Part 2 Change proves why the franchise needs to end after the next movie

Denis Villeneuve Dunn: Part Two Van has deserved popular and critical acclaim, but - for all the success of the sequel - a subtle change of the story of the book proved that Villeneuve's version of ​​the story must come to an end after the next installment. in many ways, Dunn: Part One And Dunn: Part Two were faithful repetitions of Frank Herbert's magnum opus. The novel's message about the dangers of blind faith was masterfully delivered, along with impressive visual spectacle. And yet, although many features remained the same in the two movies, some narrative details were necessarily altered.

One of the biggest differences between Don The novel and Don The two-part cinematic experience concerns characterization. Although many of the same figures appear in both versions of the story, the way they are presented creates a radically 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 action— She is an unborn presence in the movie, save for a brief cameo in a dream sequence. While the treatment of Alia in the movie makes sense, it also inadvertently proves why Dunn: Three parts Will inevitably end Villeneueve's franchise.

Cutting Alia out of Dune: Part Two creates a precedent for the rest of the franchise

It suggests that other characters like you will be treated in the same way

Before Dunn: Part Twos release, Alia Atreides is understandably considered the most problematic character of the sequel. According to the book, Alley is gifted with all the abilities of a full-fledged Bene Gesrit as soon as she is born - 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 demonstrated by the failure to fully realize the character in David Lynch's flawed 1984 Don Adaptation.

Given the complex nature of the character, it is not surprising that Villeneuve chose to avoid the problems she poses entirely by condensing the time frame of the story and keeping Alia in utero. As a result, She plays an extremely limited role in Dunn: Part Twos history - Communicating with Jessica and Paul behind the scenes, but not doing anything as dramatic as stabbing the baron. This decision makes the movie's story much more easily digestible, and exorcizes one of the more complicated plot points. But there's also a tacit acknowledgment that Alia, and characters like her, are incompatible with the kind of story Villeneuve wants to tell.

Leto and Ghanima Atreides are even more problematic than Alia

Villeneuve has already suggested he will ignore their story

Considering Alia's minimal role in DonThe consequences of her leaving for Part two Don't be too dramatic. However, other characters in later chapters in the Don History is not so easily ignored. Specifically, the children of Paul and Chani, Leto and Ghanima, present future Villeneuve movies with a problem that - if Alia's treatment in Dunn: Part Two Is something to go through - will prove insurmountable.

Like Alia, Leto and Ghanima were born with supernatural maturity and Bene Gesserit powers - behaving just like adults when they were just children. In Frank Herbert's third novel, Children of DuneThis sees the couple behaving in ways that would be unthinkable to a normal child - Presenting exactly the same set of problems as Alia had before Dunn: Part Two. in DonAaliyah's somewhat peripheral role meant she could be left out of the story. However, this is impossible for Leto and Ghanima.

The two children are the pivotal players in Children of Dunes story - confronting Alya as she succumbs to the influence of her dead grandfather, Vladimir Harkonnen. As a result, no Children of Dune Adaptation would have to feature them prominently. In his treatment of Alia, Villeneuve has already proven that he does not think child characters are conducive to good storytelling, suggesting that - whatever the merits of his story - Children of Dun It didn't make sense for Villeneuve to adapt. As a result, it seems inevitable that the third film (presumably adapted from Don Christ) is where the director's version will end.

Dune Messiah is still a great place to end the story

It completes Paul's Journey

Such is the power of Frank Herbert's fictional universe that the Don Series has expanded to include over 40 books - most of which were written by Herbert's son, Brian, and collaborator Kevin J. Anderson. Even considering the original six novels written by Herbert himself, a complete adaptation of the whole Don History is impractical. With this context in mind, an adaptation of Don Christ is perhaps the most natural place to end Villeneuve's movie trilogy.

Although the story continues with Children of Dune, Don Christ represents the climax of Paul Atreides' story. Having defeated the emperor and taken his holy war to the stars, Messiah Shows Paul struggling with threats to his reign and personal distress - Balancing a plot to remove him from power and the weakness of his family's rule with the knowledge that becoming a father will kill Chaney. It ends with a blind Paul, having tried his best to plot the optimum way forward for mankind, wandering in the wilderness never to be seen again.

The poetry of the moment and its rich symbolism is the ideal way for Villeneuve to end his contemplative take on history. Both previous movies centered on Paul's transformation as a protagonist, so it makes sense for the final installment to bring his story to a close. Any future installments would perhaps inevitably feel unnecessary and more like a reboot than a continuation. Even though characters like Leto and Ghanima are at odds with the way Villeneuve wants to tell his story, it may actually be for the best that his Dunn: Part Two Sequel (if it ever happens) is the final installment of the movie series.