So the sequel, Dune: Part Two, has finally arrived. The popular and critics’ consensus is that the film is a fantastic success:

The problem Dune: Part Two (2024) creates for a proposed Part Three

I too liked the film — within the context of the first Dune book (1965). But there was a sequel to the novel version of Dune, called Dune Messiah (1969). And now there are plans for a third movie based on that sequel.

The difficulty is that the changes made for the film have warped the core story so much that it’s going to be nearly impossible to follow the source material from here on out. This movie is good, but the franchise has set itself up for future failure.

To see what I mean, let’s talk about how the sequel begins. Princess Irulan kicks off the story with a brief recap of the situation. That’s reminiscent of the 1984 film, but I’d argue that this scene works better dramatically. Irulan is actually doing something relevant while giving the audience badly needed exposition: She’s recording the events of the previous film for her own use.

While doing so, she expresses her suspicions about her father, the emperor. She believes that he helped the Harkonnens destroy House Atreides. The audience, of course, knows that.

However, I didn’t agree with the writers’ choice to introduce the emperor in this way. I had no strong opinions regarding the movie’s choice to cast Christopher Walken. The problem is that the writers needed to make it clear from the outset that the emperor is the main villain. The odds are that Irulan wouldn’t know the exact nature of her father’s involvement, but the viewer needs to understand that the emperor, not the baron, is the main antagonist. They failed to do this.

Walken plays the emperor as just a very tired old man who’s been talked into the conspiracy, not as the puppet master. The writers apparently chose this interpretation of his role because we later learn that it was the Reverend Mother who pressured the emperor into helping the Harkonnens. This was a dumb choice on their part. For one thing, it opens up several plot holes in the previous film, also making the first scene of the novel nonsensical.

Where Part Two undermines the core story in Part One

If the Bene Gesserits wanted House Atreides gone, then why did the Reverend Mother ask the baron to spare Paul and Jessica in the first film? Why didn’t she just stick Paul with the Gom Jabbar and say he failed the test?

Granted, this would’ve infuriated Duke Leto. But if the Bene Gesserits meant to kill the entire family anyway and the Reverend Mother had so much power over the emperor that she could convince him to wipe out an entire house, why would she care if the duke was angry? For that matter, what was the point behind performing the Gom Jabbar test in the first place? If the Reverend Mother already knew that the entire house was going to be wiped out and even orchestrated the slaughter herself, why bother with the pretense of a test? This made no sense.

By weakening the emperor, the writers made the Bene Gesserits the true power behind the throne. That is inconsistent with the book and raises the question of why they’d want a Kwisatz Haderach if they were already all-powerful. Granted, the Reverend Mother talks about her desire to control the Kwisatz Haderach. But the problem remains: if she’s already the true power behind the throne, then creating a male Bene Gesserit is redundant and can only threaten her rule.

A deeper issue…

There’s a deeper issue here: The Bene Gesserits only work as characters if they’re moving in the shadows, laying plans within plans while slowly subverting the current institutions. If they’ve already achieved their goal, their pursuit of more power becomes pointless. Why? Because there is no more power to be had. They’ve already seized the throne! What else is the Kwisatz Haderach supposed to do?

Lastly, diminishing the emperor’s role elevated the Harkonnens to the primary antagonists. The writers offset this contradiction with the book by making some changes that tightened the ending. So, I’m happy to say the writers did a good job handling this dilemma and arguably improved the story.

Hearing unborn voices

After Irulan gives the audience her info dump, we rejoin Paul and Jessica. They fight a few Harkonnens who don’t last long and eventually reach Sietch Tabr, Stilgar’s home. Stilgar tells Jessica that he would like her to become the Fremens’ reverend mother. He believes in all the prophecies put out by the Bene Gesserits and says that Jessica must become a reverend mother if Paul is to be the Fremens’ savior. Jessica agrees, and then drinks the Water of Life, a bile produced by the sandworms. It’s a hallucinogen, and the Bene Gesserits believe they can use it to see into the future.

Unfortunately, no one realizes that Jessica is pregnant, and Jessica doesn’t know what the Water of Life is. When she drinks it and begins having the memories of all the previous reverend mothers given to her through a vision, the drug does . . . something—and that’s really the only way to describe it—to Jessica’s unborn child.

Now, in the book version, Alia, Paul’s sister, is given all the reverend mothers’ memories as well, making her an adult trapped in a child’s body. In the sequel, I have no idea what this stuff does to the baby. All the viewer knows is that Jessica can suddenly hear her child’s voice in her head.

But it’s possible that she’s not hearing Alia’s voice at all and that the drug simply drove her nuts. It’s difficult to decide what happened because, unlike what happened in the book, Alia is never born. Everything in the sequel takes place in fewer than nine months. By the time the novel ends, Alia is three years old. That is much more believable because I can’t imagine Paul befriending the Fremen, leading the Fremen, and waging a war where he slowly bleeds the empire dry of spice in less than a year. However, I found the “creepy kid” routine at the end of the book off-putting, so I wasn’t exactly sad that they made this change.

As the alterations begin to add up…

Here’s what’s fascinating about this movie: All the alterations seem small, but as the film progresses, things begin to pile up. The changes slowly create an avalanche, which makes the possibility of writing a coherent third film unlikely, to say the least. We’ll talk about what Paul was doing while Jessica fried her brain cells with the Water of Life next Saturday.

Here are all the parts of my extended review of Dune: Part Two (2024):

Dune: Part Two succeeds brilliantly — but dooms plans for Part III. The difficulty is that the changes made for the film have warped the core story so much that it’s going to be nearly impossible to follow the source material from here on out. For example, if the Bene Gesserits are the true power behind the throne, why do they need a Kwisatz Haderach to cement their power?

Dune, Part Two: Paul becomes a hero — very reluctantly Some departures from the book work better than others. The “reluctant hero” trope simplifies a complex political situation but comes at a cost. Overall, Paul’s reluctance, in this version, to be the Fremen’s leader enables him to earn their respect over time while doing more ordinary tasks.

Dune, Part Two: At last, Feyd-Rautha becomes relevant. The treatment of Feyd in this version is more satisfactory than in any previous one. We are prepared for Paul’s confrontation with him. The portrayal of Chani in Part Two is, however, much harder to understand. If she doesn’t believe in the Bene Gesserit religion, why is she there on Arrakis?

Dune, Part Two: At last, Feyd-Rautha becomes relevant. The treatment of Feyd in this version is more satisfactory than in any previous one. We are prepared for Paul’s confrontation with him. The portrayal of Chani in Part Two is, however, much harder to understand. If she doesn’t believe in the Bene Gesserit religion, why is she there on Arrakis?

Note: Here’s my series looking at Dune (1984), linked together, starting with “Where did Dune 1984 succeed? Where did it fail?”