This is a copy of a letter I wrote in to Robert Meyer Burnett and "The Burnettwork".

　Hey Rob, I hope this letter finds you happy and well. Warning, this is a long one.

It’s been a while since I have written, and I know my letters are rather all over the place when I send them in. Honestly, I realized in the last month or so that I have been dealing with trauma from my experiences in mainland China, and I have also been dealing with a nasty case of depression, both of which have been effecting my mood more than I would like, and I think it has been presenting itself in my writing. Unfortunately, therapy is a bit expensive, and it’s tax season here in Japan, so I am stuck trying to manage it on my own terms. I’ll get through it, but it’s going to be a bit of a process.

Anyways, today I thought I would try a more clearly thought-out criticism of Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune”. I know you, and many members of the Post-Geek Singularity are likely going to disagree, but one of the things I like about it is that as a community, they are pretty accepting of the fact that we can disagree. So here it is: “Dune” is not the greatest science-fiction film of the decade. It’s not the “definitive” adaptation of “Dune”, it’s not even a great one. At best, it’s pretty good. Visually, it’s amazing, I can give it that. All of Denis’ films are. However, this most recent adaptation of “Dune” has driven home the fact that the scripts he chooses to execute are very flawed, and at points his editorial choices are sloppy, poorly thought-out, and sometimes downright weird. I have taken my time in reaching this conclusion about Denis, and I won’t deny that part of it is in response to the massive influx of apparently unquestioning praise he keeps receiving for his films, when they simply aren’t as good as people pretend that they are. I’m not saying they’re bad by any means however, I can appreciate a lot of his work, but an amazing paint job on a lower quality bicycle does not automatically make the bicycle a top of the line one, regardless of subjectivity.

                  ******The Good******

Yeah, I know that last paragraph is pretty loaded, but I am ready to defend my stances. Let me also clarify that I do like the new “Dune”. There’s a lot it does well, and a few things that are quite book-accurate, which was nice to see. So let me start with the things I liked about it. As I said, visually it is absolutely amazing. Denis masterfully captures the size and scale of the universe visually, and that serves it very well, especially during the spice harvester attack, which is the most book accurate version (at moments) that I have seen, The way the ground just opens up and swallows the harvester was glorious to behold on screen. I enjoyed the fact that we actually got a very book-accurate version of Duncan’s death as well, along with the various other details that were clarified a bit more in this film, such as the explanation of the missionaria protectiva. I can also say that all of the cast delivered absolutely wonderful performances, even Jason Mamoa, who did better than I expected him to.

                *****The Bad*****

Now though, on to the negatives. While in broad strokes this new “Dune” is the most accurate adaptation of the book we have gotten, when you actually look at it carefully, it’s not as accurate as it appears. For one, while this is the longest adaptation of the first part of the novel, it actually manages to have far less character and world building in it than either previous adaptation. This is exacerbated by the fact that both previous adaptations were almost an hour shorter, at least in terms of the first part of the story. Perhaps the worst victims of this are the characters. Gurney Halleck, Thufir Hawat, and Doctor Yueh are very important characters in the book, yet in this version they barely have any presence at all. Gurney is featured more prominently than the other two, but with only a few scenes and few, basic lines in each, even he exists as little more than a caricature, rather than a character. Thufir Hawat is basically useless in the story, only there for a couple of scenes in which he was important, and the rest of the time only exists in the background, with a couple of lines each. There is no sense at all of his close relationship with Paul, or why he is important to anyone at all. That is to say nothing of the complete absence of any kind of real explanation of the mentats or their role in the universe. Yes, I know Denis has said he plans to explore that more in part two, but that is important set up, and even a basic one-line explanation is nowhere to be found. These are the fundamentals of the story’s universe, they shouldn’t be dependent on what was at the time only the possibility of a sequel. Doctor Yueh also is scarcely found, only having two or three scenes before the obligatory betrayal plot, which is only clarified in the moment. The other scenes serve little purpose beyond clarifying that exposure to the spice is effecting Paul, (which was a weird change in and of itself that could have been handled better elsewhere), and the mandatory catering-to-Beijing scene they added before Paul meeting the Reverend Mother Mohiam (Which was also kind of weird, I’m not sure I buy Jessica involving anyone other than her son in anything to do with Mohiam).

The same is true of the villains of the story: The Harkonnen. Despite being a brilliant master of political intrigue and manipulation, orchestrating a complex plot that even included the emperor, the Baron, the primary, over-arching villain of the story is also barely there. He has only a few scenes, with a few lines of dialogue that convey the bare minimum necessary to understand the plot. The rest is brooding, though admittedly atmospheric shots. Also, Feyd Ruatha is nowhere to be found in the film, which could be forgiven if the goal was to make part one “Rabban’s story”, fleshing him out and giving him a bit more presence and story, but once again, even Rabban only has a couple of scenes with minimal dialogue. I understand that Denis wanted the film to be from Paul’s perspective, but these are fully realized characters who deserve a lot more than just a couple of lines here or there, and both they and the film suffer seriously as a result.

Next: Jessica. Oh Jessica, where to even begin with this portrayal. I’m sorry, but she was almost all wrong in this. The actress does an amazing job with the material she is given, this is in no way a criticism of the actress or her performance, but the character, as written, is a mess. I have stated before, and I will repeat that I am not a fan of the casting. Jessica is supposed to look regal, with the Duke noting that it was a trait she had “re-introduced into the Atreides line”, but the actress herself, while beautiful, has a very “girl next door look”. That aside, I could forgive that if the writing had been good, but it simply wasn’t. This Jessica was far too emotional, far too often. Yes, in the book she had emotions, but in this film she seems two steps away from a complete emotional breakdown, and that’s BEFORE we get to Arrakis. I get that they wanted to demonstrated her bene gesserit training, and her ability to completely mask her emotions in a moment’s notice, but they have her freaking out at least three times, in moments when a more subtle performance would have gone a lot further. Denis was being VERY heavy-handed with that, and not only was in annoying, it was a violation of her character. One of a few. Next up, why in the hell would Jessica be telling Paul about the missionaria protectiva in a closed cockpit when she is sitting RIGHT behind Thufir Hawat, who would easily have been able to hear everything she had just said? No bene gesserit would be just be blaring out secrets like that so openly, especially not with a mentat right next to her. Sure, Jessica trusted Thufir extensively, but that doesn’t change the fact that she was still bene gesserit, and he was still a mentat. Yet another casualty is the relationship of Jessica and Leto. Sure, it’s there, but barely. They only have a few scenes together, and you never really feel the very real love that they have for each other in any of them. The relationship between Paul and his father is similarly affected, though you can feel a bit more of a bond between them, they have so few scenes together that it’s never firmly established.

                 ******The Weird******

Now, for some of the choices that struck me as downright weird. Continuing the thread of Jessica (because for some reason, most of the worst parts of the film are always somehow connected to her in some way), there’s the scene when she meets the Shadout Mapes (another character with no development and little point in being there, aside from fulfilling her plot obligations, there’s a lot of that in this movie). For some reason I cannot fathom, Denis chose to portray the scene in which the Shadout offers Jessica the crysknife when she is in the presence of two guards, and out in the open. It’s not just that the scene did not play out as it did in the book (such things are normal in adaptations, of course), but the book version would NEVER have pulled out a crysknife in front of anyone but Jessica. Fremen tradition and culture would have prohibited it. The Shadout would have been required to have killed the guards. It’s a really strange change that goes against the text of the book in spirit, but also accomplishes nothing by making it. To make things worse, the scene also shows the Shadout sheathing the knife un-blooded. On its own, you might just be able to chalk it up to it being a detail omitted from this adaptation, which would be a fair enough argument I suppose, but it is countered by the fact that when Paul meets Stilgar and his band of fremen, the film specifically shows them bloodying their knives there. I have heard that the script does have the Shadout bloodying her knife, but that would mean that Denis consciously chose to edit it out, creating a bizarre inconsistency that he makes no effort to explain.

Next, we have the bull. Don’t get me wrong, it was nice to see the references to the bull and Leto’s father in the film. The way it was used though, was… sloppy. Denis clearly tried to turn it into a form of symbolism, and he was again very heavy-handed about doing so. The problem is that as a symbol it makes little to no sense, and I have heard a number of attempts to explain it, but none of them really work. Some say that it was meant to symbolize the Atreides refusal to back down from a fight, or that it was somehow tied to Paul and his “destiny”. I interpreted it as an attempt at paralleling the fall of house Atreides and the death of Leto with the death of his father, but in any of these, the symbolism fails. Leto’s father fought bulls in the ring for sport, and died for it. Leto, and the Atreides were trapped by plots against them. There is no real parallel. Similarly, fighting a bull for sport does not fit well into the “refusal to back down from a fight” interpretation. It does nothing to deepen the story, characters, or narrative, in instead comes off as sloppy, forced, and pretentious.

There’s also the matter of the scene in which Paul informs Jessica that he knows she’s pregnant. In the book, if you recall, the scene takes place after the betrayal, around the time when they are in the tent, and after he has his first real moment of prescience. The timing of the scene makes perfect sense in the book. They’ve been through a lot, he has had consistent and strong exposure to the spice, and he is really beginning to awaken as the character he will eventually become. It also fits because he is now able to see version of the future more precisely, and begins to see the coming Jihad. Similarly, it makes sense that with his abilities awakened to that point, he can also see his unborn sister. Instead though, in the film, they move the scene to just after the spice harvester attack, where its use is just… odd. I’m not going to go so far as to say it goes against the book, but if it doesn’t, it’s close. If he had already gained that level of prescience, you would think he would have been able to do more to avoid certain events that would follow after. In the book by the time his prescience really kicks in, it’s too late to do anything to avoid the path he is already on. This change does nothing to further the narrative that could not have been handled in a better, more subtle way. It’s just… odd.

Another thing that stood out to me were the changes they made to the Atreides. A lot of this ties in to the portrayal of the emperor, which I admit I like. Not only was it book accurate, but the way he is discussed and always lurking in the background, an ominous presence guiding (or allowing) everything happening. It’s a great build-up to the character, and one that I hope pays off. However, if this film is anything to go by, I’m not confident. How does this tie into the Atreides, however? Simply put, for whatever reason, they decided to make the Atreides into hapless fools rushing into a trap with poor preparation and planning, and they also make them very ignorant of what is going on in general. In the beginning of the film, they have Leto telling Paul that the emperor gave them Arakkis with the intent of starting “a war that will weaken both houses”, though in the book, and both previous adaptations he was FULLY aware it was a deathtrap, but his only choices were to try to outmaneuver the trap, or take his house and go “rogue”, fleeing the system for good. He is highly competent, and it is easy to see how he became so popular with the other houses of the Landsraad. In this film, he’s pretty clearly in over his head and grossly underestimating the danger. They also feature him later apparently surprised and complaining to Kynes about the poor state of the equipment left behind by the Harkonnen, begging her to report it to the emperor, when in the book, absolutely nobody was surprised that the Harkonnen had left them crappy, broken down equipment. They also seem rather uncertain about the nature of the emperor’s involvement in the film, or even IF he is involved. The end result is a muddled, unclear plot that both paints the Atreides as incompetent, and risks confusing the audience. It’s very sloppy, and again, a completely unnecessary change that accomplishes nothing aside from weakening the main characters and going against the book.

Speaking of the emperor, that was another key thing that stood out like a Klingon at an Amish farm. The emperor’s involvement was supposed to be a secret, so why in the fuck were the Sardaukar hopping around in their own distinctive armor during the assault on Arrakeen, virtually broadcasting his involvement to the universe? I mean, once again, BOTH previous adaptations got that detail right. What was the point of changing it here? It felt like there were a number of changes that were made solely for being “different” from the previous adaptations, but they did so by actively going against the book, and weakening the film. Some people have attempted to defend it by stating that the goal was to “wipe out” the Atreides, leaving no witnesses, but there would never be any guarantee of accomplishing that in totality, and even the book and miniseries acknowledged that.

In addition to all of this, there is the matter of the change to Liet Kynes. In general, I am not against race or gender swapping if it is either a neutral change, or it can be used to highlight some aspect of an already established character in a new way. In this film, the change is almost neutral, but not quite. Part of what bonds Chani and Paul together in the story is the fact that they both lost their fathers in the same event, and to the same people. In the new film, they lose both parents, which slightly weakens the story, but doesn’t ruin it. However, at the same time it accomplishes nothing. Liet Kynes, like the other characters in the story, is so under-utilized that we never actually see anything new that results from the swap. It’s completely useless in that regard. So why change it? Even if only slightly, it still does weaken the narrative somewhat, without gaining anything in the process, so what was the point if not strictly for political social agenda points? It’s just odd, though it is the least of the film’s sins.

              ******The Egregious******

Finally, there is one small change that the film makes that actually really irritates me, and significantly changes the nature of Paul as a character and the context of the story as well. In the final scenes, we see the fremen willing to accept both Paul and Jessica, but Jessica insists that the fremen help them get off the planet (there she is again, funny, that). Paul then refuses, telling them that they are going to stay with the fremen. In the book, they never have that option. They know full well that they are stranded on Arrakis, and the only options they have are a chance at survival with the fremen, with the possibility of revenge against the Harkonnen and emperor down the road, or death. That’s it. On the surface, it seems like it’s just a small change, but think about it. By this point Paul has a sense of what’s coming. In the film he had just been extremely upset about the revelation of the Jihad too him a few scenes before, and now he is actively choosing to stay with the fremen, instead of possibly escaping and avoiding it altogether. With this change, he consciously chooses the path of Jihad, instead of being trapped by circumstance. It completely changes the context of his choices throughout the rest of the series. It also makes him completely responsible for everything that follows. The book readers will of course know what I am talking about, and why this change VERY notably goes against the book, and Paul’s character. Sure, they might clarify that they never really had the option of getting off the planet, but that does nothing to undo the choice they just demonstrated Paul making. They might also try to state in the sequel that though prescience, Paul knew that it wasn’t an option, which might be the only way they could fix that issue, though even then, they would still need to actively clarify that so that they can fix a mistake that they made in the first place. It’s sloppy, it was completely unnecessary for them to have added it in the first place, and it’s a significant change from the book.

Some will accuse me of nitpicking with these criticisms, and if it were all just a bunch of little things, I might even agree with them. However some of the changes made were somewhat significant, some of them went against the spirit of the story, and others were just strange. There is a point when all of the little changes add up into a big one, and if you’re not careful it can hurt the film. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of people are claiming that this film is a masterpiece. They’re praising it up and down as the best adaptation of the book we’ve ever had, with some claiming it is “exactly” how they imagined the book, which strikes me as rather odd, considering a number of the points I have already made. Again, I’m not actually saying I hate the film. I also enjoy the Lynch version, flawed as it was. But this film omits LARGE amounts of detail and world building that the other adaptations had been able to cover (in less time), leaving the story somewhat empty, hollow, and confusing in ways. Sure, I’ve heard the claims that regular movie-goers were having no problems understanding the story, and I am pretty sure they actually believe that. However, then I keep having conversations with people who thought they had clearly followed it, but then provide an interpretation of the events in the film that demonstrate otherwise. Most notable for me being one guy in the Dune subreddit who kept insisting that the Atreides failure to get their infrastructure up and operable quickly enough was the political excuse the emperor used to support the Harkonnen in destroying them, despite the emperor’s involvement needing to be a complete secret.

That’s to say nothing of the issues in the editing of the film. I already listed a few examples of sloppy editing, along with poor, pretentious attempts at symbolism. All of these are the fault of Denis Villenueve. He had everything he needed to make this an incredible adaptation of the story, and he fell short in almost every way that matters. People are giving him a pass, or even praising him and calling him a genius because the movie looks amazing. But it’s not. It suffers as an adaptation and as a film. The script as presented is poorly though-out, unclear at key points, and sacrifices a lot of content and character for the sake of visual style, on top of those moments of demonstrably sloppy, or heavy-handed editing. People have been constantly, CONSTANTLY going on and on about how much Denis loves “Dune”, and how this was his dream project. I don’t doubt that, but that does not automatically mean that his interpretation of the story is going to be accurate, or even all that good, however pretty he makes it look. HE chose to use that script, HE okayed the final edit of the film. He has also said that this is his preferred version of the film. He thinks that this is a good cut of the movie. Everything that is wrong with it can be laid firmly at his feet, and I am doing so.

In conclusion, in order to deserve the hype and praise that has been thrown at this version of “Dune”, it needed to accomplish two things: It needed to be a great adaptation of the book, and it needed to be a good movie. I think I have provided a larger number of examples in which the film actively fails as an adaptation of the book, even going against the original work in key spots. As a film, I can be kinder to it. It IS beautiful, the performances are outstanding, even when they are misguided, and I can say I was entertained enough by it. It is, however, a very flawed film, and one that I have to place closer to the extended cut of Lynches “Dune”. What is strange to me is the number of people bending over backwards to defend the movie, defend Denis, and try to pretend that this is somehow a “masterpiece”. I mean, I get that many people love it. Even I like it, but there is a difference between liking something and trying to pretend it is the absolute best there is, and that it can’t get any better. Even stranger is the number of people coming out of the woodwork to claim that Peter Jackson’s “The Lord Of The Rings” were actually bad adaptations, or were “deeply flawed”, when people compare them to the new “Dune” in an attempt to discredit those of us who are critical of it. It’s really weird to see. Obviously there is a large amount of subjectivity in film, but there are objective measures that we can use to gauge the quality of a film as well, as long as they are using it in the context of what the film itself is striving for. I myself love plenty of movies that can easily be called objectively bad, but I still love them. In the same way I strongly dislike films that are objectively good. I can still tell the difference between the two, though.

Anyways, I hope I was able to make my thoughts clear on the new film, and I’m sorry, I know this was a long one, but there was a lot to cover, and I had a lot to say. Thank you as always for your time, and keep safe my friend.

        -Matthew in Japan.