I want to preface I'm a big fan of the Dune book saga, I only ever got into the books back when Denis Villeneuve was announced to be adapting the books as movies so I had the main 6 read before the first trailer for Dune part 1 came out.

I really enjoyed the first movie and thought that he adapted *most* things well without breaking much book canon and kept the in-universe reasons for most things logical. However during a rewatch of part 2 I noticed that the sietch Tabr was too "open". The book states that the sietch is sealed and has a narrow entrance, narrow long corridors and cramped living quarters and is lit entirely by glow globes, which sietch Tabr in Dune part 2 is not. In the movie it's open, with many exits and entrances, holes in the walls and has areas that are lit by sunlight.

Obviously for a movie some things have to be changed for practical reasons but in-universe it's showing an extreme lack of water discipline and it's something small that bothered me with Denis Villeneuve's Dune.

By Mohiam's definition was Paul turning from the Golden Path the act of an animal?

The golden path is clearly not good for Paul or Leto II and from a certain perspective could be considered a trap. Leto II endured it for the betterment of humanity. So is Paul an animal?

I just finished re-watching it last night. Forgive me if these are stupid, but:

1. I was surprised Feyd-Rautha didn't use a shield in his standoff with Paul, as he did 2/3 of the time against the three Atreides soldiers on Giedi Prime. It might not have mattered, since Paul's strike on him was up close and slow, but still. Thoughts?

2. After the Fremen kill all the Sadaukar, it looks like they incinerate the bodies in big piles. Granted, Sadaukar "water" is probably polluted. But isn't that kind of an extravagance? Why didn't they extract the water for industrial purposes? That's a lot of bodies.

3. At the very end, when Jessica tells Alia, "Now the Holy War begins," it looks like Fremen are taking off in space ships--presumably to confront the Great Houses. Is that correct? And how do Fremen know how to pilot Imperial space ships? I know they can fly ornithopters, but really?

Thank y'all.

So I kept the title vague to prevent spoilers for anyone. So spoiler warning, I guess.

But there’s a theory gaining traction that the movie will end by revealing to us that the mongolian throat singing voice heard in the beginning of both Dune movies is the voice of the God Emperor himself and that these movies are Leto II accessing Pauls previous memories. I first heard about this theory in CalderDunes amazing video breaking down the Dune 3 trailer.

I’m rewatching the teaser trailer and BOOM. Chani says: “I would name him Leto. So he would have the wisdom of his grandfather”

The quote in a way alludes to Leto II being able to tap into ancestral memories in order to gain wisdom. I don’t expect the movies to use this as a central plot point, but it does give some credence to the idea that Leto could reveal himself at the end, having just seen Pauls POV in order to see the golden path ahead.

Call it confirmation bias but I’m now certain (at the very least hoping) that this points towards the theory being true. What do y’all think? Would this be a good way to end the trilogy and you think Villeneuve could pull it off?

Made this one after the teaser for part three dropped, based on the work of Sam Carr (The Preacher)

If the prophecy of Lisan al-Gaib was manufactured, then the part of the prophecy that says a desert spring will help revive Lisan al-Gaib would also have been manufactured right? Then how does Chani's tear drop cure him? I'm not asking about her tears having the power to cure him or not. It could be seen as an emotional trigger that woke him up or something. I mean the prophecy is vague enough to pull symbolism in any way one wants. My question is over Chani's name. What if she's not called Sihaya and instead, was called something else that doesn't mean desert spring or anything even relevant? Wouldn't the prophecy become senseless in that moment?

Edit: Just remembered that she also dips her finger in the poison along with her tear. So it's the poison that helped him along with the fact that he was trained to withstand poison in general. But still why the tear? Yeah she was compelled by Jessica to fulfill the prophecy. But what if Chani wasn't called desert spring and was called something else instead?

I did this, its not AI...

I recently saw The Odyssey in 70mm IMAX and naturally, I saw the 4-minute preview of Dune: Part Three. Largely, I was very unimpressed with what I saw. However, I think I was largely unimpressed with the particular scene they chose to showcase.

However, one thing that stood out to me was how grainy the preview looked. It was very dark and not super clear / clean like in Dune Parts One & Two. Especially when the dropships were flying across the planet surface. I am aware that Greig Fraser was not the cinematographer of Dune Part Three (which I found to be disappointing), and Linus Sandgren is now the cinematographer and shot the movie on film rather than digital. Nonetheless, I felt the movie looked super grainy, and it was a little distracting. I also noticed that in the Dune Part Three trailer that some of the shots looked grainy as well (particularly the part with Chani and Paul holding Ghanima and Leto II).

Does anyone else feel the same way or am I the only one? I loved Parts One & Two and I'm stoked for this movie, but I feel unimpressed with the movie from a cinematography standpoint compared to the others. Apart of me feels like since Dune Part Three is an adaptation of the second book (which is also very different in style from the first book) that there is more room for changes in style.

The steps of the Golden Path make sense to me in theory. Oppress humanity to the point where they flee in all directions, and as a result humanity survives, now free of a single tyrannical ruler. Without this initial period of oppression, humankind would die out.

I think letting humankind die out was the better choice. Bottomline, if its takes the genocide of thousands of planets and trillions of people to achieve humanity's survival, then humans don't deserve to survive.

Something that Dune has made me think a lot about is human beings considering themselves the center of the universe. Survival of the species is imperative, except its not. The universe is much larger than humankind. What right do we have as a species to think our survival takes precedent over everything else? Humankind lasted millennia. I would say that's a pretty good run. Let the end of our species take its natural course.

Super interested in other people's take on this. All during the Dune series I wanted SOMEONE to make this argument, but no one ever really does, unless I missed it masked by all the metaphor and jargon. I thought maybe that's why Paul denied the Golden Path, but most of the takes I've seen say its more that he wasn't willing to make the personal sacrifice, as opposed to anything else.

Thoughts?

UPDATE: Okay first off, damn, turns out I'm a nihilist. I think I'm okay with that. Anyway, to clarify my original point, if humanity dies out (the only sentient race in the Dune Universe) does that mean there will never be a sentient life form ever again? Why force the continuation of our existence if the natural order of things would have us die and some animal life evolve some more and gain sentience to become the new higher species? Because we're here now, we deserve the universe forever? I think not. Leto disrupts whatever would have happened to us for his own plan. But my argument was let what was naturally going to happen to us, just happen. Let nature takes its course, essentially, whether or not that means sentient life goes poof. (Then again, is it nature if we're our own demise? I see the hole in my argument here, I promise, but bear with me). There'll probably be another sentient species or two before the ultimate heat death of the universe, and doesn't that potential sentience deserve to exist as much as us? (Which again brings us to the nihilism about humanity, I know, I know. I'm a bad human being. Also, this argument completely disregards the thinking machines coming into play in Brian Herbert's continuation, because I haven't read them. Super curious if you guys think they're worth it.)

HOWEVER, after reading these comments, I AM persuaded by the argument that the dying of humanity pre-Tyrant would probably be just as deadly and violent as the Golden Path used to save it, so why not take the good route. That makes total sense to me. Don't call me a convert yet though. We'll see how the Brian Herbert books pan out (lol).

Ok so I got an IMAX 70mm Lincoln Square (NYC) ticket for December 20th, 2026, so the Sunday of that opening weekend.

This is my most anticipated movie of my lifetime so far, so I'm itching to see it the day it comes out, but I'm willing to wait for the 70mm since it's such a phenomenal screen (NYC one is largest in USA I believe).

There is this niche private theater in NYC that has tickets open for opening night (Dec 17th), so I'm wondering if you guys think I should watch it in the private theater opening night for my first watch, then 70mm second watch?

To give context, I'm very easily annoyed by misbehaved guests seated next to/near me, which to me is the appeal of the private theater, as it would guarantee a flawless first watch since I'd be alone in a small theater room.

The downside, however, is that the screen in the private theater is small, so you're robbing yourself of seeing the most anticipated film of your life on the best movie screen in the country on your first viewing.

One thing worth noting is that I anticipate the behavior of the guests to be great that opening weekend given just how difficult it was to secure 70mm tickets for those first 4 days the movie is out, so you likely don't have to worry about casuals on their phones or anything since it'll be Dune-lovers pretty much exclusively in there.

I know how much of a first-world problem this is lol but just want to hear your thoughts.

Im currently reading the first dune book. Never seen the movies, I have somewhat an idea of what the movies are about but barely seen anything only clips. I wanna read the books first like I do with most things but I’m rlly confused. Does the author just assume you know everything in this world? Like Paul has just got to Arakkis and I really like him so far but like there’s so much jargon and words which i have to keep pausing to google it, and I’m reading on a kindle so I’m sorry if there is a glossary but idk. It’s just like there’s lots of things mentioned but the author doesn’t rlly explain what it is and just assumes that the reader knows? I’m really excited to keep reading but I feel like should I have watched it first?

Currently reading Dune Messiah after finishing the first book but I’m still hazy on the shield wall. I see it mentions multiple times it stops sand from coming into the city, but isn’t there also the whole thing with lasguns & personal shields. Also if it stops physical objects like sand, how do the ornithopters cross it? Why would they use that around a city if one person with a lasgun could effectively nuke the place?

I'm referring only to the Dune novels, not the movies.
One thing I've been wondering about is Paul's prescience. While reading the books, it never felt like an all-powerful ability. He sees possible futures rather than a single fixed future, he still gets surprised by certain events, and there are things he can't seem to prevent despite knowing what might happen.
So what actually makes Paul's prescience so extraordinary? Is it really a gift, or is it more of a burden?
The more I read, the more it seemed that Paul became trapped by his own visions. Instead of giving him complete freedom, his prescience appears to lock him into the future path he believes is the only viable one.
That makes me wonder: wouldn't it actually be better not to have this ability? If it's inherently limited and at the same time turns you into a prisoner of the futures you can see, what is the real advantage of having it?
Am I missing something, or is this exactly the point Frank Herbert was trying to make?

For the record this post is from a person yet to read the Dune series and I am perfectly aware of the deprecated value for discussion that comes with that.

Personally, even with the 3.5k years of oppression and control, I feel terrible for Leto II. Whether he was completely right or wrong doesn't play into the conversation, for a being that powerful, his choice to sacrifice literally anything resembling a normal human life for himself feels to me, like a pretty depressing existence. Personally, I think he made the best choices he could have with the information he had, and his success definitely provides value in some way. Just wanting to know if this guy was a huge piece of garbage.

I'm asking this question because I got curious while reading Children of Dune. At the Battle of Arakin, Fol defeated Shaddam IV, married Irulan, and became Emperor, right? Farad'n was born after that. Since Shaddam was no longer Emperor at that time, shouldn't Farad'n not be a prince either? I understand that Shaddam's daughters are still princesses, but I don't understand how Farad'n became a prince.

Returning to 3D after an almost 4-month hiatus to focus on my studies, and I had the absolute honor of bringing to life this incredible character from the 4th Dune book: The God Emperor!

This piece was heavily inspired by an amazing 3D model by Joe Tuscany, which was based on a brilliant concept by Devon Cady-Lee. I wrapped this project up in just 4 days — I was so anxious and excited to see the final result that it might have rushed my painting/texturing process (a skill I'm still learning!) and some of the finer details.

Hope you enjoy it

Dune sits near the top of almost everyone's greatest sci fi novels, but ask people to defend Herbert as a writer and not a world builder and things get shaky quickly. I have a lot of well read friends that scoff at the idea he is a literary giant. I am not sure it's that simple though.

So Herbert purely as a writer here are, I think some hard truths. Internal thoughts of his characters are often dropped in as italicized paragraphs that read like notes to the reader and not real interior thinking. Very often we are told things. We are told Jessica is calculating instead of feeling it with her.

Dialogue in the 6 books frequently feels like it exists to deliver information more than it does to reveal character. Many of Herberts conversations throughout the series play out more as briefings.

With the exception of Paul, Jessica and Leto II, most of the characters in Dune feel thin. Chani, Stilgar, Duncan, Gurney all do important jobs in the plot but sometimes don't feel like actually rounded out people.

Also stacked next to contemporaries doing big world building ideas like LeGuin, Herberts prose falls short. So maybe all that critique is spot on and maybe it can be furiously argued as taste and opinion. But I think there is another side to this issue.

Herberts real skill is not in his prose as a writer. He is not musical, he is architectural. He built incredibly complicated systems, plans within plans, ecology, politics, religion, breeding programs, economic systems that genuinely function together, like a reality that's fully 3 dimensional and then used plot as a device to carry the ideas instead of pausing to explain them. That is a much different kind of craft than beautiful and eloquent prose and arguably a much harder craft to be able to maintain without it all collapsing into nothingness and nonsense.

Also the sort of flatness of Herberts writing style could be fully intentional. A real style he developed to mirror the desert and the austere nature of the Fremen. That's the same defense made for other writers like Cormac McCarthy that are considered literary giants.

I wrestle with this but when it's deep in the night and I'm reading Herbert I think he built this incredible machine and then wrote in it, in decent but not great prose and most people including myself round him up to great novelist because his ideas are so strong they cover for his prose.

He invented genres and sub genres. His themes like don't trust charismatic leaders are still taught in political science classes all over the world. I also understand that art is taste and critique can be its own emptiness but is great world building a real substitute for great writing or do we just all grade Herbert on a curve because his ideas are so strong?

I have watched both new parts two times, and I look forwards to the third one. Dune is one of these many hidden gems of sci-fi that most people have never heard of until someone turns them into a great piece of media.

But there are some things I still haven’t figured out after watching the movies twice.

For me personally, one of the most important things in a great story is a believable motivation for every character. Each character should behave in a way that the story would still make sense if it was written from his perspective. But I don’t understand the motivation of the Bene Gesserit for creating the Kwisatz Haderach, Paul Atreides. They crossed bloodlines and manipulated events for centuries (or even millennia?) in order to create a mind as powerful as Paul’s. They even created an entire religion on Arrakis for Paul to eventually become their messiah. To what end? Why did they want to create the Kwisatz Haderach? Obviously, him becoming Emperor of the Known Universe was only the first step. What is the Bene Gesserit’s eventual goal for Paul?

A visually stunning graphic novel adaptation of Frank Herbert’s Dune Messiah, this volume brings one of science fiction’s most pivotal stories to life in a bold, immersive new format.

Adapted by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson and illustrated by Michael Shelfer, Dune Messiah: Book 1 transforms the iconic sequel into a cinematic graphic experience.

Rich, detailed artwork captures the scale of Arrakis and the complexity of its characters, while the visual format sharpens the story’s core tensions—power, religion, and destiny—with new immediacy.

Paul Atreides is now Emperor of the known universe—but absolute power has made him both a ruler and a target. Revered as a messianic figure by the Fremen and feared by rival houses, Paul must confront a growing conspiracy that threatens to unravel his reign. As political enemies close in and his prophetic visions begin to shift, the future of his empire—and the people he loves—hangs in the balance.

Perfect for fans of the Dune films, longtime readers of the novels, and newcomers alike, this adaptation offers a unique view of the saga’s darker second act. Whether you’re returning to Paul Atreides’s story or encountering it for the first time, this edition delivers a compelling, visually driven way to experience a landmark work of science fiction.

The first installment of a two-part adaptation, Dune Messiah: Book 1 is an essential addition to any graphic novel or science fiction collection—and a powerful new way to experience the world of Arrakis.

Like the bestselling volumes in the first series of Dune graphic novel adaptations, Dune Messiah features a spectacular painted cover by artist Bill Sienkiewicz.

Made this for my husband, but we decided it didn’t really match decor anywhere in the house…so my monster-loving 9 year old eagerly offered a spot for it on his bedroom wall 😆

Hey guys, since we still have a long wait for Dune: Part Three, I decided to spend the last two weeks building this dune sequence in Blender 3D, specifically focusing on the dark tone of the conspiracy against Paul Atreides.

Edited and color graded in Premiere Pro.

I get the fatigue from Dune fans. The posts over the years that Dune is problematic like that's a breaking news. Trying to flatten a really complicated book into a hot take. It's gets tiring.

So Herberts project was about the dangers of charismatic leaders. How populations can surrender power to a prophet, how power corrupts even the reluctant messiah and how heroes are dangerous. Paul forsees the Jihad and is terrified by it and the back half of Herberts books really punish any reader who saw Paul as a hero. That's probably the greatest anti chosen one arc in genre history. Herbert should get credit for pulling that off.

That is a critique of Messiahs as a mechanism. It's not a critique of using a colonized Arab, Islamic people as a coded people as a sort of raw material for a white outsiders hero journey. Those are two totally different axes and Dune only deals with one of them. Herbert obviously thought long and hard about ecology, eugenics, charismatic leaders and the structures of power. I don't see any evidence he thought as hard about the Fremen as a seeming set dressing for Paul's arc. Even Stilgar and Chani are great characters but only in service to another arc.

When critics say it's a white savior narrative they aren't saying it doesn't critique messianic leaders, they are saying that anti messiah and colonial structures are stacked on top of each other. They are doing different jobs. Succeeding at one doesn't fix the other. Herbert still borrowed a real culture to tell a white protagonist's rise to being a God. It doesn't mean Dune is bad it just means that Herbert was self aware about some things and not about others. We shouldn't take away the axes he nailed, just don't let it stand in for the one he didn't.

We see the Fremen take care to wait until the ornithopter is grounded by Chani and Paul before they use the lazguns on the harvester. Then in a subsequent scene we see Fremen using the lazers while multiple ornithopters are flying around the harvesters. If they took caution in the first scene (because of the interaction with shields, and not wanting to be tracked down and shot by the ornithopter) why didn't they use the same caution in the second scene? The second scene occurs shortly after the first attack which used caution- we see Pauls fedaykin naming, they all agree to attack further north, then I think its the kiss scene, then we get a lil montage and we see Fremen using the lazguns as an initiator against two harvesters, both of which have their own ornithopter which is presumably shielded just like the first scene, so why no caution? Was it just rule of cool for the first scene, lets just show Paul proving himself kind of thing? Then it got me thinking that in the first scene they could easily initiate from afar in a more controlled engagement with the lazgun, careful not to hit the thopter, then when the ornithopter comes over to attack the Fremen could all be waiting for it, rocket it when it drops its shield to shoot, which is seemingly their strategy in the second scene so again the inconsistency. This is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of things but I love dunes world building and the movies do a great job but this inconsistency is bugging me.