Written by Frank Herbert,Dunehas always been regarded as an unfilmable sci-fi classic, butDenis Villeneuvehas the potential to finally do justice to the legendary source material. The book, which works both as a standalone novel and the firstpart of a trilogy, follows Paul Atreides and his family taking control of the inhospitable Arrakis, a desert planet infested with giant sandworms, which produce the universe’s most valuable asset — the “spice.”
With a vast array of characters and detailed world-building,Duneis a multi-layered novel that excels in its thrilling storytelling and prophetic meditations on the future of humankind. Though Herbert’s book is filled with truly cinematic moments — mesmerizing landscapes, creative technology, monsters — it’s a nearly impossible task to effectively translate the true extent of its power onto the big screen. And yet, Villeneuve has pulled it off.
Why Frank Herbert’s Dune Is So Difficult to Adapt
Herbert famously described his writing as sci-fi for those who don’t read sci-fi, mostly due to the fact thatDunerejects any conventional sci-fi structure to lay out its ideas. The story takes place in a future so distant that most technological efforts have become petty much obsolete, almost as if humanity has gone full circle into its genius.
Herbert brings the human race back to square one and leaves technology in the background, an unusual feat for any sci-fi. In the year 10,191, things have advanced so much that the scheme of things has become easily predictable: characters walk around with shields that automatically deflect fast-moving objects, forcing them to fight in unusual stances and deliver meticulously slow blows for them to land.
With the lack of traditional sci-fi structure, filmmakers will have no frame of reference to illustrate this story that flirts so much with fantasy conventions. There’s a distinctive archaic appeal to the universe ofDunedespite its futuristic setting, and with technology reduced to a mere convenience, the mystical and the unknown play a key role in the lives of these characters. To balance the abstract with the palpable is the first major challenge of those who wish to adaptDuneto the screen — a feat that can otherwise be only achievable through the intangible nature of a book.
In addition,Duneis genuinely sensitive to its worlds — Arrakis in particular — in ways difficult to recreate on the big screen. Reading the book, the reader is propelled to feel empathy towards this enriching universe: Herbert’s prose offers an incisive meditation on ecology and sustainability in the face of global politics that corrupt them. He passes his unique sensibility on tothe interminable desertsand their infinite grains of sand, the abnormal flora and the fauna, bestial sandworms included, and uses the fascinating indigenous peoples of Arrakis, the Fremen, to convey those ideals further.
In a movie, the magic glance of fascination towards Arrakis can easily come down to utter indifference. The planet is a character itself, but the invisible blood that pumps through Herbert’s pages can’t be easily translated into film, for mere cinematic landscapes won’t ever be lively enough. There’s a reason whyDuneleans so much on faith and the prophetical. Its main character, Paul, gradually loses bits of his humanity as he embraces the divine. Herbert’s novel is mostly about the unseen, and only those bound to the superficial tally ofDunewill be satisfied with an adaptation that simply recounts the base story.
Related:15 Sci-Fi Books Like Dune That Need a Movie Adaptation
There Have Been Many Attempts to Adapt Dune Before
It’s possible to trace a long timeline of cinematic failures when it comes toDuneadaptations. The most famous one is probablyDavid Lynch’sDune, released in 1984. While it’s debatable whether Lynch’s adaptationdeserves all the criticism that it got, there’s no denying that it was a theatrical disaster, grossing only $31 million out of a $45 million budget and getting unanimously negative reviews from both the critics' group and the general audience. Though Lynch went on to become one of the greatest filmmakers of his generation, he was only finding his true artistic voice at the time — and trying to cram nearly 900 pages worth of story in less than two and a half hours resulted in a real mess in terms of storytelling.
However, long before Lynch’sDunesaw the light of day, there had been attempts to bring the ambitious Herbert novel to the big screen. The first took place roughly sive years after the novel’s release, in 1971, in the hands of film producer Arthur P. Jacobs, known for the sci-fi franchisePlanet of the Apes. He died before the project began production, two years after acquiring the rights for a movie adaptation.
Ironically, the onlyDune-related project praised by critics prior to Villeneuve’s movie was a documentary about aDuneadaptation that never saw the light of day. It details the second attempt to adaptDune; a project led by cultfilmmaker Alejandro Jodorowsky, who envisioned a 10-hour-long movie. Unable to close a deal with producers, who thought Jodorowsky’s idea was absurd, the massive project was abandoned, even though Jodorowsky showed a genuine devotion to faithfully capturing Herbert’s ideals.
Dunerightfully received an “unfilmable” aura after so many failed attempts. A TV miniseries released in 2000 showed that it was possible to tell the whole story in this format, but a single movie would never be enough. The rights ofDunebounced about for years until Villeneuve finally took the reins of the project. With Warner Bros. backing him up and a massive budget in his hands, he came up with a fairly simple solution to the problem that haunted productions for decades: why not splitDuneinto two films?
Related:Unfilmable Books We Want To See Adapted After Dune
What Denis Villeneuve Gets Right About Dune
Villeneuve’s decision to divideDuneinto two parts enabled the story to breathe and follow a gradual course. While the book is fairly fast-paced for a novel of this magnitude, it’s true that there’s a lot of information to digest. In that respect,Dune’s first part is all about the politics behind Arrakis and the chilling conspiracy orchestrated by the House Harkonnen to dethrone the Atreides. While the film tackles the book’s mystical appeal with Paul’s prophecy and his dreams, it’s clear that Villeneuve chose to first establish a comprehensible context before jumping into the fantastical aspects of Herbert’s novel; yet whenever they come up, they leave a good impression.
Unsuspecting viewers might assumeDuneis merely setting up a grand finale in the upcomingDune: Part Two, but the truth is that the first film covers roughly 65% of the novel. There are a lot of twists and turns in between, and plenty of explosive moments to chew on.Dune: Part Twois expectedto explore more of the Fremen culture, the mesmerizing sandworms, and, of course, the final confrontation against the Harkonnen. New actors joining the cast (from Florence Pugh to Austin Butler) suggest politics will still play a major role, and more about the mysterious Bene Gesserit will be revealed, balancing themes grounded in reality with the fantastical.
The division only benefittedDune, but Villeneuve’s true talent has always been adding depth to his characters. With movies such asEnemy, Prisoners, andBlade Runner: 2049, the filmmaker invests a lot of his time in trying to convey the unspeakable. In his movies, the silence perfectly communicates what is going on in the minds of these characters; something that prevails inDune. Paul isn’t exactly a communicative protagonist, yet the viewers get to clearly see the pain and the trouble in his eyes. Villeneuve perfectly gives the first hints at the spiritual being Paul is set to become, working in the lines between so suggestive gestures and expressions will pay off later on to explain things that could only be described in a novel.
All the impressive work in character development and the healthy pacing of the story results in an impressive adaptation, but it’s far from being perfect. While there’s nothing that the second, or a possible third, part couldn’t fix, there’s something strangely bland about Villeneuve’s idealization of Arrakis. It lacks soul; the grains of sand are lifeless, the magnific sandworms surprisingly gray and torpid. Villeneuve’sDuneplays out like agood old-fashioned sci-fi story, but again, Herbert used to callDunesci-fi for those who aren’t familiar with sci-fi.
Though it succeeds in its technical achievements and tells a good sci-fi narrative in a genuineStar Wars-like fashion — in a sense, viewers get in touch with the diverse layers of this universe and a vast array of characters and places — Villeneuve needs to balance his talent for storytelling with the subtle ideas that Herbert envisioned for this universe, finding that invisible magic that permeates the pages of the book. The answer to that lies inDune: Part Two, but hopefully, the first movie hints at an even greater effort in this final part.
Duneis available to stream on Max.Dune: Part Tworeleases in theaters July 29, 2025.
