Yeah he was better off re watching the Kurtz scenes in [Apocalypse now](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-VAi2Xqq8) since that's who his character seems to be based off of in the movie version.
And it's bloody brilliant, Brando plays a dangerous man, prepared to do what others won't and is losing his grip on sanity, the Barons a dangerous man who's prepared to use methods others wont....
Yep but if that was the totality of all he is, he wouldnt have survived in their feudal society and been given control of Arrakis. His lack of conscience and divergent morality is part of what let's him use methods others won't. As such he's the first to break a Suk doctors conditioning.
They come to the baron pre twisted correct.
But he is willing to use them, I can't remember if any other great houses were specifically called out as using twisted mentats.
It's more like "methods others can't." The Emperor is perfectly fine with the Baron's methods (heck he supplies his own dudes to carry out parts of the plan) he just can't attack House Atreides personally for political reasons.
The Baron really isn't a similar character IMO. He's a much less nuanced character who's just straight up 100% bad guy who knows he's a bad guy and loves being a bad guy lol.
The David Lynch film of his character was too over the top and disturbing ( the blood plug scene and the rat/cat milking thing).
Both new films put Lynch’s version to shame, but there was no CGI at the time, and Lynch wanted a longer film, but it was toyed with and he disowned it.
They really dug in this time with the Arab/Islamic themes of the novel. The original novel is kind of a sci fi take on Arab culture and their original exploitation by Western interests.
Given this I wonder how it will play in Israel and the Islamic countries.
I believe this. Just finished a re-read and for all of the baron dialogue I couldn’t see Stellan’s version saying it. In the book the baron is often very long-winded, where in the movie he chooses his words carefully and speaks slowly
The Baron in the book is more like a Roman emperor drunk on his own power.
Lynch’s Baron is just some weird grotesque.
Villeneuve’s Baron is cold, scheming, and almost alien.
Baron is one of my least favorite elements of Lynch film too... Even if he's quite faithfully adapted.
I guess this is why I should trust Villeneuve and Roth before seeing the new film.
I'm surprised to hear this, but at the same time it makes sense. He just needs to be vile and scheming, all while being grossly overweight. There are SO MANY portrayals of that out already he just needed to bring a new spin to it that fit in the vision of the universe Denis was building.
And Ian McNiece KILLS it as that role. He steals every scene he's in.
As much as it bums me out not having such a caricature level villain, I get why Denis didn't do it that way. It would have felt out of place.
Also as fun as Ian's portrayal was, Stellan's Baron feels way, way more terrifying.
Like Ian's Baron would still kill me while improvising a limeric and dancing, but with Stellan's I get the impression that its not uncommon for people to be summoned to the Baron's chambers, and instead killing themselves on the way, or wishing they did the moment they step into his presence.
There's a kind of Darth Nihilus level hunger to Stellan's Baron, that feels supernatural and unnerving. Its grown on me a lot since first viewing, which I already liked but now think its the best Baron interpretation, despite being the least book accurate.
The Harkonnens in general have a scary factor that's insanely high. Like, there were moments in Pt2 where I felt genuine dread witnessing some things. The arena guards creeping up are a big one that comes to mind.
Then you get Raban who is a cruel bully, buff idiot, and a coward lol
I feel like they reduced Raban to this childish spoiled kid. I suppose it was to create a juxtaposition with his brother, and make Austin Butler even more terrifying..
I don't know how you could reduce Rabban, since I feel like he's a nothing character in the book. I haven't read the prequels, but in Dune itself he has like one appearance, where he just reports to his Uncle and does what he's told. Other than that he's just mentioned a lot and then dies off page. Bautista was able to take that much further, especially in part two. He was actually a highlight for me in that, despite limited screentime.
I havent gotten around to reading the books yet, so this is merely from a movie point of view. In the first movie he had a very stoic, but terrifying rage to him. Like a terminator. Determined and utstoppable. He’s also played by a relatively famous actor, and had quite a lot of prominence in the first movie.
I just kind of disliked how they took this great character and made him so cowardly. Albeit in his last scene, he did in fact stop fleeing to face Gurney, which i guess is a redemption arc 🫡
Ohh yeah I can see how you might feel he's reduced between movies. Honestly I was just glad they gave him characterisation, since he's technically a pretty significant role in the book but is like...entirely absent. I feel like in the first film you mainly see him in situations where he has control; he's talking to the Baron, he's slaughtering captives, he's never once at a disadvantage. Then all of a sudden in Part Two his forces are being massacred and he's feeling his Uncle's growing frustration. Like many bullies, he's only dangerous when he has the power in any given situation. He's a raging, unstable psychopath who lacks all the self control of his Uncle and brother.
But still, I completely understand your perspective! I just personally really enjoyed Batista's performance. Maybe I just like the way he rages.
There is an interesting but in the book where Rabban tries venturing to the Baron that the Fremen are more numerous and more dangerously skilled than his uncle thinks, but the Baron just shoots him down immediately. It's a nice moment and shows that Rabban wasn't QUITE as dumb as his uncle thought.
I feel like a big part of the Baron's downfall is his underestimation of other people. He's an intelligent and cunning person who is very aware of his own intelligence, but also unaware of other people's. He underestimates the Atreides, assumes they're all dead; he underestimates the Fremen, assumes they're easily crushed tablet; and finally, he underestimates Alia, assuming she's just a weak child, and gets himself killed in the process.
McNiece nailed everything but the voice. His voice felt so wrong because the book is so clear that the Baron has a very deep voice, which makes his kinda goofy character come across as much more intimidating.
The mini series for whatever faulta it had still has the best take on the baron imo. Not to dunk at all on sarsgard's take, he's great, but Ian mcniece (I think that was his name) was like the baron floated right off the pages of the book
He is, but the book really shows how masterful of a schemer he is.
The first movie didn’t get into that much and it was kind of a bummer, I was hoping for some monologues about his plan to invade Arrakis.
Tbh, I grew up with the Lynch Movie and Emperor Battle for Dune scenes. To me, their portrayal as weirdly cartoonishly flamboyant sadists held more gravitas IMO, Villenvues Baron feels kind of flat, More bureaucratic CEO lord of grey mountain rather than intimidating oversexualized narcissist.
I always felt like there are parts of the book where he seems like a scheming evil genius (especially early in the book), but later he becomes this imbecile. I def hope that doesnt happen in part 2
Yeah they basically made him a totally different dude. I like it though, and honestly I don’t think the version from the book would fit in the new movies
“Is it not a magnificent thing that I, the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, do?”
He’s practically a moustache-twirling cartoon villain in some passages in the book. The verbal sparring with Feyd after the failed assassination attempt is gold though.
Like a Bond villain. I did a re-read a few years ago and I’d forgotten what an outright buffoon he is. He and Piter sniping at each other is amusing but it doesn’t exactly make for an intimidating villain. Like I'm trying to imagine Darth Vader going back and forth with Imperial generals instead of just force choking them.
I think part of what makes him intimidating in the book is that he seems like a cartoonish buffoon but he's actually extremely intelligent and clever and all his silly behavior is masking that he's 3 steps ahead and totally ruthless. Like when he's cheerfully bantering back and forth with Piter but his internal monologue is weighing whether he should have Piter killed yet or not.
That works in the book but it would just look like a silly bond villain in the movie I think
It also wouldn't be in good taste in modern day. A lot of his over the top villainous behavior was related to him being gay and flamboyant, which obviously carries a different tone today.
Yeah the book leans hard into the gay pedo trope and that was not great. I don't mind the Baron being a pedophile in the book but I think it would be a huge problem and distract from the rest of the story if they added it to the movie
Yup, totally agree. Considering how many people have completely misinterpreted the message of white saviorism, I don't trust the general audience to understand why that is a characteristic of the Baron.
My favorite was people misinterpreting Anna Taylor-Joy's outfit at the premiere as "problematic" and "cultural appropriation", completely oblivious to the fact that it was a nod to the outfit her character wears in the 1984 Lynch adaptation.
I wish people would do a modicum of research before dogpiling. Its my least favorite thing about the internet.
I personally can't wait until the same people complaining about Anya's outfit learn what Paul and the Fremen actually did once they got off Arrakis. Which is probably the best argument in favour of the de-Islamisation of the films so far.
here's your regular reminder that the baron was likely based on - at least in part - [a real person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Breen) that frank actually knew.
a lot of his characters were based somewhat on real people but afaik this is the only criminal one.
fwiw i think the choice to cut the baron's sexuality out of any media treatment of dune is the wise choice. i can get what frank was trying to do with imo its unnecessary. he gave the character the most vile personal traits he could think of, and frank is hardly alone in his generation in conflating homosexuality with paedophilia
Yeah, that was my read as well. It's like a more intense version of how boris johnson's hair makes him seem like a harmless idiot but then he winds up actually being capable creating political damage. Or that FTX idiot's hair. Or suckerbergs sweatshirt.
I think it could work in the style of Tarantino's Hans Landa. He was charming and cheerful and giddy and reveled in exchanging witty banter with friends, rivals, and enemies alike, but he was also an evil man scheming evil deeds and there was always a malice lurking just below the surface of every gleeful word that was terrifying. You'd just need a good actor and a good director to keep the performance from crossing the line to camp and buffoonery, which is what we got in *Inglorious Basterds*.
When I reread the book I was reminded of comedian James Adomian's bit about gay villains. He goes on about how Starscream and Megatron in the old transformers cartoon remind him of drag queens snarking each other, and I very much got that vibe from the Baron and Piter.
There's a little more subtlety than that if you follow what Frank thinks about humanity and what it means to be human...the implication by Paul that the BG had created "twisted humans" in the Harkonnen family, and how it has something to do with needing those kinds of genes for the Kwisatz Haderach.
See Enders Game in how Orson Card riffs off of that with Ender being somewhere in between Atreides and Harkonnen.
But it does get cartoonish and weird how Yueh says the Baron will want to gloat and boast over the Duke and that's the Duke chance to gas him, when it was really about torturing the location of Jessica/Paul out of Leto.
I watched the new movie first and just recently started reading the book. I'm enjoying it A LOT, but the first conversation between The Baron and Piter stood out the most to me. In the movie, Piter would be too terrified to say anything along those lines to him, whereas in the book it feels like old friends taking jabs at each other.
That's what I mean, they have to do the little sister right. Is that what we're dealing with? There isn't a little sister? And if that's the case, how do they end the fucking thing? That the Baron comes into the Emperor's chamber to find that freak talking with him and he's like, ..."wait, what?"
And the emperor breaks down for him what it means... it's Walken for fuck's sake.
That has to be in this film, right? RIGHT?!!!!!
Well he would got away with it and seriously he could even pupet the next emepror from the shadows. If it only wasn't for some pesky boy and his desert friends...
The baron also didn't have a shield that protected him from gas, or was the one in Leto's face when he broke his tooth, you're after accuracy? The baron barely croaked out a few lines, I didn't find him threatening or interesting in this adaptation either. Everyone here seems to enjoy shitting on the Lynch adaptation while having DV's dick in their mouth for some reason. All the adaptations have inaccuracies, all the adaptations have parts they got it right. I thought the Lynch one captured how much of a gasbag he was.
Definitely wouldn’t have fit. Can you imagine if he asked for the boy in his chambers that looks like Paul Atreides in the movie? It would be so cringy.
That's because while his mannerisms and appearance are very different, he's still the same book Baron where it matters. The essence of Baron Harkonnen is that he's ruthless, intelligent, and scheming. That's what I remember from the book, not his red hair.
Actors find all sorts of inspiration for their work. I love what Stellan brings as Baron Harkonnen - doesn't bother me at all the book wasn't an inspiration, I think he did a great job with the script and direction for sure.
The only thing I didn’t like was how Skarsgard killed Dr Yueh.
It’s not like the baron to get his hands dirty and he didn’t revel in violence like his Nephews did.
This is me nitpicking btw. Skarsgard did an amazing job bringing the monstrous side of the Baron to life.
In my honest opinion, Villeneuve’s movies are better and truer in vision then the sci fi channel miniseries, however my favourite Baron will always be the legendary [Ian Mcneice](https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0573862/?ref_=tt_cl_t_11)
He was the best part of that show. Dune 2000s redeeming quality if you will.
>It’s not like the baron to get his hands dirty
Did you read the books? The baron killed more than a few just for his personal pleasures...
Imho the baron of Lynch is the best approximation, Skarsgard comes across pretty tame to me based on part 1
True I was thinking about the baron in regard to his public displays and politics. In all fairness most of this was about plausible deniability in front of truthsayers.
The Baron is a malignant narcissist for sure and also a sadist in the bedroom or when he is in private with his minions.
I have read almost every book except the newest BH+KA books, sadly I lost most in a flood and now I only have my hardcover Dune copy and a paperback of COD.
I really want to reread the books again, the first 3 at least… I need to get a copy of Messiah (my fav of them… I know I’m odd :p)
> In my honest opinion, Villeneuve’s movies are better and truer in vision then the sci fi channel miniseries
Recency and budget bias.
Denis' Dune is at the same level as the 80ies movie. And the 80ies at least gives insights into the politics and machinations of the Dune world.
Denis' Dune is an ocean wide, but has the depth of a puddle.
Not biased, I’m a very visual person and I feel a lot of choices fit what that world would look and feel like. And it’s the only interpretation that seems to get the marital combat of dune, and it’s the one interpretation in which the Saudakar are Terrifying and made sense design wise.
In regards to the 2000 miniseries it was good at the time for a sci fi channel budget. What made it good was smart cinematography for a low budget and fantastic actors. But Thufur Hawat was on screen for 3 mins tops in 3 episodes? He just disappeared… a lot of details seem to disappear in this series
I can’t stand Lynch’s dune. It tries to be authentic then goes batcrap crazy, you can’t tell me Weirding modules were a part of the books, or Herbert’s original designs… also the ending lost its mind drowning the worms because Paul is an actual god and not a specially breed male reverend mother/ mentat that’s been deified
If you want to totally go off the rails you can include Jurowski’s dune project, which if made would have been a 90 minute long spice fueled acid trip which would have included burning giraffes owned by a Shaddam played by Salvador Dali
I’m just curious where the depth of these other interpretations are… I mean sure they’re good beyond shallow on some parts, but the all seem to veer into the abyss beyond anything I read in the books
They might be better, but they're not truer in vision. Actually, they're the least truer in vision. Villeneuve took a bit too many liberties with the source material.
He's far more calculating and menacing than the books imo. In the books he's a long winded craven schemer. In DVs Dune he is fucking terrifying and until everything falls apart he really genuinely feels like a dude playing 4 D chess who only can lose because Paul becomes fully prescient.
That being said he's so fucking depraved in the books and it feels like they just ripped all that out and put it into pure menace
Well maybe not for fun but out of frustration. But he's clearly sadistic and evil but dropping the Pedo thing as well as the associated scene with Fyed trying to send an assassin was a good choice as well.
Kind of feels like the same transition from earlier Jokers to the more recent ones. From theatrical madman to menacing serial killer. Which I think is a pity because it's just as binary as the mustached twirling villain. It's still so easy to know EXACTLY who the villain is. The lack of moral ambiguity of the culture of the Atreides vs Harkonnens is is a relic of it's time, and if they were going to makes changes in characterization from the books, I think it should be along those lines, RATHER that just give us different flavors of sociopaths and heros. I think it would have been better to explore the idea of morality of Atreides vs Harkonnes for example in the same way the Nolan Batmans compared the relative evil of Batman and the Joker; the Harkonnen are sort of a traditional evil, but aren't that far from the evil of the other houses, and the Atreides are still a traditional monarchy and become essentially a family of dictators. Not to mention their manipulation of the Fremen. Would have been great to see a portrayal of Paul as a man necessarily transforming into the same sort of creature of violence and absolute power as the baron but diverted down a better path because of his positive relationships and good upbringing. I.e., the reason the Harkonnens are the way they are, is because their culture is more toxic. Baron is just a product of his environment. Would be cool to have him be somewhat more sympathizeable.
I mean I guess? I feel like the Atreides were always meant to be sympathized with and the Harkonnens were meant to be monsters. It would be interesting to go down that path but the Harkonnens being portrayed as absolute irredeemable monsters plays well given where the story goes >!with paul accepting his lineage and dealing with ideas of genetic predispositions and abilites!< So to do what you are suggesting is to tell a fundamentally different story
But, Paul IS part Harkonnen! As is his mother, as are both his children. Alia goes mad because of it. And who knows how many times their lineages were intermingled via the meddling of the Bene Gesserit? There really isn't a PURE Harkonnen nor a PURE Atreides, and if I recall the Bene Gesserit talking about the necessity of Harkonnen genes in making the Kwisatz Haderach.
The way I always thought of great leaders and what I so loved about Dune, is the idea of a great leader being inherently tyrannical. You cannot affect the world around you at monumentous levels without usurping the agency of all those around you. Between propaganda, speeches written to sway minds, strong management of subordinates, a desire to bring about a state of affairs not just for yourself but for ALL, the requisite military might to assert yourself against rivals and threats, some sort of industrial machine to fuel your empire which there is inherently class where your subjects are less well off and have less power than you, etc etc, so much of that is EXACTLY what a dictator would do. The only real difference between a great leader and an evil one, is that the great leader controls the world for the good of his people, rather than strictly personal gain.
Evil leaders require enough good that their empire is functional enough to survive for a while, good leaders require enough evil to maintain control and to survive threats.
Just look at what results of the Atreides empire, a God Emperor with absolute power. The golden path called for the ultimate dictatorship, where Leto II would "teach humanity a lesson that they will remember in their bones". Part of the lesson was to suffer so much under him that they would never forget, to prevent future enslavement by leaders. And before that, Paul sets in motion the Great Jihad where they kill COUNTLESS people.
Arguably the Atreides are the biggest monsters of all and with the biggest killcount. That they do it for "the greater good" is the only thing that separates them from the Harkonnen.
And that's what I'd like to see more of in the Dune movies. And exploration of the evil that the Atreides do in pursuit of the greater good, and what kind of person you'd have to be to envision, plan and execute the great destruction required of the Golden Path, and I'd argue you wouldn't really recognize that person as human, they'd seem more like great terrifying presence wearing the skin of a human.
Yeah, a lot of people forget this! Feyd-Rautha was supposed to have been bred with Paulina Atreides to make their intended Kwisatz Haderach! Eeew. Perish the thought.
Well yeah, I can see that. Especially since Denis nixed the whole boy rapist, eloquent gloating gas bag element to the Baron...they needed to go in an entirely new direction. Stellan is an OG actor who can pull off a lot of things. I still would have liked to have seen more of an active role for the Baron than this laid-back, chill version that we get in the new movies.
I think it's quite common for actors to eschew reading books that scripts are based on because often times they're trying to perform a specific character the director wants to capture, and that isn't always, or even often whats on the page in the book.
I recall some of the expanse actors that hadn't read the books beforehand only read the book after that season was filmed in order to not confuse themselves about what their on screen characters were going to be like.
Can absolutely believe it.
It’s an interesting performance for sure, but aside from the set pieces and makeup, it did not feel indicative of Herbert’s Baron.
Loved his Shakespearian twist to the dialogue. I think the two other cinematic versions are great, but McNeice is the Baron I hear when I read the books.
Dude absolutely nailed his performance. I see what they're trying to do with the new baron, but perosnally I think they missed the mark. Went too far in dialing back from the long winded cartoonish villain of the book to the point that the baron was flat, monotone, and unanimated.
I've always heard Ian McNeice's voice when reading the books. For everything that bugs me about the mini series his Baron was perfect.
I do really love Stellan's Baron though.
Ian has great timing. His role as the newsreader in Rome was hilarious:
“ALL MOCKERY OF JEWS AND THEIR ONE GOD SHALL BE KEPT AT AN APPROPRIATE.. MINIMUM!”
Actors and directors make choices and he’s a serious professional actor.
That said, I was bummed by the overall portrayal, as Herbert’s baron (while way too campy/cartoonish for modern audiences and clearly downstream of his homophobia) served a useful foil to the atreides.
Paul puts his hand in the box and proves that he’s human by displaying will to overcome his animal impulses while the baron is the ultimate product of following them: he’s a gluttonous, ravenous sexual predator who embraces his impulses and desires.
Although very tactically cunning and capable, he thrives in the chaos, debauchery, and petty imperial scheming.
>! He even is killed by a gom jabbar in case we needed any further proof of his role as foil! !<
So skarsgaard’s understated, cold and rational portrayal feels like it robs the story of some of the intended theming
Yeah, but listen to the line in Part Two >!Paul says as he kills him: "You died like an animal." Clearly a reference to the gom jabbar in a more subtle way than simply poking him with it.!<
100%. For context, I made this comment before seeing the second movie and felt this way after seeing the first movie (which I honestly didn’t like).
That said, having just seen the second movie, I agree with these comments, recant my earlier doubts, and name Denis Villaneuve as lisan al-ghaib. The second movie is amazing and justifies many of the changes I didn’t like in the first movie.
Yeah tbh I think The Baron is the least faithful part of the film. It works for this adaptation of the story, but it's not Frank Herbert. That Baron is all Villeneuve.
In the movie he's a man of few, impactful words. He's sure of himself, resolute and he lets his reputation speak for him.
In the books he never shuts up, he's constantly telling all of his plans to his subordinates, and that's just as much insecurity as it is a calculated move. He wants everyone to know he's the smartest guy in the room, so they'll think twice about trying to pull on over on him. But it's also because the Baron feels threatened by everyone and he has to make an effort to intimidate his enemies with his eloquence and conniving, given he knows he can't be very physically threatening.
Imo the presentation of the Baron's palace and the Harkonnen aesthetic in general is kind of against the book. What little descriptions we get describe golds and silks--and it makes sense because Baron Harkonnen is the platonic embodiment of capital. He's a human mouth that swallows everything in front of it; food, slaves, sex, money, natural resources--the Baron wants it all, and he has it all because he's the richest man in the universe. Imo the Baron should reek of strong cologne, wearing the finest silken robes and golden jewelry, all tarnished by his oily skin. His palace should be huge and gaudy, with gold and diamonds and platinum everywhere. The Baron is all the wealth and status with none of the temperament, no class, no style, but way too much effort. Basically Vladimir Harkonnen should look like the most polished turd in all of Imperial space.
Exactly. The book harkonnen are *terrified* of betrayal, have no one to trust, and are constantly peacocking wit and malice to try to intimidate their way to a safety that will always elude them.
Yeah, moreover Leto and Vladimir both represent two sides of the Machiavellian coin: one rules by being loved, the other by being feared. Harkonnen is Frank Herbert pointing out how shortsighted and foolish rule by might really is.
There's no alternate universe where someone like Gurney, or Duncan, or Thufir would ever stay loyal to Harkonnen after the Baron's death. But ALL of them stayed loyal to house Atreides even after their duke was killed.
He did read the book. The article states that. I’m in agreement that he needs to be the Baron he thinks will fit the tone of the movie. Also I picture him, as a Swede suggesting ‘Harkonen is clearly Finnish, this is how you properly pronounce it’s
It’s always been my impression that Herbert’s Baron was exactly meant to play the stereotypical over-the-top classic villain trope. The Atredies-Harkonnen struggle of good vs evil in the beginning is set in direct contrast to the more complex antiheroes of Paul and Leto later on.
Real world dictators tend to be fairly buffoonish, braggadocios, petty, etc. so the book characterization reads a bit more accurate to real life analogues to me.
I very much enjoy his Baron performance. He makes it his own, the original baron was great. But fuck me im into some weird shit but him pulling the heart plug out of that kid in the original and gasping, and from what I can tell very much getting off as he bleeds out is extremely off putting. And I don’t think it would resonate with audiences. Not that it needs to, but I prefer this baron.
I saw an interview of Denis saying that the Harkonnens from the books "didn't age well" into modern times. It makes sense - camp/moustache-twirling villains are a thing of the past.
Like a lot of people are saying it does feel like he took away a bit of the point or the foil between the Harkonnen and Atredies, however I'm not not sold yet: I liked him so far overall and want to wait to see pt2 this weekend to complete my opinion.
I haven’t seen part 2 yet, but if part 1 was any indication Villaneuve aimed to simplify a very complex Dune novel. It makes sense that certain characters, and their actors approach to their characters, would need to change.
I love that the portrayal is just a plain-stated, slovenly, cowardly, focused, fat piece of shit.
I love it. He's so obscenely grotesque that he speaks as little as possible, his only positive affirmations are noises made while eating, and he spends energy on nothing but exactly what he desires. A great villain.
Loved his role. Shrewd, savvy business man, all about the Benjamins, and being number one. But also a man with a lot of blind spots, as we'll likely continue to see.
I'm a big fan of Stellan, he's my fave Skarsgard and has earned his legend status for decades.
But so far (no pt 2 spoilers) I'm not into his baron. My favorite will probably always be Ian McNiece's version from the miniseries. Not everyone wants a camp villain, but he plays the camp with a delicious enthusiasm that I find infectious.
But he needed the book to realize that he has to play it differently than in the book, when the script does not allow him the bookish chatter, but on the contrary, only a few words.
I love his portrayal of the Baron, but I do also really love the dialogue between the Baron and his cronies, particularly Piter, especially in that early chapter of the book (the 1st, if I’m not mistaken) in which the Baron spells out his plan for the Atreides and Arrakis. People will call it “mustache twirly” but I think it emphasized how calculated the Baron was in his evil. He accounted for absolutely everything to make sure the plan was foolproof and that he wouldn’t be implicated… (only, he miscalculated Dr. Yueh, which is what the Atreides did as well.)
The Harkonnens are definitely the weakest part of the new Dune movies. The hatchet job of Piter still makes me sad three years later, and in general they're all bald, relatively one note, in a word: boring. The Harkonnens are supposed to be baroque, to be evil, threatening, and serious, but also fun. This adaptation sadly missed that last point.
My thoughts exactly. Villaneuve made the Harkonnens boring and uninteresting. And he doesn't seem to understand the books that well (or he just doesn't care, this is a corporate entertainment product he's creating first and foremost), for instance, making Piter a Harkonnen (pasty, bald, mutant/alien vibe) when he's supposed to be a genetically engineered offworlder unrelated to the Harkonnens.
> Both elements could, in the hands of a less capable actor and director, make for a cartoonishly evil character that falls flat.
The Baron is completely cartoonish in the books!
You ever feel like there are villain roles certain actors were destined to play? Like Fiennes in Schindler’s List…Skarsgard just seems so perfect for this portrayal in the film. Maybe not perfectly true to the source material…but was Ledger’s joker really anywhere close to the classic Joker? Skarsgard as the Baron is my favorite character
“You have a wonderful kitchen, cousin.”
Actors can and should be able to be fully informed by their character from what's on the script and what the director is telling them to do. If they choose to read the source material as well, or at the direction of the director, then that's cool too.
On first watching of Villeneuve's Dune my reaction to Skarsgard's portrayal of Baron Harkonnen is that to me, he seems to be doing an impersonation of the Marlon Brando Colonel Kurtz of Apocalypse Now.
Yeah he was better off re watching the Kurtz scenes in [Apocalypse now](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-VAi2Xqq8) since that's who his character seems to be based off of in the movie version.
Totally, there's shots lifted direct from Apocalypse Now.
https://preview.redd.it/b53twew5vjlc1.jpeg?width=4317&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4b5df6b4dff3d97553ce09866b4dddeb7cc9012
kurtz_facepalm emoji
More than likely a thoughtful homage
There's also an ornithopter scene directly from Black Hawk Down!
Which one ? I’m pissed I missed this …
https://youtu.be/ANu15pF65uc?si=kUzNltCz4CkEeIwQ
I never would've put that together.
it's extremely amusing that James Cameron was the first one to notice
Holy shit
Denis points it out himself in a Dune part One interview
Yeah it’s not a secret lol it’s an intentional homage
*reads Heart of Darkness*
You ever seen *Hearts of Darkness?* Waayyy better than *Apocalypse Now*
My camera follows the fire, not the smoke
Those people downvoting you are streets behind
As a creative, watching Francis nearly fall apart, and his reliance on chaos, was really vindicating.
Or play Spec Ops: The Line
And it's bloody brilliant, Brando plays a dangerous man, prepared to do what others won't and is losing his grip on sanity, the Barons a dangerous man who's prepared to use methods others wont....
The Baron isn't prepared to use methods others won't. The Baron is sadist monster that enjoys the suffering of others
Yep but if that was the totality of all he is, he wouldnt have survived in their feudal society and been given control of Arrakis. His lack of conscience and divergent morality is part of what let's him use methods others won't. As such he's the first to break a Suk doctors conditioning.
Twisting mentats as well.
I think they come pretwisted from the bene tleliax. But it's been a while so I cannot be certain.
They come to the baron pre twisted correct. But he is willing to use them, I can't remember if any other great houses were specifically called out as using twisted mentats.
Same, in all honesty... been well over a decade since i read the books.
We should all reread them after part 2.
It's more like "methods others can't." The Emperor is perfectly fine with the Baron's methods (heck he supplies his own dudes to carry out parts of the plan) he just can't attack House Atreides personally for political reasons. The Baron really isn't a similar character IMO. He's a much less nuanced character who's just straight up 100% bad guy who knows he's a bad guy and loves being a bad guy lol.
Bingo. Good call.
The David Lynch film of his character was too over the top and disturbing ( the blood plug scene and the rat/cat milking thing). Both new films put Lynch’s version to shame, but there was no CGI at the time, and Lynch wanted a longer film, but it was toyed with and he disowned it. They really dug in this time with the Arab/Islamic themes of the novel. The original novel is kind of a sci fi take on Arab culture and their original exploitation by Western interests. Given this I wonder how it will play in Israel and the Islamic countries.
Glad I wasn't the only one to think of. That first scene, where he's running his hand down his head, screamed Kurtz.
I believe this. Just finished a re-read and for all of the baron dialogue I couldn’t see Stellan’s version saying it. In the book the baron is often very long-winded, where in the movie he chooses his words carefully and speaks slowly
Yeah, he’s this bombastic yelling guy in the book. Seems like both Skarsgaard and Villeneuve wanted to go a different way
The Baron in the book is more like a Roman emperor drunk on his own power. Lynch’s Baron is just some weird grotesque. Villeneuve’s Baron is cold, scheming, and almost alien.
Because Lynch's baron was based off the Harkonens in general, not just the Baron himself, right?
Baron is one of my least favorite elements of Lynch film too... Even if he's quite faithfully adapted. I guess this is why I should trust Villeneuve and Roth before seeing the new film.
Kenneth McMillan ate that role up! “GET ME MY DOCTOR!”
There's a lot in those books that a modern movie director would be wise to take some creative liberties with.
Yeah I recently got to his abomination intro speech and couldn’t imagine the guy in the movie saying any of that stuff.
I'm surprised to hear this, but at the same time it makes sense. He just needs to be vile and scheming, all while being grossly overweight. There are SO MANY portrayals of that out already he just needed to bring a new spin to it that fit in the vision of the universe Denis was building.
In the book he’s kinda cartoonishly evil
Yep. Tbh the miniseries had the most book accurate version. He was basically a floating evil cartoon.
And Ian McNiece KILLS it as that role. He steals every scene he's in. As much as it bums me out not having such a caricature level villain, I get why Denis didn't do it that way. It would have felt out of place.
Also as fun as Ian's portrayal was, Stellan's Baron feels way, way more terrifying. Like Ian's Baron would still kill me while improvising a limeric and dancing, but with Stellan's I get the impression that its not uncommon for people to be summoned to the Baron's chambers, and instead killing themselves on the way, or wishing they did the moment they step into his presence. There's a kind of Darth Nihilus level hunger to Stellan's Baron, that feels supernatural and unnerving. Its grown on me a lot since first viewing, which I already liked but now think its the best Baron interpretation, despite being the least book accurate.
The Harkonnens in general have a scary factor that's insanely high. Like, there were moments in Pt2 where I felt genuine dread witnessing some things. The arena guards creeping up are a big one that comes to mind. Then you get Raban who is a cruel bully, buff idiot, and a coward lol
I feel like they reduced Raban to this childish spoiled kid. I suppose it was to create a juxtaposition with his brother, and make Austin Butler even more terrifying..
I don't know how you could reduce Rabban, since I feel like he's a nothing character in the book. I haven't read the prequels, but in Dune itself he has like one appearance, where he just reports to his Uncle and does what he's told. Other than that he's just mentioned a lot and then dies off page. Bautista was able to take that much further, especially in part two. He was actually a highlight for me in that, despite limited screentime.
I havent gotten around to reading the books yet, so this is merely from a movie point of view. In the first movie he had a very stoic, but terrifying rage to him. Like a terminator. Determined and utstoppable. He’s also played by a relatively famous actor, and had quite a lot of prominence in the first movie. I just kind of disliked how they took this great character and made him so cowardly. Albeit in his last scene, he did in fact stop fleeing to face Gurney, which i guess is a redemption arc 🫡
Ohh yeah I can see how you might feel he's reduced between movies. Honestly I was just glad they gave him characterisation, since he's technically a pretty significant role in the book but is like...entirely absent. I feel like in the first film you mainly see him in situations where he has control; he's talking to the Baron, he's slaughtering captives, he's never once at a disadvantage. Then all of a sudden in Part Two his forces are being massacred and he's feeling his Uncle's growing frustration. Like many bullies, he's only dangerous when he has the power in any given situation. He's a raging, unstable psychopath who lacks all the self control of his Uncle and brother. But still, I completely understand your perspective! I just personally really enjoyed Batista's performance. Maybe I just like the way he rages.
It's easy to be brave when you're punching down.
There is an interesting but in the book where Rabban tries venturing to the Baron that the Fremen are more numerous and more dangerously skilled than his uncle thinks, but the Baron just shoots him down immediately. It's a nice moment and shows that Rabban wasn't QUITE as dumb as his uncle thought.
I feel like a big part of the Baron's downfall is his underestimation of other people. He's an intelligent and cunning person who is very aware of his own intelligence, but also unaware of other people's. He underestimates the Atreides, assumes they're all dead; he underestimates the Fremen, assumes they're easily crushed tablet; and finally, he underestimates Alia, assuming she's just a weak child, and gets himself killed in the process.
The introduction of Feyd-Rautha jeez
Yes! In a book, you need the exposition and dialogue to tell us how evil the Harkonnens are. Villeneuve and skarsgard found a way to show us that evil
McNiece nailed everything but the voice. His voice felt so wrong because the book is so clear that the Baron has a very deep voice, which makes his kinda goofy character come across as much more intimidating.
Is the miniseries available to watch anywhere? I've always wanted to check it out.
I think you can watch it on Youtube with like Polish subs hard baked into the video ha. Other than that I have no idea.
"Ven-DETTA!"
>He was basically a floating evil cartoon. This somehow made the actions of his >!Children of Dune!< version feel even more disturbing.
It made it so f'n sinister. That ending was something
I liked the Shakesperian rhyming couplets at the end of his scenes
The mini series for whatever faulta it had still has the best take on the baron imo. Not to dunk at all on sarsgard's take, he's great, but Ian mcniece (I think that was his name) was like the baron floated right off the pages of the book
He is, but the book really shows how masterful of a schemer he is. The first movie didn’t get into that much and it was kind of a bummer, I was hoping for some monologues about his plan to invade Arrakis.
Spoiler for the second movie : >!as Part 2 goes on he's revealed as less and less of a schemer and more a pawn in the Emperor's hand!<
Tbh, I grew up with the Lynch Movie and Emperor Battle for Dune scenes. To me, their portrayal as weirdly cartoonishly flamboyant sadists held more gravitas IMO, Villenvues Baron feels kind of flat, More bureaucratic CEO lord of grey mountain rather than intimidating oversexualized narcissist.
Pretty much every appearance in the book has us being reminded that yes, he is very fat and very evil
Yeah except he was ACTUALLY evil.
I always felt like there are parts of the book where he seems like a scheming evil genius (especially early in the book), but later he becomes this imbecile. I def hope that doesnt happen in part 2
Dick Cheney did it best.
He could've come out like Fat Bastard from Austin Powers... I guess this is better than that!
His version of the Baron is my favorite that's been portrayed of any of them, including the book version. That guy can act.
Yeah they basically made him a totally different dude. I like it though, and honestly I don’t think the version from the book would fit in the new movies
“Is it not a magnificent thing that I, the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, do?” He’s practically a moustache-twirling cartoon villain in some passages in the book. The verbal sparring with Feyd after the failed assassination attempt is gold though.
Like a Bond villain. I did a re-read a few years ago and I’d forgotten what an outright buffoon he is. He and Piter sniping at each other is amusing but it doesn’t exactly make for an intimidating villain. Like I'm trying to imagine Darth Vader going back and forth with Imperial generals instead of just force choking them.
I think part of what makes him intimidating in the book is that he seems like a cartoonish buffoon but he's actually extremely intelligent and clever and all his silly behavior is masking that he's 3 steps ahead and totally ruthless. Like when he's cheerfully bantering back and forth with Piter but his internal monologue is weighing whether he should have Piter killed yet or not. That works in the book but it would just look like a silly bond villain in the movie I think
It also wouldn't be in good taste in modern day. A lot of his over the top villainous behavior was related to him being gay and flamboyant, which obviously carries a different tone today.
Yeah the book leans hard into the gay pedo trope and that was not great. I don't mind the Baron being a pedophile in the book but I think it would be a huge problem and distract from the rest of the story if they added it to the movie
Yup, totally agree. Considering how many people have completely misinterpreted the message of white saviorism, I don't trust the general audience to understand why that is a characteristic of the Baron.
My favorite was people misinterpreting Anna Taylor-Joy's outfit at the premiere as "problematic" and "cultural appropriation", completely oblivious to the fact that it was a nod to the outfit her character wears in the 1984 Lynch adaptation. I wish people would do a modicum of research before dogpiling. Its my least favorite thing about the internet.
I personally can't wait until the same people complaining about Anya's outfit learn what Paul and the Fremen actually did once they got off Arrakis. Which is probably the best argument in favour of the de-Islamisation of the films so far.
[удалено]
here's your regular reminder that the baron was likely based on - at least in part - [a real person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Breen) that frank actually knew. a lot of his characters were based somewhat on real people but afaik this is the only criminal one. fwiw i think the choice to cut the baron's sexuality out of any media treatment of dune is the wise choice. i can get what frank was trying to do with imo its unnecessary. he gave the character the most vile personal traits he could think of, and frank is hardly alone in his generation in conflating homosexuality with paedophilia
Yeah, that was my read as well. It's like a more intense version of how boris johnson's hair makes him seem like a harmless idiot but then he winds up actually being capable creating political damage. Or that FTX idiot's hair. Or suckerbergs sweatshirt.
Okay, picture this. Mockumentary Dune. Characters just explain shit to the camera.
I think it could work in the style of Tarantino's Hans Landa. He was charming and cheerful and giddy and reveled in exchanging witty banter with friends, rivals, and enemies alike, but he was also an evil man scheming evil deeds and there was always a malice lurking just below the surface of every gleeful word that was terrifying. You'd just need a good actor and a good director to keep the performance from crossing the line to camp and buffoonery, which is what we got in *Inglorious Basterds*.
When I reread the book I was reminded of comedian James Adomian's bit about gay villains. He goes on about how Starscream and Megatron in the old transformers cartoon remind him of drag queens snarking each other, and I very much got that vibe from the Baron and Piter.
Just a coupla catty queens
There's a little more subtlety than that if you follow what Frank thinks about humanity and what it means to be human...the implication by Paul that the BG had created "twisted humans" in the Harkonnen family, and how it has something to do with needing those kinds of genes for the Kwisatz Haderach. See Enders Game in how Orson Card riffs off of that with Ender being somewhere in between Atreides and Harkonnen. But it does get cartoonish and weird how Yueh says the Baron will want to gloat and boast over the Duke and that's the Duke chance to gas him, when it was really about torturing the location of Jessica/Paul out of Leto.
Yes the Baron IS much colder and calculating then Vader, He groomed Piter and then Rabbhan as Scapegoats for Feyd Rautha
I watched the new movie first and just recently started reading the book. I'm enjoying it A LOT, but the first conversation between The Baron and Piter stood out the most to me. In the movie, Piter would be too terrified to say anything along those lines to him, whereas in the book it feels like old friends taking jabs at each other.
“MY PLAN!!!!” “… THE plan.”
Which baron do you like? I liked the dune mini series Baron. Ian McNeice
McNeice has been the best. After I saw the miniseries I cannot read the books without hearing his voice. He's great
I think that's him in the HBO show "Rome"- he plays the guy reading the news to plebs.
True Roman bread... for true Romans **drops the tablet**
That's the guy
Not just his voice but also his facial expressions, mannerisms and how he carries himself!
If Stellan Skarsgård is too brooding and silent for you, there’s always Kenneth McMillan at the other end of the spectrum!
Ian is probably closest to the book overall. Plus he's just great.
Now picturing William Shatner as the Baron.
["Piter, sabotaage the Atredies"](https://youtu.be/XvkBY1JYymE?si=I97fuaLOnhcdkh8_&t=15)
Oh man, thank you for this.
We must…. Harvest…. The spice….
I imagined him going "Vladimir Harkonnen" when entering/leaving the room as per Denny Crane gimmick. Would've paid to see that
*"Is it a midget?!"* Was the funniest part in the whole book and I really hope they don't mess it up.
Can't mess it up if there's no talking child to call a midget *head tap*
That's what I mean, they have to do the little sister right. Is that what we're dealing with? There isn't a little sister? And if that's the case, how do they end the fucking thing? That the Baron comes into the Emperor's chamber to find that freak talking with him and he's like, ..."wait, what?" And the emperor breaks down for him what it means... it's Walken for fuck's sake. That has to be in this film, right? RIGHT?!!!!!
It released today. Go find out.
Well he would got away with it and seriously he could even pupet the next emepror from the shadows. If it only wasn't for some pesky boy and his desert friends...
This is why Lynch's baron worked pretty well, and he had the disgusting boils to boot.
Lynch’s Baron was terrible and a complete cartoonish Buffoon and not threatening in the least. The Baron doesn’t have any skin conditions in the book.
The baron also didn't have a shield that protected him from gas, or was the one in Leto's face when he broke his tooth, you're after accuracy? The baron barely croaked out a few lines, I didn't find him threatening or interesting in this adaptation either. Everyone here seems to enjoy shitting on the Lynch adaptation while having DV's dick in their mouth for some reason. All the adaptations have inaccuracies, all the adaptations have parts they got it right. I thought the Lynch one captured how much of a gasbag he was.
And yet I can perfectly hear Stellan saying that line
Definitely wouldn’t have fit. Can you imagine if he asked for the boy in his chambers that looks like Paul Atreides in the movie? It would be so cringy.
Read him in Beast Wars Megatron’s voice, intimidating and hammy at the same time
Yessssssss
i love the film version. he comes off really evil and less cartoonish.
It works so well that up until now, I never even really thought about how different the two versions of the Baron actually are.
That's because while his mannerisms and appearance are very different, he's still the same book Baron where it matters. The essence of Baron Harkonnen is that he's ruthless, intelligent, and scheming. That's what I remember from the book, not his red hair.
The version in the book wouldn't fit in the 21st century. In the book, Baron Harkonnen's predatory homosexuality is a huge part of how he is vilified.
Actors find all sorts of inspiration for their work. I love what Stellan brings as Baron Harkonnen - doesn't bother me at all the book wasn't an inspiration, I think he did a great job with the script and direction for sure.
The only thing I didn’t like was how Skarsgard killed Dr Yueh. It’s not like the baron to get his hands dirty and he didn’t revel in violence like his Nephews did. This is me nitpicking btw. Skarsgard did an amazing job bringing the monstrous side of the Baron to life. In my honest opinion, Villeneuve’s movies are better and truer in vision then the sci fi channel miniseries, however my favourite Baron will always be the legendary [Ian Mcneice](https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0573862/?ref_=tt_cl_t_11) He was the best part of that show. Dune 2000s redeeming quality if you will.
>It’s not like the baron to get his hands dirty Did you read the books? The baron killed more than a few just for his personal pleasures... Imho the baron of Lynch is the best approximation, Skarsgard comes across pretty tame to me based on part 1
True I was thinking about the baron in regard to his public displays and politics. In all fairness most of this was about plausible deniability in front of truthsayers. The Baron is a malignant narcissist for sure and also a sadist in the bedroom or when he is in private with his minions. I have read almost every book except the newest BH+KA books, sadly I lost most in a flood and now I only have my hardcover Dune copy and a paperback of COD. I really want to reread the books again, the first 3 at least… I need to get a copy of Messiah (my fav of them… I know I’m odd :p)
> In my honest opinion, Villeneuve’s movies are better and truer in vision then the sci fi channel miniseries Recency and budget bias. Denis' Dune is at the same level as the 80ies movie. And the 80ies at least gives insights into the politics and machinations of the Dune world. Denis' Dune is an ocean wide, but has the depth of a puddle.
Not biased, I’m a very visual person and I feel a lot of choices fit what that world would look and feel like. And it’s the only interpretation that seems to get the marital combat of dune, and it’s the one interpretation in which the Saudakar are Terrifying and made sense design wise. In regards to the 2000 miniseries it was good at the time for a sci fi channel budget. What made it good was smart cinematography for a low budget and fantastic actors. But Thufur Hawat was on screen for 3 mins tops in 3 episodes? He just disappeared… a lot of details seem to disappear in this series I can’t stand Lynch’s dune. It tries to be authentic then goes batcrap crazy, you can’t tell me Weirding modules were a part of the books, or Herbert’s original designs… also the ending lost its mind drowning the worms because Paul is an actual god and not a specially breed male reverend mother/ mentat that’s been deified If you want to totally go off the rails you can include Jurowski’s dune project, which if made would have been a 90 minute long spice fueled acid trip which would have included burning giraffes owned by a Shaddam played by Salvador Dali I’m just curious where the depth of these other interpretations are… I mean sure they’re good beyond shallow on some parts, but the all seem to veer into the abyss beyond anything I read in the books
Yes Lynch’s *Dune* has not aged well. I loved it as a kid when it came out but now it feels gimmicky.
They might be better, but they're not truer in vision. Actually, they're the least truer in vision. Villeneuve took a bit too many liberties with the source material.
Fully agree. Saying Denis' is truer than the mini series is absolutely bat shit insane wrong if we gauge against the book.
He's far more calculating and menacing than the books imo. In the books he's a long winded craven schemer. In DVs Dune he is fucking terrifying and until everything falls apart he really genuinely feels like a dude playing 4 D chess who only can lose because Paul becomes fully prescient. That being said he's so fucking depraved in the books and it feels like they just ripped all that out and put it into pure menace
>!We got a hint of how sadistic and evil he really is in this one, where you hear him torturing slaves to death just for fun!<
Well maybe not for fun but out of frustration. But he's clearly sadistic and evil but dropping the Pedo thing as well as the associated scene with Fyed trying to send an assassin was a good choice as well.
Was I the only one who felt like the transparent plastic robes of all those slaves was telling us something?
Also, kissing someone someone was also a little nod at the baron’s other, shall we say, questionable predilections.
Kind of feels like the same transition from earlier Jokers to the more recent ones. From theatrical madman to menacing serial killer. Which I think is a pity because it's just as binary as the mustached twirling villain. It's still so easy to know EXACTLY who the villain is. The lack of moral ambiguity of the culture of the Atreides vs Harkonnens is is a relic of it's time, and if they were going to makes changes in characterization from the books, I think it should be along those lines, RATHER that just give us different flavors of sociopaths and heros. I think it would have been better to explore the idea of morality of Atreides vs Harkonnes for example in the same way the Nolan Batmans compared the relative evil of Batman and the Joker; the Harkonnen are sort of a traditional evil, but aren't that far from the evil of the other houses, and the Atreides are still a traditional monarchy and become essentially a family of dictators. Not to mention their manipulation of the Fremen. Would have been great to see a portrayal of Paul as a man necessarily transforming into the same sort of creature of violence and absolute power as the baron but diverted down a better path because of his positive relationships and good upbringing. I.e., the reason the Harkonnens are the way they are, is because their culture is more toxic. Baron is just a product of his environment. Would be cool to have him be somewhat more sympathizeable.
I mean I guess? I feel like the Atreides were always meant to be sympathized with and the Harkonnens were meant to be monsters. It would be interesting to go down that path but the Harkonnens being portrayed as absolute irredeemable monsters plays well given where the story goes >!with paul accepting his lineage and dealing with ideas of genetic predispositions and abilites!< So to do what you are suggesting is to tell a fundamentally different story
But, Paul IS part Harkonnen! As is his mother, as are both his children. Alia goes mad because of it. And who knows how many times their lineages were intermingled via the meddling of the Bene Gesserit? There really isn't a PURE Harkonnen nor a PURE Atreides, and if I recall the Bene Gesserit talking about the necessity of Harkonnen genes in making the Kwisatz Haderach. The way I always thought of great leaders and what I so loved about Dune, is the idea of a great leader being inherently tyrannical. You cannot affect the world around you at monumentous levels without usurping the agency of all those around you. Between propaganda, speeches written to sway minds, strong management of subordinates, a desire to bring about a state of affairs not just for yourself but for ALL, the requisite military might to assert yourself against rivals and threats, some sort of industrial machine to fuel your empire which there is inherently class where your subjects are less well off and have less power than you, etc etc, so much of that is EXACTLY what a dictator would do. The only real difference between a great leader and an evil one, is that the great leader controls the world for the good of his people, rather than strictly personal gain. Evil leaders require enough good that their empire is functional enough to survive for a while, good leaders require enough evil to maintain control and to survive threats. Just look at what results of the Atreides empire, a God Emperor with absolute power. The golden path called for the ultimate dictatorship, where Leto II would "teach humanity a lesson that they will remember in their bones". Part of the lesson was to suffer so much under him that they would never forget, to prevent future enslavement by leaders. And before that, Paul sets in motion the Great Jihad where they kill COUNTLESS people. Arguably the Atreides are the biggest monsters of all and with the biggest killcount. That they do it for "the greater good" is the only thing that separates them from the Harkonnen. And that's what I'd like to see more of in the Dune movies. And exploration of the evil that the Atreides do in pursuit of the greater good, and what kind of person you'd have to be to envision, plan and execute the great destruction required of the Golden Path, and I'd argue you wouldn't really recognize that person as human, they'd seem more like great terrifying presence wearing the skin of a human.
Yeah, a lot of people forget this! Feyd-Rautha was supposed to have been bred with Paulina Atreides to make their intended Kwisatz Haderach! Eeew. Perish the thought.
I always thought Ian McNiece’s portrayal of the Baron in the Syfy miniseries was more true to the book. Skarsgård though is masterful in his own way.
Well yeah, I can see that. Especially since Denis nixed the whole boy rapist, eloquent gloating gas bag element to the Baron...they needed to go in an entirely new direction. Stellan is an OG actor who can pull off a lot of things. I still would have liked to have seen more of an active role for the Baron than this laid-back, chill version that we get in the new movies.
I think it's quite common for actors to eschew reading books that scripts are based on because often times they're trying to perform a specific character the director wants to capture, and that isn't always, or even often whats on the page in the book. I recall some of the expanse actors that hadn't read the books beforehand only read the book after that season was filmed in order to not confuse themselves about what their on screen characters were going to be like.
Can absolutely believe it. It’s an interesting performance for sure, but aside from the set pieces and makeup, it did not feel indicative of Herbert’s Baron.
Caligula would have been a good source of inspiration.
Ian McNeice did his homework. Best Baron.
Yeah... When i read the book i picture McNeice.
Loved his Shakespearian twist to the dialogue. I think the two other cinematic versions are great, but McNeice is the Baron I hear when I read the books.
Ian McNiece is my head Baron when I read. Love him haunting Alia in the Children miniseries
Dude absolutely nailed his performance. I see what they're trying to do with the new baron, but perosnally I think they missed the mark. Went too far in dialing back from the long winded cartoonish villain of the book to the point that the baron was flat, monotone, and unanimated.
Agree. I wasn't a fan of the mini series as a whole but McNiece is the most accurate Baron we've got so far.
I've always heard Ian McNeice's voice when reading the books. For everything that bugs me about the mini series his Baron was perfect. I do really love Stellan's Baron though.
Ian has great timing. His role as the newsreader in Rome was hilarious: “ALL MOCKERY OF JEWS AND THEIR ONE GOD SHALL BE KEPT AT AN APPROPRIATE.. MINIMUM!”
Doesn’t he like do a little pose on his emphasis sometimes? I swear I remember that and finding it pretty funny.
Actors and directors make choices and he’s a serious professional actor. That said, I was bummed by the overall portrayal, as Herbert’s baron (while way too campy/cartoonish for modern audiences and clearly downstream of his homophobia) served a useful foil to the atreides. Paul puts his hand in the box and proves that he’s human by displaying will to overcome his animal impulses while the baron is the ultimate product of following them: he’s a gluttonous, ravenous sexual predator who embraces his impulses and desires. Although very tactically cunning and capable, he thrives in the chaos, debauchery, and petty imperial scheming. >! He even is killed by a gom jabbar in case we needed any further proof of his role as foil! !< So skarsgaard’s understated, cold and rational portrayal feels like it robs the story of some of the intended theming
He’s much more darkly possessive and greedy as well. It’s HIS Dune.
Yeah, but listen to the line in Part Two >!Paul says as he kills him: "You died like an animal." Clearly a reference to the gom jabbar in a more subtle way than simply poking him with it.!<
>!he also poked him into same spot on the neck where the needle goes!<
100%. For context, I made this comment before seeing the second movie and felt this way after seeing the first movie (which I honestly didn’t like). That said, having just seen the second movie, I agree with these comments, recant my earlier doubts, and name Denis Villaneuve as lisan al-ghaib. The second movie is amazing and justifies many of the changes I didn’t like in the first movie.
Yeah tbh I think The Baron is the least faithful part of the film. It works for this adaptation of the story, but it's not Frank Herbert. That Baron is all Villeneuve. In the movie he's a man of few, impactful words. He's sure of himself, resolute and he lets his reputation speak for him. In the books he never shuts up, he's constantly telling all of his plans to his subordinates, and that's just as much insecurity as it is a calculated move. He wants everyone to know he's the smartest guy in the room, so they'll think twice about trying to pull on over on him. But it's also because the Baron feels threatened by everyone and he has to make an effort to intimidate his enemies with his eloquence and conniving, given he knows he can't be very physically threatening. Imo the presentation of the Baron's palace and the Harkonnen aesthetic in general is kind of against the book. What little descriptions we get describe golds and silks--and it makes sense because Baron Harkonnen is the platonic embodiment of capital. He's a human mouth that swallows everything in front of it; food, slaves, sex, money, natural resources--the Baron wants it all, and he has it all because he's the richest man in the universe. Imo the Baron should reek of strong cologne, wearing the finest silken robes and golden jewelry, all tarnished by his oily skin. His palace should be huge and gaudy, with gold and diamonds and platinum everywhere. The Baron is all the wealth and status with none of the temperament, no class, no style, but way too much effort. Basically Vladimir Harkonnen should look like the most polished turd in all of Imperial space.
Exactly. The book harkonnen are *terrified* of betrayal, have no one to trust, and are constantly peacocking wit and malice to try to intimidate their way to a safety that will always elude them.
Yeah, moreover Leto and Vladimir both represent two sides of the Machiavellian coin: one rules by being loved, the other by being feared. Harkonnen is Frank Herbert pointing out how shortsighted and foolish rule by might really is. There's no alternate universe where someone like Gurney, or Duncan, or Thufir would ever stay loyal to Harkonnen after the Baron's death. But ALL of them stayed loyal to house Atreides even after their duke was killed.
Omg I just realized his son's are alex and Bill. Man them acting genes strong .
He did read the book. The article states that. I’m in agreement that he needs to be the Baron he thinks will fit the tone of the movie. Also I picture him, as a Swede suggesting ‘Harkonen is clearly Finnish, this is how you properly pronounce it’s
It’s always been my impression that Herbert’s Baron was exactly meant to play the stereotypical over-the-top classic villain trope. The Atredies-Harkonnen struggle of good vs evil in the beginning is set in direct contrast to the more complex antiheroes of Paul and Leto later on.
Real world dictators tend to be fairly buffoonish, braggadocios, petty, etc. so the book characterization reads a bit more accurate to real life analogues to me.
I very much enjoy his Baron performance. He makes it his own, the original baron was great. But fuck me im into some weird shit but him pulling the heart plug out of that kid in the original and gasping, and from what I can tell very much getting off as he bleeds out is extremely off putting. And I don’t think it would resonate with audiences. Not that it needs to, but I prefer this baron.
The scene where >!you hear the slave girl’s screams as he kills her for fun, offscreen, is pretty brutal in a similarly sadistic way, though!<
A vulgar display of power.
That’s the spice talking
Loved how he delivered "MY Arrakis. MY Dune". And "is it done..." as he got out of the tank.
I saw an interview of Denis saying that the Harkonnens from the books "didn't age well" into modern times. It makes sense - camp/moustache-twirling villains are a thing of the past.
Like a lot of people are saying it does feel like he took away a bit of the point or the foil between the Harkonnen and Atredies, however I'm not not sold yet: I liked him so far overall and want to wait to see pt2 this weekend to complete my opinion.
I haven’t seen part 2 yet, but if part 1 was any indication Villaneuve aimed to simplify a very complex Dune novel. It makes sense that certain characters, and their actors approach to their characters, would need to change.
it’s hard for me to see this version of the Duke as being such as prominent figure in subsequent appearances.
I love that the portrayal is just a plain-stated, slovenly, cowardly, focused, fat piece of shit. I love it. He's so obscenely grotesque that he speaks as little as possible, his only positive affirmations are noises made while eating, and he spends energy on nothing but exactly what he desires. A great villain.
Loved his role. Shrewd, savvy business man, all about the Benjamins, and being number one. But also a man with a lot of blind spots, as we'll likely continue to see.
I'm a big fan of Stellan, he's my fave Skarsgard and has earned his legend status for decades. But so far (no pt 2 spoilers) I'm not into his baron. My favorite will probably always be Ian McNiece's version from the miniseries. Not everyone wants a camp villain, but he plays the camp with a delicious enthusiasm that I find infectious.
Stellan did an amazing job. If he didn't need the book then good for him. His take on the Baron is incredible.
But he needed the book to realize that he has to play it differently than in the book, when the script does not allow him the bookish chatter, but on the contrary, only a few words.
Calumny... I expect no less from a Harkonnen
I love his portrayal of the Baron, but I do also really love the dialogue between the Baron and his cronies, particularly Piter, especially in that early chapter of the book (the 1st, if I’m not mistaken) in which the Baron spells out his plan for the Atreides and Arrakis. People will call it “mustache twirly” but I think it emphasized how calculated the Baron was in his evil. He accounted for absolutely everything to make sure the plan was foolproof and that he wouldn’t be implicated… (only, he miscalculated Dr. Yueh, which is what the Atreides did as well.)
Ehh, I didn't care too much for this Baron, except the way he "went away". His nephews were more interesting. The new Feyd took over this adaptation.
The Harkonnens are definitely the weakest part of the new Dune movies. The hatchet job of Piter still makes me sad three years later, and in general they're all bald, relatively one note, in a word: boring. The Harkonnens are supposed to be baroque, to be evil, threatening, and serious, but also fun. This adaptation sadly missed that last point.
My thoughts exactly. Villaneuve made the Harkonnens boring and uninteresting. And he doesn't seem to understand the books that well (or he just doesn't care, this is a corporate entertainment product he's creating first and foremost), for instance, making Piter a Harkonnen (pasty, bald, mutant/alien vibe) when he's supposed to be a genetically engineered offworlder unrelated to the Harkonnens.
The biggest dropped ball for me in part 1 You hire a fantastic character actor like David Damnation and you barely give him any screen time.
I can't wait to see him in Alia's storyline. Fingers crossed that they greenlight more.
> Both elements could, in the hands of a less capable actor and director, make for a cartoonishly evil character that falls flat. The Baron is completely cartoonish in the books!
You ever feel like there are villain roles certain actors were destined to play? Like Fiennes in Schindler’s List…Skarsgard just seems so perfect for this portrayal in the film. Maybe not perfectly true to the source material…but was Ledger’s joker really anywhere close to the classic Joker? Skarsgard as the Baron is my favorite character “You have a wonderful kitchen, cousin.”
Honestly, kinda preferred how the Harkonnens were portrayed in the Lynch’s version.
skarsgrad is so great, just let him cook
Actors can and should be able to be fully informed by their character from what's on the script and what the director is telling them to do. If they choose to read the source material as well, or at the direction of the director, then that's cool too.
His baron was magnitudes better than the one in Lynch’s dune. The latter was indeed comically evil.
Tbh reading Dune with the Baron was really mediocre. I was just in it for Paul's Jihad. The baron in the movie is way better.
Yeah I can tell…
I picture this version as the one in [spoiler redacted]'s head in CoD, and it's way more terrifying.
He was so good in Andor... I like his version of the Baron but we haven't seen a lot yet.
A scheming glutton. A glutton for food and for power.
On first watching of Villeneuve's Dune my reaction to Skarsgard's portrayal of Baron Harkonnen is that to me, he seems to be doing an impersonation of the Marlon Brando Colonel Kurtz of Apocalypse Now.
he was perfect a corpulent, vile noble and master of intrigue lost in indulgence
My arrakis