Imperfection is (Sometimes) Better
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 кві 2024
- In this episode I talk about how Dune: Part One is technically better than Dune: Part Two, which actually makes the latter more appealing than the former.
TikTok Edits done by @Editingmiguel: www.tiktok.com/@editingmiguel...
Keynote Speaker at the end: @askvinh
#dune #dunereview #duneparttwo #perfect #perfection #imperfection #communicationskills #timotheechalamet #oscarisaac #videoessay #essay #filmmaking #film
Dune?
ᑐᑌᑎᕮ
DUNC
Bro what sorcery did you use to write it in the dune font?
@@ozzie2954maths symbols like intersection of to sects and union of two sects
|)|_||\|€
That's not math. That's (faux) Canadian aboriginal script.
Your points about how Dune 1 differed from Dune 2 is something I really resonated with. Dune 1 is almost like a dream, but in perfect focus in clarity. Dune 2 has some of those moments, but also moments where you wake up and the characters become human beings, not characters in a story. I almost liked the stylistic, metaphorical approach of P1 better. But part two is definitely the way it needs to be to drive the story forward
Really well said
the little Dune 1 gives you in terms of emotional depth makes it more rewatchable as well, with every new viewing your picking up on another small detail or piece of subtext, they way I think of it is Dune 1 is a simple piece but made by the tiniest of beautiful meticulous details, Dune Part two is a complex piece made by very obvious broad strokes, amazing strokes at that but it just feels less meticulously crafted, it's cooler, its bigger but there's something missing.
Yea, to me part 1 is still better, because it feels more dramatic and ambiental.
I would say theres 3 camps, casual movie watchers, film making audience, and the book readers
Part One: setup, world buidling. lends itself to more filmmaking focused.
Part Two: narrative payoff, needs to tell the story, filmmaking needs to serve that
Very interesting take on the films. I was unsure if I agreed at first but that explanation was great. Adam T Talks does it again! Lisan al gaib
I really don't see the value in comparing the film to the book as anything other than a fun exercise. Quality wise, the film should be judged on its own merits. To your point about the dialogue, this is cinema, where people don't stutter, use filler words, and say insignificance stuff in key moments.
I do think it's valuable to think about whether something is actually a good adaptation.
The movie Oldboy is a masterpiece but it doesn't seem to adapt its source material beyond beyond its setup. Deviating from the plot a lot isn't necessarily a problem but when the ideas a story is trying to communicate aren't being translated between mediums it's questionable why to consider it an adaptation in the first place.
I also think that part 2 suffers from Eric Roth's absence in the script. Part 1 feels more organic in its plotting and dialogue.
I enjoyed Part One more. But that's mainy because I already read the book and seeing Vileneuve's vision of Arakis the first time was enough for me to imagine what would happen next.
"because i gain it" is a very Frank Herbert esque line to me. I loved it, really impactful way to summarise it for casual fans and I don't see it as heavy handed exposition, seems pretty natural to me. In fact part 1 had more explicitly unnaturally structured exposition and exposition setupu lines (still better done than nearly any other movies) because it was by nature a mkre expository movie.
On first watch of Part One I did think the exposition was a little forced at times but i think the film indulges in exposition in a way which fosters escapism and reimmersing into the world after being familiar with the narrative.
I must say on first watch I also enjoyed the “because I gain it” line for the reasons you outlined. I still think it’s not perfect scriptwriting, but that doesn’t stop it from being a nice line/summary of the themes/impactful.
I approach my film ratings from a “how good is this as a film?” perspective rather than as an experience/a story. Sometimes those are better than the film technically is - and that’s awesome!
Thanks for watching my video!
@@AdamTTalksI mean frank herbert is not a great writer. The great thing about his books is the ideas that he explores but you dont read it for magnificent place descriptions or masterfully created dialouge like for example lotr
@@everit6682i think his simple writing kinda helps him get his ideas across. Not sure if that was his intent though.
I enjoyed the lack of dialouge in the Dune part 2 script. Upon repeated viewing it felt like all the lines had significance... less is more
Smart vid, and really cool comparison to everyday communication at the end!
Thanks for watching!
Incredible opening vocals to this video.
I’ve been practicing
Watch em back to back and you got dune all together. 😊
More like development an execution. Second movie carried wight because of the first one
I do think Part 2 is better, mostly due to tighter pacing, but Part 1 was so good at establishing everything that the second film definitely wouldn’t be nearly as good without it.
In a perfect world it would just be a 6 hour movie and the comparisons would be irrelevant. Both films cover each other’s weaknesses.
You’re right about the films covering each other’s weaknesses.
It’s like when we watch star wars or any other franchise/trilogy that’s been released - we see the quality of the whole trilogy rather than on an individual film basis.
I think it’s just that we’re (rather excitingly) living through this trilogy’s construction, and so aren’t able to see it from the birds eye as effectively.
Thanks for watching my video!
Yes. I rewatched the first film after seeing the second one and Part 2 definitely elevated the rewatch experience for me because now you're much more able to pick out all the beginnings of the plot threads that get expanded upon in Part 2
I’m so happy to see this - I had the exact same thought but didn’t know how to articulate it. I actually sort of wished they continued this into Dune 2, because even though I did objectively enjoy it, it’s… a sloppier form of enjoyment somehow. Took a few viewings to appreciate it fully
Glad i’m not alone in this opinion haha - was worried the video would fall on deaf ears.
Thanks for watching!
4:10 That didn't seem like a forced line to me. Dramatic lines are natural in dramatic settings.
June part too?
JOON PAAT TOO
Amazing video! It's really hard to articulate the things that you do in this video but I think you managed to get across what I never managed to put my finger on. I've been strongly on the same side, that Dune Part 1 is the better film, but after rewatching Part 2 I realised it was exactly the film it had to be. I can't believe how well that analogy at the end fits this discussion: Dune Part 2 has technical flaws that Part 1 doesn't, but these flaws are compromises that have allowed it to reach and resonate with far far more people - it communicates its messages more explicitly so that it can be understood by more people.
And you're right on the money when you say that Part 2 prioritises plot. I never realised it but the plot in Part 1 really is overshadowed by the technical craft as you say, and I think that's what has made it so rewarding for me on repeat viewings because I can glean more from it, plot-wise, each time. And this different approach to Part 2 initially put me off, but it ultimately brings a more satisfying conclusion to the story of Dune and ensures that the story's messages are not misconstrued as happened with the original novel.
I always said that Dune Part 1 was the first true arthouse blockbuster, which is a huge part of what I loved about it. But Part 2 rightfully tips the scales slightly more in the direction of blockbuster, resulting in a more accessible film.
Loved the video, you've got yourself a new subscriber!
Awesome! Thanks! I’m glad you were able to connect so deeply with the video :)
Good critique. I really enjoyed how you presented your thought. Also I'd just like to underline the fact how much I love the Dune phenomenon for showing to the world that art isn't purely subjective and the taste and values are intersubjective and can be discussed in terms of their objectivity.
Thanks! And well said! Intersubjective is a cool word.
Yeah, it sort of works that way. I prefer the first part, but i am not sure if i would have the same opinion without reading all the books
I do like your ideas and it's veryyyy interesting and a great breakdown! However, I want to hear your thoughts about if the cultural difference between 1 and 2 is because 1 was released first and it was released to streaming, while 2 had none of those.
Dyou know what this is a really interesting idea.
We still don’t have HBO Max in the UK, so i’m not sure when Dune actually became available to us on streaming (it wasn’t on Netflix back then). I saw it first in the cinema, and it did feel like an event movie. Nothing like the size of Part Two but it was a decently big deal.
Part Two being a purely theatrical release is interesting since it comes well after The Batman and of course Barbenheimer so the idea of going to the cinema was quite culturally relevant. People generally get less excited over things like that in the UK so maybe I’m not the best judge.
Also the stilgar memes and feyd rautha appreciation have been happening even with people who haven’t watched the film in the cinema.
Yeah feel free to respond to any of the points I just made, i’m not sure even I’m convinced by my argument! And thanks for watching and asking a question in the comments! I’m just a person with an opinion putting it on the internet at the end of the day so others sharing theirs is great!
Part 2 is "better" because it has all the payoff
Well, I guess they removed some of the issues in 1 too, like the lady screaming-singing every time something happened in 1, or the silly looking hand gestures to represent the bene gesserit communication : The short scene near the end of the movie, with a basically telephatic conversation between Jessica and her teacher, was much better. They should have done something like this from the start
I agree part 1 is better. There's a lot more of the philosophical and worldbuilding meat that attracted me to the books in part 1 (and it seems book readers generally prefer the first), and Villeneuve didn't modify many things in the first. But In 2, though, he makes some changes to the Fremen. There are no "moderates" in the books, and society isn't really egalitarian, honestly Or at least, it's really a culture that is "survival first", which contrasts with our current world version of gender equality. Case in point, when arriving at the Sietch (fremen village), he actually inherits the wife and kids of the man he just killed (because they need a provider to survive), which is a big cultural shock right from the get go That's mostly to give a bigger role to Chani, I find, but while it's not a bad choice of having a character calling it out for amovie (in the book, we see the struggle and moral conflict over the manipulation of the fremen in Paul's inner dialogue, which can't be shown that easily), she was actually more interesting in the book for me, as she served as a window into fremen culture. She also serves in some religious role, and on top of that, her father (who got genderbent in the movies) is actually Kynes, who embodied the whole planetary engineering aspect of the story (Which is limited to the scene in front of the pool in part 2....). Kynes also became a prophet of sort for the fremen, so it's really weird how they just trashed that storyline
There's also a scene where we discover she fought a man in a duel, because he sought to challenge Paul for his tittle, and won. She becomes a bit of a fanatic for Paul too, and seeing him do that to the woman he loves actually makes his manipulations, and the sense of inevitable fate accompanying it, all the more haunting.
I don’t really think Dune 2 is imperfect. I actually think you explained why it is a better movie.
No one in the books talk natural either it’s kind of like Star Wars they talk differently in other worlds.
Interesting. I think Part Two definitely works better on first watch than Part One, and the value of Part One only truly reveals itself with retrospective narrative already in mind, so in that way I can see where you’re coming from.
Thanks for sharing your opinion! It feels silly me sharing mine and not considering others’ after the fact.
Spectacle is more impactful than dialogue. In part 1 the story was the driver. Whereas in part 2 the spectacular visual feast was the driver. And people are visual. What we see hits bigger than what we hear. This is why many great movies don't get the audience. Whereas stupid drivel with loads of explosions and affects get a massive audience.
But over time, greatness shows, which is why the phrase Cult classic exists. Because second and third viewings reveal more of the depth than first seen.
The Man Dying of Thirst in the Desert, might think that drinking p!ss might be akin to drinking Champagne
The Last Jedi is 100x better Dune adaptation !!
@chasx7062 well that's certainly an opinion. I don't agree, but you do you.
@geofthompson3844 I realised halfway into editing this video that most of my critiques of the ‘filmmaking’ in both films were actually just with the scriptwriting. And while I do think Part Two’s script is worse than Part One’s, I’d have to say that it’s audiovisual craftsmanship in the design, cinematography, editing, score etc. is on par with or most likely likely exceeding the quality of it’s predecessor. Hence why Villeneuve thinks Part Two is a better film.
Scripts and stories ultimately dictate my taste and my enjoyment of a film a lot more than anything else, so forgive me if my take on the films is too partial.
I think we’ve seen with Dune that it’s possible to do both a phenomal story and enough shooty bang bang to keep the studios well paid. My complaints with the films are marginal when compared to most of the other blockbusters out there.
Thanks for watching my video!
@AdamTTalks thanks for your response. I actually agree with you about story and plot over action. My comment was meant as a general opinion about what actually sells tickets. But imo, it's about balance. Enough action to excite, married to impactful moments of meaning and story. I see Dune as one movie split into 2 and both halves are necessary.
Great analysis, just like LOTR, the book to screenplay to finished movie is always going to be a delicate balance. Personaly, I enjoyed both Dunes, the first especially so we actually feel embedded in the story and care about the outcome.
Even the cast, Zimmer, and Villeneuve saying part 2 is way better than the first one. 😆
The first movie was average.
I loved Dune Part 1 much more.
Dune 2 had some very weak moments that spoiled the whole film for me in some way. Strong film, but those few spoons of “bitter” made the whole thing go south for me.
What were the weak moments for you?
''go south'' hehehe
"The fundamentalist troops"? That was the most wooden line. Call them whatever else to their faces.
I agree, Part 1 is as perfect as an adaptation as one can make, but as a big fan of the books I was dissapointed with part 2, Part 1 cut a lot but stuck to the source enough that one could fill in the gaps, Part 2 changed so much (for the worse) that the knowledge of the books served not to fill in but to compare outcomes. Visually and technically the movie is great, sotrywise is ok at best, rushed and confusing at worst, character-wise it's bad. Every character is a lesser version of their book counterpart.
I understand that the movies aren't made for the few (in comparison) book fans out there, but to the larger audience that will likely never read the books, even then I wonder if some of the characters changes and treatment of the lore was neccesary to have that mass appeal, you could keep the big spectacle scenes that will capture the masses, and respect the source a bit more, keep the subtleties of the characters and thus make us the few book passionate fans happy with our beloved characters.
These are my main issues with the characters and worldbuilding in Part 2:
Chani seems like a traditional emotional teenager, instead of the logical, centered, fiercest and most lethal warrior and Paul's biggest support we see in the pages of the novel. Lady Jessica is presented as the insane leader of a cult. Stilgar (tho funny) is a fanatic from the getgo, I felt none of his leadership skills, and the moment of his transformation into a believer is then completely lost, robbing Paul of an important moment as well, as he basically loses a friend in this process and becomes even more isolated in the crowd of believers.
Pauls transformation I found very rushed and confusing, by not explaining any of the Hadaraks powers, his visions, the golden path, his moral struggles with what must be done to keep humanity alive, all we have left is then a fear of war and apparently the death of Chani, which would perhaps be enough if Paul's and Chani's relationship felt as deep as in the books, but since all this happens in apparently a period of 5 or 6 months top (by the state of Alia's fetus form), I felt like Paul and Chani's relationship is barely a thing yet, there's not deep ties, no family, no shared grief over the loss of their firstborn, no strenght built on support of each other, it's basically a hookup.
And then the Harkonen...The whole thing of the Harkonen is that they never fight fair, this is why they are such a terrible enemy, this is why they are to be feared, and how they are ultimatly cowards, in contrast of the Atreides which represent honor. By turning Fade into an honorable badass they made him less dangerous rather than more. It also turns his fight with Paul into a mere knife fight, Fade's trust in his tricks (poison blades) is he's downfal as Paul's ability to transmute poison completely nulls Fade's self percieved advantage.
And finally and what might be my biggest gripe with the movie is how Fremen culture is presented skindeep at best.
By robbing Paul of his "Giving water to the dead" moment, which is important in the rising of the belivers and Chani's acceptance of him, we lose a multy layered cultural and characters moment, instead we have a way lesser version of the moment with Stilgar and Lady Jessica that serves no other purpose than another reminder of the importance of water in the culture, which we would also have if they did this with Paul.
Then we have a couple of bad jokes about "Drinking worm piss" and this one pisses me off as it completely undermines the whole fremen culture and the cult of Shai Hulud, The Creator. Their sacred knives are made of sandworm teeth, riding the worm is their rite of passage, it defines how they move in the dessert, is their form of transport, and most importantly, the water of life it's what unies them as a culture, how and why they so deeply share beliefs (as a result of the psychedelic orgy rituals when their collective consciousness merges). All of this is cast aside for a "Drinking worm piss" joke, no real fremen would uter such words, and it makes the worldbuilding chip and shatter in my opinion.
For all of this and perhaps my love and passion for the source material I found it very difficult to enjoy the movie beyond the amazing visuals, tho it seems that for those that don't know or care much about the novels it was a great movie, which I'm happy about, maybe it'll serve as an entry point for many into the novels and one day we'll have enough fans that someone will put together a GoT style show which I think it's the only way we can get a propper adaptation of the material and all it's complex plots and layers.
Thanks to anyone reading my tesis of a comment
Love ya'll
Thanks for leaving such a detailed comment! The films have definitely acted as a gateway to the books for me so I’m quite grateful in that way. Also as a gateway to Grimes’ album Geidi Primes based on Dune which I highly recommend :D
First difference I noticed between the two versions was Chani not wanting to terraform Arrakis and instead just being (in contrast) vaguely against whatever the Southerners were doing. There’s an interesting character there for sure: a lost young adult trying to find their way in a world they know in their hearts is wrong but haven’t had enough experience to know how to combat it. So i’m excited to see where she goes in Part Three/Messiah (saw someone on reddit theorise that Chani may be the protagonist of that film which I’d be so down for).
@@AdamTTalks Will check her album, didn't know about it.
Don't know how or if they will reconcile Chani's part in the movies with her book counterpart moving forward, they've have changed so much now that it feels like they'd need a whole movie in between this and the events on Dune Messiah.
I'm interested tho, we'll see how it goes from here.
Hope you like the books, God Emperor of Dune is one of my favorite books ever, after that it feels a bit pointless since Frank Herbert didn't finish the story, and Brian Herbert's books didn't do it for me. But I do recommend reading it at least up to God Emperor.
The Dune books are great but, Herbert was not the best writer. These books are hard to read. He had great ideas but the execution of them to book can be rough to get through. I think these incredible movies will bring a new wave of people to find interest in the books.
The Man Dying of Thirst in the Desert, might think that drinking p!ss might be akin to drinking Champagne
The Last Jedi is 100x better Dune adaptation !!
@@chasx7062nice troll 😅
@christopherpumphrey7023 they certainly hooked me! I’m reading the first book now and plan to get through em all at some point! Sounds super interesting
Thanks for watching my video!
YOU CAN'T call something perfect and then say the second is less perfect but more people liked it. I liked the second one way better, it had the "feels" from the whol messiah thing, the character developement was good, the villain was interesting and the whole thing was better executed. Part was was ight but i found it boring. I ididn't come out of it with a yoooo, but i came out with, yeah well written blah blah, it was a great set up movie but didn't have pay off within that 2 hours and 40 minutes. The point i am making is simple. The second movie was more accesible .
Dune 2 crammed the content and rushed the pacing, shortened scenes, removed establishing sequences, world-building sequences. Not only that, but the action was worse, he went for a more of a Marvel style which was really lazy and boring. 9/10 but I'm not going to act like this is some masterpiece just because normies like rushed pacing, booming soundtracks, sandworm riding, abd infrared gladiator scenes. The Sloppenheimer, but instead Dune 2 is actually good.
I think theres a multitude if factors that led to ny disappointment in Dune 2. I've honestly seen it twice in true imax. Directorial style (anti-dialogue at times), shortening of runtime for multiple reasons, cutting out things because he thought it was too hard to adapt, and obviously the complete neglect of world-building scenes that serve only to build character, let audiences relax, live in the world. Instead, it's only ever shown to us if it progresses the plot, and then even still rushing the pacing in the editing room after the fact lol.
The Man Dying of Thirst in the Desert, might think that drinking p!ss might be akin to drinking Champagne
The Last Jedi is 100x better Dune adaptation !!
Lmao Star Wars hasn’t been good since the 1980s
The Last Jedi made me give up on Star Wars, and nearly on humanity
Dune for me is FANTASTIC movie ( and it's perfect combination of part 1 and 2) It's like listening great music on viinyl record. Side A gives you taste of music, so when you turn it on side B you already know what to expect and you just enjoy it.
The Man Dying of Thirst in the Desert, might think that drinking p!ss might be akin to drinking Champagne
The Last Jedi is 100x better Dune adaptation !!