I've always thought Dune was one book, and Messiah the sequel. And Messiah was written by Herbert as a response to people misunderstanding the message of the original novel. I think Villenueve is still staying true to that message

That "message" didn't come from Frank Herbert, though. It's unclear where Villeneuve got that idea, but it isn't true.

Herbert always intended the 1st three novels to be told together as a consistent story, starting with Paul's rise to power in "Dune"...his eventual fall in "Messiah" ...and finally ending with the inevitable rise of his son Leto II, in "Children of Dune". Those three novels were written together, with the overall story being conceived prior to the 1st.

So, Villeneuve didn't "stay true" to the novels, at all. He "stayed true" to his own misunderstanding about what Herbert intended with the 1st novel. He basically wrecked the story Herbert wrote, by changing all the details to match that misunderstanding.

[–] scytale@piefed.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Interesting. Do you know what Herbert's actual message was? It's been told over and over again in articles and by word-of-mouth that the message was around the dangers of messianic figures. If it wasn't, what was his intent?

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I actually went into a lot more detail in my response to another person in this same thread, but his message was intended as a warning against putting all of your trust in charismatic leaders...although his actual comments in that interview are much more nuanced than simply saying, "charismatic leaders are bad".

Villeneuve seems to have a very simplified understanding of that concept in mind, when he came up with the idea that Herbert wrote Messiah in response to fans missing the point of the 1st novel. But, Herbert himself spoke at length about what he intended Paul's character to be about...and he wasn't the "bad guy".

Without repeating myself too much, Paul was a "tragic hero". Herbert intended for him to be like a perfect example of what a leader should be. And his story was meant to highlight that even a perfect leader is still human, and will inevitably make mistakes...and may also be forced to make dire sacrifices in order to achieve results.

The basic moral of the story is that "great leaders" are very rarely "good people"...and that even the best leaders will have to make hard choices, that ultimately harm at least some of people they rule over. Paul was meant to be a "best case scenario"...but in the end, even he failed in his attempts to get everything right.

And his compassion for those he ruled over, actually prevented him from doing what he needed to, in order to save humanity from an even worse fate than himself.