By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Dune: Part 2 Trailer

First one was one of the biggest surprises of my movie watching life. I didn’t expect to like it as much as I did. Love that it’s coming this year!



Around the Network

Finally got around to seeing the movie itself; thought it was just as brilliant as the first part. Visually stunning, well acted, epic in scope and masterfully directed.

It definitely deserves its box office success, and Villeneuev continues to prove himself one of the most skilled directors working today.



abronn627 said:
Shaunodon said:

I don't mind the bald heads as they'd already established that's the new Harkonnen look in part 1. It anything bothered me it's Chani wearing a light blue headband; the last thing I expect to see in the deserts of Arrakis is bright coloured clothing. Also curious why Paul doesn't have blue eyes for most of these scenes, as he should've been in the desert for years at this point, and even Lady Jessica is shown with blue eyes throughout the trailer.

On the positive, I'm glad they seemed to have based Princess Irulan more on the SyFy version where she's actually involved in the story-- convinced there's a connection between Muad'dib and the presumed dead Paul Atreides, actively searching for clues and connections using her bene gesserit skills to manipulate people --as opposed to the book version where she's just a figure head who only pops up in the end.

For Paul’s eyes, there 2 explanations. First, while do his eyes get the blue shade slowly over it’s stay in the desert, they become completely blue once he undergoes a certain process. The difference between him and Jessica is that she will undergo that process way sooner than him.

Second, the trailer is probably made like this on purpose. Since DV will probably explore the 2 year gap, showing the shade of blue in the trailer tell us what happens and when. The only time we see a full blue in his eyes is in the scenes that we know exactly when they happened like the duel with Feuyd.

Either way, I found the blue eyes effect very underwhelming in Part 1, those looked much better and more convincing in the David Lynch version. When I saw the Fremen at first in the movie, I thought they were actually smugglers from the villages, not Fremen from the Sietches.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 27 March 2024

My wife went to watch it and said it was fine (she liked the first part), I've skipped it since I found (as pretty much with all Villeneuve's stuff) to be fairly bland. Not bad, just bland.

"Rendezvous with Rama" might be something that he can probably do justice to. That, at least to me, seems like something more suited for him (if they stick just to the Clarke's original book, and not Clarke/Lee sequels).



Bofferbrauer2 said:
abronn627 said:

For Paul’s eyes, there 2 explanations. First, while do his eyes get the blue shade slowly over it’s stay in the desert, they become completely blue once he undergoes a certain process. The difference between him and Jessica is that she will undergo that process way sooner than him.

Second, the trailer is probably made like this on purpose. Since DV will probably explore the 2 year gap, showing the shade of blue in the trailer tell us what happens and when. The only time we see a full blue in his eyes is in the scenes that we know exactly when they happened like the duel with Feuyd.

Either way, I found the blue eyes effect very underwhelming in Part 1, those looked much better and more convincing in the David Lynch version. When I saw the Fremen at first in the movie, I thought they were actually smugglers from the villages, not Fremen from the Sietches.

Really? I thought the lynch version had laughably bad eyes. They were distracting in how awful they looked. The new version they actually look like they genuinely have blue eyes.



Around the Network
pikashoe said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Either way, I found the blue eyes effect very underwhelming in Part 1, those looked much better and more convincing in the David Lynch version. When I saw the Fremen at first in the movie, I thought they were actually smugglers from the villages, not Fremen from the Sietches.

Really? I thought the lynch version had laughably bad eyes. They were distracting in how awful they looked. The new version they actually look like they genuinely have blue eyes.

Same, DV made them having shades of blue that is more grounded and plausible, Lynch went with glow in the dark kind of blue, like they could light up a dark room 😂



pikashoe said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Either way, I found the blue eyes effect very underwhelming in Part 1, those looked much better and more convincing in the David Lynch version. When I saw the Fremen at first in the movie, I thought they were actually smugglers from the villages, not Fremen from the Sietches.

Really? I thought the lynch version had laughably bad eyes. They were distracting in how awful they looked. The new version they actually look like they genuinely have blue eyes.

The one in the Lynch version are truer to the text, as they were completely blue (as in, a uniform blue color, no visible retina and the like) in the novels. it looked distracting in the Lynch version because that's what they were in the books, too.



curl-6 said:

Finally got around to seeing the movie itself; thought it was just as brilliant as the first part. Visually stunning, well acted, epic in scope and masterfully directed.

It definitely deserves its box office success, and Villeneuev continues to prove himself one of the most skilled directors working today.

Glad to see someone around here finally talking about this movie.  Was a very emotional experience for me in the theater, especially since I've read the book three times.  The sandworm scene had me in tears, I'm not ashamed to admit.  I've always liked aspects of the Lynch version (casting, tone, set design) but I'm so glad to see the actual story (with its core message intact) come to life, albeit with some changes which I think Denis has earned the right to make.

I've watched it in a regular theater and in an Imax Lite and both experiences were incredibly moving.  I hope we get a third part to finish out Paul's arc.  And even more so, I hope we eventually get Children of Dune, but Denis has said he has no interest in anything beyond Messiah.



super_etecoon said:
curl-6 said:

Finally got around to seeing the movie itself; thought it was just as brilliant as the first part. Visually stunning, well acted, epic in scope and masterfully directed.

It definitely deserves its box office success, and Villeneuev continues to prove himself one of the most skilled directors working today.

Glad to see someone around here finally talking about this movie.  Was a very emotional experience for me in the theater, especially since I've read the book three times.  The sandworm scene had me in tears, I'm not ashamed to admit.  I've always liked aspects of the Lynch version (casting, tone, set design) but I'm so glad to see the actual story (with its core message intact) come to life, albeit with some changes which I think Denis has earned the right to make.

I've watched it in a regular theater and in an Imax Lite and both experiences were incredibly moving.  I hope we get a third part to finish out Paul's arc.  And even more so, I hope we eventually get Children of Dune, but Denis has said he has no interest in anything beyond Messiah.

Yeah the Lynch version I felt was admirable in several areas, albeit let down a bit by some others.

Regarding this new one, it was cool to see a mainstream film that's not afraid to tell a darker story and have the protagonist turn out to be less than virtuous, something that was a little more sanitized in the 1984 film.

Also Feyd was a great villain this time around, Austin Butler really sold the vision of a dangerous sociopath, I felt.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
pikashoe said:

Really? I thought the lynch version had laughably bad eyes. They were distracting in how awful they looked. The new version they actually look like they genuinely have blue eyes.

The one in the Lynch version are truer to the text, as they were completely blue (as in, a uniform blue color, no visible retina and the like) in the novels. it looked distracting in the Lynch version because that's what they were in the books, too.

Neither version is like the books. In the books the eyes are described as almost black in colour due to how dark of a blue they are. The lynch version they look like they are literally glowing which is not like the book at all.