SPOILERS:

My main issue was Stilgar and Chani. Lets start with Stilgar. In the books he's a stoic alpha male that commands a ton of respect from his fellow Fremen. In the movie they made him kind of a bumbling idiot. In the books he started as a skeptic of Paul but grew to respect and believe in him. In the movie they made it seem like he was twisting anything to be a sign that Paul was the Lisan Al-Gaib.

Chani also kinda sucked because she went from a loyal priestess in the book that understood that Paul's path was bigger than her or him and they needed to do whatever they needed to do for the betterment of the Fremen people. In the movie they made her this kinda woke skeptic that resisted Paul at every turn yet somehow was still in love with him? It was weird that they tried to play it both ways. I did read from the director that one of the issues among book readers is that they didn't see the signs that Paul is really an anti-hero/possible villain and it lead to people not liking where the story goes in Dune: Messiah. To combat this he needed Chani to be the "voice of reason" who could see through the prophecy BS and show Paul's true motives. He said that Chani being close to Paul and having a very simple storyline in the books made it easy to use her character for this purpose. I guess I kind of get that but it seems like it sort of buries the lead on the 3rd movie. Why not let the twist be the twist when its time? Why do we have to show his true intentions before his true intentions come to fruition?

I'm also sad I didn't get to see toddler Alia frick with everyone and stab Harkonnens. But that is a minor flaw. Other than that, I understand the reasons for other changes to move the story along quicker than the books.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by boxcarbarney

Above all things, be a man

Member since Jul 2007

22792 posts

Posted on 3/11/24 at 1:26 pm to Bert Macklin FBI

quote:
In the movie they made it seem like he was twisting anything to be a sign that Paul was the Lisan Al-Gaib.

My biggest issues, are like you said, the treatment of Stilgar and Chani. I'd add to that how Jessica was setting everything up for Paul to drink the Water of Life, to make him into the Kwisatz Haderach.

But I think the portrayal of Chani was the one I liked the least. Instead of being a devoted wife to Muad'dib - dispatching people who come to challenge because she feels they aren't worth his time - she becomes an independent woman who don't need no man. Completely misses the point of Chani, her devotion to Paul, and how it ties into the ending of the book.

Jessica to Chani:

quote:
Think on it, Chani: the princess will have the name, yet she'll live as less than a concubine - never to know a moment of tenderness from the man to whom she's bound. While we, Chani, we who carry the name of concubine - history will call us wives.

But Villeneuve is a huge feminist, and probably felt that Chani's portrayal in the book was a product of the times it was written in and had to be changed for a modern audience. Completely ignoring that the all woman group, the Bene Gesserit, are who truly run the empire.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by iwyLSUiwy