#looks like 1984 Paul though

[chalamet-chalamet]

10/24/23-Get ready to take off and explore the world of Dune with the new Lego Ornithopter. Available for pre-order now! Released on February 1, 2024. 💥💥💥

IG credit to lego

[edenhasfeelings]

The Death of Media Literacy, Religion, Misogyny, and Cognitive Dissonance

Spoilers for Dune Part 1 and 2 and the Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes

I'll admit, I have not read the Dune books yet, but I am a huge fan of the Dune movies. Not only did Denis Villeneuve just make two incredible, epic movies with a lot of nuance, gorgeous visuals, and an incredible score by Hans Zimmer, but the story itself is really compelling for a lot of reasons. My mother had tried to get me into Dune when I was younger, but at the time it wasn't my thing. I really liked Part 1, but Part 2 was something else entirely. I was gripping my seat the whole time, genuinely enthralled by everything happening. But I came out of the theatre with one definite conclusion: Paul Atredies is not a hero. I shared my thoughts in the car, and while my boyfriend agreed with me and my father had no opinion, my mother adamantly refused. She read the first book in college, and loved the 1984 version of the film (watching that, in my opinion, was like slow cooking your eyeballs over a campfire, but it was cool for the time period I guess). She was insistent he was the hero, and then tried to say that they changed the story to make him seem more like a villain, but he wasn't in the first book.

No hate to my mom, it's been a long while since she read the first book, and me and her are going to actually read the whole series soon. From my understanding and the research I've done, Frank Herbert wrote Dune as a cautionary tale against white saviorism and a commentary about America stealing oil from Middle Eastern countries and their subsequent colonization. I've also heard it was meant to be a standalone originally, but because people were portraying Paul Atredies to be the hero so much, he then wrote Dune Messiah to further drive home the point he was originally trying to make. But even without the knowledge of the books, it was apparent to me that he was not meant to be a hero in the movies. Of course, it isn't spelled out for you, and Timothée Chalamet does have some really epic, badass moments. But one of the biggest clue that you can have to what's going on is Chani, and how she reacts. She loves Paul, and she supports him, but she doesn't support him becoming a religious figure that leads her people because she feels as though that level of fervent religion is dangerous and not right; she says that a born and raised Fremen should be the one to free their people. You also see a huge shift from how Paul acts in the first movie and the first part of the second movie to how he acts after he drinks the Water of Life. In the first movie and first part of the second, he refuses to fulfill any prophecy, and tells them that he is not the one they are looking for. He is only wanting one thing: to avenge his father and his house. He even gets into an argument with his mother, Jessica, and he tells her that the Bene Gesserit were the ones to perpetuate this prophecy for their own gain. He knows it isn't real, and that it isn't divine, and that he was raised by Jessica to fit the qualifications for this prophecy for her own gain and the gain of her order. He knows what will happen if he takes up the mantle of Lisan al-Gaib: holy war spreading across the galaxy in his name. But when he feels like he has no other choice but to drink the Water to rally the Fremen to fight the Harkonnens, things instantly change. He becomes arrogant and demanding and self-confident, completely uncaring of how Chani feels and becoming solely focused on becoming Emperor. The line "lead them to paradise" felt really, really gross upon delivery, partly due to Hans Zimmer's masterful score. It feels damning.

While looking like a white savior story at very simplistic face value, Dune: Part Two is in fact a critique of it, even without the addition of Dune Messiah. The other big thing that the movie critiques is religion, especially blind faith at the cost of your critical thinking skills, religious fanaticism and idolization, and how religion is taken advantage of by people in power or people who want to be in power. Now I've seen a lot of tone deaf critiques of Dune, and a lot of ignorant comments made, usually in regards to the racial and political elements of the story. I have also seen a lot of people who get it and were able to help me expand my reasoning for the feeling of wrongness I got from people thinking Paul is a hero. But nothing compares to the TikTok I saw today. Someone blended the audio of Timothée Chalamet's Wonka character introducing himself, with the scene after Paul drinks the Water and goes to rally the Fremen to fight for his cause. The first image in the slideshow was an image of Wonka with the caption "Being raised in a religious household and calling yourself 'a Christian'." The second slide shows Paul in the midst of his religious fanaticism in the movie, with the caption "After being born again and having your entire worldview change." Absolutely no hate to this creator if you know who I'm talking about, but this video quite honestly had me gagged, for lack of a better term. I was absolutely shocked at not just the usual lack of media literacy that revolves around this movie and so many others, but the fact that they were so far gone from the point of the movie and Paul's character entirely that they thought it was a good idea to post that online in reference to their own faith. Paul Atredies took advantage of a prophecy that he knew was engineered to control the Fremen to do exactly what the Harkonnens wanted to do, just in a different font. His intentions might have been good to start, but ultimately, because of Jessica and the Bene Gesserit (specifically the Reverend Mother, as she talks to him in his visions and pushes him forward), who he realizes he is being manipulated by, he ends up where he is: a religious idol who (Spoiler for Dune Messiah) leads 61 billion souls "to paradise" and causes irreparable damage to the galaxy.

As someone who was raised Christian, I can tell you without a doubt that religion in general, but especially Christianity, can heavily damage your critical thinking skills and media literacy. When you look at everything from the lens of, "Ok but how does this piece of media validate my feelings and beliefs regardless of intention, subtext, or true meaning?" you end up falling into some really dangerous territory. Paul is not meant to be venerated in any way, shape, or form. He's a badass character and Timothée Chalamet did an excellent job portraying him, but you should not be comparing yourself to him, especially in the context of your religious journey. That is incredibly dangerous as you then shut your eyes to the true message of the story: white saviorism is bad, colonialism is bad, exploiting entire peoples for resources of any kind is bad, and spreading and using religion to control people is bad. Of course if you phrased bluntly any of these things to religious people they would (probably) agree that those are bad things. But when you put it into the context of film/literature/music/etc, and then you have no one spelling things out for you like you're used to people doing for you in your religion, and you've already tossed your critical thinking skills out the window in order to avoid doubting your faith, you end up supporting and turning a blind eye to the bad things that you would otherwise disagree with if it was made simple for you. Even if you have no ill intention, even though it was just a silly TikTok, the ease in which people delude themselves by refusing to look any deeper into media causes such mass amounts of complacency and allows history to repeat itself. It is repeating itself right now. When we learn about the Holocaust in school, everyone would say that if they were Germans living in Germany, they would have opposed the genocide of the Jewish, Romani, and queer people during WWII. But here we are, watching the genocide of the Palestinian people live on our phones, and yet people are still sitting in denial and complacency, and often using the Bible and religion as an excuse for why its' ok.

Steering away from the topic of religion, another clear example of media illiteracy recently was The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes. I both read the book and saw the movie (full book review posted on my book review blog @385bookreviews). While in the book you get Coriolanus' raw thoughts and it is made more obvious that he is not a good person even without the influence of Dr. Gaul, the movie still does a really good job of showing his decline into the person we see in The Hunger Games trilogy. And yet somehow, even with the context of the first three Hunger Games books (and the four movies), somehow people were still painting Coriolanus as the misunderstood good guy of the story. The latent misogyny that came out of so many people, especially women and girls who claim to be feminists, by saying Lucy Gray was manipulative and everything was her fault, was honestly appalling to watch. There is always room for personal interpretation of media, however that is widely different from purposefully ignoring canon information and editing the text to adhere to your own cognitive dissonance. This can once again come back to religion, as I believe people of every organized religion also practice this habit of picking and choosing whatever they want from their holy texts and then conveniently excusing the rest of it. Media illiteracy is shown in another way with the Hunger Games series fans as well. A lot of people can go to the movies or read the books and root for the rebelling protagonist and recognize perfectly the plot of the story: government bad, so good people rebel and fight for their freedom, and those are our heroes. And yet these same people will then turn around and ignore genocide because "the oppressed people attacked first, they should have stayed peaceful".

While not all media reflects real life, or is meant to be taken as seriously, The Hunger Games and Dune are definitely not two of those series. By ignoring the context and subtext and purely engaging with things as fiction, and then ignoring the real life applications and implications of the work, we are being purposefully and consensually blinded and allowing ourselves to become mindless cogs in a capitalist machine. We all need to learn to think for ourselves, now more than ever, and that starts with our media consumption.

[deadpresidents]

"No fewer than twenty-nine of my [research] cards document [Ronald] Reagan's detachment. He was at once the most remote and the most accessible of men. Although he reveled in the constant flesh-pressing of the Presidency, and ate up flattery with a spoon, he needed regular spells of 'personal time.' Glance through the Oval Office peephole and you would see him happily writing in longhand, always with his tie straight and jacket on, ensconced in an egglike solitude that the curvature of the lens only emphasized.

Adored by so many, he was a man with no real friends. This was not due to any inherent misanthropy...Until he remarried in 1952, earnest, bespectacled Ronnie was said to be 'best friends' with [actor] William Holden, and after that with Robert Taylor. But neither man was more than a barbecue buddy. Hundreds of political supporters and associates claimed to be close to him when he was Governor of California and thousands during his Presidency. Former Senator Paul Laxalt spoke for all of them when he said, 'I guess I know Ronald Reagan as well as anybody. Of course we never talk about anything personal.'

Sooner or later, every would-be intimate (including his four children, Maureen, Michael, Patti, and Ron) discovered that the only human being Reagan truly cared about (after his mother died) was Nancy. For Laxalt, disillusionment came when the President called to thank him for his campaign help in 1984, only to pause in midsentence and audibly turn over a page of typescript. For William F. Buckley Jr., it was when Reagan showed polite relief at his inability to accept an offer of hospitality. For Michael Reagan, it was the high-school graduation day his father greeted him with 'My name is Ronald Reagan. What's yours?'

Patti Davis, Reagan's younger daughter, writes in her 1992 autobiography:

'Often I'd come into a room and he'd looked up from his notecards as though he wasn't sure who I was. [Youngest son] Ron would race up to him, small and brimming with a child's enthusiasm, and I'd see the same bewildered look in my father's eyes, like he had to remind himself who Ron was...I sometimes felt like reminded him that Maureen was his daughter, too, not just someone with similar political philosophies.'

Reagan's scrupulously kept Presidential diary is remarkable for a near-total lack of interest in people as individuals. In all its half-million or so words, I did not find any affectionate remark about his children. He conscientiously named every visitor to the Oval Office, having a printed schedule to refer to, but in conversation he tended to rely on pronouns. Nor did he pay much attention to faces. 'Nice to meet you, Mr. Ambassador,' he greeted Denis Healey, the former Defense Minister of Great Britain, while the real British Ambassador stood by. 'But I've already met him,' his Excellency [the Ambassador] complained, 'eleven times.'"

-- Edmund Morris, Ronald Reagan's authorized biographer, on President Reagan's aloof personality, "The Unknowable: Ronald Reagan's Amazing, Mysterious Life," The New Yorker, June 28, 2004.

[dweemeister]

Whenever you feel alone, just remember that those kings will always be there to guide you. And so will I.

Born to a turbulent family on a Mississippi farm, James Earl Jones passed away today. He was ninety-three years old. Abandoned by his parents as a child and raised by a racist grandmother (although he later reconciled with his actor father and performed alongside him as an adult), the trauma of his childhood developed into a stutter that followed him through his primary school years – sometimes, his stutter was so debilitating, he could not speak at all. In high school, Jones found in an English teacher someone who found in him a talent for written expression, and encouraged him to write and recite poetry in class. He overcame his stutter by graduation, although the effects of it carried over for the remainder of his life.

Jones' most accomplished roles may have been on the Broadway stage, where he won three Tonys (twice winning Best Actor in a Play for originating the lead roles in 1969's The Great White Hope by Howard Sackler and 1987's Fences by August Wilson) and was considered one of the best Shakespearean actors of his time.

But his contributions to cinema left an impact on audiences, too. Jones received an Honorary Academy Award alongside makeup artist Dick Smith (1972's The Godfather, 1984's Amadeus) in 2011. From the end of Hollywood's Golden Age to the dawn of the summer Hollywood blockbuster in the 1970s to the present, Jones' presence – and his basso profundo voice – could scarcely be ignored. Though he could not sing like Paul Robeson nor had the looks of Sidney Poitier, his presence and command put him in league of both of his acting predecessors.

Ten of the films James Earl Jones appeared in, whether in-person or voice acting, follow (left-right, descending):

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) – directed by Stanley Kubrick; also starring Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, Keenan Wynn, and Slim Pickens

The Great White Hope (1970) – directed by Martin Ritt; also starring Jane Alexander, Chester Morris, Hal Holbrook Beah Richards, and Moses Gunn

Star Wars saga (1977-2019; A New Hope pictured) – multiple directors, as the voice of Darth Vader, also starring Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing, Alec Guinness, Billy Dee Williams, Anthony Daniels, David Prowse, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew, and Frank Oz

Claudine (1974) – directed by John Berry; also starring Diahann Carroll, Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs, and Tamu Blackwell

Conan the Barbarian (1982) – directed by John Milius; also starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sandahl Bergman, Ben Davidson, Cassandra Gaviola, Gerry Lopez, Mako, Valerie Quennessen, William Smith, and Max von Sydow

Coming to America series (1988 and 2021; original pictured) – multiple directors; also starring Eddie Murphy, Arsenio Hall, John Amos, Madge Sinclair, Shari Headley, Jermaine Fowler, Leslie Jones, Tracy Morgan, and KiKi Layne

The Hunt for Red October (1990) – directed by John McTiernan; also starring Sean Connery, Alec Baldwin, Scott Glenn, and Sam Neill

The Sandlot (1993) – directed by David Mickey Evans; also staring Tom Guiry, Mike Vitar, Patrick Renna, Chauncey Leopardi, Marty York, Brandon Adams, Grant Gelt, Shane Obedzinski, Victor DiMattia, Denis Leary, and Karen Allen

The Lion King (1994) – directed by Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff, as the voice of Mufasa; also starring Jonathan Taylor Thomas, Matthew Broderick, Jeremy Irons, Moira Kelly, Niketa Calame, Ernie Sabella, Nathan Lane, and Robert Guillaume, Rowan Atkinson, Whoopi Goldberg, Cheech Marin, Jim Cummings, and Madge Sinclair

Field of Dreams (1989) – directed by Phil Alden Robinson; also starring Kevin Costner, Amy Madigan, Ray Liotta, and Burt Lancaster

[johns-prince]

I told him: “You know you love your own company. Even Cyn says you go days without speaking to her. She feels a million miles away from you.” John replied: “Ah, but she’s not, is she. She’s in the kitchen putting the kettle on.”

—Tony Barrow, Beatles Book Monthly Magazine, No. 149 (Sept. 1988) [×]

¶

There’s one line in the lyric I don’t really mean: “Well knowing you / You’d probably laugh and say / That we were worlds apart”. I’m playing to the more cynical side of John, but I don’t think it’s true that we were so distant. 

—Paul reads from his new book, The Lyrics (2021). [×]

¶

“I’m kind of expected to say, ‘[John] was a saint, he was always a saint, I remember him as a saint’, but it would be a lie. He was one great guy and part of his greatness was that he wasn’t a saint. He was a great guy but he was pretty sacrilegious. He was pretty up front about it. But it was half the fun.”

—Paul McCartney (c. 1984) in The Dream Is Over: Off The Record 2 by Keith Badman [×]

¶

“John is neither a saint, nor is he a sinner. He was just human, like the rest of us.”

—Cynthia Lennon, answering the question “John Lennon: saint or sinner?” The Independent, July 1999 [×]

¶

“Seeing Lennon focus on Ono rather than him[Paul] was as devastating as it would have been for Cynthia Lennon to witness the couple making love.”

—Peter Dogget, You Never Give Me Your Money. [×]

¶

“Then also we were like married, so you got the bitterness. It’s not a woman scorned this time, it’s two men scorned — probably even worse. And I had to make way for Yoko. My relationship with John could not have remained as it was and Yoko feel secure.”

— Paul McCartney, Interview by Duncan Fallowell in the Chicago Tribune, October 14th, 1984 [×]

¶

“Apart from giving me the courage to break out of my stockbroker belt... Yoko also gave me the inner strength to look more closely at my other marriage. My real marriage. To The Beatles, which was more stifling than my domestic life. Although I had thought of it often enough, I lacked the guts to make the break earlier.”

—Skywriting By Word Of Mouth by John Lennon (pg. 17) [x]

¶

“I still think at the back of John’s mind was this fascination of wanting to get back with the first girlfriend, if you like, and that was to get back with Paul, who he had so much history with.”

—Tony Barrow, The Beatles’ press officer, on the Lennon/McCartney reunion that was never to be [×]

¶

“I mean, I think really what it was, really all that happened was that John fell in love. With Yoko. And so, with such a powerful alliance like that, it was difficult for him to still be seeing me. It was as if I was another girlfriend, almost. Our relationship was a strong relationship. And if he was to start a new relationship, he had to put this other one away. And I understood that. I mean, I couldn’t stand in the way of someone who’d fallen in love. You can’t say, “Who’s this?” You can’t really do that. If I was a girl, maybe I could go out and…”

—April 3rd?, 1985 (Soho Square, London): Paul talks on German television show exclusive about the breakup of the Beatles and his personal breakup with John. [x]

¶

“But Paul was his own man and not afraid of John. In fact, musically and personally, the two were beginning to go in separate directions so perhaps Paul’s visit to me was also a statement to John.”

—Cynthia Lennon, John [×]

¶

“Paul, who believed strongly in the family and in family values, told me that he felt as if it was the Beatles themselves who were heading for divorce, not just John and Cynthia.”

—Tony Bramwell, Magical Mystery Tours [×]

I wanted to end this post with a quote from Cynthia, whether it was from a book or was an answer to a question, about how she simply misses lying in bed with John, and just the two of them talking. This quote from her book John [x] is relevant, but unfortunately I couldn't find the exact quote I wanted.

To accompany the sentiment from John's first wife though, is this quote:

“If John Lennon could come back for a day, how would you spend it with him?” “In bed.”

—Paul McCartney answers questions for Q magazine, 1998 [x]

[where-theres-smoak-2]

Dune 2021/2024, Dune 1984 and Dune 2000 miniseries comparison.

After watching Dune part 2 I found out that there were actually other adaptions of the book and so with my curiosity piqued I decided to give them a watch and what I found really interesting was how different each one was, so I figured I'd make a post talking about some of the main differences between the three adaptions I watched. Obviously there are spoilers for both Dune part one and two, the 1984 film and the 2000 miniseries, I ma also going to put a book spoiler warning even though I haven't read the book because I am going to assume that some of the things that were present in the earlier adaptions and missing from the Villeneuve version probably came from the book, but anyway lets jump in.

The Harkonnens

The portrayal of the House Harkonnen is very different in the 2021/2024 films than in the other two adaptions. In Villeneuve's version they come across as much more threatening and terrifying. In the 1984 version they are just kind of disgusting and repulsive, like in almost every scene they are doing something that makes your stomach churn, whether that is having the doctor treating the boils on the Baron's face or Rabban tearing a dead cow's jaw off and munching down on it, uncooked, while making their evil plans. It seemed Lynch was really leaning into them being just repulsive and animal like to the audience.

When it comes to the miniseries they are portrayed in a more ridiculous, flamboyant and over the top, kind of way. They all seem a bit unhinged but it felt more like you were supposed to laugh at them than be afraid of them. It's still clear that they are the enemy that needs to be defeated and that they are brutal but they, in my opinion, also seemed to be portrayed as being a bit dumb, except maybe for the Baron. But you had Rabban who seemed to be just mindless muscle with anger issues, Feyd who often seemed like he was short a few brain cells and was kind of that dumb handsome jock type almost and the Baron who clearly had the smarts to pull off an evil plan but he was very flamboyant and a bit goofy, might be the word I'm looking for, but it was hard to take either the 1984 version or the miniseries version of the Baron very seriously as a scary threat when he was floating around the place like a villain from the power rangers.

In opposition of that Villeneuve turned the Harkonnens into something that was truly menacing and something that seemed powerful. Whilst watching both Part One and Two, I genuinely felt afraid of those characters, it felt like they really were threats to the fremen and to paul and his family. He even managed to make the Baron's floating seem creepy and imposing instead of gimmicky and goofy. I also really liked the change he did where instead of them being overly colourful he put them in black and took the red hair away to give them the bald heads, it made them seem more militaristic and harsh, if that makes sense, I just love that he stripped all the colour from them.

Liet-Kynes

So this one is less a comparison and delves more into theory/possibility mode but I still wanted to talk about it. One of the biggest changes for this character in Villeneuve's adaption is that she is a woman, in the other two adaptions (and I am guessing the book) the character is male. What I found really interesting though was that in the miniseries Liet-Kynes is not only a really respected figure amongst the fremen but also Chani's father. That does make me wonder if the character in Villeneuve's version was supposed to be Chani's mother and they just cut it out for whatever reason? If so then I kind of wish they had leant into that in part two as it would have given her another connection point with Paul in order to build their relationship. He had just lost his father and she just lost her mother, it could have been interesting to see them discuss those losses with each other and to see how they both deal with their own grief. The fact that Liet died helping Paul and him maybe feeling some responsibility or grief over that in relation to her being the mother of the woman he comes to love, could also have been interesting to explore. Another thing that could've been interesting to explore if they had stuck to Liet being Chani's mother was it seemed that Liet did believe in the prophecy yet Chani very much does not, it makes me wonder if there was any tension between Chani and her mother over the prophecy and whether Chani would have some resentment over her mother dying to save Paul because she believed he was the Mahdi.

Ok so I actually did a quick google search just now and it turns out that Villeneuve confirmed in an interview with entertainment weekly that they changed the gender of Liet-Kynes but that Chani was still her daughter and now I bummed out because it feels like such a wasted opportunity to cut that out, but who knows maybe it'll come up in part three, don't think its likely but you never know.

Gom Jabbar Test

So I'll be honest in most things I think Villeneuve did it best, if there is any adaption that I will go back and watch over and over its his. That being said there is one little thing that I think the other two versions did ever so slightly better than the more recent Dune Part One. That's the Gom Jabbar test, you know the creepy box that contains pain. In the 2021 version I understood that Paul was feeling pain but in the other versions they use visuals to show you exactly what kind of pain Paul is feeling. It is so much worse than anything I imagined when watching the scene in the 2021 version. In both the 1984 film and the 2000 miniseries we are shown visuals of the flesh being burned right off of his hand to the point where bone is revealed. It is gruesome and it really made me want to look away but it did also fully make me understand just how much pain Paul was in during that scene, it has now completely changed how I view that scene in the 2021 version because like yikes no thanks.

Jessica

Jessica is actually probably the most consistent character across all the adaptions, although I would say maybe she's a bit darker and more obviously manipulative when it comes to winning followers over to Paul as the Mahdi from the prophecy in Villeneuve's version. However there was one interesting little difference between the 1984 and miniseries versions and the 2021 version and that is the reason why Jessica chose to have a boy instead of a girl like she was instructed to. In the 2021 version Mother Mohiam says that Jessica was arrogant enough to think she could bring forth the Kwisatz Haderach and Jessica doesn't dispute instead just saying 'was I wrong', which is interesting because it implies that even before he was born Jessica planned to install Paul as this messiah figure and it shows her as being much more scheming. But in the other two versions the reason given is simply that she loved the Duke and he wanted a son so she wanted to give him that. I do think that this could have contributed to Jessica's motivations in the 2021 version as well, but having that line saying she wanted to bring forth the Kwisatz Haderach adds another interesting layer to Jessica's motivations.

Alia Atreides

It turns out that the creepy, magical, mystical, talking, fetus baby has a name and its Alia, in the 1984 film and 2000 miniseries she's actually an equally creepy, magical, mystical, talking toddler and not going to lie as creepy as I find her I also kind of love her in a, she terrifies me and she is clearly unhinged but there's just something about her, kind of way. I mean in the 1984 film it is another one of those plot points that they just kind of narrate over, they just announce that drinking the waters of life caused Jessica to go into preterm labour and also made Alia mature much faster. In the miniseries they do go a little deeper into her character and there is this scene where she creeps out a ton of the adults by saying a baby looks like a man that was dead before she was born, after she is talking to her mother and talks about how she hates how they all look at her because its not her fault she knows things and she says she feels like a freak. It reminded me a bit of that scene in Dune Part One in the tent where Paul screams at his mother that she made him a freak. I just couldn't help but feel really sorry for Alia in that moment.

However going back to the unhinged creepy part. Another huge difference between 2021/2024 Dune films and the other two adaptions is the way the Baron dies. In Dune Part Two Paul kills the Baron and its a very serious and dark moment, as Paul slowly pushes the blade into the Baron's throat. But in the other versions its actually Alia that kills the Baron and in both versions it comes across as both creepy and well a bit silly and absurd. In both versions she kills him with the Gom Jabbar needle and the baron, who still has the floating machine thingy on, proceeds to float about the room like an inflated balloon. In the 1984 version after pricking him with the needle she also stabs him I think, but there is this really creepy scene where Alia is just standing there with this blood soaked knife laughing manically.

Another creepy thing she does is get into Mother Mohiam's head which clearly disturbs her alot and its actually Alia that she calls abomination in the earlier versions not Paul. It is very clear that Alia does seem to have a like for seeing people suffering and also seems to have a violent side, like there's another scene in the miniseries where she is sitting at the base of Paul's throne and just smiling and laughing creepily at all the chaos going on around her. I just feel like Alia might benefit from a therapist, just a suggestion.

Obviously the changes to the 2024 Dune part two were made because in this version Alia isn't even born yet. Ironically though I do think you get more of a sense of her character through her talking to her mother and paul than you do in the two adaptions where she is born. But the other versions have made me even more excited to see this character once she has been born in part three. We did get that little shot of her as an adult in Paul's vision played by Anya Taylor-Joy, but yeah I suspect she's going to be an interesting character to watch.

Princess Irulan

This is another character that changes a fair amount from adaption to adaption. In the 1984 film she's another one that really isn't in it a whole amount. She does the narration at points including at the start of the film, explaining the set up and what not, and then she appears at the end of the film alongside her father but she really is not in it, she has such a minor role, Paul doesn't evne ask for her hand in marriage in this film, (but I do think there is a deleted scene of this?).

When we get to the miniseries though she actually has a much bigger role. She meets Paul much earlier in the film when she attends a banquet on Arrakis and she kind of has this flirty conversation with Paul and a little dance, seems like she kinda likes him. She also investigates the attack on the Atreides trying to discover if her father played a part in the attack, she even goes so far to flirt with and seduce Feyd to get him to reveal the information to her. In the miniseries I'm pretty sure it is also her that tells Margot to get pregnant by Feyd and secure the bloodline. Also at the end its actually her that says that the only solution is for her and Paul to wed and honestly, unlike Florence Pugh's version of the character, she seems pretty happy with the turn of events. I found that in the miniseries she comes across as very kind of cheerful, smart and sassy and also has this girlish flair about her, but I still can't decide if I liked her or not.

Which brings me to the 2024 version and Florence Pugh's portrayal. This version of the character did seem to be a bit more serious which honestly fits in more with the darker feel of these later adaptions. I did feel like you got more of a sense of her connection with the Bene Gesserit, there were times in the miniseries where I honestly forgot that she was part of their order, but in the 2024 adaption they did a good job of highlighting that connection. Making that connection clear also makes the ending scene more interesting because she doesn't look particularly happy about being Paul's bride and it does come across as like she only agrees to save her father's life but we know from an earlier conversation with Mother Mohiam that Irulan was already aware that she was going to have to do her part and either marry Paul or Feyd. It just adds that extra layer to that end scene, along with those looks that are exchanged between her, paul and Chani and you can see her putting pieces into place. This is another character that I am curious to see more of in part three. I just hope that they aren't going to try and turn it into some love triangle thing, in the miniseries its made very clear that Paul is devoted only to Chani and that the marriage is only a political one.

Chani (and Paul)

Chani is so different in each adaption, like so different and honestly my favourite version has to be Villeneuve's version because she has just got so much more depth to her and seems so much more of a complex and realistic character, I also think she is a lot more relatable.

In the 1984 version when I say she is barely in it, I mean she has like six lines total. I do think a large part of this was because with that version they tried to do the whole book in one movie and it didn't entirely work. Chani and Paul's relationship consists pretty much of two voice overs, one where the narrator says Paul fell in love with a fremen girl Chani and the second saying Paul and Chani fell even deeper in love, with some shots of them kissing. It was very underwhelming and you really didn't get a sense of their relationship as it was all tell and very, very little show.

The miniseries was a little better as the story was spread over three, one and half hour long, episodes. So we got to see a bit more of the relationship between Chani and Paul and she had a bit more substance as a character although I personally would have liked to see more of her as she still felt a little flat and really did seem to be there as the love interest. One really big difference that caught me by surprise though, is that in the miniseries they actually have a child who they call Leto after his father. Tragically Leto is killed when the Harkonnens and Sardaukar attack their sietch. This is obviously something that doesn't make it into Villeneuve's version of part two and I think that is partly to do with the time span differences, in the mini series years go by as opposed to the eight or so months of Dune Part Two. But it is still interesting that in the miniseries there is this whole new layer to Chani as her role as a mother that we don't see in the other versions. However I do think that the miniseries could have leant more into her role as a mother than they did as she only really has a few scenes with her son before he is killed off. It's even worse with Paul as the only scene you get of him with his son is a long distance shot of him carrying his son. We do see a couple of scenes of him grieving though.

When it comes to Villeneuve's and Zendaya's version of Chani, as I said above, I do think she was alot more fleshed out and she seemed more like a character in her own right rather than just the obedient love interest. I loved that they added in the plot of her not being a believer in the prophecy and how she sees that it is just a plot by the bene gesserit to further control and enslave her people, I think it adds an interesting new perspective that the others didn't have. I also love that she is a fighter and goes on the missions to attack the harvesters with Paul and the others and that she's the one that shows him the fremen ways alongside Stiglar. Not only did it bring her character more to the forefront and give her more to do but because she was actually with Paul it meant they had the time to build their relationship and romance in a way that felt natural. With them being apart whilst Paul was off training and fighting with the Fedaykin, in the earlier versions, there wasn't as much time to spend on building the romance so I didn't really buy into it as much as I did with Dune part two. By making Chani a Fedaykin herself, they could cover both the plot of Paul becoming a fremen and a Fedaykin but also still have the time for the romance.

I also think the ending scene and reaction to Paul embracing the role of Mahdi, overthrowing the emperor and asking for the princess' hand was more realistic in the 2024 version. I never really understood Chani just accepting it in the miniseries version, the engagement part wasn't even in the 1984 version. Chani's look of shock followed by anger in the 2024 version just seemed more relatable to me. I did very much feel like in the other versions Chani was just blinded by love and was meekly following along with whatever Paul wanted and to me personally I just didn't find that very interesting. I am also a huge sucker for angst though and the 2024 ending definitely had that angst. I also think Chani being angry and feeling betrayed adds alot more weight to that scene. Instead of it feeling like a victory its a kind of gut punch as you feel the same betrayal that Chani felt, watching Paul lose himself more and more to this role of Messiah after he promised her he wouldn't. There is also that scene where Chani takes the blue scarf that is supposed to represent her love for Paul off her head and wraps it around her arm instead, almost like its a mourning band, as if she is mourning the loss of the man she fell in love with. Its so much more heartbreaking and also intriguing than the other versions.  

Paul's Journey

The biggest difference between all these versions for me though was the character of Paul and his journey into becoming the messiah to the fremen. In Villeneuve's version I thought it was pretty clear that this was a tale about the dangers of blind faith and false prophets. Whilst I don't think Paul is necessarily a villain I also don't think he's a hero. He's a very complicated and interesting character. In that end scene where Paul defeats Feyd and overthrows the emperor, whilst you can feel the fremen's and Paul's sense of victory, as an audience member you are feeling anything but victorious. Me personally, I was still reeling from the change in Paul's character post drinking the waters of life where he seemed much more detached and colder almost, and also from seeing Chani's betrayal and watching him watching her walk away, that moment when it ends on her face and you can see all her anger and hurt with the tears welling up that she is refusing to let fall. I just feel like that end scene had so much complexity and layers to it, that it is different depending on whose point of view you look at it from. I might do a separate post going into that at some point.

But when it came to Paul's journey in the other adaptions I never got the sense that what Paul was doing was wrong. It just felt more like a hero's journey, this messiah come to lead the fremen. He teaches them to fight and helps them defeat the Harkonnens and defeat the evil emperor. I just felt like neither of the other versions really leant into the consequences of Paul leading the fremen into this Holy War, or into the fact that Paul is fully aware that the prophecy was designed by the Bene Gesserit and is just playing the role as opposed to actually believing that he is the Mahdi.

Which version is best?

So to wrap this all up, I definitely think each adaption had it own interesting interpretations of the story and characters as well as intriguing moments, but I would say my least favourite was Lynch's 1984 film. There was just too much story to pack into one film and the last 45 minutes of that film suffered for it. There was a very obvious moment where they just kind of skipped over a large amount of plot and opted for a narrator just giving you the low down on what has happened in this time skip. Coupled with the stomach turning Harkonnen scenes and the lack of Chani, I can't say I will be rushing to watch that version again anytime soon.

The miniseries was a bit more interesting and did a better job with the pacing of the story and their characters were a bit more fleshed out, there were moments where I did have an emotional reaction. That being said I did find it a bit difficult to connect to the characters and really care about them, I do think it was more plot driven than character driven. But it was fairly enjoyable and it passed an afternoon.

But for me personally Villeneuve's version is hands down and by far the best version. I feel like there's much more focus on the characters and how they are reacting to the plot and what is happening around them. I also think the characters are a lot more relatable than the other versions. I also much prefer the darker more serious tone of this adaption. I felt like I had much more of an emotional response to what was happening to these characters than I did with the other versions.

So yeah that's some thoughts I had on all the different versions of Dune. I am aware that there is a follow on series called Children of Dune but I think its covering what might happen in Dune part three of even beyond on that so I don't want to risk getting spoiled, maybe I'll go watch that in a few years time after Dune three has come out, for now I'm just content to go watch dune part one and two a few more hundred times.

[idontwanttospoiltheparty]

John Lennon Tribute Songs – Musings and Impressions

I decided this morning to look into what John Lennon tribute songs (+songs about John's death) are out there and found the results quite mixed but interesting. So here's some of my thoughts on them.

Includes songs by: Bob Dylan, The Cranberries, David Gilmour, Elton John, George Harrison, Yoko Ono, Paul McCartney, Paul Simon, Queen.

All Those Years Ago – George Harrison (1981)

Roll On John – Bob Dylan (2012)

Probably the most classic tribute song on this list, which is why I'm mentioning it first. I think it's somewhat misunderstood, because in my opinion it is far more personal than it's sometimes given credit for, even though it does fall into some clichés with how it references John's songs. It's overall positive, focusing on the good aspects of John and George's relationship as well as of John's legacy as a whole, with a few problematizing nuggets peppered in ("Living with good and bad"; "You had control of our smiles and our tears"). I see how the religious edge might be off-putting to some, but it feels incredibly earnest to me. The rock n' roll guitar riff is a lovely tribute to John's unabashed love for that genre.

(Also, I wrote a bit more in depth about the song and how I think it relates to George's view of John here.)

This is not a song I can justify the existence of. If it had been released shortly after John's murder maybe, but I don't see what it brought to the table 30+ years after the fact. It feels extremely gimmicky, dropping simplistic lyrical references and Wikipedia-page facts, and otherwise doesn't seem like it has anything substantial to say. I don't think these types of songs have to be written by someone who had a deep personal connection with the subject, but none of this feels natural, earned, or remotely insightful and the emotions are rather vapid.

Murder – David Gilmour (1984)

This song is musically interesting and the lyrics are quite compelling, but the centering of MDC's point of view is somewhat uncomfortable, given the actual context of his motivations. I feel this song works better as a reflection on murder as a concept, rather than a specific murder.

I Just Shot John Lennon – The Cranberries (1996)

The title of this one worried me but actually it sounds like it could be on Some Time in New York City if you threw a few saxes onto it; John wrote about tragedies in a very similar way (like the Troubles, which The Cranberries – of course – also wrote about). Despite the directness, this works and feels poignant rather than edgy.

Empty Garden (Hey Hey Johnny) – Elton John (1982)

I like the way this song opens with the metaphor of a gardener, giving the song a degree of universality, not just in the sense that John "belonged to the world" but also that it could be related to any loss. This is contrasted with the bridge ("And I've been knockin', but no one answers…"), where John is finally name-dropped, which adds such a personal touch to the song. It's masterful and heartbreaking, especially given the fact that Elton was having trouble getting through to John during his lifetime as well. A wonderful, heartfelt tribute.

The Late Great Johnny Ace – Paul Simon (1983)

This feels less like a tribute and more like a reflection on history. John's death in 1980 is contrasted with Johnny Ace's death in 1954, as well as John F. Kennedy's in 1963. The music is harrowing and intriguing, which really underlines the senselessness of all these deaths. I enjoy the observed parallelisms and the way Paul manages to make the song personal despite not having a close rapport with John. In that way it kind of reminds me of A Day In The Life.

I Don't Know Why – Yoko Ono (1981)

Life Is Real (Song for Lennon) – Queen (1982)

Like Here Today mentioned below, this is more of an anti-tribute song in my view. Ultimately it seems that to Yoko, the search for meaning in John's death is fruitless. Musically, the song is a bit long and repetitive, but as she sings: "You left me, you left me, you left me without words."

Also, the story the album cover tells is poignant, possibly more so than any song on it: a glass, which could be half empty or half full; the fog like an uncertain future, clouding the New York skyline; a pair of glasses, the ghost of a lost loved one; and vision itself, forever obstructed by the murder Yoko was forced to witness.

Musically, I find this one to be quite wonderful and I think I can see how it was influenced by John's sound to an extent. But it also appears to be so personal to Freddie Mercury as well as rather cryptic that it feels odd as a tribute, per se. That's not really a problem in my opinion, but it's notable that without the name-drop it wouldn't even be obvious this song was about someone – let alone John Lennon – having died. This makes the "(Song For Lennon)" part of the title feel a tad performative.

Here Today – Paul McCartney (1982)

It was thinking about this song this morning that prompted me to go listen to the other entries. While "All Those Years Ago" is a song in which George seems to proclaim that he understands John better than most people, on "Here Today", Paul discredits himself as a source on John basically immediately; within the first few lines of the song, he asserts that John would laugh in response to Paul claiming he really knew John. He's in a sense shooting down the idea of writing a straightforward tribute like George's because he does not appear to trust himself to make absolute statements on who John was. Instead, he shifts the focus to his own experience of their relationship, declaring that he loves John and is thankful, despite their possible lack of mutual understanding.

The song is fiercely personal and does not leave space for someone to relate to it as an uninvolved fan of John's, or even as one of John's loved ones who is not Paul, like Empty Garden and All Those Years Ago do. And yet Paul plays this song every night in concert as a tribute. It fascinates me deeply, not to mention it is lyrically one of his standout pieces as well as immensely moving musically.

[mostlynotwork]

Welcome to Arrakis.

‘Dune’ is another sci-fi classic I’ve finally found the time to read. Once again, I wanted to read the book before watching the movies, though my book experience was spoiled a little by having seen trailers for both the 1984 movie and the more recent iterations.

How do you review a book like Dune?

In a book filled with political intrigue, It’s hard to give a synopsis without spoiling major plot points. So instead it might be easier to describe the set-up of the story and then touch on some of the themes the novel explores.

The novel takes place far into humanity’s future, when humans have spread throughout the universe. As a result of political power plays, Duke Leto Atreides is assigned as steward of the planet Arrakis. Though inhospitable, the planet is highly valuable as it’s  the source of ‘Spice’, a drug that produces enhanced mental and physical abilities. In some it even provides a form of precognition and ability to see potential futures. Unsurprisingly, the Duke and his family face danger from the moment they arrive. The Duke’s son, Paul, also finds himself experiencing strange visions of his future on Arrakis

Now add to this mix the intrigue of political manoeuvring, a sect of  witches / priestesses, giant sand worms and some clever sci-fi plot devices that mean hand to hand fighting is still a major form of combat. Welcome to Arrakis!

Exploring some interesting themes

The book had me thinking about a few different themes.

The role of religion: It's always interesting to see how different sci-fi visions treat religion. Religious faith is a significant factor for certain groups in the novel. The novel shows how faith can be the sustenance that helps people survive incredible hardship (a positive force), but also how it can be manipulat6ed to less noble ends or simply exploited in a kind pf grey zone.

Terraforming: ‘Dune’ takes a different approach to terraforming. It’s arguably a more realistic one, albeit an approach that’s less dramatic than giant machines or climate-changing weapons.

Time scale: The main events of the story take place over a few years. But the world building scale is millennia. The story is set far enough into the future that it’s possible to suspend belief and accept a human empire of the scale and nature described. (Though readers may also need to forget the dark forest to accept this vision).

An enjoyable sci-fi novel that fantasy lover will also enjoy.

‘Dune’ is a sci-fi novel, but it also contains elements that would be equally at home in a fantasy novel - witches, fantastic beasts, gladiatorial battles and mysticism. While the book isn’t a quick read, it’s not as heavy going as something like ‘The Three Body Problem’. I found the only slow going was when I wanted to reread some of the more mystical elements or when new jargon was being introduced. OverallI I found ‘Dune’ an enjoyable and well paced book and one that I’d recommend to either sci-fi or fantasy lovers looking for a great adventure.

[tvmigraine]

FORGOTTEN LIVES: Douglas Camfield

Before we begin! Remember to get a copy of the Forgotten Lives Omnibus at this link! You've got until the 1st of September, so make sure you don't forget to buy the book!

To make up for lost time, today we'll be covering two Doctors - firstly we'll be covering one of the only Morbius Doctors to get an official appearance in expanded media. Lance Parkin returns to this character roughly twenty years after writing "Cold Fusion" that covered the Doctor's forgotten past. As a writer who's supported the idea for years, even naming his first story after the article he wrote about the Morbius Doctors, how does he handle this incarnation?

Douglas Camfield (1931-1984) directed a lot of TV, such as Terry Nation's Blake 7, Z Cars and Public Eye. His direction credits to Doctor Who are equally impressive - The Crusade, The Daleks' Master Plan, The Web of Fear and Inferno to name a few. If there was any face behind the scenes that deserved this cameo role, Camfield was near the top of the list.

Lance Parkin, now having grabbed the reins to this incarnation, comes in with a clear vision for who his Doctor is and what his era would be. The Camfield Doctor is something of a bounty hunter, working with his companion Dattany to avenge those they couldn't save. They do not share as much time together as I may first have liked, but the chemistry between the characters easily helps you picture how the two may work together. Paul Hanley compliments this personality by making the Doctor's outfit akin to a witch hunter, someone trying to stomp out evil.

The other stories show the Doctor like a political ambassador, as if he's acting on behalf of the Time Lords. In a canon where we now have the Fugitive Doctor and her exploits alongside and against Division, the Camfield Doctor feels like how the Doctor fights against Division. There is a malicious compliance to this Doctor, where he will complete a mission so long as it is his way - if he sees wrong being done then he will find a way to change it.

To be transparent... I didn't really pull to these stories, they're good but not what I personally look for (I do commend the worldbuilding done by Gareth Madgwick in his story, it paints that world vividly). However, unlike other Doctors, I will not be examining him too much, instead I want to discuss some lore. Unfortunately for me, that means having to face my greatest enemy - the Tardis Wiki.

Now is the part where I go fully conspiracy. Where other Doctors here were built from the ground-up, this Doctor's appearance in "Cold Fusion" gives us more to work with on what this Doctor's life might've been like. It also has implications for the past Doctors we've covered so buckle in! (NOTE: Any inaccuracies about "Cold Fusion" are because I have yet to read it. Also don't take this too seriously, as Who contradicts Who all the time and Parkin can change whatever he wants.)

For example! This Doctor married a woman called Patience, having thirteen children and was even a part of the Supreme Council which was a ruling body on Gallifrey. He was subsequently charged with "consorting with aliens", something we see in Parkin's second story for this series.

However! Patience is also crucial in the plot to "The Infinity Doctors", the 40th anniversary also written by Lance Parkin. The book may or may not be in main continuity as the Infinity Doctor could be either the 1st or the 8th... or anything past and future. You want to know how that book would've originally started? It was supposed to begin with the Robert Banks Stewart Doctor with Patience. Counting Forgotten Lives continuity, this would imply that the Banks Stewart Doctor would be the one to first marry Patience.

Paul Hanley's "The Changing Face of Dr. Who" throws a fun spanner into the works. The Christopher Baker Doctor is stated to fall in love with Joan Redfern from "Human Nature" and it's TV adaptation. It feels as though the implication of the original book would make Cedric and Jilly the children that the Baker Doctor and Redfern may have had (this part is entirely theoretical). If this is the case, the Doctor would marry in his second incarnation, have human children following a third version of "Human Nature" then journey with them for a while, before eventually coming back to his wife. This also discounts that the Barry Doctor married a woman called Zodin at some point...

And maybe some things are best left Forgotten. Such as flavour text.

Patience, also, is placed into "The Machine" during "Cold Fusion" - a TARDIS created by Omega that predates the name of TARDIS, it was used to get her safely off of Gallifrey. The thing is, the Machine looks like TARDIS from the Cushing Movies.

So maybe Cushing is pre-Hartnell too? And Dr. Who made TARDIS in the films, or claims to, so did he make The Machine? If Omega made it, then are Omega and Dr. Who the same? My brain feels like it's leaking.

For more insight into the creative process of every author that worked on Forgotten Lives, you can go to @forgottenlivesobverse and find interviews from everyone involved across the books. If you're looking for insight on how the outfits were designed, you can go to Paul Hanley's Patreon and find what went into designing each Doctor.

See a snapshot of how this Doctor bent the rules and tried to make amends. If this Doctor interests you, then I would even recommend trying to track down a copy of "Cold Fusion" to fill another gap.

PAST LIVES by Lance Parkin

LEVERAGE by Gareth Madgwick

RETROGENESIS (Part Five) by Philip Purser-Hallard

TRAIL OF A TIME LORD by Lance Parkin

The next Doctor won't be any simpler as we cover the Graeme Harper Doctor, the journey Paul Hanley went on to simply find the original photo and grandiose sci-fi that comes with a new Doctor. That post should come later today, so don't wait too long!

[bloodyraremedium]

🐻📰

📰

😇🐻

-@drinkinboilingcoffee

Ask game! send asks if you want this is fun

🐻📰- (jeez I haven't thought of this) It was definitely a very slow discovery, with it just being a strong suspicion for a while. Some time after Mike got scooped, him and Henry came in contact again. Elizabeth's disappearance was what Mike knew about, so that's what they first went looking for, the blueprints for the Funtimes.

After discovering "Oh, Bill made giant child-murder robots," he had suspected he was responsible for the rest. Eventually he found a bunch of blueprints and journals outlining remnant theory and him raving about the MCI, plus y'know... other things.

It took him the longest to find real proof of Charlie's death, mainly because he didn't want to believe that Bill had done it. Even though Bill had written about it, he really didn't want to believe he was behind it, and it took a loooong time to come to terms with it.

📰- The Bite of 83 was a very big scandal within Hurricane, but it was basically unheard of anywhere outside of it. Mike was downright hated by most people, especially since most of them heard it from a friend of a friend. It was all over the papers with a lot of accounts being wildly inaccurate, unfortunately for Mike. The other tormentors tried to put as little blame on themselves as possible, and Bill never did anything about it.

Elizabeth's disappearance was practically unheard of. Bill literally never talked about it around Mike and CC, and any kind if answers they tried to get were shut down pretty quick. The papers covered it in some small articles, but it was pretty much this unspoken thing that no one really mentioned.

Everyone knew about Charlie's death, but only people very close to Fazbear's knew she was murdered. Someone (cough cough Bill cough) spread a rumor she had died in a car accident, and most people believed that. Henry spent all of his time indoors drinking, so he never corrected them.

The MCI was ALL over the papers despite Bill's best efforts, and reached state-wide new, though it never got farther then that. There was a huge police investigation and a lot of gossip and rumors, but more eyes were on Henry than were ever on Bill.

The Bite Of 87 was almost immediately swept under the rug. Jeremy's family couldn't sue because of his contract, but they were paid a good sum to keep quiet, just like Paul's family.

😇🐻- I think Henry was a pretty good person before 1984. He definitely spent a lot of time cooped up in his workshop, and it probably would've done him good to talk to people more, but he loved Charlie and was a generally decent guy. (I love seeing him portrayed as an asshole though)

After Charlie's death, though, he was a mess. He was an alcoholic, and spent his time recluses in his house. Him and his wife divorced very quickly after, since he pretty much ignored everyone. If Sammy existed, he neglected him entirely. This ended up making him and Bill a lot closer, since he was the only semblance of a "support system" he had. He was honestly not a great guy to be around, and was in a downward spiral of getting and being more of an asshole for a while. :[

[letoscrawls]

Honestly, Jason Momoa is the only Duncan actor who could make me believe that Duncan is a successful manwhore. I also like Zendaya as Chani, though I picture her with shorter, redder hair. I usually picture the 1984 version when I think of Liet and the Harkonnens (like that they're redheads like Jessica), but I like both the David Lynch and Denis Villeneuve version actors for all the characters overall, but I HATE the casting for Sci-Fi channel miniseries Paul (and the series' hideous Bene Gesserit outfits). I don't have a specific Alia fancast but she gives Laura Kinney from X-Men vibes. Also, do you have any specific fancasts for Dune characters that haven't made an onscreen appearance yet or ever?

hmmm yeah overall i do like the cast of the adaptations besides the miniseries. oh dear i have so much in my brain let's ee

for Alia i've had so many actresses in mind over the years, i know Natalia Dyer is a fan favorite because she looks like she could be related to Timothée Chalamet, but personally i think she has such a kind and nice aura, i'd prefer someone with a more alien or unsettling beauty. I've though of Alia Taylor-Joy, but also Hunter Schafer and recently i started to dig Ivanna Sachno a lot after seeing her in Ahsoka! Look wise, one of the people who resemble the most Alia the way i imagine her is Victoria De Angelis from the rock band Maneskin sdjsdhfshdf don't ask me why, she gives off alia vibes so much

i've also thought of Taylor Russell to play Hwi Noree, Laura Birn or Jessica Chastain for Odrade, i haven't seen her in much stuff but if she could nail her character then i'd love to see Nicola Coughlan as Lucilla, Joan Chen or Michelle Yeoh as Taraza, and thenn that's probably it lmao i'm not really good at fancasting

[cin-cant-donate-blood]

Ok so with Denis Villeneuve's Dune films fresh in memory I decided to watch the 1984 David Lynch adaptation of Dune, because I hadn't seen it before, and I'll be honest, I fucking hated it. Man this movie is awful.

The film somehow manages to be far less comprehensible to uninitiated viewers despite having a shit ton of unnecessary exposition, including through very stupid narration. By the time that Paul comes into contact with the Fremen, it gets so bad that I struggled to follow along even as someone who has read all six dune novels. In spite of the overreliance on narration, key information is never explained, like why Paul's eyes turn blue, or even who the fuck the Fremen are.

Everything before the encounter with the Fremen feels like a parody. It's the same series of events that I loved from the novels and the Villeneuve films, and yet they are conveyed so soullessly that I am completely uninvested. The Baron is gross and weird (as he should be) but his tone is more like an Austin Powers villain than a genocidal dictator. Feyd-Rautha (whose name is listed as "Feyd Rautha" in the credits) is played by, and this is not a joke, fucking Sting, of "Every Breath You Take" fame. Also all the Harkonnens have red hair, which is true to the novels but makes them all look like fucking Weasleys.

One of the reprieves is Patrick Stewart, who plays Gurney Halleck. While clearly not given great direction, he tries his hardest to give a good performance anyway. The first scene we see him in he's mostly obscured by the godawful shield effects though.

Oh, and Max von Sydow is here, playing Liet Kynes. Yeah, the knight from that one Bergman film. He's alright too, I guess.

Other than that, every performance in the film is stiff and uninspired. I kept watching this film and going "wow this scene was so much better in the Villeneuve film" or "man that exact same line was in the Villeneuve film and yet it was great there and awful here."

Despite the same series of events being portrayed, somehow there is no buildup or tension at all in the Lynch film. The scene where Paul puts his hand in the box of pain has a cool effect in Lynch's film, but the acting is meaningless, and you don't get the powerful moment where Paul stares defiantly into the Reverend Mother's eyes, or any sort of dynamic at all really. There's no real sense of directionality to the scene at all, nor the movie at large.

The wormriding scene is even worse. In the Villeneuve film, Paul struggles for his life on a titanic monster that moves cubic kilometers of sand like it's nothing, and every single moment is a fight for his life. In this film he just climbs onto it and saunters around on top like it's a sunday promenade. Every single thing Paul does in this film is done completely without struggle.

Speaking of the worms, I suppose the one nice thing I have to say is that the three-lobed worm design fucks. I think I like the Villeneuve worms more simply because of the overall quality of the special effects, but yeah, anyway, that's the last and only nice thing I have to say.

And before I get to the things I hated the most, a brief mention of technology: the special effects for the shields sucked. That's all. Also there are no ornithopters in this film, for some reason, which sucks. Also House Atreides has secret sound based weapons technology, which is stupid. It is eventually revealed that the Fremen use the name Muad'dib to cause destruction with this weapon, which I suppose was Lynch's attempt at Themes. It didn't work and it was stupid.

Anyway, time to talk about the Fremen. God I hate the Fremen. The first warning sign is that Doctor Yueh is just Some White Guy. Then, after Paul and Jessica have crossed the desert after the attack on Arakeen, they meet like, 20 white guys. Why are the Fremen white? What? This sure is a film made during the Reagan presidency.

Here is what Stilgar looks like. He barely says anything in this movie. The Fremen are all non-characters. Stilgar is not a desperate man clinging to belief because he needs it. In fact he is nothing at all. Man I hate this Stilgar so much.

Every moment after this point is a chaotic, stupid mess as well (spoilers for the second half of the dune novel and for dune part two). They go to Sietch Tabr, and immediately are shown the giant pool of water, with no explanation. There is no Jamis and no fight nor burial of Jamis. Immediately they ask Jessica to be the next Reverend Mother, she drinks poison, something something, now Paul is leader of all the Fremen. Within like 5 minutes. Not a single scene showing any of the Fremen's culture or values is preserved. We move on to the recapture of Arakeen at lightning pace, barely explaining what the wormriding scene or the water of life scene even mean.

Paul storms in on the Emperor, duels Feyd-Rautha in a completely unexciting duel (the choice by Villeneuve to remove the poisoned blades was the correct one. That made the duel feel so much more costly and tense) and makes a short Messiah-esque speech before the credits roll.

Actually, the final thing that happens is that it starts raining. Sure. Yeah. Whatever. I've suffered for two hours. I don't care anymore. I guess Lynch understood that there was never going to be a sequel. Paul uses magic messiah powers to summon rain. Needless to say that doesn't happen in the books. I don't even think they've explained that the Fremen want Arrakis terraformed in this movie because, again, they are just "the natives" in this film.

However, I've saved the final insult for last. This could have just been a bad adaptation, but what made it awful is the fact that David Lynch did not get Dune at all. How can you tell?

Because there is not a single point in this story where you are led to doubt Paul. The ambiguity, the creepiness... it's all gone. Basically none of the characters have much personality in this film, but that's the thing that takes the cake. This is just a Lawrence of Arabia movie. Paul is the savior. He does nothing questionable and saves the day in the end. For that, I say, go fuck yourself David Lynch.

Oh, and did I mention that the soundtrack was done by Toto? It's not bad but it's used completely ineptly. Every single action scene comes out of nowhere with zero tension, so it feels completely undeserved whenever the super epic Toto electric guitar epic hype song starts playing, which it does every single time there is a meaningless action sequence. The soundtrack could probably have been good if the movie didn't suck.

I can say, with confidence, that David Lynch did not understand Dune at all. He didn't get the vibes, he didn't get the tone, and he barely understood the themes. He clearly did not care much for the world.

Whatever. I'm tired. I'm noting this film as a 1/5, where 2 is average. That means it is a painful film not worth watching. Avoid.

[killed-by-choice]

Denise Crowe, 21 (USA February 3, 2006

Denise Crowe was already a mother of a 3-year-old boy and she was struggling to take care of herself and her son when she found out she was pregnant again. Scared and desperate, Denise had an abortion when she was 16 weeks pregnant.

What Denise needed was support for herself, her toddler and her baby, which a Crisis Pregnancy Center could have provided. If she did not feel that she could care for a second baby, adoption could have been arranged. Unfortunately, both Denise and her baby became victims of the predatory abortion industry.

The Gynecare Center abortion facility was designed look to the untrained eye like an outpatient clinic. A client making an appointment there would likely believe she was in a licensed clinic, not an office. (Their website, in fact, falsely advertised the facility as "a modern, clean clinic designed to provide quality healthcare for women and girls of all ages in the Maryland area," even though, as the medical board noted, the facility was only a private doctor's office and not licensed as a clinic.)

Denise and her baby died on February 3, 2006. After the abortion, Denise’s fingernail beds turned blue, but the abortion facility failed to give her adequate treatment. Her vital signs were not properly monitored and it was later discovered that she had been given a lethal overdose of Demerol.

The abortionist who killed Denise and her baby was also responsible for the deaths of born-alive babies Zachary and Paul, had mishandled the case of a teenager with an STD and was on supervised probation between 1992 and 1994 for knowingly sewing a metal surgical instrument into a patient. This is not someone who can be trusted with the lives of others.

(State attorney letter)

(Charges Under The Maryland Medical Practice Act)

(Denise’s Court Case)

[sregan]

Thoughts on Denis Villeneuve's "Dune: Part Two" (2024)

Following on from my recent viewing of the first part when it returned to cinemas, I've now been able to apply myself to view the second part also. Once again, in lieu of a proper essay I have merely recorded my impressions in roughly chronological order.

As a reminder I previously wrote about how I might adapt Dune, years before Villeneuve's latest effort, as well as creating some concept art (I am working on my take on Shaddam Corrino IV). I did not re-read the book ahead of my most recent viewing and therefore some of my critique might be inadvertently comparing it to my own ideas on adaptation rather than the source material.

I was amazed and a little aghast that after all the talk of not doing introspection and critiquing the 1984 version's clunky opening narration by Princess Irulan, Villeneuve's Part Two opens with ... a clunky opening narration by Irulan. Perhaps there was a desire to have the 'other woman' do the narration as the first film opened with Chani as our viewpoint character; here we start with the view from the Imperium, introducing the Emperor.

Irulan implies the Emperor loved Leto like a son and is torn up about ordering his death. Was this in the books? When she says 'And the Emperor says' - we are on the edge of our seats, waiting for Walken's dialogue - 'nothing'. I am unsure if this was a clever trick or not. Shaddam here is portrayed as an older man, perhaps infirm, manipulated by those around him and particularly women. This is part of the sexual politics Villeneuve presents to us specifically in Part Two which stood out to me as either peculiarly heterodox for a mainstream modern Hollywood production, or perhaps was intended to be progressive but poorly assembled and unable to overcome Herbert's own (but noticeably different) views - some might say hang-ups - on the sexes.

My sense is very little time has passed on Arrakis since the end of the first film, despite Irulan's narration creating the impression it is old news. The column is still carrying Jamis's body and on its way to the sietch.

This sits oddly with Stilgar's blithe dismissal that the Harkonnen are there for the two Atreides. Are you sure? In-universe that was no more than 72 hours ago (the first night in the desert and the second in Kynes' weather station, with the sun coming up during the Jamis fight). He doesn't know the Baron ordered Rabban to commit genocide against the Fremen, so the logical conclusion is they are still looking for Paul and Jessica.

The opening fight scene seemed interesting, even if I wasn't sure why Paul and Jessica were where they were or why they didn't seem to be armed. Villeneuve seems to have forgotten that at the very least Paul has his crysknife and the gun he used to threaten Stilgar just hours earlier in-universe. I didn't mind the pregnant Jessica clubbing the Harkonnen over the head to protect her son, even though I feel like if this film had been earmarked differently by the usual suspects on YouTube and Twitter it would have been viewed as ridiculous and 'woke' given criticism of the same in games like Wolfenstein II.

As a note: The Harkonnen in the opening scene are now using Sardaukar antigrav tech; I feel this works poorly because we've been conditioned from the first film to associate this with the Emperor's forces, even though they weren't involved. I wondered if they had just randomly changed up the Sardaukar uniforms (which they have, but more on that later).

Sietch Tabr felt interesting but not quite as I imagined; did I miss something or were we really not properly introduced to the terraforming effort? We see some bird nests and the precious underground water and Stilgar says when Lisan al-Gaib comes he will use the water to transform Arrakis, but we seem to have dropped any mention of the idea they were already working towards it. And indeed, Kynes won't appear in this film at all - my preference to kick off a two-parter would have been Kynes wandering in the desert, dying of dehydration while having his revelation about how the sandworm life-cycle works, re-introducing us to the setting and the worms.

I feel the need to mention Villeneuve's racial politics here, which, like his sexual politics, seem awkward in ways commentators don't seem to have entirely picked up on.

When the sietch receives Paul and Jessica with hostility, there is a noticeable shift in who the camera lingers on, to the extent that the Fremen seem abruptly almost entirely black or very dark-skinned, with the lighter Stilgar and Chani the only ones speaking up for the outsiders. I hope I shouldn't need to explain this; if it's calculated, it is calculated to induce a kind of gut-reaction fear in white audiences. I noticed this in the first film where Jamis was cast as black and presented as noticeably wilder and crazier than the other Fremen. One might be tempted to suggest this is establishing ethnic groups within the Fremen - after all, later we learn that Stilgar comes from the south, so perhaps the north is darker-skinned (which would sync with some of the black city-dwellers we see in Arrakeen). It would even make sense as the south is said to be covered with dust storms and thus not exposed to direct sun. Except, as soon as the sietch turns and becomes more welcoming, the camera begins favouring the lighter-skinned north Africa and Middle Eastern Fremen actors.

This leads quite neatly into the Fremen culture and language. David Peterson, the linguist who worked on Game of Thrones, was tapped to create languages for Dune based on the phrases in the book, and others have picked up on the strange decision to avoid using actual Arabic words wherever possible - explained in inverviews as Peterson feeling that thousands of years into the future languages would have evolved so far that any similarities are mere coincidence. This means that words that are too important to the franchise to change, such as 'Lisan al-Gaib' (which they use a *lot*, seemingly to avoid relying on real-world messianic titles like Mahdi), stay as-is but others are radically changed. "Ya Hya Chouhada", a real-world battlecry meaning 'long live the martyrs', is changed in Part Two to a fictional phrase (I didn't remember it and seemingly others I haven't either) in the Peterson conlang. This is disappointing and actually not true to life given how Latin survived for thousands of years as a holy language.

UPDATE: The new phrase based on Peterson's conlang is something like 'A t'la abisi a santar!'. I can vaguely see something like 'life' in 'santar', but it's from a Latinate root. 'Toward the fighters, life'? Maybe 'At'la savaşçı uzun ', incorporating the Turkish word for 'fighter' and '?

It also means that Villeneuve's Dune is oddly sanitised and stripped of the book's Islamic and Central Asian cultural touchpoints. Very little mention is made of God; characters pray but I think at one point Paul says that they prey to their dead relatives (?). 'Jihad' and any mention of the book's main religions (Zensunni and Orange Catholicism) are excised.

All this begs the question - where is the line between inclusion and Orientalism? Where is the line between diversity and caricature? Or between cultural sensitivity and the kind of flattening that insists on Western neoliberal values everywhere at all times, even in our fiction? In 1984, the Fremen were mostly cast as white (likely due to actor availability) - not necessarily an incorrect reading of the book, given Herbert's inspiration 'The Sabres of Paradise' was not about Arab but Caucasian mountain tribes. Change them to a mix of interchangeable 'non-white' actors and have them led by Timothee Chalamet and the accusations of 'white savior complex' gain weight. Selectively show darker extras when you want the audience to be afraid and lighter when you want them to feel sympathetic and, to be honest, you probably deserve a few thinkpieces which I haven't seen in the press.

Stilgar threatens Jessica that he'll have her killed unless she agrees to become the new Reverend Mother. I felt this went back on his development in the first film, or even a couple of scenes ago where he fought their corner against the unsympathetic female elder. Jessica's flippant, almost Marvel-esque dialogue in the next scene where she references this annoyed me. Villeneuve has Jessica's experience with the water of life happen early in the movie and long before Paul's. This is somewhat true to the book and better than the 1984 version where Paul only takes the Water when his prophetic dreams randomly stop working, but my favoured method of compressing this for film has Jessica take the Water, fall into a coma, and Paul rescue her by taking the Water himself, entering into the same vision. This is when Jessica begins to suspect they are not merely using prophecies created by the Bene Gesserit, but Paul may in fact be the Kwisatz Haderach.

In Villeneuve's version, Chani is initially skeptical of the prophecy, saying only the southerners are superstitious (an invented distinction not found in the book). This is set up fairly competently as a romantic conflict; Paul wins Chani when he only wants to be one of the Fremen, but doing so means giving up on his revenge - however, the way it's resolved is frankly offensive and one of the things that I found most disrespectful about Villeneuve's Dune as an adaptation.

The first we see of wormriding in this film (Stilgar on a small worm) didn't entirely impress me; I feel it should have been much farther off to give a greater sense of the scale of the worms. However, Paul's own wormriding trial eliminated my doubts; again, no-one is doing cinematic scale like Villeneuve right now, where the audience is absorbed completely in *witnessing* a monumental event, without the need for quick cuts or snappy quips.

The 'naming' scene was also great and felt plausible as Paul being welcomed as one of the Fedaykin (interestingly Peterson didn't rename that one, despite being almost identical to 'Fedayeen').

The Harkonnen 'evil spice harvesters' bothered me - the harvesters we saw in the first film *WERE* Harkonnen harvesters! The Atreides literally just assumed control of the operation days earlier. The ornithopter mini-guns were pretty great but also felt un-Duney. The use of lasguns also felt good even if perhaps not book-accurate.

I actually really liked Rabban's failed reprisals, with the Harkonenn getting lost in the dust of their own carpet bombings and and the big guy losing his nerve when he sees Muad'dib's shadow. Bautista is surprisingly (?) one of the stand-out performances in the two movies.

We get some much-needed off-world politics, with Irulan talking to the Reverend Mother and deducing (I feel this wasn't in the book) that Muad'dib is Paul Atreides. There's clearly an effort made to present Irulan as a more hard-nosed politician in the making, with Shaddam even saying she will be a 'formidable Empress'. Mohiam introduces us to the idea of Feyd-Rautha being an alternative 'candidate' to Paul (did they actually say 'to be the Kwisatz Haderach'?? I don't think they did).

My feelings on Giedi Prime being an insane hellplanet are a matter of public record; it goes against a central theme of Dune, which is that a harsh environment breeds both discipline in the sense of espirit de corps and discipline in moral life. Whether you agree or disagree with the 'Fremen Mirage', this is Herbert's central idea. In the book, Giedi Prime is a neo-feudal world, with a cheerfully painted blue keep where 'fearful perfection' under military jackboot is the order of the day, but just off the main street you can see dilapidation and decay. It's a Potemkin village, feeding into the idea that Baron Harkonnen and his house are fundamentally about falsity and fakeness. He wears suspensors to convey the idea he is more physically able than he is. Feyd fights in a gladiatorial arena, but the combatants are drugged to make him look more competent. When a combatant isn't drugged, it's a plot to win over the crowd and he's not really in danger. Everywhere gets a fresh coat of paint and smiles at gunpoint when visitors arrive, but under the surface they don't genuinely care for the people.

In Villeneuve's Dune, Giedi Prime is an infrared nightmare under a 'black sun' (yes, the pasty skinhead Harkonnen live under a black sun, a seemingly deliberate allusion to fascist occultism trivia that made me raise an eyebrow). No diversity among the Harkonnen; it's just an anonymous tide of bobbing bald white heads. Again, I was unsure how to read this obvious Villeneuve innovation (in the original books the Harkonnen are mentioned as having dark hair). For what it's worth, Lynch did something very similar when he decided the Harkonnen were universally ginger. I also feel we've seen this archetype quite recently in 'Mad Max' with the white-painted radiation-sick Warboys.

This decision to make the Harkonnen interchangeable mooks does somewhat detract from Austin Butler's Feyd Rautha, who is just another chalky bald guy among many. Butler tries his best to infuse the role with random acts of violence against his own minions that put the 1984 version's heartplugs to shame. Couple it with Rabban's temper tantrum smashing the overseer against his monitor and you have to ask - why does anyone follow these psychopaths? At some point the bad guys end up killing more of their own than the enemy and it makes them feel incompetent and stupid.

In this version, the undrugged slave was a 'birthday present' from the Baron, who wanted to see who Feyd really was under pressure. In the book, Feyd contrives the assassination attempt with Thufir Hawat to increase his own standing with the people. There's no poison on Feyd's blades (he even licks one) but I think (the moment was super-fast) the Bene Gesserit watching mention that he uses an implanted word to stagger the slave momentarily. Odd to see that in this version the Harkonnen seem to worship their leaders ('the holy birthday of our beloved na-Baron'?).

It's an interesting reversal as in the book, Feyd tries to poison the Baron by having one of his sex slaves implanted with a needle (foreshadowing his own use of a similar hidden device in the final fight).

Margot Fenring appears here unaccompanied as a Bene Gesserit femme fatale, and her seduction of Feyd Rautha and their subsequent discussion of his levers was well done.

Around this time Villeneuve starts deciding that the Bene Gesserit are psychic, which is jarring and I don't believe foreshadowed (Jessica communicates using sign-language with her son but not in glances). I almost wondered if this scene - and the later one where the Bene Gesserit have an impromptu psychic discussion - were rewritten after filming.

Returning to Arrakis after the harsh black and white Giedi Prime seemed like a breath of fresh air and I think that was the intent. Villeneuve uncharacteristically doesn't linger long enough on the dunes for my tastes.

I should note here that in this version, Jessica emerges from the water of life trial changed, and while her motives are to protect Paul, she is subsequently framed in a very antagonistic role, always pushing for Paul to cynically embrace the prophecies and so, in this version, drive a wedge between him and Chani. This syncs up with my observations in Part One that Villeneuve almost presents her as a romantic interest for Paul; if so, here she is almost the 'other girl', and Paul has to choose between mother/prophecy and Chani/a simple life among the Fremen (this latter choice is highlighted by him removing the signet ring when he feels welcomed by the Fremen but keeping it in his stillsuit).

Gurney Halleck in this version is not leading a ragged band of Atreides guerillas like 1984's Patrick Stewart version. Rather he is now keeping a low profile and working as a spice miner, seemingly having given up hope that any remnants of House Atreides remain. The Fremen attack the harvester but Paul recognises him and tells them to stay their hand and presumably save the rest of the crew, though I don't think we see anyone else after this and he's more or less framed as the last remnant of Paul's old retinue in the final scenes. This *really* bothered me. Gurney says he managed to get offworld after the attack. OK; we know he has knowledge of the location of the Atreides atomics and hates the Harkonnen with every bone in his body; first for killing his family prior to the events of the first movie (as he reveals for I think the first time here); and then the loss of his new family with the death of Duke Leto. And so, Villeneuve imagines, he...

...goes back to Arrakis to work for the Harkonnen (the movie really seems to have forgotten who owns the original harvesters) and forgets about the atomics. What the absolute fuck? They do establish that the door is gene-coded so only a direct descendent of the Duke can open it (the line 'your genetic heritage only, m'lord' made me visibly cringe in the theatre), but in-universe, is there *any* reason he wouldn't go to, say, House Richese and say 'The Emperor was involved in the attack on Arrakis. I saw Sardaukar among the Harkonnen. I know where there are untraceable nukes on Arrakis; send in a covert mining team and you can tunnel down to get them. All I ask is you use some of them on Giedi Prime and the rest on Kaitan.'

For all that 1984 stretched plausibility that Gurney and his men could have survived in the desert without Fremen skills, it still feels more plausible than him getting off world then just coming back to work on a harvester.

(Note: in the book he joins a smuggler crew. Did they mention in an off-hand remark in the film that the crew he was with were not Harkonnen?)

The worm-drowning scene was well-done, even if I thought they should probably have set up the sandtrouts here if they have any hope of filming 'God-Emperor'.

Feyd Rautha's anti-grav ships bombard Sietch Tabr, causing heavy casualties. I almost feel like more attention should have been placed on this and how *this* is what changes Paul's mind; seeing his own new family injured and dead, rather than continuing for several scenes with will-he won't-he back and forth. Leave me here and go south - the people will only go if you go - there's an important meeting, they call the Lisan al-Gaib to appear, etc. The reunion between Paul and Chani *should* have been the conclusion of their romance arc here. I noticed the 'I will love you as long as you stay true to yourself' and anticipated the subsequent tension, but it felt clumsy.

Paul apparently just shows up and abruptly decides to drink the Stuff on a whim. This felt really bad and rushed. There was a jarring cut between him arriving and the guardian offering him the drink that I *think* was meant to represent Jessica's Voice command taking effect; she warns him 'leave or die' and then finds herself administering the Stuff.

(as a note: just how powerful is Villeneuve's Voice? It can apparently implant suggestions that take effect days or weeks later)

The female voice in Paul's visions has apparently (I think) been Alia? I am not sure about this as my assumption after the last movie was that it was future!Jessica. I didn't think the 'mind opening' was that well done in terms of mind-warping visuals, other than seeing an ocean in the desert. We caught of a glimpse of what I think were meant to be the face of his female ancestors, but a big point in the book is that the Kwisatz Haderach can access the memories of both his female and male ancestors (for all that this makes very little sense). This was crying out for a cameo from Duke Leto, instead of all people he sees Jamis (this may have been book-accurate, I can't remember at point of writing).

In the vision, he learns that Baron Harkonnen is his grandfather and 'we are Harkonnens'. So the pasty skin, black teeth and hairlessness of the Harkonnen is just environmental? Or even just fashion? This is interesting to see given the Harkonnen have been very deliberately racially 'Othered'.

In a reverse Sleeping Beauty scenario, Chani administers some more Water of Life, mingled with her tears, which wakes Paul up, because it vaguely fits the (fake, fabricated by the Bene Gesserit) prophecy? I am struggling to see how this works in-universe, for all that they clearly wanted some more action for her as female co-lead. Was it just a 'hair of the dog'?

The Fremen war council was spectacular, in a vast cavern (?) with lit podia (or was it just one with reflections on the walls?). Chani is again regrettably throughly modern, breaching her own society's rules by barging onto the podium to lecture to her leader. Her having to be restrained in accordance with Fremen decorum by Gurney Halleck *might* have been intended to be character development for him, but I think was just clumsy writing.

In general, Chalamet's acting was up to par, but something different was needed from him after his transformation into the Kwisatz Haderach and we didn't get it (for those saying he wasn't really changed; nonsense - he now has psychic powers that would make Kyle MacLachlan's version blush, actively reading minds when this is supposed to be impossible in-universe). What was called for here was a very elevated style of talking when he is consciously assuming the messianic role, reminiscent of holy text - not necessarily thees and thous but 'shall's and 'unto you's.

I cringed a little when, for example, he threatened the Emperor later in very unelevated, thuggish language. I can somewhat forgive the sections he is speaking Peterson's conlang-Fremen language it sounds quite rough; part of this is probably the difficulty getting the actors to sound fluent but it also had some echoes of rough and tumble military braggadochio in languages like Turkish.

The Emperor's reflective sphere-ship was certainly imposing; possibly too much so as it dwarfs Arakeen, something not immediately obvious from the ground shots so later when we see it just hovering over what just looks like a landing strip I wondered why it was suddenly out in the middle of nowhere before realising the shapes on the ground were the quarters of the entire planet's capital city!

I am always annoyed at the possibly royalties-motivated redesign of uniforms in sequels, and the Sardaukar here are a particularly offensive example. It's literally been less than nine months since the Battle of Arakeen; probably less given Jessica is not (I think) massively pregnant at the end. I did wonder if the redesign was to emphasise that 'the hunter has become the hunted'; now the Sardaukar are, like the Atreides, mostly bare-faced and their opponent is now the masked Fremen. On some level I feel this was deliberate, as when later the Sardaukar assume an Atreides-like sword line. I was also annoyed that we didn't hear any throat-singing as the Sardaukar form up outside the palace-ship. This would have immediately worked to remind us 'Oh yes, those guys', and differentiate them from the Harkonnen mooks who the Fremen have been killing all movie.

The attack on Arakeen was generally great - I would have liked to have seen the nuke scene handled differently and linger more on Paul silhouetted against the mushroom cloud.

The worm attack was also good; I did notice that suddenly the Harkonnen ornithopters become significantly less powerful than in the first movie, both rockets and miniguns seeming ineffective against worms and infantry Fremen alike. There wasn't really any sense that Shaddam's hubris led to him remaining on-planet (even the Dune 2000 game did this better, with the Truthsayer whispering 'Retreat, with victory in sight? Release the Sardaukar!"). I also felt like they sneakily tried to resolve a discrepancy between the visions of the first movie and this one by putting Chani in the role of infantry leader; she ends a shot in the exact same pose as Paul in the first movie when he has a vision of killing Sardaukar in a power suit (these don't appear in the second movie). In the second movie, he arrives on a worm instead. I guess this is a slight retcon and he is seeing himself in the place of whoever the vision is about. It seems a real waste though as presumably this sequence was shot - or was this implied to be during the galactic jihad?

One thing that stood out to me was the (redesigned) Sardaukar trying to regain formation after the blast takes down the mountain and the following storm. The first thing we see is one trooper trying to lift the Corrino banner and, as the wind overcomes him, another one helping to get it upright again. This felt *immensely* true to the book's universe.

Walken wasn't as bad as I feared; he mostly resisted the mugging I feared and wasn't given any lines containing 'walk without rhythm' or 'weapon of choice'. He plays Shaddam, again, as elderly, weary and manipulated, with the suggestion of fire re-emerging when he tells Paul 'your father was a weak man' ringing true. His throne room was appropriately Villeneuve-brutalist while still feeling Dune-y, and he thankfully replaces the Palpatine robe he wears at the beginning with an understated but still decently ornate tunic when holding court. No Burseg helmet as per the books, sadly. Should we read anything into the Emperor's throneroom being lit in a very obvious cross?

I understand why the plot was changed to give Paul a chance to meet the Baron and enact his revenge personally. Feyd wasn't in the first film and despite much more screen time compared to 1984 and even the mini-series doesn't feel satisfying as a final target for Paul's vendetta.

(As a note, the Baron throughout this movie now has a floating respirator with him that I am certain he didn't have in the first film. Is this supposed to be a lingering consequence of the gas attack?)

In this version, the duel between Paul and Feyd Rautha is explicitly a challenge to Shaddam for the throne, with Feyd serving as the Emperor's champion. This felt odd; has it been established that in this version the Padishah Emperor is a role you can have a knife-fight for, like the Klingons in Star Trek? I believe in both the book and 1984 version the coup was presented as a fait accompli with the duel a simple matter of honour and arguably an unnecessary risk by Paul; Shaddam's forces are shattered with only those immediately around him still loyal.

This is further reduced in the 2024 version as Paul has his Fremen kill the remaining Sardaukar and bring the Emperor to the visitor accommodation. This was a really missed opportunity as it deprives us of a huge and obvious shot; the victorious Paul sitting on the throne.

Feyd has no secret poison spikes in this version and, annoyingly, there's no tension in Paul choosing whether or not to use the Voice (Feyd Rautha reacts to Paul commanding the Reverend Mother to be 'Silent!' as if noting and remembering the ability, but we've already established he's vulnerable to it). This continues a trend of Villeneuve forgetting about the Voice in combat, where in the first film Jessica doesn't use it against Stilgar and Paul doesn't use it against Jamis, without even a one-off line like 'and no Bene Gesserit tricks'. Rather, he wins the first two clashes, even leaving a knife embedded in Paul's shoulder, before Paul kills him in a grapple that recalls his first on-screen spar with Gurney Halleck; Feyd is focused on the knife he is pushing further and further through Paul's seemingly exhausted grip, but he - and the viewer - can't see Paul's knife further down.

I *think* we were supposed to understand that as a possible Kwisatz Haderach Feyd is outside Paul's newly acquired precognition (this was sort of foreshadowed when he says he didn't foresee the attack on the sietch), together with the mention by Feyd that he dreamed about Lady Fenring, but wasn't spelled out.

A moment somewhat mocked on social media, but which I felt rang very true, was Bardem's frantic "Lisan al-Gaib!" when it is clear Paul has just barely survived the duel. This is *not* Stilgar the believer once again extolling his messiah's supernatural powers. This is Stilgar the politician and tribal leader realising that Paul looks very vulnerable and *un-supernatural* right now, and if he doesn't quickly get the watching Fremen on board with a chant of 'Lisan al-Gaib' the spell may be broken.

I liked how the Emperor was forced to plead for his life via the medium of his daughter, and the ambiguity of Paul's gesture; I initially thought he was commanding Irulan to step away from her father and take his hand in marriage (and this might be intentional), but instead, Shaddam is forced to go down to his knees and kiss Paul's ducal ring; a good use for the ring finding its way to Paul, which I complained about in the first movie (he also uses it in this movie to seal the ultimatum to the Emperor earlier).

The other Houses refuse Paul's ultimatum to accept him as Emperor (did he say this? I thought they only asked the other Houses to hear him out), leaving Paul to command his Fremen 'Lead them to heaven', ushering in the jihad. But we see their ships leaving seemingly without ill effect. This was crying out for first a few then intensifying rockets from the ground; perhaps even one of the ships burning and falling to emphasise that, yes, Paul just declared war on the entire universe and the ships are *fleeing*.

The final shot, incomprehensibly, is a grumpy Chani on her own, preparing to ride a worm. Perhaps Villeneuve has a plan for how Dune: Messiah will play out with her, maybe even taking some of the role of Alia, who obviously doesn't have the same interaction with the original cast here, being a psychic fetus the entire film-

(At this point I should violently interject; Villeneuve's politics, by God. What are we to make of the fetal personhood on show multiple times in this movie, at this time in American politics? She isn't even called an 'abomination'; that line is transferred to refer to Paul (who irritatingly doesn't even get to declare 'Look into that place you dare not look; you'll find me there' to justify it, just use the Voice, which the Bene Gesserit already know he can do!

Is the fact that it is most clearly championed by Jessica, who in this version has an antagonistic or at least 'bad influence' bent, intended to make it ambiguous? I feel this choice was probably intended to avoid the time-jump implied by a child actor; or perhaps to avoid the controversy of Alia of the Knife being a murderous toddler. But, as with his sexual and racial politics, what emerges is something that feels very odd, like he accidentally ended up throwing in a pro-life message.)

-All this should make us wonder. Villeneuve clearly likes the idea that Chani is the viewpoint character of Dune, beginning the first film with a voiceover from her and concluding with changing the story (no "history will call us wives" here) to leave her on her own but also seemingly abandoned in favour of the swanky princess; again, I feel like this last one wasn't intentional. There was probably an intent that 'Chani is her own woman and in this version she wouldn't want to marry Paul after he gives in and embraces the messianic role', but does it read as that? Or does it read as 'Chani missed her chance and Paul has married someone more suitable' (again, there's a racial reading here that can't be ignored; something not present in the 1984 version where Chani is played by Sean Young). Is this simply neo-Puritanism over the idea of the protagonist having multiple wives (I don't think any adaptation has thrown in the fact that Paul is honour-bound to marry Jamis's wife also)? Did someone say 'this feels a bit harem anime'?

The Guild are almost completely missing, and instead of using his knowledge of the worm lifecycle to threaten to use the stored water to create a chain reaction that will poison the worms, Paul just threatens to nuke the spice fields with his family atomics. When he does that, the Emperor says something like 'You've gone insane!', but no-one chips in to explain that, in fact, if he destroys the spice, the Guild can no longer navigate space, the Imperium will fall, and most of humanity dies due to the end of interstellar trade. This is the dilemma! The jihad claiming billions of lives vs. terraforming Dune claiming *literally all the lives*.

What was needed for the final shots of Dune was something like - of all things - the denouement of Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. We should see the Fremen rampaging across the universe; ships burning; the shot from the vision of Paul looking out over Caladan, his again; Giedi Prime getting bombed into ashes - just to provoke us to think 'well, they liked violent gladiatorial games, but did they *really* deserve to die en masse because of what the Baron did?'. And then we cut to Paul on the Emperor's throne, looking shocked and hollow. He, like Dr Horrible, gets 'Everything (He) Ever Wanted', and it will haunt him forever. We grasp the cyclical nature of power - Paul Atreides, the exile turned revolutionary and mystic, is back on top - the very, very top, replacing the Sardaukar with his *own* brutal shock troops from a wasteland world. We needed to see that, and other than a few visions, we don't. Instead, we finish with what might, optimistically, be the message 'the traditional Fremen life will go on'? 'Sisters are doing it for themselves'? 'A woman needs a man like a fish needs a desert'? 'You can't please everyone all of the time'? In-pardon my language, fucking-scusable.

All of this means I think there's definitely room for a different Dune at an appropriate distance in time once Villeneuve's series - however long it runs, and God-Emperor is looking like a possibility - concludes. I have suggested an animated film or series as something very different from the existing adaptations, possibly leaning into precognition as the conceit, and after viewing Villeneuve's Part Two I think I've worked out how to do it.

The first scene in the book is someone - we don't see faces - being administered the Water of Life. We then cut to the dunes and the muad'dib mouse, and then it becomes clear we are watching it from the perspective of Paul and Chani.

They discuss the mouse on the moon and Paul decides that his name 'will be Muad'Dib'. Paul then awakens years earlier on Caladan. At about the two-thirds mark, Jessica takes the Water of Life but begins seizing. She sees herself drowning deep under an endless blue ocean. Paul says 'I can't reach where you are' and impulsively drinks the Water of Life himself; as Chani holds onto him he reaches out and holds his mother's hand and we see in the now shared vision that he swims down into the ocean, grabs her hand, and pulls her up. When they surface he experiences the rest of the vision, and then, awakening, says "I saw it all - I was back on Caladan; I saw us travel to Arrakis for the first time - but I also saw Baron Harkonnen; I saw him plotting with the Emperor - Shaddam! The Emperor is behind the downfall of our family". The entire first two-thirds of the movie *is* the Water of Life experience. Paul has watched the entire movie so far and for the rest of the film knows everything we, the audience, have seen, and more.

In general, Villeneuve's Dune is still probably one of the most striking and solid sci-fi films in recent decades. It is not as clearly stand-alone as I think reviewers have been prone to claim - much like the Lynch version which infamously issued a physical guide for cinema-goers to consult to understand the universe, Villeneuve's Dune does not clearly establish some of the book's most distinctive elements.

You might reasonably assume that the shields are why this universe relies so heavily on hand-to-hand combat - but why so few lasguns? (because in the book, hitting a shield with a lasgun obliterates both parties).

Why do the Harkonnen and Sardaukar feel so much weaker in the desert? Because shields act like a thumper and call worms.

(Note: This was in fact mentioned in the first film.)

Why do some people roll their eyes and do mental maths? They're mentats, human calculators. Why do they exist, and why are there no robots in this oddly run-down, primitive-feeling future? Because a thousand years ago a war called the Butlerian Jihad resulted in the absolute prohibition of thinking machines everywhere in the Imperium (it's bizarre this wasn't mentioned given AI is such a hot topic).

By the end of the second film you've also forgotten that the spice is vital for space travel (why? because it makes Navigators able to see the future, something Villeneuve has decided to emphasise only applies to Paul, and thus able to predict where a hyperspace jump will lead).

The Harkonnen were I think handled the worst of the characters, which isn't new. Skarsgard's Baron is overall acceptable and Rabban has decent menace, but he and Feyd Rautha suffer from the Lynchian 'kill your underlings' brain bug which no longer makes villains feel scary, and the random lurid elements Villeneuve has invented (gimp spiders, child slaves, cannibal prostitutes) feel just as over-the-top as the disfigured 1984 Baron pulling his servants' heart plugs for fun. The decision to make them all pasty bald troglodytes speaks to a fear to present villains as anything more than interchangeable cannon fodder lest, perhaps, the audience find them too compelling? The Fremen suffer from weird racial politics (a need to cast for diversity applied, we notice, most diligently to the desert-dwelling tribesmen, but coupled with the apparent desire to make them darker when you're meant to find them scary, which feels distinctly un-progressive) and the Corrinos from limited screen time. The Atreides in the first film felt most like a believable future society, while the glimpses we got at the Spacing Guild seemed intriguing, with their Daft Punk helmets, but were never followed through.

[denimbex1986]

'Dublin-native Andrew Scott is making headlines at the moment after starring in All of Us Strangers with Paul Mescal.

The film, which is inspired by the 1987 novel Strangers by Japanese author Taichi Yamada, explores the queer relationship between Andrew Scott’s character Adam and Paul Mescal’s character Harry.

As Adam and Harry’s relationship intensifies, the former visits his childhood home in Croydon and comes out to his parents, played by Claire Foy and Jamie Belle – the twist is his parents died 30 years earlier.

Speaking exclusively to PinkNews on the red carpet at a UK screening of All of Us Strangers ahead of its release on Friday (26 January), Andrew Scott reflected on the importance of seeing queer sex represented.

As there’s an appetite for all things Andrew Scott at the moment (and rightfully so), we thought it would be a good time to take a look at his LGBTQ+ story so far.

When did Andrew Scott come out?

Scott first commented on his sexuality in 2013 in an interview with The Independent while promoting a BBC Two drama titled Legacy.

“Mercifully, these days people don’t see being gay as a character flaw. But nor is it a virtue, like kindness. Or a talent, like playing the banjo. It’s just a fact. Of course, it’s part of my make-up, but I don’t want to trade on it,” he said.

He recently told GQ that he was “encouraged by people in the industry” to keep his sexuality a secret.

“I understand why they gave that advice but I’m also glad that I eventually ignored it,” Scott said.

Scott started out on stage

Scott was a stage actor in Dublin before moving on to the world of film and TV, making his debut in the Irish drama Korea, which premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival.

He had small roles in Saving Private Ryan, Nora, and Dead Bodies, plus a number of other movies.

Scott became a ‘gay icon’ after appearing as James Moriarty in BBC’s Sherlock, sparking countless memes and fanfiction about the potential queer relationship between his character and the titular character played Benedict Cumberbatch.

In 2014, Scott appeared in Pride, a movie honouring the LGBTQ+ activists that raised money to help families affected by the 1984 miner’s strike.

More recently, many will recognise Scott from appearing as the ‘Hot Priest’ in Fleabag as well as playing Colonel John Parry in His Dark Materials, a BBC adaptation of the popular Phillip Pullman book series.

Scott relied on his own pain when filming All of Us Strangers

Homosexuality was illegal in Ireland until Scott turned 16 and he had to grapple with his sexuality and the fear he had in coming out. Scott’s complicated feelings about being gay was something he brought to set every day when filming All of Us Strangers.

He told GQ that he would walk around director Andrew Haigh’s childhood home, the set for Adam’s parents home in the film, and look at all the magazines that he himself had grown up with. Haigh told GQ that he could see Scott revisiting his past: “It’s so interesting watching someone react to something because you can see on their face they’ve been dragged back. It’s like time travel.”

Scott added: “I think that’s maybe why this feels so gratifying and cathartic. Because I did have to bring so much of my own pain into it.”

Scott and Mescal previously told Pink News that an uptick in the number of queer sex scenes in film and TV, including in All of Us Strangers, is “wonderful”.

Scott said: “What’s going to help bring the world forward is just to have representation in that sense. I always say [that] as a queer person, seeing straight relationships constantly and almost exclusively, it hasn’t made me disgusted to look at them. I just go, ‘there you go’.”

Though Mescal is straight, the two actors have great chemistry according to Haigh.

“It was clear to me that [Scott and Mescal] liked each other liked each other a lot as actors, as people. The characters are falling in love, so the actors know how to generate chemistry.”

“They clearly have amazing chemistry, and they’re really good friends now, and they care and love for each other. So, something magical happened. I’m very grateful for that,” Haigh told Sky News.

What will Scott be seen in next?

Scott will soon be starring in new Netflix thriller Ripley, an eight-part series based on Patricia Highsmith’s best-selling Tom Ripley novels.

The story follows a con artist who is hired by a wealthy man to get the man’s son to return home from Italy, when everything goes wrong and descends into fraud and murder.

Scott plays the titular character Tom Ripley, alongside Johnny Flynn and Dakota Fanning. The series premieres on Netflix on April 4, 2024.

He is also expected to appear in an upcoming action comedy film with Jamie Foxx and Cameron Diaz titled Back in Action. There is no release date for the film at the time of writing.

Andrew Scott husband?

Many people (probably people who are quite hopeful that Andrew Scott is still on the market) have been Googling whether the Fleabag star has a husband or partner.

While Andrew Scott keeps his personal life very private, according to Hello Magazine– it’s thought that he is currently single after splitting from his long-term partner, writer Stephen Beresford, in 2019.

He’s previously appeared on the How to Fail podcast speaking about relationships in January 2020, and said: “You learn from people. It’s not about the length of time you spend with somebody. My life is different now. I feel like my attitude towards relationships and my attitude towards myself and sexuality and all that stuff has changed, and that came about from having the courage to be on my own for a bit, quite a scary thing to do.'

[byneddiedingo]

Jean-Paul Belmondo in That Man From Rio (Philippe de Broca, 1964)

Cast: Jean-Paul Belmondo, Françoise Dorléac, Jean Servais, Roger Dumas, Daniel Ceccaldi, Milton Ribeiro, Ubriacy De Oliveira, Adolfo Celi, Simone Renant. Screenplay: Jean-Paul Rappeneau, Ariane Mnouchkine, Daniel Boulanger, Philippe de Broca. Cinematography: Edmond Séchan. Production design: Mauro Monteiro. Film editing: Françoise Javet. Music: Georges Delerue. 

With its nonstop silliness, Philippe de Broca's That Man From Rio became a big international commercial success, but more surprising, it got an Oscar nomination for its screenplay, written by de Broca with Jean-Paul Rappeneau, Ariane Mnouchkine, and Daniel Boulanger. It's usually characterized as a spoof of James Bond films, with their glamorous locations and over-the-top action sequences, but if a spoof is intended to laugh its target out of existence, That Man only whetted audiences' appetites for more of the same. One of its stars, Adolfo Celi, who pays the unscrupulous, fabulously wealthy Mário de Castro, turned up the following year as the unscrupulous, fabulously wealthy Bond villain Emilio Largo in Thunderball (Terence Young, 1965). And it's easy to see touches of That Man From Rio in later action-adventure films, such as the Indiana Jones series, which like de Broca's film centered on archaeological treasure hunting. In That Man From Rio, the location of a priceless treasure is discovered by lining up the sun's rays through the lens in an ancient statue, just as Indiana Jones uses the sun's rays and an ancient artifact to discover the location of the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg, 1981). Jean-Paul Belmondo's Adrien picks up the help of a Rio shoeshine boy called Sir Winston (Ubriacy De Oliviera), just as Harrison Ford's Indy picks up a kid sidekick called Short Round (Ke Huy Quan) in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Spielberg, 1984). Still, That Man From Rio stands on its own for its goofy energy, most of which is supplied by Belmondo, who with his ex-boxer's mug and physique is entirely credible flinging himself into whatever improbable situation he is called on to fight (or swim or climb or swing from vines) his way out of. Françoise Dorleac is the giddy heroine, Agnès, who spends much of the first part of the movie drugged out of her mind and never seems to find her way fully back to sobriety. It's only in retrospect -- 59 years worth of retrospect -- that the film turns sour. Today, we can see it as part of the playing out of a post-colonial environmental nightmare. There are no slums to be seen in the film's Rio: Sir Winston lives in a neatened up favela nothing like the one you see in City of God (Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund, 2002). The city of Brasília, still under construction when the film was made, is treated as a setting for Belmondo's stunts and for elaborate parties, though perhaps some of the bleakness and sterility of its urban-planning megalomania is hinted at. And at the end our hero and heroine are "rescued" by construction crews blasting and bulldozing their way through the rain forest, constructing highways that will connect to the country's new capital. There's no apparent suggestion that this constitutes a kind of environmental rape, although the villainous archaeologist (Jean Servais) is buried along with what might have been a valuable site. De Broca does allow us a glimpse of an Indian family looking on in astonishment at the raw earth uncovered by the bulldozers pushing their way through what must have been their neighborhood. It's a fleeting moment, however, one quickly passed over as Adrien and Agnès ride a truck back to civilization.