Matthew's Journal

Dune: I think Villeneuve was playing up angles that are more prominent in the sequels than in the original, and which are most prominent in Herbert's interviews, but which were definitely there. The "Paul is not the good guy" angle, "beware the charismatic leaders" angle. But it was there in the book that the ending was kind of a failure, Paul had been hoping for a third option between "surrender to the Harkonnens" and "wild jihad" and was kind of regretfully reflecting that one hadn't turned up in time before the big ending.

I'm not sure how much of the poor aging over racial issues is Herbert and how much is Villeneuve - Herbert was writing well before 9/11, Villeneuve wasn't, and things like "the fundamentists" in the south are Villeneuve and not Herbert.

I suppose it's a case of adaptiation difficulties - the book features a lot of interior monologue, which isn't so great in film, so you have to be more heavy-handed with certain themes in order to compensation. Or so the people defending the film would tell me. I had the usual frustration of "it wasn't enough like the book". It also doesn't help that it's the kind of book which sears itself into the brain of an impressionable 15-year old who was reading before 9/11, too.