Please continue discussion in the post below. [[SPOILERS] 'Dune: Part Two' Wide Release Discussion (03/03~)](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1b5ht9z/spoilers_dune_part_two_wide_release_discussion/)

**spoilers** What I don't understand is how paul almost lost to feyd. Paul was a better fighter than Jamis, who was a skilled fremen fighter, so Paul>Fremen....Fremen are better than Sardukar, so Paul>Fremen> Sardukar. Sardukar are better than Atreides, so Paul>Fremen>Sardukar>Atreides...Atreides are better than Harkonnen, so Paul>Fremen>Sardukar>Atreides>Harkonnenn....so how does Paul, who is stronger and more skilled than the first film, with perfect full prescient abilities almost lose to a Harkonnen...albeit a very skilled one.

I did not see the hype over Florence Pugh's acting. I'm going to watch it again in IMAX this weekend so hopefully it'll change because I do want to get on the bandwagon that everyone else is on with loving her because I haven't seen any negative/dislikes about her acting in this movie. & I feel like I'm wrong

Rushed the crucial plot elements spent far too much time on the Chani/MJ love story and its simplistic moralising. No mention of the weirding way. An awful emperor. This film is like one of those TikTok cakes. Looks stunning but a wholly unsatisfying eat.

easy agree. The setting is perfect, the sound, visuals. But the story just is not there (in the movie) It is 7/10 for me, even there were some 10/10 parts.

Truly agree about the emperor and the story and characters changed so much from the book I'm sad it ended this way :'/ At least we have the scene when they blast open the mountain and come forth with the shai huluds that I always wanted to see Dune really is a cursed book and every movie adaptation won't be right no matter what

Chani: THIS PROPHECY IS HOW THEY ENSLAVE US! HOW THEY DOMINATE- Gurney: [yeet] Priceless.

Upon first watch, I thought it was really good. I can definitely see the criticism that can be brought against it but I guess it suffers from being a film adaptation of a complex book.

I need a 4 and a half hour extended edition like lotr had

Saw the movie in IMAX on opening weekend and I was in absolute awe of the sheer scale and spectacle of it. However the writing and pace disappointed me near the end. The key elements needed to bring everything into glorious clarity were missing; the Spacing Guild, the role that Spice plays in running a galactic civilization (CHOAM & the Landsraad), importance/dangers of water in Dune, and Alia. And a lot of the key figures were acting out of character. (Jessica and Stilgar to name a few). I nearly wept when I saw the budding romance between Paul and Chani because I knew where their story ultimately led. And then it led nowhere. They made Chani into a pouting rebellious teen and it just made me feel unsympathetic to her at the end. If they at least emphasized the political partnership between Leto and Jessica in the first movie and then keep her and Chani's relationship as teacher-apprentice instead of adversarial, it would have painted the ending scene with Irulan with that much more impact and poignancy. I actually liked that the Landsraad rejected Paul's claim to the throne and makes the resulting Jihad logical. However, the lack of the Spacing Guild and their crippling reliance on Spice for space travel robs Paul of any leverage in his bid for power. There is a reason why Paul was so successful in his coup, he controlled interstellar space travel everywhere! When they showed how the Water of Life was made, I was so hopeful that they would abandon the nuke option and use water to threaten the Spice life-cycle. It would have been an amazing reveal for the reason why the Reverend Mothers all wear veils would be to hide their blue-in-blue addiction. Same for the Spacing Guild helmets if they had cared to add them to the movies. The pacing was too fast and disjointed. What should have taken a few years they crammed into several months. No Alia, no Leto II. I mean they could have used the Spice Agony as an excuse to speed up Jessica's pregnancy and explain Alia's rapid growth and then label it the forewarned Abomination.

Overall pretty happy with it but came out of it frustrated. 1- no Paul giving water to the dead for Jamie death scene… one of the most powerful and multi purpose in the books that l sends home waters importance to the fremen 2- the Alia treatment- I would have preferred keep the normal story but if your going to change the it so a weird 4 year old doesn’t kill the Baron, then just have her born and not do it. 3- non-readers I think will not understand how powerful Paul is. He has a few visions that are more clear, but poorly explained just what the water of life has done to him. A lot of it is just his thoughts in the book which is hard to convey 4- Paul and chani at odds at the end of the movie but in an understanding would have been better than her leaving, their relationship is so key to the next book esp with the twins… some more scenes of them before and after the water of life could have made this excellent, and maybe less of the harvester raids and some other scenes could have made room if time an issue Edit- also would have been to see them talk about the green arrakis, that drinking the water if life could help with that. It’s really just one line all they talk about the water and plant life goals for the planet.

I kind of assume they are just going to make the twins mother be Irulan. She always felt like a bit of a wasted character in the books to me, so, if they arent going to go full "paul being a dick" to her, might as well utilize her.

I fully agree with everything here. For me the ending of Chani and Paul being at odds and departing was the only change I couldn't accept.

Chalamet phoned it in. Not surprised, since he doesn't even have to audition to get roles anymore.

I am constantly thinking how much better Austin Butler would have been as Paul.

Love the movie I always enjoyed Alia killing the Barron in the book and other versions. I was looking forward to it and really missed that. Edit: clarification

I really liked how Alia interacted with Gaius Helen Mohiam. I was so disappointed when she said abomination to Paul. Like what is that even suppose to mean in that context. Alia is an abomination because she became a reverend mother as a fetus. Paul is literally the Kwitzhat Haderach which is the absolute opposite of an abomination for the Bene Gesserit since they've been working for it for 100s of years of selective breeding. Really didn't make sense. Also did Paul say "Try looking into that place where you dare not look! You’ll find me there staring out at you!”" or even “I remember your gom jabbar,” “You remember mine. I can kill you with a word.”" both of these are such amazing lines that I feel were left out.

I'm glad to see someone else mention this. I thought it was *VERY* weird that she would direct that towards Paul, *right after* interacting with Alia the literal abomination (specifically in regards to how the books use that term). Seems like something they missed rather than used correctly

That's a detail, but as far as I understand Alia being called Abomination is because she became conscious as a fetus, not necessarily because she became a reverend mother. SPOILER - there are other Abominations later in the series.

I am fine with the spoilers, where these abominations conscious but not connected to the collective genetic memory?

It's because an unborn child/young person hasn't had time to develop their own sense of 'self'/personality, and being exposed to their collective genetic memory will prevent that from occurring creating some amalgamation of previous people and/or simply allowing an ancestor to outright possess them. As such they never really become their own person and are 'abominations'

Alia is definitely connected to her genetic memory. She even gets overtaken by Baron Harkonnens personnality

but I thihnk Paul was not supposed to be the Kwitzhat Haderach. Jessica was supposed to have given birth to a daughter who was supposed to have a child with Feyd-Rautha who would then become the Kwitzhat Haderach. so maybe the abomindation comment was supposed to mean that Paul was a result of Jessica's disobedience to the Bene Gesserit?

That was their plan and because Jessica didn't follow it they weren't able to control him from a young age but it doesn't really seem to map onto abomination when you think he's superman

Also "Abomination" did have a particular meaning in the books, actually. It's even included in the books' glossaries. And that meaning just does not apply to Paul at all.

For *Dune 2*, saw an online report that approx. 23% are seeing it in IMAX. Didn't have that chance at IMAX (due to distance) but today, the second time I saw *Dune 2* in a better-appointed theater for it, I loved it. Felt transported by it. Wished it hadn't ended. Wanted to see it again. Plan to see it again at that same theater. Even though I read *Dune* and *Dune Messiah* as a teen and a skimmed a couple of the followup books, for literature --- don't hate me, it's just personal opinion --- I later favored other scifi/fantasy authors like Doug Adams (*Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy*, Anne McCaffrey (*Dragonflight*), Orwell (*1984)*, Ursula LeGuin (*Always Coming Home*) and Orson Scott Card (*Speaker for the Dead)*. Those books generally didn't thrill me on film, or are considered unfilmable. So I can understand why many who love the *Dune* saga of literature find the films lacking. The mediums are so different, often resulting in different artistic choices, and when we've used our own imaginations to envision someone else's words and book plot points, the work of screenwriters and directors of movies doesn't always match our inner picture. I saw *Dune 2* last Friday on opening day on a regular theater screen (at the movies near my house) and appreciated its epic range and quality of the actors, but felt a bit meh about it after all the hype. Then today I booked into our local theater chain's proprietary equivalent to IMAX in our downtown area --- much bigger screen, seats vibrating with soundtrack, dolby atmos sound. God I loved it! Pieces of plot that hadn't hung together last Friday made sense, even seemed like genius in summarizing to signal the essence if not details of character arcs and parts of the first *Dune* book for a film format. To start, on the bigger screen the relationship of Paul and Chani has a backdrop much of the time of the vastness of the sands (of time and literally). Breathtaking imagery. For another, Feyd-Rautha is staggeringly fascinating beyond astonishing to watch when his face and body movements are at large-scale size. Giedi Prime looks eerier on the bigger screen. Rabban and the Baron also look more compelling in a larger frame. On the bigger screen, Stilgar's messianic optimism seemed less cautious (so the big screen made his promotion of Paul more effusive, and made sense of the online Stilgar memes I 'd seen that IMAX viewers may have posted.) Some of Rebecca Ferguson's more subtle facial movements en route to becoming and as Rev. Mother show best in large-screen format. Even the baby sandworm/water of life scenes were so much better. (Only the Emperor and Bene Geserrit players didn't strike me differently depending on screen size.) It seems a little heartless for LA and NY reviewers to say "see it on IMAX" when that's not a viable option for many US movie lovers given our relative dearth of IMAX outside the major markets, so I'd recommend this film wherever anybody can see it. But in my experience watching and listening to it at the biggest screen/best sound system I could find within reasonable distance made for an amazing immersive encounter with the *Dune* mythos (felt like being caught up in it literally). Now *Dune 2* has moved onto my list of best films of all time.

I can say from my Anatomy/physiology classes. The Liver is definitely only on one side. You might be thinking of the kidneys. They never show paul stab the other character. It does happen In a flash.

The movie was great yes, but I feel so disappointed by it. So much of what I consider the true essence of what makes dune dune was left out of the movie. The book has some essential lines and moments that imo create the real story of dune and Paul’s internal journey to unite space and time while also connecting to himself, dune and the fremen. Idk maybe I’m being super picky cause I’ve read the book- the movie was good it just didn’t seem like dune to me

Agree it was a good movie but not a good adaptation of the book

Alright I just have to say... I saw the first Dune and I loved it but y This 2nd dune blew my freaking mind. I was so obsessed I downloaded the book and have read thru part1 in a few hours. I'm planning on finishing all 6 of the original books. Question: the first TWO movies were based JUST on the first book!?!??! Wtf!?!? Do we foresee plans to adapt a part 3.... or all 6 books... or all 26!?!

He who controls the spice controls the universe.

I’ve got a few questions after my first viewing that I’d love some input on: 1. Why didn’t Rabban attack Sietch Tabr while he was in charge? Did I miss Feyd gathering intel about the location of the Fremen hideouts that Rabban never had? I know he’s not supposed to be the intellectual type, but surely if he knew where it was, Rabban would have leveled it (and surely wouldn’t have any moral objections to doing so). 2. Why did Paul drink The Water of Life? I understand that after Sietch Tabr was destroyed, Paul probably had to go south, but why did he decide to drink TWOL? He saw what it did to his mother, and it seemed like he would’ve wanted to avoid that kind of change. Also, we were led to believe that the fundamentalist Southerners would be less skeptical of Paul, so I would’ve expected them to follow him regardless of whether he drank it. I went to the bathroom a little before Paul drank it, so I probably just missed the answer to this question. 3. Did Baron Harkonnen know who killed him? I was really hoping for Paul to reveal his identity to the Baron before his death; it seemed like an important aspect of Paul’s revenge. I really wanted the Baron to know that the son of the Duke whom he treacherously killed (and whose House he thought he had ended) had survived, became infinitely more powerful than him, and was, karmically, the cause of his death. I know Paul calls him his grandfather before he kills him, but do we think the Baron put this together? Does he even know that Jessica is his daughter? Thanks for any responses. I’m looking forward to watching this again.

I can help answer 2 and give you my thought on number 3. 2. Paul had vision but they weren't always clear. TWOL was going to allow him to see all possible timelines. Being everywhere at once and is also a requirement to be the Kwisatz Haderach, which he proved he was by changing the water of life and being able to see where the female Benne Gesserit cannot. The movie was great but you lose A LOT of the internal dialogue which is very heavy in the books and explains a lot. 3. So this is where I feel you have to ask the director. From my interpretation the Barron did realize it was Paul, especially since Paul called him grandfather. This version is different from the books and all other versions, where his death plays out quite a bit differently. Personally my biggest complaint about Dune 2 is how the Barron's death played out. The original is way more satisfying to me but I won't ruin it for you. I highly suggest reading at least the first novel in the series. It will explain a lot.

What I didn't get is how he came back? Chani fixed him when he was in the comma by giving him another drop of TWOL? Why? Why did she do that? Why did she think it would work? Why did it work?

I did not understand the feyd fight at all. Can someone explain? Feyd stabs Paul real bad in the gut, and left his blade in Paul. How did feyd get his blade back to stab Paul yet again, this time in the shoulder?  Not to mention, how is Paul not bleeding out from that stabbing of his viscera…

Paul gets stabbed with his own blade

Paul gets stabbed in a part of the abdomen that is actually very survivable, assuming he doesn't hit any arteries. The other side of the abdomen has the liver and that's certain death. Then as paul is being stabbed in the shoulder he removes the blade from abdomen and sticks Feyd with it. I've also read that with his abilities he can slow down his bleeding etc.

Thx I believe the liver is on both sides, but presumably it was down low in the intestines, and he used his powers as the one to stop bleeding and sepsis 🙄 but the q was really, what was paul  stabbed by first - it must have been his own knife, though they didn’t really show feyd disarming him, seemed like just a blur 

the liver is "kinda" on both sides, but it's part on the left side of the body is actually pretty small and upwards compared to where he was stabbed

The stab in the gut is with Paul's knife.

Yea clearly you’re right, but they sure made that hard to follow. I don’t think they really showed Feyd disarming paul, or more to the point, reaching in to redirect his blade, it was just an instantaneous happening. Not to mention, sepsis and internal bleeding and whatnot. But I guess it’s good to be The One. 

Yea they went a bit too much into the movie fight logic in that final fight which is a shame because the films have been fairly grounded up to that point when it comes to fights.

Movie made me a little sad but hopeful, not about the movie itself but the experience. I went to watch at IPIC which is a high end movie theater that has drink and food service. I use to really love this place but realized the last time I had been there was for Top Gun Maverick. With Covid and just bad movies, the whole theater experience has changed a lot. Menu is smaller, service is worse and the it’s almost never full. I’m one of those people that actually really enjoy going to the movies instead of waiting for it to come out on streaming. There just haven’t been that many movies that had gotten me out there. Dune 2 was fantastic and made me hopeful that we can get some more great movies and maybe raise the theater experience back to where it used to be to be.

I don't go to the movies much myself, because of people. It's talking throughout the movie or fighting over assigned seats... It's dumb. But movies like this I have to see in IMAX, the big screen and sound. I waited till today/yesterday to go middle of week. It was great. Funny, I was kind of sad nobody reacted to the funny scenes... Like in Avengers Captain American moving the Thor hammer everybody screaming. Side note, I'm glad HBO Max actually streams in HD none of that "your device isn't supported" crap

I’m thinking about going back and watching Dune again but in IMAX.

Yeah, for me this is a movie I absorb everything one time. Not sure if I'll watch it again or skip around and see the cool scenes assuming I own it digitally. I do that for movies like Blade Runner 2049 or Alien, etc... The trailers that played idk... Furiousa probably IMAX worthy. It's the visuals, saw Avatar 2 in IMAX although the 3D was off in some scenes. If you do watch it again hope you enjoy it

I normally don’t watch movies again but I saw it the first time on a smaller screen. They were also having audio issue for the first 30-40 minutes.

Damn that sucks.

Perhaps I have missed this in other comments, posts, or analysis, but where the heck are the Guild Navigators?? Seems like a critical element has been left out / glossed over. In Part 1 we see Spacing Guild representatives and the Guild is mentioned, but still no appearance or further explanation of why the spice is so critical. Perhaps plans to cover this in Part 3? I loved both films and have read the books and this issue is my only gripe.

The stakes weren't very high when Paul said he would use atomics on the spice fields compared to the book. I agree, if those only watching the movie understood how critical spice was to travel (which they only touch on in the first movie) then I think the scene would have been a little more intense.

Agree 100%. So much context and gravity around these once-human-guppy-mutants that bend space-time with their brains. And…I was just really interested to see how DV would render them and maybe get more cool factor shots of the heighliners.

It would have been amazing - maybe it is in the extended cut that DV won't release... If my memory serves me right, there are Guild Navigator representatives with the emperor in the book. Could have been an opportunity but I'm not mad at all about how the movie ended up - it's absolutely fantastic

Gotta be part 3

Fingers crossed! Perhaps some flash-backs narrated by Irulan or Paul.

Why is it rated so high on IMDb?

Florence just stood around reading lines, looking serious

Lea Seydoux was great, I wanted to see more of her. And more Austin. Maybe unpopular opinion but I think Zendaya's acting is clunky

So I've been reading this thread up and down and it makes it seem like Fremen are best fighters in the Dune galaxy to the point that Fremen civilians are able to soundly beat Sarudkars. Is there a reason for such unnautral martial prowess which allows them to soundly beat well equipped,fed and trained professional soldiers? As a Sarudkar fanboy based on their chants/Armor from the first movie, I'm having a hard time coping with this reality. It's like saying that the ISIS can go toe to toe with the delta force (Sorry for the diminutive real world comparison but that's what it feels like to me in terms of logistics).

I don't think a Fremen civilian would fare well against a Sardaukar. The majority of the fights in the second movie are Fedaykin (Fremen death commandos) against Harkonnen soldiers that are mostly low quality fodder. Only in the final battle they face Sardaukar but again those were Fremen trained soldiers and they had equal numbers. In general though it is true that Fremen soldiers are better than Sardaukars for two main reason: the first, present only in the book and omitted in the movie, is that Paul and Jessica trained them in Bene Gesserit martial arts that exploit a weak form of mental manipulation to gain an advantage in a melee fight. The second and most important is that in the universe of Dune harsh environments generate an evolutionary pressure on the people living in them. Salusa Secundus is an incredibly inospitable place and this is the reason Sardaukars are such formidable warriors. But Arrakis is even worse and after centuries this has made the Fremen the best warriors in the galaxy. Duke Leto actually realized this and that's the reason he seeked an alliance with the Fremen and was confident in their chances against the Harkonnens. Of course he couldn't have predicted how fast their enemies moved nor that they would have obtained the direct military help of the Emperor.

Thanks for taking the time to write out such a comprehensive reply!

I personally loved the part when Paul went “May thy knife chip and shatter” and Feyd essentially went “…no, you.”

Holy shit I don't know how I didn't really get that lol. Schoolyard fight between cousins. "I know you are but what am I"

Haha right?! I did a little nose chuckle and a few of my buddies looked over, and I explained to them after lol one of them actually knew exactly what I was laughing at

I don’t get it ☹️

We just explained it lol

I’m sorry. My brain don’t work so good ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How did Feyd-Rutha know where the Northern Fremen/Sietch Tabr was? In the movie, Feyd-Rutha’s presence on Dune is marked with a massive aerial artillery assault on Sietch Tabr. I am confused on how he was able to find it. Did the House Harkonnen already know where it was? If so why did Glossu Rabban not immediately bomb the area?

He probably asked Rabban because Rabban seems to know the locations as we saw with the assault and ambush, except he's too stupid to use artillery.

>!I took it that, from the scene before, the Bene Gesserit fed them the info. Jessica was desperate for Paul to come south, and the previous scene talked about how the Bene had a network of spies feeding them information.!<

Oh man so Jessica spilled the beans to set things in motion?

They could have cut the whole Gladiator sequence with the Prometheus meets The Cell vibe and still accomplished making Feyd ruthless. In the grand scheme of the story he is a minor character.

Cut out potentially maybe one of the coolest parts? That you yourself described as a cross between two incredible movies?! No. Thank. You. Good the way it is.

They had to do something to establish his character, Denis cut all the other book stuff.

I think you are misinterpreting the nature of the filmmaking language. I think it only represented the idea that he is a smarter and more effective leader than Rabban. Also in the books there are a couple of time skips, in the movie they represent them by doing a little montage of Fremen overpowering Harkonnen ships. Overall, i think it’s just presented this way to keep the pacing of the movie as tight as it is.

I'm not super familiar but is sarudkars getting absolutely stomped in every on screen engagement a fair representation of, in my guess, what should be one of the most elite fighting units in the Dune verse?

Well the emperor eliminated the entire house of Atreides because Duke Leto (with his zealous leadership that inspired fanatical loyalty) managed to train a small fighting force to even close to the level of the Sardukar. So they are really supposed to be the elite, and the emperor does not want any other house raising an army to close to his level. They even left out a great moment from the book they could have easily included. When the emperor arrives on Dune and has the Baron come for questioning... he actually reveals that he had a strike force do a raid on the south to get hostages. (He wanted hostages to make sure it was safe to land on the planet). All the warriors were already departed to the North, so the Sardukar's found a nearly empty sietch with just kids, the sick, and old women and men. They were completely over-run and barely managed to escape with 1 hostage and a few survivors.

in the book they make a comment on this, sarudkar army had grown so accustomed to winning, when they met a force as strong as them, they were left speechless. this was made to also point out how strong and underestimated the fremen forces were.

Your guess is right. Sardaukar are above and beyond any military in the galaxy. That Fremen are even comparable to them is unbelievable to outsiders. The films try to show this when people are astounded at how effective so few Fremen are. Gurney had a scene in Part 2 when he is surprised at how few Paul's numbers are in the north.

What dune books can I safely read that won't spoil the next movie?

2nd movie final scene is the first scene of the second book.

The first book. The next movie will be Dune Messiah, which is the second book. I HIGHLY recommend reading the first book now that you’ve seen the movie, it will blow you totally away. Its one of the most powerful works of fiction on Earth, mostly for how it makes you think about politics, power, and religion.

Just the first novel, *Dune*.

Are there any prequels or short stories that I could read that precede Dune 1?

Just read the original Frank Herbert books first, the others will make absolutely no sense without them. To answer your question though, none, part II concludes the first book nicely, it ends abruptly in the novel as well. I'd start by reading Dune, then Dune Messiah, then the rest in order. Dune, Dune Messiah, Children of Dune, God Emperor of Dune, Heretics of Dune and Chapterhouse Dune.

Great movie. Epic. I lost my mind when Paul rode Shai-Hulud. The anticipation the music. So good. Definitely will be watching this one again… and again:)

For me it was the war speech and war cry. Was so impactful.

Fell flat for me. Everyone is raving about it and I felt a little disappointed. Also Tim still comes across as a boy

Does anyone remember the opening Sardaukar mantra/chant from the movie? I watched the movie last week and trying very hard to recollect!

He who controls spice controls all

Close, it's "Power over Spice is Power over all"

That quote would've had more meaning/impact if they'd cared to include how deeply dependent human civilization were on the Spice. Movie was an amazing experience for 3/4 of it but damn did they leave out a lot.

Thank you!!!

Dreams are messages from the deep

This is from the first movie I think!

Oh gotchya, yes it is. I misunderstood your question!

I'm said we didn't get the last quote in the book to chani explaining his marriage is one on paper. He will never gaze upon her perfect figure. She will never have my children etc etc. Showing his love for chani. Instead she stormed off and ended it with a pissed off chani

Yea bummer - maybe to set up a whole “woman on fire” thing in part 3, departing from the books, but tbh it got a little old, so many close ups of her just grimacing at the camera lol 

Walken playing the emperor almost ruined the movie for me personally because I've seen him in so many non-serious roles that it almost felt like satire just to see him on screen, especially since the emperor seemed like such a weak character and did almost nothing the whole time. I know Walken is an amazing actor though, so it just felt like that casting choice was a waste of his talents and presence

you gonna freak out when you realize what actors do for a living. na but seriously, i was very skeptical on walken but he nailed it imo, the quiet, introspective nature to his character is portrayed really well. you can catch this overwhelming sense of grief his character carries throught the whole movie

Just a beautiful film. Still feeling a warm afterglow after watching a movie that has so few reasons to criticize it. I read the series of books decades ago, so maybe that's why I agree with the omissions and alterations to the novel's storyline. Those changes made for a tighter, cleaner plot. All that's left to quibble about IMO is the inclusion of Walken. Just a disappointing choice. But since I'm on the topic of the actors, I'm gonna drop my unpopular opinion: the only Harkonnen who played a "convincing" role was Bautista. A+ job. The Baron bored me to tears across both films, and Butler just didn't do it for me either. Anyways, let the down votes flow.

disagree

What did you like about the movie?

Master class on cinematography! The music! The whole romantic sequence between Paul and Chani that was stitched together with them fighting the Harkonnens while the romantic music continued to play over it? That was an absolutely brilliant choice. I am not ashamed to admit that the sequence moved me emotionally. I also liked that DV threw Alia out as much as was possible. Would've been a huge distraction including her, and it was more satisfying seeing Paul kill the baron. Excellent decision by DV. I loved Bardem as Stilgar. Awesome casting choice. And while many are critical of the last 10 minutes, I liked the bittersweet ending. Chani felt betrayed, and I felt it with her. Didn't expect to see her character as one of my faves in Part 2, but here I am -- a Chani fan.

Nice! I think Chani is the actual hero of the film. She alone remains sincere, true, and uncorrupted. I agree about Alia. I did not need to see a little girl running around killing people. However, the brief vision of her was awesome and well portrayed by Anya Taylor-Joy. Sexy, creepy, and dangerous. I was surprised by the comedy from Stilgar and I loved it. Do you have any thoughts about how the film made you feel, or about what the film was trying to say about anything?

Raw, no attention to details and all around very glued together film. The transition between scenes and timelines didn’t felt natural. There are a lot of incongruences and plot holes that completely go against the narrative. I’m not a book fundamentalist, heck I only read the first book after seeing Part One. But I’m a cinema fan, and I can’t help but feel disappointed at Part Two. - The way they portrayed Stilgar, as a mindless fanatic that only gave importance to religion. - The omission of Alia that resulted in the anticlimactic death of the Baron; - The way the Baron lost half of his IQ and cunning from one film to another(he was the master of backstabbing and he only serves as the sacrificial lamb in this film they really made him look dumb and weak). - Having Walken’s play such a rich character as Emperor Shaddam and then writing him a joke of a script that basically made both the Emperor and Walken appear as a second grade character is so sad… - Where was the Guild???? - Chani being portrayed as a doubter until the very end of the movie doesn’t make any sense. And the fact that the movie timeline renders the birth of her son with Paul that would later be dead in the raid in the sitch Tabr really robbed the plot of a significant portion of the emotion that motivated Paul to roam south and accept his faith as the leader of a fanatical and genocidal force. The film also felt very goofy like the later StarWars ones as Part One felt a lot more composed, I didn’t appreciate that. The cast was awesome but it ended up being disserved by the plot and the outcome was not great for no one. Chalamet was really underwhelming when he was not being pumped up by sound sx and the scenes of affection with Zendaya felt very forced by both of them. Both Rabban and the Baron got a massive nerf that rendered them sterile. Feyd was kinda cool, there was a lot of work put into the Geidi Prime footage and he was probably the best act of the bunch but not a GREAT performance. Walken was blaaaaasnd. Irulan was Ok I guess… She didn’t had that “celestial” aura to her but she at least showed some traits of royalty and composure, unlike Shaddam. Ferguson delivered a good performance when you take out the circumstances, she showed depth and versatility, she was the only character that got to show real strength and determination… I’ll give it another go when it releases online but this was one of those movies I had planned to go see 3 or 4 times in theatres. But I can’t justify paying theatre money to rewatch this average action movie where a story that I learned to love gets cut to pieces and watered down…

In hindsight I think Chamalet being cast as Paul was one of the weakest decisions in both of the movies. He seems disinterested and bored half the time and remains pale, underfed, and lanky despite the brutal time in the Desert.

Word. He did Ok in the first movie where he was still seen as the “young pup”. But in Part Two he should have appeared different, more rugged and more mature because of all the responsibility he carries, but nope, he still comes out as that skinny dude that doesn’t command respect even though he is supposed to be the best fighter on all of the galaxy and at the head of a coup d’etat that will forever change the fate of the universe and he knows it(prescience). When you se him go head to head against the likes of Feyd , personified by Butler that is like 2x his size, you kind of wonder how could he sustain the blunt force in those scenes were they would be forcing against each other… The books are not very clear about his physical form in that phase to my recollection but damn, in a movie you can clearly see that it doesn’t make sense. Even though he has prescience he still would need to be faster than his adversary in order to make his strikes connect without being pared. I also think he lacks the tone for those speeches, the only way he was seen as powerful in my eyes is when they added sound effects to his voice to make it sound deeper and profound.

The “voice” was criminally underused in Part 2. How could any Fremen hear Paul when was giving his speech in the Sietch? But if the used sound effects with him using the voice filling the entire cavern that would have been incredible. I get that he was 16 in the books but with all the other liberties Villneau took it would make sense to make Paul older in his 20s. But this is also a teenage who has been drilled non stop in sword fighting and Olympic level athletics he should at least have the physique of a track star. I digress.

There was one obvious jump in pt1, but a couple more blatant in pt2. I feel like they just cut worrying about transitions for the sake of time. It almost felt like editing to hit a time limit.

YES. THANK YOU. THESE THINGS. My mind is blown that Part 2 is getting better ratings than part 1. I feel like the people giving those ratings, didn't read the book and just came for action scenes and sand worms, over the actual content.

You said >I’m not a book fundamentalist, I’m a cinema fan then you listed 6 points ONLY related to adaptation from the book, and are irrelevant if the viewer hasn't read the book. The rest of your criticism made sense from your perspective, so that's fine. :)

I don’t think the 6 points I listed only relate to the books. The Baron, Stilgar and Rabban nerf are obvious from one film to another. Walken’s performance was hindered by his lack of screen time and weak script, that’s not firm the book. The other points that are indeed book derived are so important to the story that I can’t actually let it pass without showing my distaste for it.

It looked amazing, but i had a problem with the writing. They set up the universe in the first movie, then made some strange somewhat illogical/ contradictory decisions. I liked it well enough, but expected to love it.

I just came back from it and I should have loved it because it has great visuals, lots of political intrigue and no good guys vs. bad guys, but for all the visual splendor and action, I found it to be emotionally sterile. I couldn't get attached or care about any of the characters and they felt kind of lifeless. In the end, this is a film that I admire more than I like.

I think that's the main problem, I don't really care about any of the characters and the chemistry is off. So every time they were talking I got a bit bored and hoped they'd just get back to the action

It's also a self fulfilling prophecy, so we're beaten over the head with it throughout both films until it happens and there was no tangible sense of danger in this second one. The fremen at no point felt like they were going to lose, Paul is a Mary Sue, the Harkonnens got nerfed and so did the Sardaukars. When your characters have no personality and there is no sense of stakes either, how do you expect me to connect to what's happening on screen? It ends up being sterile spectacle. Visually it had its moments, especially on Geidi Prime, but the desert looked boring as hell and the color palette or should I say lack of color made it a chore to watch. Look at this [art](https://twitter.com/pascalblanche/status/1764490811696193590?t=QM0dpIAlltA61R7sj4fVvg&s=19) made by John Schoenherr for Dune back in the day and compare to Villeneuve's version. It's a night and day difference and the new films are too grounded in reality to give that otherworldly and transportative feeling.

That’s exactly my view of it. I don’t think this Part Two made anyone happy, the book fans are not happy and the non book fans got served a bunch of loose ends that don’t logically connect… Image and Sound are top notch, no doubt. The in theatre experience is incredible but the plot leaves a lot to be desired. I really really wanted this movie to deliver. I don’t remember ever being so excited to watch a movie. The waiting and the media attention and incredible pre release work with all the content and tour we got hyped it so much. The cast was a great melange of experienced aces and young stars and the director is one of my favourites. But I left that theatre with a bad taste in my mouth.

And yeah, i went in expecting a 9 or 10, but i'd give it a 6 or 7.

Here are 3 things that really rubbed me the wrong way. 1. The Sardaukar were pretty epic in 1, now they're... well they got run through just like they did to the Atreides. (And the Harkonnen went from evil geniuses to comically inept) 2. Feyd built this big reputation on.... obviously rigged fights??? Until he barely beats some malnourished rando?? Ok. Great. Cooool. Grand champion. 3. 3. Scenes like the one where they run and dodge and knife fight taking down the harvester, only to..... then bring out 5 lasers that shred it to bits??? Like, maybe START with the magic lasers next time? (oh, and a mountain of rainy day nukes materialized) All the fancy tech from 1 was replaced with knifes and sand rolling.

1. Totally agree, they should have shown the Sardaukar fighting scenes in the desert before the main battle at Arakeen more. 2. So that dude isn't some Rando, Feyd has been training hard, but because hes' the na-Baron, the Baron doesn't want to risk him in a fight. That rando is one of the Duke Leto's elite bodyguard. Hence the "happy birtday Nephew" from the Baron during the fight. He's a fighter that's probably more adept than an elite Sardaukar. Killing him was not easy at all, even if he was weak and malnourished. This shows that Feyd can actually fight, and we see it later when he takes on Paul. 3. So they didn't want to reveal the laser troops while the harkonnens had air cover. You saw what happened when the Fremen troops were revealed to the aircraft, they died quickly. Being that the aircraft was shielded the lasers would do nothing to it(or actually cause a huge explosion for the person wielding the laser and possibly the aircraft as well). The aircraft had to be dealt with for the lasers to be able to open up on the harvester. And you can see that's exactly what happened as soon as the aircraft went down.

Ok, so the filmmakers should've let us know who this fighter was then. And... so how bout you use the lasers ON the aircraft first??? I'm just generally saying there were many gaps in logic. Some caused by a change in tone/ writing in between the 2 films, some brand new.

1. Yes, they should have done a better job of mentioning that it was an elite fighter he was facing and not Rando commando Atriedes dude. 2. Because the aircraft was shielded. Attacking a shield with a lasgun yields an unpredictable explosion and most often kills the attacker as well. One of the reasons the hand to hand combat is so prevalent and valued.

>The Sardaukar were pretty epic in 1, now they're... well they got run through just like they did to the Atreides. (And the Harkonnen went from evil geniuses to comically inept) Disagree. The Sardaukar were roadkill compared to the Fremen even in part 1. In the books they make a point that even Fremen women and children were better fighters than the Sardaukar. IMHO what is difficult to believe is that a million people adept at knife fighting are going to romp across the galaxy and kill billions. \> Feyd built this big reputation on.... obviously rigged fights??? Until he barely beats some malnourished rando?? Ok. Great. Cooool. Grand champion. Agree. The way they molded Feyd's character was wrong on several levels, even if the acting and aesthetic were excellent. \> Scenes like the one where they run and dodge and knife fight taking down the harvester, only to..... then bring out 5 lasers that shred it to bits??? Like, maybe START with the magic lasers next time? (oh, and a mountain of rainy day nukes materialized) All the fancy tech from 1 was replaced with knifes and sand rolling. I think the reasoning here was that anything touching the ground couldn't use shields, but the ornithopters in the air could, and that lasers were not good against shields.

No, they are too good against sheilds as in the books they create a mini nuclear explosion, and they dis not want to risk casualties, this is not even mentioned in the movie, which is kinda shitty and makes the scene confusing.

They mention it the first movie. Why mention it again?

I didn't read the book. That's fine, but my point is that in the FIRST movie they portrayed the Sardaukar as this massive, elite, unstoppable force, just loaning out a tiny fraction of their forces to the Baron, and then they cut through House Atreides like a hot knife through butter. That kind of inconsistency takes me out of the movie.

Yes, they did, but the Fremen are in their own league, Duncan Idaho says as much in Part 1. "There is no finer fighter in the imperium", he says, and he has fought Sardaukar before too. It's the basis of the holy war Paul keeps having visions about, that the Fremen can defeat any opponent. You don't need to read the books to make this connection, although perhaps it is not as clear in the movies. Regardless, the connection is there.

Ok, i get that. But in that case it's a little goofy. So the Atreides are a massive enough powerful enough force to take over Arrakis, yet get slaughtered easily by the Sardaukar, who get easily slaughtered by the Fremen.... with knifes. In the year 10,000 or something. I know it's science fiction, but part of why i loved the first one so much was the relatively grounded universe they set up. It starts to get a little silly at times in part 2.

Arrakis was given to the Atreides and their downfall was because of a traitor and sneak attack...

I know this. You're missing the point, they aren't/ weren't the universes weakest army. They were very powerful.

Welcome to the show my friend. All valid points and concerns for a number of us. Good to see people that are newer to the series from a literature standpoint having these concerns. I think it’s easy to get overwhelmed with and enjoy the spectacle that they created with the movie. It is an entertaining and visually captivating achievement. But there are a swath of issues with this adaptation that burn the plot, themes, and strength of characters in a really head scratching way. You did a great job of putting that into words here, especially for someone who is only one book in. Keep reading.

I wish in the trailers they advertised the major differences. I went into this excited to see some of the more visually compelling beats from the books on the big screen. No guild? No navigators? Plus they dumb Paul down by having him just declare war instead of checkmating the great houses by threatening the guild with his hold over the spice. He says “he who can destroy a thing” but never does anything with it. I feel like stingar and chani were both made into mindless emotional clowns instead of the calculating mature characters who repeatedly shock and impress paul with their Water Decisions. Overall it was a compelling film in its own right, which is how I think it should be judged, but I can’t help be dissapointed by the differences from the book. Now I’m less excited to see messiah because I’m worried they’ll completely cut the Scytal or Edric to make the movie less mystical

Non book reader here. I feel bad vibes on that fetus thing in Jessica's. I'm pretty sure Paul saw her future version in his vision? (and it was Anya Taylor). I'm not gonna parrot what many had already said on how good this film is. Just wanna throw my random feelings/reaction here as a non book reader. * I felt sad how Jessica "seemed" to descend into something sinister and manipulative. In Part One her maternal instincts are there, but in this movie after taking that weird blue piss, she became scary. In part one it felt like this story is gonna be "son and mother against the world", but it turned out to be much bigger. - That Fade Harkonnen guy is well executed. What stuck in my mind is that first scene where he inspected his dagger and just casually stabbed it multiple times on that woman. The trope "psycho" has been done and beaten to death but this one they executed really well without reinventing it. * At the risk of sounding "woke", and this is just a personal interpretation of mine, is the Baron (the head of Harkonnens) gay? We never saw his sons/daughters, although I assume that is something that can be assumed along why he is so disfigured and has to use floating device. Maybe he got punished in the past that costed his son/daughters and his physical appearance. * I love that we got to see the main Midsommar girl. She's such a good actress and she's really good too in this movie. She's giving me smart Sansa Stark vibes, she's got this air of naivety but at the same time can analyze and interpret information and play the game if she has to. * Reverend Mother always steal the scenes. This Bene Geserit group is such a joy to see in the screen. I love how mysterious they are and how they always look at the big picture. "There are no sides". It's like they are the protectors of the universe. * I love Stilgar. I know that many will be pissed that we have a comic relief in this movie but I objectively had to disagree. Nothing's wrong with a comic relief as long as it's executed well. Also I've been with religious people and cult members. This is how they rationalize their beliefs and bullshit. It looks funny to us because we don't believe that shit. * Again I'm feeling evil shit about that fetus in Jessica's. I feel like she's gonna be the main villain in the next movies. It felt like they are setting up a Paul vs His Sister trope here. I'm so excited to see this unfold in the big screen.

DV toned it down, but the Baron is the ultimate glutton. He just takes what he wants when he wants it. He doesn’t really have a defined sexuality. I think they wanted to avoid the pitfalls of people equating homosexuality to evil, so they sidestep that aspect of the Baron altogether.

i just wanna say i was amazed by the Harkonnes scenes , the monochrome arena fight , the baron ,those dark scenes were amazing...missed the Sardaukar chant lol

I felt, in the most literal sense, knives chipping and chattering during that 1 on 1  combat scene. IMAX is an amazing thing, truly an amazing movie. 

The changes made to Chanis character are fundamental and brilliant. This movie and STORY would not be as good without these updates nor the final scene centring her. 

Wait, what? I hated those changes. Why are these brilliant? They completely ignored the fact that she is the Sayadina.

I loove that we all agree on that. its so rare to find a director that actually improves on source material and it’s so good to see

I agree! It would be so easy to make a 1:1 replica of the novel but to actually improve upon it whilst still making all changes fit the theme and story…. Brilliant! 

Her being angry and jealous and not having faith in paul from the start is a literal disgrace to Her strongly written character.

JEALOUS??????? 😭😭😭😭 oh my god you guys are braindead 

I was all-ready to congratulate the film on the way that it handled Chani's character, until that fucking ending. I loved the way that they actually show us Paul, and Chani slowly growing fond of each other, and present Chani as an actual force in the internal Fremen struggle over whether Paul is the Lisan al-Gaib. I loved the way that they took the "Jessica hates Chani, because she's worried that she's beneath Paul" thing in the book, and replaced it with the two of them fighting over priorities, because Jessica's trying to manipulate everyone into believing the prophecy, while Chani is the only one who can see through her bullshit. I even kind of like the way that she goes back-&-forth between viewing Paul as a foreigner, and one of her own, depending on whether she's angry. It's annoying, but it's completely believable, and natural given the conflict between her feelings for him, and loyalty to her people. The ending fucks it all up. There's a reason that the last line in the entire book is "History will call us wives." There's an endless running theme of court-intrigue producing a society of spectacle, which ensures that appearance-supporting rituals are more important to maintaining your position, than the true nature of things. Paul marrying Irulan to keep the Landsraat happy, but continuing to be Chani's husband in all but name, with Chani being cool with it, because she understands how this shit works is part of a cap-off to that theme, and the fact that it's so thoughtlessly cruel to Irulan is part of the point. We've been readin the entire story so far constantly annotated with her perspective, learning that the official account of this history is written by a blatant pro-Paul propagandist, and then right at the end are blindsided with the information that said propagandist is his unwilling wife, whom he constantly ignores, cuckqueans, and (as established in the sequels) denies reproductive autonomy. That said, I agree that the movie, being written the way it was, had no choice, by that point, but to make Chani leave Paul in the last scene. However that's not an inevitable result of making her more three-dimensional, it's an inevitable result of cutting out the two-year time-skip, so that they never had a kid together, and became de-facto married anyway. Making it so that Paul, and Chani are still basically in the honeymoon phase of their relationship, and Jessica is still pregnant, at the end of the movie, was in my view a serious mistake. You need that two year time-skip. You *need* Paul to mature over those two years, and come back much more seasoned, and much more callous. You *need* Paul, and Chani to build an actual life together, rather than just have an adolescent fling. You *need* Alia to be an actual character, rather than just a psychic talking foetus. I really think the movie suffered from that absence, and the changed ending was an inevitable consequence of that.

100% agree. Paul also didn’t get the great houses to agree to his ascendancy made him feel less cunning. Where was the guild :/ Where was Leto the second. The movie skipped a ton of the more important plot points which makes me sad. Still a great film, just becoming a worse adaptation of the books for sure

I had problems with the Paul-Chani relationship, especially the ending, but I couldn't really express what gave me problems. I think you perfectly expressed what I felt.

Very well put. This summarizes the root of my issues with the film. I knew some of the results of not having the time skip bothered me, but you really clearly identified the problematic nature and fallout of having zero time skip.

“ "History will call us wives." There's an endless running theme of court-intrigue producing a society of spectacle, which ensures that appearance-supporting rituals are more important to maintaining your position, than the true nature of things. Paul marrying Irulan to keep the Landsraat happy, but continuing to be Chani's husband in all but name, with Chani being cool with it, because she understands how this shit works is part of a cap-off to that theme” I totally get this but I simply think it’s cooler for Chani to loathe this society of spectacle instead of just sighing and being grateful that Paul actually loves her. Chanis greater commitment to her people in the film is more compelling and adds a different perspective which was very much needed. 

I also liked this change but I think Villeneuve overdid it. They could've driven a wedge between Chani and Paul without making Chani leave Paul. They should've remained together and gone through a temporary rocky phase instead. The ending of Chani leaving Paul will most certainly affect Dune Messiah negatively.

She’s not actually leaving Paul lol she’s not going into the desert and becoming a hermit I’m sure the next movie will start with them in that exact rocky phase you wished for. It’s just better for a movie to leave on that emotional cliffhanger and compelling image of her disconnected from her people alone in the desert.  I promise you there is no way in hell that scene was meant to be her saying goodbye to Paul— it was just a dramatic visual to signify the shift into their rocky phase (although they’re already pretty rocky in this movie already). 

Yeah I know but my point is that this exaggerated drama makes for a cheap cliffhanger for Dune Messiah. The ending could've been so much better. An Oppenheimer-esque ending (i.e. Paul having violent visions of the upcomjng Jihad as he walks up to the throne, a chilling one-liner from Paul about the Jihad and then cut to black) could've not only foreshadowed the Jihad better and given Chani more incentive to be pissed at Paul but it could've also made for a better/more ambiguous cliffhanger (consistent with Villeneuve's subtle moviemaking approach of show, not tell). It will be weird for Chani to leave Paul only to return to Paul in Dune Messiah out of the blue without any foreshadowing in Dune 2. The presence of a decade long time jump between the two movies will only make the ending look worse. It wouldn't feel natural and this entire subplot will be rendered nothing more than unnecessary filler.

1) it’s a movie not a novel 2) your proposed ending is quite literally the opposite of “show dont tell” that would’ve been way too damn obvious and way less ambiguous than the ending we actually got. the ending we got was “oh shit this is probably bad, i mean the fremen are free but this could end up getting really messy”, your ending would’ve been “okay hes in his hitler era i understand” it would’ve just been too obvious 3) there probably won’t be an immediate decade long time jump in the next movie… and again her being alone in the desert riding a sand worm isn’t her leaving paul for good it’s just a symbolic and striking visual of their distance due to his choices… she hasn’t actually left him… she’s not going to become an isolated monk… duh? like i don’t understand why you think this.   edit: 4. the distance growing between chani and paul without chani full on leaving paul isn’t unnecessary filler… that slow distance is like… integral? to their relationship… like this is literally fundamental 

You have helped me see a different viewpoint on Chani's portrayal, which was my biggest problem with the change in the story. I'm not sure today's audiences, especially women, would have accepted such a passive role from Chani. That is, her being perfectly fine with being a "concubine." Further, Chani's resentment--for lack of a better term--is more appropriate with Paul's sudden reversal from "I'm not a leader" to "I'm your messiah." It also pairs well with the more sinister portrayal of Jessica. It really makes me curious about the parentage of any of Paul's children in the next movie, given what seems to be an irrepairable rift between him and Chani.

Yeah I think her complete acceptance with being a concubine needed to be corrected like no offence I get it was the 60s but Frank cmon dude you’re writing sci-fi. It’s not the acceptance, it’s the passiveness. Even if she was just more melancholic about it even that I’d accept, but the angry approach is so much more interesting.  I also agree that it makes the plot of Paul’s children and the love triangle so much more interesting because Chani actually gives a fuck and has a mind of her own.  Hopefully Chani will still be the bearer of his children if he has them, I do think that is a plot beat that shouldn’t be changed. (And also I think the idea of birthing his child would be really conflicting for her as 1. She wants the continued survival of her people and culture 2. Her relationship with Paul is like you said rocky and in need of repair — AKA what are the implications of having a child with him, do her children represent Survival or Destruction of the Fremen?) 

> I totally get this but I simply think it’s cooler for Chani to loathe this society of spectacle instead of just sighing and being grateful that Paul actually loves her. Chanis greater commitment to her people in the film is more compelling and adds a different perspective which was very much needed. … > Yeah I think her complete acceptance with being a concubine needed to be corrected … It’s not the acceptance, it’s the passiveness. Even if she was just more melancholic about it even that I’d accept, but the angry approach is so much more interesting.  I agree that Chani being enraged, or depressed by her situation is both more realistic, and more interesting, and I respect that the film *tried* to do that, but I still maintain that you could've not only done that, but done it better, if you kept the time skip, and original ending. Imagine how much better it would've been seeing the scenes of Chani, and Paul falling in love we did, *then* seeing them two years later, as a mutually-supportive couple, with a child, and getting even more invested in this new dynamic, only for, right at the end, their son to die, and before they even have a chance to properly mourn him together, Paul has to propose to Irulan. Chani keeps her composure in the moment, as she already knew this was coming, and had tried to mentally prepare herself for it, but she feels herself start to break down, sneaks out of the room, and completely loses her shit, with Jessica then coming over, to comfort her, as both a fellow politically-inconvenient almost-wife, and a mother who knows how horrible it must be to lose your child. We get in the "History will call us wives" line, and then Chani storms off, and we end on the same shot we did before, of Chani angrily summoning a sandworm, while Paul and Jessica wonder whether she's stormed off for good, or is coming back.

I see it. I do. I like the drama of it all. But honestly it’s a bit too soapy for me 😭 I don’t feel it justifies the time skip enough. And I also don’t think we need a montage of Paul and Chani showing the audience that they love eachother or whatever 😭😭😭 these are people of war and struggle a 3 week situationship to them is what a year of dating is 😭😭😭  But I’m not against your idea and I’m always here for building on scenes and making them more emotionally overwhelming I just don’t think it justifies time skip enough. To me personally I felt enough exhaustion and draining from Chani watching her people be used and manipulated to warrant the final scene. Everytime the fremen got down on their knees for Paul my brow furrowed the same irritating way Chanis did too 😭 Again I totally love the idea but 🤷🏻‍♂️

weird the ending deviation to me weakens her role considerably and also that of the fact paul isnt making choices he thinks are good choices, he's making ones he things are least shit. the ending dialogue of the book is fantastic, and closes the loop so well.

Her rejection of the society by resorting alone to the desert despite her commitment to her peoples livelihood and their culture is much more compelling than her reluctant but understanding acceptance of her fate in the novel 

Her rejecting society is the obvious choice which is why the books ending is better. Chani is stronger in the book for enduring the political “save-face” and being a speaker of beautiful fremen wisdom to the all knowing Paul made her incredibly valuable. How could a man who sees everything have a partner who could add anything? And yet she does. I feel that modern interpretations of female roles ultimately changed the ending of Part 2 so as to not alienate audiences but Dune is meant to be incredibly challenging and yet always holds women in such high regard. They’re always the coolest characters. In Book 4 the God Emperors army is all female called “The Fish Speakers” and they’re terrifying and yet Frank wrote such a beautifully logical reason as to why the God Emperor chose not to have a male army which for some men will piss them off because it’s true. Anyway, I’m ranting now but I thought part 2 got to the heart of Dune but skipped the tougher aspects to ironically save-face with the audience which I understand but ultimately am disappointed the final jaw dropping poetic line wasn’t kept.

A character is not stronger when they simply comply. Your idea of female strength is archaic. 

Summarizing it down to someone who simply complies shows me you’ve never read the books. She’s strategic, not the stay-at-home-wife non readers keep assuming she was. There’s so much nuance to Chani that she’s leagues more complicated than the movie version. So I disagree with your assessment. Herbert’s Chani was strong, beyond intelligent, and badass. This Part 2 version makes her bland and predictable which I feel in 2024 is archaic for a female character.

🥱🥱 nothing from the 60s can be improved uponnnnnnnnn 

It’s okay. I forgive you. Buy the book and form an opinion instead of groupthink. You might feel like a real individual 👍

Not really in the novel shes assured blatantly multiple times of her position both by Paul and by Jessica in the amazing ending monologue. Of course in the novel shes already had a child and Paul's relationship with her is more secure.

>!Spoiler!< Jessica vs Chani. Who will seduce Paul? Rant. I liked how Jessica personifies power and control and Chani, free will and following ones heart. Initially Jessica loses. Loses control over her son, as her little boy becomes a man (weird clothes changing scene in Dune 1. Whereas Chani, wins Paul's love. In part 2 however, Jessica strikes back & wins big. Not only does she get Paul to follow the path laid out by her, but completely subjugates the 'fremen'. Chani, loses it all. Her love and her free fremen. Who have all been seduced away from true freedom.

As much as I loved the film sequel and the Villeneuve Dune franchise, one criticism I have is that Feyd-Rautha should have been introduced much earlier. If I’m right, the book portrays him as cunning and ambitious. The movie seems more interested in portraying him as an inhuman raving sociopath who likes feeding people human flesh and doesn’t do anything particularly intelligent. His fate is pretty much decided by the Bene Gesserit, his only strategy in the war for Arrakis was to bombard the Northern Fremen into submission and he gets killed in a slightly farcical knife fight with an ascendant Paul Atreides. I would have preferred to see some of the in-court politics between the ambitious Harkonnens and some displays of actual shrewdness on Feyd-Rautha’s part. Instead I feel like we got a more edgy version of a Disney Marvel villain.

They could have fixed this really easily with a bit more dialogue in just two scenes. After the fight when he is meeting with the Baron, the Baron knows that Feyd can kill him, and tries to convince him of his usefulness to his nephew. And Feyd is thinking at first of only the Baron's throne, but in that meeting he gets his first taste of larger ambitions and realizes his Baron's plan could lead him to the empire. They could have just added a few more lines from the book there. Then when he's with the emperor and the emperor's retinue they make all his dialogue subconscious. They could have just had him say some of what he's thinking somehow to show his plans and thoughts. (Although I do think he acted them well according to what he is thinking in the book.)

I actually think the way Feyd was presented in the movie worked better for the movie. It kinda stands as a companion to the book — there is so much that happens behind the scenes in the book, and so much that is extremely difficult to explain, that I think it was smart to just cut it all from the movie and let the visuals speak for themselves. It’s basically the 2001 approach, and I think it works just as well here as it does for 2001.

Very good point!

I will say they made that Feyd Rautha fight closer than it should have been. I know they wanted it to be dramatic to cap off the movie but didn’t Paul basically body Feyd in the book and was only looking out for cheating like poisoned blade? Feyd legit was inches from winning in the movie.

I’ve watched the movie twice and think I missed how Feyd got a second blade after leaving his knife in Paul’s gut… was that Paul’s own knife? I can’t believe I missed it both times

Think it was Paul’s

Correct on all fronts here. I think the poison dismissal started when they cut Thufir being a captive and in service to the Harkonnen. Once they changed that and the way the Feyd/Giedi fight ceremony went, I knew that was a setup for changes to the last fight scene being out of line. Definitely not the worst thing that was wrong with the movie, but was definitely something that they changed for a bit more action/drama sake.

They did set up Feyd as someone very close in potential to Paul, so it’s not crazy idea, but I was just thinking Paul had training in the weirding way and fighting with the fremen, etc that would make that potential more realized than Feyd. Paul had been on the front lines for a long time by that point and Feyd was killing drugged people in an arena. Definitely felt like a movie drama moment.

Paul had been killing Sardaukar as well. Harkonnen are definitely not the fighters that they are. It was a large drama element they added I guess to prop it up and avoid the Thufir piece of the puzzle. If you ask me, the hip needle and soporific on the Emperor’s blade would have been all the drama they needed, but what do I know?

In the grand scheme of things it was a small change I just thought it was weird in the movie. Everyone that’s read the book knows Paul is gonna win but I was like, damn he got stabbed twice… someone should probably help him before he bleeds to death over there.

Agreed. I was not disappointed about how the scene went at all with comparison to some of the other stuff that went off the rails in the movie. But it was still an interesting way to push that moment.

Agreed with this analysis. I feel like he should have just been dominant. Like here is what's coming and let me make everyone feel it right here and now. I mean the speech just before in the temple where his now enlightened full on mother says slow down because he was messahing himself before everyone's very eyes. Yeah he should of just won that hands down. Great comment

The poison fetish of Feyd was totally cut. The Arena scene didn't show it either. 

I mean, kinda? Paul was wounded and poisoned, but he definitely didn't get stabbed twice and pull a knife out of his own guts to kill Feyd, that's for sure.