42
votes
"Dune: Part Three" in the works, in addition to Denis Villeneuve adapation of "Nuclear War: A Scenario"
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Denis Villeneuve and Legendary Developing 'Dune 3' and 'Nuclear War: A Scenario' Film Adaptation
- Authors
- Jaden Thompson
- Published
- Apr 4 2024
- Word count
- 273 words
This is the first I've heard about this book, but I'm assuming the film would be a fictional story based on this nonfiction account of what would happen? At a glance, seems like it could make for a good "what if" movie, and is an interesting direction for Villeneuve to go, making something grounded after just making a sci fi fantasy epic.
Of course, the thing most people clicked on this post for was Dune: Part Three. Villeneuve already said he was working on the script, but it's good to hear from Legendary that it is happening. Part Two was fantastic, and importantly, really successful, so the director finishing all 3 movies he originally set out to make seemed inevitable. I think I speak for everyone when I say: let him cook.
I believe the studio head said before that they'd like to get part three. But only if the adaption is really good, which is exactly what Villeneuve said as well. So I like that they're both committed to making the best movie possible.
I watched a snippet of an interview with Villeneuve from some PR junket and what I kind of read between the lines was some reticence until he was happy with the screenplay/script. Total supposition, but that’s how I read it.
Of course I’m on the “part 2 was a masterpiece” bandwagon, so how the heck they follow THAT up- I mean… take all the time you need.
Yes! I'm perfectly happy waiting if it means Part 3 will be excellent
Jacobsen's book isn't nominated for a Pulitzer Prize because the book just came out. Doesn't Variety have fact checkers?
Sounds a bit like Threads:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)
Imagine if a movie adaptation of Shakespeare's Hamlet ended with a surprise twist in which not only does Hamlet not die, but also Rosencranz and Guildenstern also survive to start a war between Hamlet's kingdom and Denmark. As "Hamlet the Movie" ends a new war is kicked off. That might be an exciting movie, and it might easily lend itself to an exciting sequel, but that is not Hamlet.
That's basically what's happened to Dune. Dune part 2 was a good movie, but it's simply not Dune. I'm sure part 3 or whatever will also be a good movie, but it really is just a guarantee that Dune will never get a faithful movie adaptation.
I don't understand your analogy. Muad'dib's jihad does happen between books 1 and 2 so the movie ending on the war isn't a radical departure from source. So I assume you're referring to some other plot change but I can't think of one big enough. The omission of the spacing guild from the finale? Disappointing but doesn't rise to the level of "Hamlet is alive".
That's not what bothers me, I'm upset about how they did Chani, and especially about the end without clarifying that Paul was marrying the princess just for politics to officially rise from Duke to Emperor, and Chani was still going to be his love and mother to his children the way it was with Paul's parents. The last words of the book are Jessica saying to Chani "We who carry the name of concubine -- history will call us wives"
Leaving it like that really worries me that they are going to make a big movie plot point a 'love triangle' between Chani and Irulan
Dune Messiah spoilers
Which is ridiculous because the big relationship thing in Messiah was Irulan getting so upset that Paul wouldn't love her or give her a child she joined the conspiracy against him and poisons Chani with contraceptives.Dune is one of my favorite series, and while I'm disappointed Alia wasn't born in the movie, I accept it makes sense for a movie and was probably a good decision. I completely disagree with how they ended things with Chani and think they will need to pretty seriously change the story around for this next movie.
Since they announced the first Dune movie I wanted so bad for Villeneuve to get to Dune Messiah, to see how he does Muad'Dib's throne, and I'm excited to at least get to see that.
Edit: I'm not the person with the Hamlet thing, I'm just saying what I think was the biggest non-Dune thing, because Herbert bashed that point over our head with Jessica and Leto doing the same thing. I really liked the new movie, and the only thing I actively disliked was the very final scene
As someone who has never read the books I'll say this part seemed incredibly clear to me during the movie. The movie definitely didn't imply anything about Chani continuing to be his "concubine", but it also didn't do anything to take that off the table as she is visibly conflicted at the end of the movie. I see no reason they couldn't have Chani's story go exactly as you've described. I also didn't pick up even a hint of love towards Irulan from Paul that would make me think their marriage would be anything but political in the very brief interaction they had.
It sounds like they just left it a bit more open ended than the books may have due to runtime constraints, but that shouldn't limit the next movie at all. For all we know the next movie may briefly start prior to the timeskip just to wrap up those story beats you feel were missed.
As someone who read the books, comparing this to "hamlet is alive" is just vast hyperbole.
There are certain plot points related to Chani that they skipped in 2, probably in part because they weren't sure if they'd get a 3rd. The overall tone of the story is basically the same, and it's not going to be that hard to shift the plot points they skipped from 2, into 3, where it will probably feel more cohesive.
I'm not the person who compared it to "Hamlet is alive" I'm just saying my big gripe with the new movie. Like I said I understand things getting switched but Chani seems to have lost so much.
My biggest complaint was the very ending, with Chani riding off on a worm alone, especially because in the movie it really didn't seem to me like Chani really cared for Paul, where in the books they already had a child together that was killed in the attack before the emperor came to Dune. And for a time constraint I think you could have had the discussion between Jessica and Chani in the same time as her riding off alone. I think it was a good movie, the gladiator fight was phenomenal and worth the admission by itself, and I guessed most of the major changes, this one just rubs me the wrong way.
I'm not the person that compared it to Hamlet is alive, I'm just saying my biggest gripe. The comment I immediately replied to was talking about major plot changes, suggesting ending on the war or omission of the Spacing Guild, but I don't think either of those effect the story from this point, so I'm just saying what I see as the biggest difference going forward.
I would really like to see Dune get a TV/streaming series à la Game of Thrones, there is too much going on for movies, I say the same thing for Lord of the Rings.
It's funny you should bring up Shakespeare, as he made himself the most popular writer of the English language, possibly of any language, by almost exclusively adapting older stories to entertain popular audiences. He often changed major plot points from the source material, too.
Pretty much the only play of his that we're fairly certain wasn't an adaptation or retelling of history is The Tempest, and that was almost certainly inspired by the news of a real-life shipwreck that happened shortly before the play's composition.
I don't think that negates your opinion or anything, but I think it should be noted that if someone did make a cheesy sequel to Hamlet, I doubt old Will would be spinning in his grave. In fact, he'd probably wonder why it took us so long.
Someone did make a cheesy sequel to Hamlet and that person is Steve Coogan and that movie is Hamlet 2 (doesn’t negate your point or anything, it’s just a heckuva movie)
While it's not 100% faithful to the book, it seems like the changes are mostly cosmetic or within the spirit of the original author's intent? I've mostly seen praise from fans of the books.
I've read the books multiple times and have no clue what you're talking about. What does it matter that the Jihad starts on-screen instead of off-screen immediately after the book ends? It's not wildly different and the main plot is pretty much the same.
The only good Hamlet movie adaption is The Lion King.
Isn't Hamlet itself an adaptation with significant changes too?
The Lion King is great, but was plagiarized. Sorry if this ruins it a bit for anyone, but I’ll continue to bring this up until Disney coughs up for it. It’s clearly a remake of a Japanese manga from the 60s called Kimba the White Lion.
Sorry to hijack the topic a bit, but when this news broke years ago, it should have gotten remedied. Plus, good trivia.
Edit: I’ve been hoodwinked to some extent or another. Turns out at the very least a nontrivial amount of the Kimba/Simba controversy was backed up with footage from a Kimba movie that came out AFTER the lion king.
So, I don’t know, but this particular rabbit hole is officially cutting into the time I allocated to getting an oil change. Reach your own conclusions.
Going from a popular studio franchise to a nuclear war movie. Looks like DV is copying the Nolan playbook.
Really interested in the nuclear war film.
I still think films like "Threads" and "The Day After" are some of the most harrowing films I've seen depicting the actual nightmare of nuclear apocalypse.
It's very grim and while I think they're great films and culturally important they are showing their age now and a new film showing the brutal atrocities of a potential "What if" nuclear war scenario are sorely needed.
Threads is legit nightmare fuel, but something that everyone should watch at least once, IMO. We got shown it in elementary school, and the hospital scenes in particular have stuck with me all these decades later.
As someone who didn't watch Threads until they were an adult, the notion of showing that film to elementary schoolers seems perverse. Just seeing The Day After on broadcast TV in the states was enough to make me certain that nuclear war was nothing I ever wanted to see in my lifetime.
And I often wonder what the psychological references were for citizens of the Soviet Union during this time. Was nuclear war as terrifying a prospect to them as it was to us in the West? We didn't end up killing each other over this, so I can only imagine that that was the case.
IIRC it was shown to us in Grade 8 (the last year of Elementary School), when we were 13-14 years old... so it's less inappropriate/perverse than it may sound. But it did still terrify the shit out of us. :P
As for the Soviet Union, since I was curious for an answer too I went looking, and here's an awesome /r/AskHistorians thread on that very subject:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/t5le4e/the_bbc_produced_threads_1984_during_the_cold_war/hz62zf7/
My man is also attached to the Cleopatra movie. I call it Guillermo Del Toro syndrome.