MovieChat Forums > Dune: Part Two (2024) Discussion > Leaving Alia out was a bad idea

Leaving Alia out was a bad idea

posted 7 months ago by AmeriGirl26 (14411)
9 replies | jump to latest

One of the most interesting characters that's often overlooked is Paul's little sister, Alia. In the original story, Paul and Jessica got to live among the Fremen with new names for several months before an emergency forced the tribe to have to move, and their resident Reverend Mother was too old and frail to make the journey, leading to Lady Jessica (who had been working with her, due to her Bene Gesserit skills proving useful) to take the Water of Life ritual. To be honest, it was a seriously bad idea all around, and I wonder what was going through her mind to do this, because of the dangers.

It's possible she didn't have much of a choice and couldn't leave the tribe without a Reverend Mother, and if she hadn't done the ritual, the knowledge the tribe's Reverend Mother had accumulated as well as her future plans would have been lost. But unfortunately, the ritual not only caused her to prematurely give birth, but Jessica's daughter was "pre-born" as a result, her mind awakened to adulthood immediately, as well as being able to access the memories of past male and female ancestors. People who knew the Bene Gesserit ways feared she would turn into an Abomination, someone whose mind and body was taken over by a hostile distant ancestor, who would use any Bene Gesserit abilities she had against others (this actually did happen to Alia, but not until she was in her late 20s). So Alia was a strange little girl that scared people.

The original timeline had Paul fighting the Harkonnens for 2 years before the big battle that led him to becoming Emperor. Alia became a pint-sized badass that ended up not only being able to fight at age 2, she killed the Baron herself.

Delaying her birth for the 3rd movie, having a creepy dialogue between her and Lady Jessica, as well as shooting up the timeline to 6 months actually kinda ruins the story. Plus, Paul killing the Baron wasn't nearly as badass as his little sister doing it.

The only thing that's noteworthy about Alia being "pre-born" but not born yet, is we find out what happens to a baby exposed to the Water of Life much earlier in the pregnancy than if Lady Jessica had done the ritual at 7-8 months in her pregnancy. You'd think she would have suffered a miscarriage and had a stillborn child, but nope. Alia survived.

[–] Nanook (1951) 7 months ago

Yep. That was the most glaring "error" of the recent pt.2 film for me as well. It's been decades since I read up to book 3 , maybe 4. Is DV making the first book a film trilogy, and so we know how far they plan to take the movies? I assume it depends on box office returns, and I'm just being lazy asking you, who might not even know. I just hope we get to spend some time with child and adult Alia.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14411) 7 months ago

Obviously Villeneuve changed the story so that Alia is featured in the third film, which would probably be based on Herbert's "Dune Messiah." What's particularly interesting is that he has chosen Anya Taylor Joy to play her. I suppose he thought her haunting eyes would work well in the role, though some of is wish he'd chosen her to play Princess Irulan instead. She would have done very well in that role too.

A problem previous adaptations of Dune have had is, where are you gonna find a 2-year-old to play the part? Both of them cast a 5- or 7-year-old little girl that's very small instead. I even wonder if they had to dub a different voice on the very first actress to play the role in Lynch's film, because her voice sounded much too mature for a child that age.

It's possible Villeneuve will include events from "Children of Dune" as well, considering how interesting the story got surrounding Paul's twin children, but the trouble is, that would require a 4th film as well.

[–] Nanook (1951) 7 months ago

Well, thankfully there is plenty of plot to keep the movies interesting, as opposed to PJ's The Hobbit trilogy, which was stretched to its limits. When talking about that trilogy, I like to jokingly make the "stretch it out" hand gesture mimicking what PJ would be doing behind the camera to each actor in all their scenes.

To anyone around the world unfamiliar with the gesture I'm describing, picture using both hands stretching a wad of gum apart horizontally, indicating you want whatever is happening to take as much time as possible. That is how IMO he made three full length movies out of a comparatively short children's book, after doing a one film per relatively longer book trilogy.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14411) 6 months ago

It actually wasn't Peter Jackson's idea to stretch the Hobbit story out into 3 films. There were multiple directors, writers, and producers that kept coming and going for those movies, which is why the quality is slightly lower on those than the original LOTR movies.

Of course, if you want a better analogy, try that horrible "Where the Wild Things Are" adaptation. It's unnecessarily stretched out, story was awful, kid was very unlikeable, and the creatures appeared to have some serious mental issues.

[–] Nanook (1951) 6 months ago

Bless your heart; you have restored my PJ respect level back to near-perfect!

And I had to look up if I had even seen WtWTA. Gave it a 5/10, so I know I saw it, wasn't impressed by it, but can remember nothing about it. Odd, because I've loved Jonze's Her, Adaptation and Being John Malkovich.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14411) 6 months ago

I honestly think, if it had been in his hands, he either would have made it just 2 movies, or possibly put Smaug's slaying at the end of the 2nd film (like I said in another post), so then we could enjoy the Battle of Five Armies in the last film without the dragon slaying part being left in. I also blame Guillermo del Toro for making the goblins extra gross, though to be fair, their orc cousins are pretty gross too, so it was probably inevitable. However, the dwarves, Bilbo, Bard, and the dragon were all perfectly spot on :D

Anyhow, I think you're the lucky one to have forgotten everything about the film. The only thing you can really praise it for is how they brought the Wild Things to life and making them almost look real (they partially used actors in mock-up-suits, and partially used CGI on the creatures). Otherwise, it stank to high heaven. Dad now calls it, "Where the Neurotic Things Are," seeing as it was more like a study session in how mentally messed up a bunch of fantasy monsters could be.

[–] eisbock (42) 6 months ago

I was actually wondering how they were going to portray a talking baby on the big screen. I think it would have felt too cartoonish and distracting. Having the child talk from the womb was probably the most "realistic" portrayal.

[–] ValentineSmith24 (30) 5 months ago

Simply stated this director is --> whack on crack. Who makes a DUNE II without Alia? Doesn't matter, playing on theme audiences today are complete morons,why should being true to a book matter.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14411) 5 months ago

I suspect that after the '84 film and the 2000 miniseries, he wanted to put his own stamp on it, and he failed, miserably.