is lacking information the book has" (5:56) maybe you watched a video about the books I don't know. But, I genuinely recomend reading the books they are truly a great read. If you don't thats alright reading is not for everyone, I do reconmned a video by a youtuber named Alt Shift X called "The real Dune". Ps just a little pet peeve but when you talk about you waited 3 years for this movie, hears the thing good movies like this take a long time to make. If it was easy everyone would make a smash hit.
The books are generally considered near-impossible to adapt to film (at least in a remotely accurate way) not because of their length. As you pointed out, many books just as long have been successfully adapted with reasonable accuracy to films of similar or often even shorter length. One of the main reasons is that the books are extreme examples of stories told from third-person omniscient perspective. Few books utilize omniscient narrators as heavily as Herbert's Dune, even Austen's Pride and Prejudice doesn't come close to the degree of omniscience. Major scenes often have us getting deep inside the innermost thoughts of two or more characters in the same single scene. Not only that, but many of the major conflicts are internal and both set up and resolved introspectively inside of the minds of our characters, not through their external actions. Films generally want to tell the story primarily through external actions: dialogue, body language, and other external character actions, not tell the story primarily from inside their minds. Many mention the expansive nature of the universe and the difficulty of filming across distant planets with such intricate worlds. That presents enormous technical difficulties for sure, but nowhere near as much as the fact that the bulk of the story is not only taking place across such an expansive universe but mostly in the minds of our characters. It's actually what makes the books so interesting to me is that we actually get to feel like a psychic audience able to constantly read the minds of various characters in each scene, including being able to read the mind of two characters at once who are antagonistic to each other and deceptively concealing their hidden thoughts from each other mid-interaction. And that gets me back to the two films. I also didn't find them so engaging despite each individual scene being so visually spectacular, since I didn't get a strong impression of the inner conflicts of each character -- not even Paul as our main protag -- to glue our interest between each scene together and be on the edge of our seats eager to find out what's next. I didn't get a strong sense of climax in scenes that should have been so climactic or a sense of tension and suspense in between the climactic moments, beyond the immediacy of each individual scene. The whole was nowhere near as strong as the sum of their parts for me lacking that strong connective glue. A lot of setup was often absent strong payoffs, and a lot of things seemed to be set up with no payoff whatsoever. The scene of Paul uniting the war council was really exciting and seemed climactic on its own, for example, and it was cool to see Paul's transformation there after drinking the Water of Life. That's actually when I finally thought Timothée Chalamet was starting to make most sense as a casting choice was after his transformation. Yet when we consider what went on before that one scene, it didn't appear to me like the build up was there to make it nearly as climactic in the overarching context of the storytelling as a whole. The film just seemed to me like a bunch of cool scenes loosely tied together by relatively weak threads. Some of them are extremely interesting, but in ways that didn't seem much more interesting than they are on their own. If I compare to Lynch's 1984 version, it was very cheesy and campy and Lynch used heavy voiceover to try to capture some of the omniscient perspective of the books, but it still managed to convey the conflicts well enough to make me much more eager to find out what happens next. The individual scenes are weaker in that one, but I thought the whole was still greater than the sum of their parts.
Very well put. I didn't read the books, so I didn't know that there's so much information left out. With the characters' inner thoughts, maybe if there was narration, it might have adapted better. But like you said, probably impossible for a film. The difference between books and film💁♂️
@@nosnackz Cheers! I think with the direction Villeneuve took with the films (even though he cut out so much), it could have been far more interesting. I don't mind the films radically deviating from the books, but I think in trying to figure out what to cut and what to keep and what to change, Villeneuve might have forgotten to create the strongest threads to tie the scenes together. There's a lot of setup with relatively weak or no payoffs. As a very simple example, compare the scene where Paul conquers and rides the sandworm in this version to the Lynch version. In both versions, they help establish Paul's acceptance among the Fremen and reinforces the idea that he's the prophesized one. Yet in Lynch's version, the setup has a more satisfying payoff with Paul leading the assault against the Sardaukar on a giant sandworm. In this version, Paul just rides a sandworm once and that's it; we never see him ride one again so there's less of a connective thread to tie that one scene, as thrilling as it was, to the others. Take the final scene where Paul encounters and defeats the Emperor and his forces. That seems like a relatively weak payoff because there's hardly any setup as we barely see the Emperor throughout the film. The choice to make Chanti somewhat antagonistic towards Paul could have made for a really interesting and reluctant romance between them, yet I think the build up is lacking and the chemistry seems to be lacking in ways that made me feel like they just suddenly fall for each other out of the blue. The fight between Rabban and Halleck didn't seem nearly as climactic as it could have been, since I found nothing to invest me so much into Halleck's vengeful grudge against the Harkonnen except mostly expository dialogue he delivers. We never see the two characters encounter each other before that to set up this final fight between them. I can ramble on and on but hopefully you get my point! Most of the two films were like that to me. Some of things that happen in a scene are really interesting, but I'm not so invested beyond the individual scenes. As for my dream adaptation, I would love to see one unconventionally use even copious amounts of voiceover (far more than Lynch's version) as well as being much longer like you suggested. I've heard excessive amounts of voiceover is a sign of bad filmmaking, but I thought Sin City (2005) was extremely engaging despite having extreme amounts of voiceover to translate all the thought bubbles in Frank Miller's comic books to the screen.
@@darkengine5931 I totally get you. A series is too close to the movie to ever come out in the next few years, so all we have is good cgi or the original books to enjoy😂 anywho thanks for the lesson, I hope everyone learned as much as I did
Ah, which Indiana Jones movies have been split into 2 parts... ever? (Hint:none). Also, the........... um.,,,,,,, Wait. Is this a parody review? Hold up bruv, I'd best look at the rest of your content to tell if I just wasted MY TIME responding to what seems to the dumbest thing to ever be preserved in an audio/visual transmission. Nothing you say makes any type of sense. At all. Unless you're weaving an elaborate comic narrative. In which case, cheers.
(also - please don't do that tired sh☆t of "humorously" stumbling over the pronunciation of someone's name. It just makes you sound like a dumb@ss. Stop it)
@nosnackz I apologize for the condescending tone. No hate here. You sound like you may be pretty young, not that that's a defining characteristic all unto itself. I grew up in the '80s, and I've lived with the original Dune novel, the David Lynch film, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, etc. for a very long time, and I saw the Villeneuve films 3 times each in the theater, so watching your video hit my (very sleep-deprived) brain like some sort of alien language. Discussion is good! I've got to go right now, but I will leave you with this: no Indiana Jones movie has ever been divided into two parts, at least not in the U.S. market. ✌️
@@sjz1925 you were definitely harsh. It looks like I was wrong about Indiana Jones, I'll admit it. I'm just giving my opinion about Dune wanted to make a point
