Part 2 “Change” proves why the franchise must end after the next film

Denis Villeneuves Dune: Part Two won deserved recognition from audiences and critics, but despite the success of the sequel, a subtle change in the book’s story proved that Villeneuve’s version of the story must be over after the next installment. In many ways Dune: Part One And Dune: Part Two were faithful retellings of Frank Herbert’s main work. The novel’s message about the dangers of blind faith was masterfully conveyed alongside an impressive visual spectacle. And yet, while many features remained the same in the two films, some details of the story were inevitably changed.

One of the biggest differences between dune the novel and dune The two-part cinematic experience concerns characterization. Although many of the same characters appear in both versions of the story, the way they are presented gives a completely different impression. The best example of this is Paul Atreides’ sister Alia. While she plays an active role in the novel – killing Baron Harkonnen in the climactic battle – She is an unborn presence in the film, save for a brief cameo in a dream sequence. Although the film’s treatment of Alia makes sense, it also proves why Dune: Part Three will inevitably end Villeneuve’s franchise.

Cutting Alia from Dune: Part Two sets a precedent for the rest of the franchise

It suggests that other characters like her are treated the same way

Before Dune: Part TwoAt the time of release, Alia Atreides was understandably considered the sequel’s most problematic character. According to the book Alia was born with all the abilities of a full-fledged Bene Gesserit – a direct result of Lady Jessica drinking the Water of Life while pregnant. This means that she is essentially an adult trapped in a child’s body – a difficult thing to portray on film, as evidenced by the failure to fully realize the character in David Lynch’s flawed film “1984.” dune Adjustment.

Given the character’s complex nature, it’s no surprise that Villeneuve avoids the issues she raises entirely by shortening the story’s time frame and leaving Alia in the womb. As a result, She plays an extremely limited role in Dune: Part Two‘s story – communicating with Jessica and Paul behind the scenes, but not doing anything as dramatic as stabbing the Baron. This decision makes the film’s story much easier to digest and sidelines one of its more complex plotlines. However, it is also a tacit admission that Alia and characters like her are not compatible with the kind of story Villeneuve wants to tell.

Leto and Ghanima Atreides are even more problematic than Alia

Villeneuve has already indicated that he will ignore her story

Considering Alia’s minimal role in dunethe consequences of their absence for Part Two are not too dramatic. Other characters in later chapters in the dune History is not easily ignored. In particular, Paul and Chani’s children, Leto and Ghanima, pose a problem for future Villeneuve films – if Alia is treated Dune: Part Two is anything to go by – will prove insurmountable.

Like Alia, Leto and Ghanima are born with supernatural maturity and Bene Gesserit powers – they behave as children in the same way as adults. In Frank Herbert’s third novel Children of DuneThe couple behaves in ways that would be unthinkable for a normal child – presents exactly the same problems as Alia Dune: Part Two. In duneAlia’s somewhat minor role meant she could be removed from the story. However, for Leto and Ghanima this is impossible.

In his treatment of Alia, Villeneuve has already proven that he does not believe that these child characters are conducive to good storytelling…

The two children are the central actors Children of Duneis the story of Alia, pitting her directly against Alia, who succumbs to the influence of her dead grandfather, Vladimir Harkonnen. As a result, everyone Children of Dune The adaptation would have to feature them prominently. In his treatment of Alia, Villeneuve has already demonstrated that he does not think these child characters are conducive to good storytelling, suggesting that, whatever the merits of the narrative, Children of Dune It makes no sense for Villeneuve to adapt. Therefore, it seems inevitable that the third film (presumably adapted from Dune Messiah) ends the director’s version.

Dune Messiah is still a great place to end the story

It completes Paul’s journey

The power of Frank Herbert’s fictional universe is so great that dune The series expanded to over 40 books – most of which were written by Herbert’s son Brian and his collaborator Kevin J. Anderson. Even taking into account the original six novels written by Herbert himself, it is a comprehensive adaptation of the whole thing dune History is impractical. Against this background, an adaptation of Dune Messiah is perhaps the most natural place to end Villeneuve’s film trilogy.

Dune Messiah
represents the climax of the story of Paul Atreides…

Even if the story continues Children of Dune, Dune Messiah represents the climax of the story of Paul Atreides. After deposing the emperor and waging his holy war to the stars, Messiah shows Paul struggling with threats to his rule and personal difficulties – He balances a plot to remove him from power and his family’s fragile rule with the knowledge that becoming a father will cost Chani his life. It ends with a blind Paul, having tried his best to find the optimal path for humanity, wandering into the desert, never to be seen again.

For Villeneuve, the poetry of this moment and its rich symbolism are the ideal conclusion to his contemplative view of history. Both of the previous films were about Paul’s transformation as a protagonist, so it makes sense that the final part concludes his story. Future installments would perhaps inevitably feel unnecessary and seem more like a reboot than a sequel. Even though characters like Leto and Ghanima are at odds with the way Villeneuve wants to tell his story, it might actually be his best Dune: Part Two The sequel (if it ever happens) is the final part of the film series.