Talkin’ Dune 2 with Denis Villeneuve

With his Dune movies, director Denis Villeneuve is trying to do what even Frank Herbert couldn’t: make Paul Atreides a villain

When Polygon sat down with Villeneuve about adapting Dune over two films, he said the goal was always to film the story that author Frank Herbert wanted his audience to walk away with, one that showcased the dangers of charismatic leaders and fanaticism. Oh, and he’s working on the screenplay for a third installment that has yet to be greenlit.

Read on for our discussion with Villeneuve, about how strange Dune gets in the back half of the story, the puzzle of what to keep in an adaptation and what to discard, and his thoughts on whether the conclusion of his Dune trilogy — Dune Messiah — will hit theaters after all.

[Ed. note: This interview was edited and condensed for clarity.]

The paradox of Dune is that it’s a story about humanity, but told through a human society so far in the future that it might as well be an alien one. A lot of the truly alien stuff is in the second half of Dune, and it feels like you relished digging into stranger environments, stranger events, and stranger characters.

Denis Villeneuve: Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. In a way, Part One was a slow introduction, gentle. As the main character, the camera was just above Paul Atredies’ shoulder, and we were slowly discovering a planet and discovering the ends of the Fremen culture. But it was very gentle. The second movie is much more muscular. He falls into the river [laughs] he is really immersed in that culture and becomes a warrior. It’s much more of an action movie. It allowed me — because the story is, in a way, more simple — to go deeper, and explore more, and the Fremen culture, and the Harkonnen culture. That was what was so fun for me as a director.

Was it just the events of the book, or was the success of Dune: Part One also part of having more room to expand?

It’s more that with the way that we structured both movies, there was a lot of exposition that was required to do Part One. And that exposition being made gave me more freedom in Part Two, definitely.

Photo: Niko Tavernise/Warner Bros.

When you’re adapting something as dense as Dune you make a lot of choices about what details are going to be in the film, what will be touched on briefly, and what maybe won’t appear at all. Did you have any guiding principles in figuring out what was going to make it in from the book?

My guiding principles were Frank Herbert’s intentions. Specifically for [Dune], he was disappointed how people perceived the story. He felt that people misconceived Paul Atreides; that people were seeing him as a hero, where he wanted to do the opposite. So in reaction to that he wrote Dune Messiah in order to insist on the idea that Paul was a dangerous figure, and that the first book was more of a cautionary tale or more of a warning against the current charismatic leaders. Knowing that it gave me a lot of information on how to approach this second movie to make sure that I was heading toward all of Frank Herbert’s initial intentions.

You’ve expressed that you really want to do Dune Messiah as a film, though nothing is certain yet. It seems like it would be so daunting to set aside parts of a story, maybe ones you really like, for a next installment, if you’re not sure you’re going to get it. Did you struggle with thinking If I don’t put it in here I might never get to do it?

Oh, no, no, no, no, no. When you make movies, it’s always a gamble. But I don’t see it this way. [Co-writer] Jon Spaihts and I, when we wrote the [Dune Part One] screenplay, we were convinced that that was the most precise and elegant way to convey the story we wanted to tell from that book. So when I made Part Two, I focused entirely, and devoted all my energy, into that movie specifically. Any movies I am making in my life I am trying to make the movie like if it was the last one. It is the only way you can really make movies, first of all because of the amount of energy I’m putting into those movies the best way to do it is like OK, that’s the last one, so I gave everything. You never know what the future will be made out of. Of course, I gave in some Easter eggs, some projection of the future, like I did in Part One for Part Two, and for Part Two I did the same. There are some tiny clues [about] what could be Dune Messiah but it’s very subtle.

Photo: Niko Tavernise/Warner Bros.

Are you feeling confident that you’ll get to do Dune Messiah? Or is it still too soon to tell?

I will say that, having just finished Part Two recently, I’m still digesting the experience, I’m doing press right now. But the more time passes by the more I think I will have the desire to do it, if we have a strong screenplay. We are working on it right now and we are inspired. I think that we have something strong but when I’m going to do it — is it my next movie, or the movie after that, I cannot know. I will know when the screenplay will be finished.

What’s the biggest thing that making these movies taught you about Frank Herbert’s book?

How prescient he was at the time. He was like the prophet speaking alone in the desert, and today all the topics, all the warnings he said are more relevant than they used to be. When you think about climate, or the danger of blending religion and politics together, or the danger of the charisma of leaders, and the power of AI, the danger of AI, fanaticism. It’s sadly became more and more relevant through time.