Dune: Book vs. Movies
The Dune trilogy is among my biggest influences and inspirations as a writer—and I’m certainly not alone in this. It was one of the works that helped to define space opera and science fiction as we know them today, so it’s no surprise that people keep trying to adapt it for the big screen.
Unfortunately, none of those past attempts did full justice to the source material. Not even Patrick Stewart could save the David Lynch adaptation, and while the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries hit more of the right beats, it still fell far short of the tone and epic scope of the original.
And I will say Denis Villeneuve’s two-part Dune movie isn’t perfect, either—but it gets it a lot more right than any past attempt, and has earned at least this life-long Frank Herbert reader’s seal of approval. Stretching it into two films was a smart move, giving the story the space it needs to breathe and nearly achieving the expansive, multi-threaded plot of the book.
I’ve discussed the book Dune before in my two-part worldbuilding analysis, so I won’t go into too much detail on the book here. Instead, this post will focus on the things the book does better, where the Villeneuve movies excel, and which version of the story I’d recommend for Dune novices to start off with.
What the book does better
1. The characters.
Most of the people from the book make it onto the screen in some fashion, with a few exceptions, but a lot of characters saw their identities and roles greatly reduced. I understand why. There simply isn’t space, even in a two-part movie, to delve fully into Piter De Vries’ abilities as a mentat, or to include subplots like the fact that Jamis (the man Paul kills when he and Jessica first meet the Fremen) had a family, who become Paul’s family after he wins the duel.
But even the core characters, I feel, were a bit neglected in the movie in terms of their development. A viewer without the context of the book would probably understand Paul’s motivations and internal conflict pretty well, which is the most important one to grok the plot. I don’t think I’d say the same for some of the other characters who got decent screen time, like Stilgar, Gurney Halleck, and even the Lady Jessica. It isn’t that the movie got them “wrong” necessarily—just that they feel like a slightly flattened version on film compared to their more complex version in the book.
The biggest absence for me in Dune Part II was Alia, Paul’s younger sister. In the book, she plays a crucial role in the final battle for Arrakis, and much more is made of the fact that she is the “Abomination”, born with the wisdom of generations since Jessica went through the Reverend Mother rite while pregnant with her. In the movie, the timeline is accelerated and she’s not even born yet by the time the battle happens. She’s shown a couple of times as an embryo, and “talks” to Paul at a couple points through Jessica, but she’s reduced to a peripheral figure.
2. Fremen culture.
Like individual characters, the Fremen culture and society are flattened in order to fit within the constraints of cinema. The viewer learns a few things about them in the films: that they hold reverence for water; that they’re excellent fighters; their connection to and knowledge of the desert—to the point of riding sandworms into battle, which is arguably the most badass entrance an army can make.
The thing is, for the purposes of the movies, Villeneuve focused in on the select details of the culture that do the most to drive the plot: their religious beliefs and their incredible toughness and skill as warriors. The book includes a lot more details about their day-to-day life, and the work they’re doing in the south to build toward their Green Paradise, that gives the Fremen a richer culture and shows the full breadth of their civilization. They have more agency over their future as a people than the Fremen shown in the movie, who are depicted as basically dupes of the Bene Gesserit. There’s an aspect of that in the book, too, but balanced against that are the immediate benefits that the Fremen hope to gain by retaking the planet. They have their own aspirations and goals, separate from Paul’s, and this makes their culture more interesting in the on-page version.
3. The sense of time and scope.
I already mentioned that the movie telescopes the timespan. The first Dune book covers roughly 5 years. Those same big-picture plot beats are condensed to take place within a year or less across the two films, based on the fact that Alia is still in-utero by the second movie’s end.
This has some deeper ramifications for the story, beyond the downsizing of Alia’s importance. It’s also part of why the Fremen feel shallower on-screen—in the book, Paul spends years living among them, learning their ways, and absorbing their culture, but in the movie it’s just a few months.
The biggest impact of this telescoped time, though, is that it lessens the stakes. After the Harkonnens take down House Atreides, it takes Paul less than a year to return the favor—and the fact that he does it so quickly makes it feel a bit too easy.
In the book, the reader sees all of the off-planet machinations going on, as well as more of the political maneuvering that happens between families. They also see how the Fremen pester the Harkonnens relentlessly over the intervening time, and Paul’s preparations take longer, which makes the Harkonnens seem more powerful. All of the extra effort that goes into reaching the final battle ultimately makes it more satisfying.
Combined with this is the cutting I mentioned above. The Fremen aren’t the only part of the book’s world that’s given short shrift on-screen. The galactic political environment and relationships between the great houses are mentioned in the first movie, and the second movie goes into more detail on the long-view breeding programs of the Bene Gesserit and behind-the-scenes plotting of the Emperor, but both are sketches compared to the depth to which they’re developed in the book. That depth helps to give more context to Paul’s decisions and motivations, leaving them feeling a bit shallower in the movies.
What the movies do better
1. World immersion.
A lot of the descriptions in Dune are vivid and detailed—I certainly had a mental picture of what Arrakis looks like when I first read them as a kid. That said, Herbert isn’t one of those writers I read expecting to find beautiful prose. When his sentences are nice, it feels almost accidental. His strength is in the story, character, and worldbuilding, not the prose itself.
And I’ll also say, because Herbert’s descriptions are so precise, the mental picture I had of Arrakis is incredibly close to the one shown on-screen in the Villeneuve movies. Seeing the landscapes there on the big-screen gives them that breathtaking, awe-inspiring feeling that is incredibly hard to replicate when you’re painting a picture in words. The CGI work is seamless on things like the ‘thopters and the sandworms. The movie truly brings Arrakis to life, in a way I can only imagine would make its creator proud.
2. Pacing and momentum.
Dune isn’t what I’d call a page-turner. And I don’t mean that in a bad way. There’s definitely tension and conflict, and there are moments of excitement where they need to be. The point of the book isn’t to be a breakneck thriller, though. It’s a slow-burn plot with a far-reaching scope. Between the action at the beginning and the action at the end, the middle is a lot of different pieces moving into place—and they’re definitely intriguing, and I think interesting to read, but it’s not what I’d call a fast-moving story.
This isn’t to say that Villeneuve directs Dune as an action movie. There are plenty of the contemplative moments and panoramic long shots that he does so well, especially in the second movie. But he gains a lot of forward momentum by making all those cuts I complained about earlier. The result is a much quicker pace than you’ll find in the books.
The verdict: Movie, then book, then movie (then the rest of the books)
The Villeneuve movies are an excellent representation of, not just the world and plot of Dune, but also its spirit and mood. That said, Dune is a sprawling book, and some details had to be omitted by necessity to get it onto the screen even in two movies.
The thing about a book like Dune: it’s a bit of a commitment. It’s definitely worth the time investment if you’re into worldbuilding or complex, sprawling narratives—but if you don’t just want to leap into a 600-page novel sight unseen, watching the first movie will give you a general idea of what you’re in for and whether this is a world and plot you want to invest your time into.
The second movie is good, too, and you’ll know the basic big-picture plot of the first Dune book’s latter half from watching it. That said, though, it has some more significant alterations compared to the book than the first movie, and some of the things that were left out aren’t exactly minor.
I could see the second Dune movie actually being a bit hard to follow if you hadn’t read the book. Even with the threads that are cut out for the adaptation, there are still a lot of different things going on, and many threads don’t get a ton of on-screen time. Some plot devices also end up feeling like MacGuffins because he doesn’t get a chance to bring them up until the moment they’re needed. All of this makes the plot movement clunky in places. The book makes all of the political machinations and the complicated relationships between the different groups and characters more clear, and the movie does it enough justice that, if you like the book, you’ll appreciate seeing it play out on-screen.
It's a cliché, but I’ll go ahead and say it: yes, the book is better. But the Villeneuve movies are the best attempt to put it on a screen by far, and while I have my quibbles they still do justice to Frank Herbert’s masterpiece.
See similar posts: