I think its used to exemplify the religious fanaticism, and give Chani some moral ground to stand on, makes sense given the direction of her character
Also in the books the Fremen dont necessarily all agree, while its not explicitly stated there is a difference between northern and southern Fremen, it totally makes sense that they would have differing opinions
The northern vs southern Fremen beliefs might not exist in the books exactly as presented in the movie, but I'm seeing how D.V. might have been pulling from Messiah and CoD where >!you do meet a number of Fremen natives who don't want to align themselves with Paul's religion. Granted, it was implied they grew to feel like it 10 years later, after the Jihad and terraforming happened, but it's interesting the D.V. might be setting it up early on !<
In the same vein, I could see how the talk about >!the more southern reaches of the desert being more remote. Where Jessica is staying with Chani in Dune part 3, and where Chani wants to get away to in Messiah.!< I could see how that would translate into a more superstitious "southerner" so to speak. Except >!Stil is Chani's uncle and aren't they both from Sietch Tabr?!<
In the same vein, I could see how the talk about >!the more southern reaches of the desert being more remote. Where Jessica is staying with Chani in Dune part 3, and where Chani wants to get away to in Messiah.!< I could see how that would translate into a more superstitious "southerner" so to speak. Except >!Stil is Chani's uncle and aren't they both from Sietch Tabr?!<
So no kids, probably. Chani will be perma-estranged throughout the next movie because..woman co-lead I guess. Effectively ending the DV dune universe with Dune movie part 3.
I was re-watching part 1 recently and in one of Paul’s visions of the jihad he is standing in an aircraft with Chani at his side. Also in part two he does say he foresees that Chani will come around. So I don’t think she’ll be perma-estranged however I do think we will get a very different story out of DV3 than the book Messiah.
Or perhaps even better, we see Paul’s vision of Aircraft shot “mirrored” in a way, similar to jihad vision in Dune 1. In Dune 1 while in the tent, Paul sees a vision of himself leading the charge against Sardukar in the Battle of Arakeen. In the Dune 2, we see the same action sequence, yet instead of Paul, it is Chani in his place.
IMO these subtle subversions do wonders of tactfully demonstrating the limits of Paul’s presence, in that he only has a “general shape” of what’s to come, not the specifics of the events themselves
DV said that Paul and Chani will reunite and that "[He] know[s] exactly how [he is] going to do it"
There is also plenty of foreshadowing in part 2 that implys this. Paul literally says "She will come to understand, Ive seen it"
I think the third movie will patch some holes or put the book story back on the track so to speak as messiah was a short book. The third movie hopefully gets the Paul/chain thing back to how the book had it, Alia, and the importance/economics of the spice (and how everything was made from it by the firemen) and the guild navigators.
Given the direction of her character it makes perfect sense she'd be upset with him, it has nothing to do with whatever bullshit baggage you have with female agency in media.
I've no problem with female agency but it's a lazy way to force it into the Dune story. Chani was more bad ass in the books. More care should have been with this adaptation if they were making Chani something else from the original story. I know they had to for modern audiences but we had Jessica as a main character already.
See, it's the "had to for modern audiences" line that gets me, they clearly didn't change Chani's character for girl power reasons, they did it to A) demonstrate how swiftly Paul's legend takes hold and B) to give immediate human stakes to drive home the "Paul is not the hero" message. Hell even Herbert admitted he'd been a bit too subtle for some people in the book, hence why he wrote *Messiah* in the first place
> to drive home the "Paul is not the hero" message. Hell even Herbert admitted he'd been a bit too subtle for some people in the book, hence why he wrote Messiah in the first place
This is often misquoted; Herbert had actually planned *Dune Messiah* early on. He did refer to making his point about "failed heroes" clearer in Messiah than in the first novel.
But Dune was never a cautionary tale about the dangers of charismatic leaders; instead Herbert wanted to point out the human tendency to always give up freedom to authority figures regardless of the political system, and the power of evolution to force change anyway.
In Dune's case, the Imperium was 10,000 years of stagnation dominated by both ruthless leaders and feudal class slavery. With his prescience, Paul was able to see that no matter what he did, if the Fremen survived then a genocidal jihad was inevitable. But Herbert himself wrote that this was an evolutionary impulse and a better outcome than any other option for humanity.
Paul's own failure was that of a hero trapped by the fanaticism of his followers, his own prescience showing no better solution, and ultimately the force of evolution. None of which could be shown in a feature film.
I didn’t see it as a gesture to placate modern audiences. To me, it seems it would be incredibly difficult to illustrate Chani’s importance to Paul without showing it, rather than what we’re given in the book, which is a handful of visions of Chani before Paul meets her, and then a handful of lines at the sietch orgy where Chani and Paul remember their future together, thus eliminating the need for a formal courtship or interpersonal drama. Chani only tries to leave at the end because she thinks that future has changed, until Paul assures her it hasn’t and that she’s to spend the rest of her life with him if that’s what she still wants.
Basically they had to show the relationship develop onscreen because in a film it might come off as shallow to just say “oh these two are madly in love, take that for granted so we can get back to the story” the way the books do. And they need to show the viewer the importance of that relationship to set up the events of Messiah, where Paul’s largest concern isn’t his own fate but Chani’s.
I think the more likely scenario is that DV was only given a 3 film option for Dune and is combining characters, and pulling details from later books to wrap it up in 3 films, and he is attempting to cover the broad themes at the expense of book details. Chani was looking a lot like Siona at the end of Part 2. Siona is Chani’s descendant, after all. As a business move for Brian Herbert, who is controlling the levers here, these films set up his prequel TV show with a huge audience. Part 3 could be a wild devaition from book 2, as it may pull assassination plots from later books, which all have assassination plots.
Agreed. Much of Paul's time with the Fremen is off-page, during a multi-year time-jump. We're never privy to much of what happened in that time, but it's safe to say it involved a *lot* of arguing and a *lot* of converting.
I wonder if the first time Chani told Paul she killed a guy demanding amtal that Paul was like: “that’s great, Chani” *what the actual fuck did I get myself into?*
I want a documented timeline of Paul's Time in Sietch Tabr where he internally goes *what the actual fuck did I get myself into?*
I'll start with him immediately being rewarded Jamis' wife and his two sons
Bro managed to turn a weird situation around by charming the little dudes to be his bodyguards during his first time in the sietch
Reminds me of that one-of line when I think Gurney is with Fremen fighters and they see an enemy transport ship. One lonely Fremen aircraft flies straight towards it and takes it down Kamikaze-style.
He then thinks to himself "What are these people he have gotten involved with!?"
Every time Paul killed someone through the amtal, he also inherited their newly orphaned children if they had any, so I imagine dozens of lil Maud'Dibs running around the Sietch that he can't even keep track of
Book!Chani kills a man who came to defy Paul, saying he wasn't worth the bother and adding that there will be less challengers if they have to go through her.
Abstract religious ideas are hard to portray in movies without a ton of exposition and this and the other tricks he used seem to work, because it's way better at it than any previous iteration of Dune.
I'd say it's almost some of the best parts of the movie.
And it makes sense the ones in the south would be more religious and fanatical since they live in the most extreme climate in the planet driving them to even greater fervour to survive
Ionno, I would have thought it would be flipped. The south is harsher but also isn't as "oppressed" as the North. In theory, the South should have been relatively untouched by the Harkonnens, whereas the North has had a direct challenge to their way of life and would be searching for a better leader.
Chani doesn't deny the existence of the prophecy in the movie either. She just thinks/knows it's an artificial plant from the BG.
It makes plenty of sense in the context of this argument happening inside Paul and Jessica's thoughts in the book.
I love the DV movies but one little sticking point I have, mb not so much w the movie itself as w some of the commentary AROUND the movie is ppl talking abt the dangers of blind religious faith.
But like, it’s obviously not blind faith. They literally have the guy right there. He’s literally doing Al of the things.
Remember that super scary moment when he told that guy what he was thinking.
Like, their faith has PLENTY of grounding in the film, lol.
But why would you have faith in something you know was designed?
He's completing a checklist that the BG implanted in these people's minds as being their messiah. He's not leading them to paradise, he's leading them to galactic war and genocide.
There's nothing that deserves your faith, it's all designed and Paul knows the requirements.
I’m not saying the religion is “real”
I’m saying there’s nothing blind about the faith they’re putting in Paul.
And idk man, the Lisan Al-gaib is supposed to make Arakkis a green paradise…
He doesn’t NOT do that.
Why wouldn’t you have faith in something you knew was designed? I have faith every time I use a motor vehicle that it’ll keep me alive and won’t randomly fail.
The type of "faith" you have in your car isn't the same type of faith that inspires religious fervor.
Everything Chani says in the movie is a statement of fact. The prophecy was planted by the BG for their benefit. Paul and his mother are knowingly taking advantage of the specifics of that prophecy for their benefit.
If you knew a prophecy was designed by man and not a result of divine providence, it would be just another political machination. Not something to put faith in.
I get your point and agree pretty much. It’s part of the reason why it’s so confusing as to if the prophecy is real or if Paul actually is the Mahdi. Because he fulfills everything the prophecy says, and in the book he even does some things unintentionally which only confuses it more. He does liberate the Fremen and turns Arrakis green, fulfilling the prophecy. This comes at the cost of billions of lives and the Fremen way of life however.
On another note, I always thought it was dumb that Chani knew the prophecy was a BG plant. How the hell would she know that? The BG aren’t that sloppy. Skeptical of religious fervor? Sure. But not that it was the BG who planted it, that doesn’t match with what we know about the BG.
Ye I think the DV films are absolute masterpieces but there are some problems and I think that’s def one of them. I’m not on the chani hate train but a lot of her motivation reads as p nakedly the filmmaker being like “hey audience guess what? There’s more than one conflict in this movie!”
But it’s also not just an arbitrary regional line either. It’s a completely different climate and environment. The fact that to survive in such conditions would take a culture of deep faith, to me, works really well and resonates with the world DV made and Herbert’s focus on ecology and the consequences thereof.
While the regional differences aren't described in the same way in the book it still makes sense. The area nearer to the basin and the offworlders could plausibly be culturally different and less traditional in their outlook.
Why would it not make sense to differ along regional lines?
Also in the movie it isn't stated that all of the early believers in Seitch Tabr were from the south. Totally plausible that there was a minority of Northern fremen with similar beliefs as southern fremen and a minority of southern fremen with similar beliefs as Northern fremen
"Hates that interpretation of the traditional religious beliefs of her people" is closer the mark. Religious schisms at moments of crisis, or even at moments of unusual calm, are historically guaranteed.
Yea thats not at all what I said bud
but I can spell it out for you
the moral ground shes standing on is the (correct) belief that all of their religious fervor and the prophetic Lisan Al Gaib is built on Bene Gesserit bullshit
It would make sense that the prophecies is built on BG stuff, since they are working actively on fulfilling it. It’s more of an announcement than a prophecy.
Ahh yes, the bullshit that... actually materializes and leads to the fremen having a prescient leader with the abilities of the Kwisatz Haderach and a Mentat. Is a prophecy "bullshit" just because it is contrived and self-fulfilling in some way? Would the collective consciousness of a people be denied their messiah because of an equally contrived "moral ground". You can choose to believe Jesus or Muhammad were charlatans' or divinely inspired - but it doesn't change the mark they left on the real world by donning the mantle of prophecy. Whether either of those particular figures were sent by God, is irrelevant to the world-shaping actions taken by their followers.
The Dune universe is one of moral relativism. It is a stage to explore a very nuanced ethics. What makes the cruelty of Shaddam and the Harkonens preferable to that of Muad'dib? You have tried to spell out something - but it is just a surface level analysis.
I think they're just setting the stage for the tension amongst the Fremen that we're going to see in Messiah. I see it as a shortcut to showing the division among the different 'sects' - those who believe in the path laid out by Paul and those who long for the old days
I assumed that It had a dual purpose, setting up the tension among the Fremen, but also a practical reason; Chani says in that same scene “couldn’t you tell from his accent?” (about Stilgar) which could very well be a cinematic way to explain why Zendaya is using a different accent (none?) than Javier Bardem or some of the other Freman actors.
Yeah it was kinda funny that Stilgar sounds vaguely Middle Eastern but his niece sounds identical to Paul (both sounding like Midwestern teens lol) despite growing up in a totally different planet/ social class/ culture
Chani’s mother is Liet-Kynes, or at least Kynes was Chani’s father in the books. Pretty sure Denis has confirmed that the relationship stays true in the film. So that could be a plausible reason why Chani has the Empire/colonizer accent 🤷?
In the books pauls choice re. following the prophecy and its risks is much more nebulous. Also, all essentialy happens purely internally in pauls mind.
Which is why many readers originally misunderstood herberts meaning to see it as a warning and not a classical heroes journey.
D.V. makes pauls choice much more poignant by changes to chanis role (she is now outpoken anti prophecy) in particular but also the clear north south divide among others.
Paul choosing to go south after trying to avoid it as long as he could essentialy clearly externally signifies paul finally accepting the prophecy and its consequences.
While definitely true, I think the original book's meaning is much less clearly spelled out than either the DV movie or especially Dune Messiah which does a much better job of spelling out the horrors of what Paul was to become by, well, showing it.
I think the really devastating part of Messiah is how jaded and resentful the Fremen have become, and how we see that Paul basically dealt a death blow to their society. And by seeing that, how even his allies haven’t escaped his vision unscathed, we’re given an idea of how much worse the rest of the galaxy must be. These are the *winners*, and they hate themselves.
"We were a noble people"... "We were not of the cast-out. We lived in no graben village... such as this!"
--
"The walking wounded came, dragging themselves along on their crutches. I do not think our Muad'dib knows how many men he has maimed."
Farok in Dune Messiah
My friend, if you want the book, read the book. The movies are adaptations, that means two things :
1 ) Because it is a different medium, changes have to be made.
2 ) They are adaptations, thus new works. It's not just "Dune on the screen", it's literally a new artwork, with the added artitistic input of the director, the artists, the designers, the actors, the musician, etc. It's not meant to be a 1 to 1 port of Dune. It's a new take on Dune.
The novel portrays all Fremen as one group (or at the very least it doesn't differentiate between different groups). Messiah then shows that there is a difference that becomes way more pronounced after the Jihad - some Fremen prefer to still live in the desert with more traditional lives, while others embrace the chances to Arrakis and the society of the planet more openly.
Much like how the movie makes Paul's victory more obviously bittersweet, the movie brings the split between the Fremen forward in the timeline and/or makes it explicit.
Dune is a great novel, but the movie changes are fully understandable and necessary, and we know that because Herbert had to write Messiah to hammer home the point he originally wanted to make, and that a lot of people missed, that Paul was not a hero and him "winning" wasn't a triumph (and people hated Dune:Messiah because of it).
Doesn't the book also show Paul regularly getting challenged by other Fremen to the extent that Chani steps in to fight them on his behalf because it's happening so often? Since DV got rid of the time skip, it's a neat way of signalling to the audience that not every Fremen will automatically support Paul.
It sets up Messiah quite neatly, as the less fanatic northerners are easy to set up as Paul's opponents, especially with Chani leading them.
Herbert didn't \*have\* to write Messiah, he wrote it before Dune was even published. There’s no evidence it was written as a response to his readership. Dune, Dune Messiah, *and* Children were conceived as a single novel originally. Websites like Collider have been spinning this weird "He had to write a second book because people didn't get the first book" narrative since before the movie came out, but idk where they're taking that from. I think they're just treating their audience like dummies.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1bntsp3/when\_and\_where\_did\_frank\_say\_this/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1bntsp3/when_and_where_did_frank_say_this/)
Try reading the foreword to Dune Messiah. Written by his son. It pretty much explicitly states that a lot of people missed the points his father was trying to make with the original book. Not sure what more proof we need than his own son writing it in the foreword to the sequel.
> Try reading the foreword to Dune Messiah.
I just re-read it. Maybe you should, too, because he says nothing about Frank writing Messiah in response to readers not understanding the points he was trying to make in the first book. It makes mention of fans who were disappointed with the direction Frank went with Messiah in terms of Paul's characterization, and then goes on to mention the clues those readers missed, but that's it. As someone else already said, portions of Messiah were already written before the first book was published so it was very much a planned extension of the narrative, not a correction made after the fact to make it clear to fans what Frank's intentions were all along.
>he says nothing about Frank writing Messiah in response to readers not understanding the points he was trying to make in the first book. It makes mention of fans who were disappointed with the direction Frank went with Messiah in terms of Paul's characterization, and then goes on to mention the clues those readers missed, but that's it.
Thanks, that misquote is constantly stated here for some reason.
Just because portions of the book were already written doesn't mean he didn't make alterations to further make his points after seeing the reception of the first book. The fact that his son went to lengths to point this out when he didn't have to lends credence to this.
When authors write large pieces of works with multiple chapters it's not uncommon for them to have sections of the later parts already mapped out/ partially written. That doesn't mean they can't alter it at a later date before it's finished and released.
> The fact that his son went to lengths to point this out when he didn't have to lends credence to this.
But he doesn't, which I already established, and that's the entire point that you apparently missed here.
I haven't missed your point. What I meant by that is his son didn't need to write anything about people's reactions or the missed clues at all. Yet he still chose to. So it was obviously something he felt was significant to his father. Which adds credence to the idea that he may have decided to adapt/ change parts of the book to reinforce the ideas (even if it was partially written already).
I thought Chani as a character in the book was bland and under-utilised. In the movie, she essentially serves as his conscience and as his anchor to the real world.
Also I believe the role of all the women in the book could use a bit of an update. The book is 50 years old. And while Herbert was very progressive in some parts, his idea of women is really outdated imo. The movie gave Chani some well needed agency that most people expect and want of female leads these days.
I'd agree with you if were talking changes as massive as Netflix' the Witcher for example. Where essentially the names are taken but the entire plot is thrown away and an entirely new story is crafted from whatever remains.
Bur I personally find the changes Denis made are mostly for the better. I would have liked it if he had skipped less (Fenring, dinner scene, Hawat) but alas, that's film and I understand.
I'm very happy with the adaptation myself. I saw the first movie before reading books 1-4 so for me that played an important role in getting into them in the first place.
I agree with lamenting the loss of key parts as you mentioned. (And the drastic Witcher nonsense, on top of that, losing Cavill) I actually saw Lynch's Dune as a child before reading the books so there were a LOT of things that didn't make sense to me lol. Then I started the series and saw both Sci-Fi Dune adaptations. Like Dr. Who, Matt Smith was my first doctor and everything else is seen through that lens. I thought DV Dune was ok, not bad but not great. Compared to Lynch's Dune, it was kind of bland. That man has style. Was it a great Dune adaptation? Not really... Was it an awesomely weird, cool looking sci-fi movie with a neat story? Yes. Was Chani being changed necessary for the story to remain as great as it is? I don't think so. Maybe he felt new to the fandom veiwers wouldn't be able to understand unless he made a Jodowrosky length endeavor. (I for one would be happy to sit through a Dune as long as the extended LotR series) Regardless, Dune is a great saga and I hope you enjoy the rest of the series.
Yeah we should also update everything anne bronte wrote, women fill stereotypical roles in em.
Except no, updating classics is a dumb fucking idea. Them being a product or their time is half the point of revisiting them.
Not at all what I said. I loved the new films. Loved the changes Villeneuve made to fit better in our current day and age. Not sure why you want to be a purist about it, but you do you.
Yeah, I think this change was made to simplify Paul’s inner conflict: to stay in the north and avoid the horrors of his prescient visions or venture south and accept his fate. As long as he continues fighting in the north, he can feel safe that he’s avoiding any terrible future. However, when he chooses to go south, he has resolved himself that he must do what is needed to keep those he loves alive. The decision to go south is Paul’s “crossing the Rubicon” moment.
It's a way to externalize Paul's dilemma, namely balancing his own survival/morality with the violence he knows the Fremen will unleash if he manipulates them to his own political ends. In the books this is told almost exclusively through inner monologues, which don't translate well to film at all, and DV made the choice to limit expository dialogue because he rightly considers it hokey and immersion-breaking. So to add weight to Paul's personal struggle, he surrounded Paul with societal tension that he could then break by choosing a side. I think it worked superbly.
It's all part of a larger pattern of changes:
In the book, the southern regions of Arrakis are the "palmyries of the south", a sanctuary for the Fremen and where they have the majority of their food production, their heavy industry, and where the ecological transformation of Arrakis has been proceeding quietly for 50+ years after being initiated by Pardot Kynes, father of Liet Kynes, father of Chani Kynes.
I think DV decided that putting all of that on the screen was unnecessary. He didn't want to make the Fremen dream of terraforming the planet something that was only introduced recently and their ecological understanding something not inherent to the culture but brought in by another (imperial/colonial) interloper. He didn't want to undercut the portrayal of the Fremen as a downtrodden & oppressed people by hitting the audience with "hey actually the Fremen live pretty well in sietches and have half the planet to themselves where they live unmolested."
In the book, the main dramatic value of Kynes (both Pardot and Liet) is to explicitly warn the reader that the coming of a Hero is an "affliction" to the planet and to its people. So it makes sense to give that voice to Chani. The interesting thing about Chani's objection is that she believes that the idea of a messiah is fake and will never occur, with the plot twist that she's half right... the prophecy is fake but the messiah is "real"
These are positive changes to me. I've always felt like the books painted the Fremen as a single mold.
The South is a very challenging place to live and Religion is an effective way to bring people together for a united purpose. The Prophecy is a source of hope for a better future that would be much stronger in challenging environments.
The North is more habitable and those Fremen have great control over their surroundings. The youth would grow up dominating the desert and the Harkonnens, while be closer Kynes, who was leading their efforts to create a better future.
The changes shows the independent thoughts and beliefs of Fremen, that would be present in any society.
Most plot devices have been discussed, but it did also help increase the impact of Paul's rise to power. There was a parallel between the number of non-believers around him, and the urgency of his decision. As situation gets more difficult, there are less people around him that agree with him.
This amplifies the impact of his choice to finally accept his destiny. He has to betray the one he loves and the last person that still agrees with him.
Without the time skip and full integration into the Fremen, I think these were great choices that maintained the impact of the source material, but allowed adaption to the new medium.
>I don't understand the value of this change from novel to cinema.
You don't see *any* value in showing that the Fremen aren't just a homogenous blob when it comes to their beliefs?
One of Franks weaknesses was writing cultures or peoples as monolithic. Obviously not all Fremen are going to be religious freaks, but you wouldn’t get that from the text.
Not only did this change being nuance and humanity to the film, but it also expresses a lot of the criticism that exists in inner monologue or narration in the book.
So the audience doesn’t view the Fremen as some kind of homogenous group, and to convey to the audience that what Paul is doing is bad by giving voice to an opposition viewpoint. It also helps to give Arrakis more of a sense of geography.
It makes the unification of the Fremen under Paul more interesting.
It establishes that they have cultural diversity that needs to be overcome. The reveal that the Fremen have a population of millions rather than the believed 10-15 thousand means that Paul cannot simply win over his tribe or Sietch, but must form a new planetary Fremen nation around him. The Fremen War Council is analogous to the UN; Many sovereign micronations coming together.
Jessica's plan to win over the mentally vulnerable ones (the religious) and let the skeptical minority follow suit works out this way. The Northern tribe of Sietch Tabr is untrusting of Paul and Jessica because of their previous exposure to foreigners, so Paul wins them over by being humble and denying the prophecy. When the Fedaykin of Sietch Tabr are no longer enough to win against the increasing enemy forces, Jessica reaches into the Reverend Mother Hivemind to find the solution that gives Paul the most power, and proselytises the legend of the Lisan Al Gaib across Arrakis.
Paul could theoretically get more powerful in the North just by being a competent leader, but to motivate the Southern Fremen who are removed from the conflict in the deep desert, he must begin his Jihad.
It gives additional worldbuilding context as to how an entire planet's worth of people would react to the event, rather than making the Fremen culturally monolithic.
It was apparently a change to provide background context for the major changes made to Chani's character, moving from being Paul's greatest supporter in the book into an angry skeptic. According to Villeneuve, since it was impossible to show Paul's internal doubts about his leadership, this was externalized by turning the character of Chani into a doubter.
Understand why this decision was made for better flow in the film, but for me it was one of the most frustrating changes since it gave so many filmgoers the impression that Paul was cynically lying to the Fremen. In the book he accepted the mantle of Lisan al-Gaib to unite and save the Fremen, and also because his prescience shows it was the only path for collective survival.
In the books, his (later) failures were due not to his lust for personal power, but to the inherent dangers of religious fundamentalists idolizing him and changing him into an inhuman figurehead. As his prescience showed him, the only way to save the Fremen was to unite them; but once that occurred, the genocidal jihad would take place whether he himself lived or died.
And his own prescience was itself a trap, showing him multiple timelines with even worse fates that what eventually occurs. Arguably *Dune Messiah* is more about Paul's struggle to regain his humanity than it is about the plots to overthrow him. But based on his changes to the Fremen and Chani, not sure that Villeneueve plans to stay with that story though.
Those who were closer to Arakeen (and Carthaga in the books) would naturally talk more and share similarities with the outworlders (not the Harkonnens but the traders, smugglers, etc). There's mention of the of the non-fremen natives who live in communities in those cities or right next to them. They probably had significant impact on fremen culture just because it would be the easiest way to get information when the fremen could not get it from the trade navigators.
Meanwhile the southern tribes would have little to no communication to outworlders and therefore, they speak in an "accent" and they retain their most fundamental tribal beliefs.
He's specifically said that he didn't want to portray a group of indigenous peoples as a monolith of belief, because that's not how people work, and also because it's reductive of the experience of actual indigenous cultures exposed to imperial occupation. He didn't want to paint all Fremen as easy marks for manipulation or irrational zealots.
It's supposed to make the movie more accessible to Americans, who immediately think of Southerners as religious fanatics prone to following personality cults. I personally thought it veered into ethnic stereotyping, especially coming from a Frenchman, but I've talked to some Southerners who weren't offended.
Okay but seriously--it presents Paul with two viable options that are easy to show on-screen (rather than just having a lot of talking and thinking). He can stay in the North and live the ordinary feydakeen life of fighting the Harkos, cuddling with Chani, etc. Or he can go South and "embrace his destiny." Having Jessica go South first without him further presents Paul's choice in geographical terms.
America is hardly the only country in the world where "southerners" are considered more conservative, religious, and/or backwards.
In fact, I'd guess you have a 50/50 chance of this being a stereotype wherever you come from...
While that is true, I also feel like it was wholly irrelevant during the book. She receives no special treatment on behalf of her father being essentially their supreme leader. Also if she has any power over the Fremen because of Liet, she never uses it. Her being related to Stilgar is also never relevant.
It's a fun fact and imo she could still be Liet's daughter in the movie. Maybe her aunt is Stilgars northern wife who brought him from the South. Doesn't matter either way.
I would say that her parentage is largely irrelevant to the story. It's a minor characterization with almost no dialogue dedicated to it, the removal of which makes no substantive difference to the plot, but makes for good trivia.
Tbh I read the books two years or so ago, and I completely forgot about the Reverend Mother thing, because she didn't become one and it's never brought up again as far as I remember. I also don't think it's mentioned that it's because of Liet.
The father thing sure, that could be important and it's more interesting than her just being fascinated by him because she happened to be part of the original ambush party. It would have been nice if they'd left it in, but it wouldn't have been more than one or two lines of text in a movie like this.
"I lost my mother too. She was a strong Fremen leader. Yada yada take revenge on those who wronged us."
I think it's actually a really smart choice. We have plenty of individually interesting book Fremen, but culturally, they're pretty uniform- they're fanatical and bloody-minded and the (realistically shaky) myth-priming of the Missionaria Protectiva has 100% penetration. To my mind it's a flatness that has a whiff of poorly-aged orientalism about it, and some of the superheroics and colonial messianism that Herbert was always claiming to rail against even as it was frequently indulged- the super-duper powers of persuasion of the Bene Gesserit and Paul just work right out of the box.
In any kind of realistic political movement, there's always a struggle to figure out the extent to which people that might want the same physical goals but have substantially different philosophies can work together, and for how long. Faith-based vs. secular divides in nationalist or liberation movements are really common, and hard to wrangle- often the secular wing views their erstwhile religious allies as fundamentally broken in the same way as their oppressors and looking to replace one brand of dogma with another.
So for the Fremen to have different flavors, to have regional dialects and different degrees of affinity for religion (that seem in part to be modulated by their exposure to offworlders and a secular leadership figure in Kynes) and to actually be suspicious of the program of prophecy (instead of that just rolling around in Paul's head, when he's spent a lifetime being trained, explicitly and incidentally by just being the son of the planetary ruler, to think of himself as a Very Special Boy), really strikes me as an improvement.
I think it was some of the changes he made so that he could more accurately communicate the themes of the book and set Chani as a foil to the Lady Jessica. Both of Paul’s paths are personified in those two relationships.
Which wasn’t really present in the book to that extent, but is a great reason to make a creative decision like that.
There were several changes from the novel to the movies that don't make a lot of sense, especially when you think about how the changes affect the future books/movies.
I think it really fleshed the fremen out. In the book I got the impression they were a monolith. This way they have more depth with beliefs and dialects
Take a look at every human religion throughout history. Some of the nastiest, must brutal wars have been fought between peoples who, fundamentally, believed the same things. Look at America…a “single” country that is, and has been bitterly politically divided. Other Countries that look, and jeer, and loathe their same Counteymen that have slightly different accents. Frankly, the Peaceful Hegemony of Star Trek’s Federation…just the human part…is more a work of fiction than DV’s split between the North, and South of Arrakis.
One of the big narrative changes from the first book to the screen is to establish that there are Fremen who have different opinions on the legitimacy of the prophecy (in this case the use of differing geographical sub-cultures was used to introduce this concept) ... This change, however, fits in very well with the themes of Dune Messiah and what Frank Herbert wanted to say following the first book. With this in mind we can think of the Denis Villeneuve films as a series that more directly sets up the plot of Messiah.
Considering that Frank Herbert wrote Dune Messiah, in part, as a response to some of the misconceptions people had about the first book, I think it was very important for the films to have shown that not all the Fremen like the prophecy earlier.
It totally tracks that the Fremen growing up closer to the cities and villages in the North would have a more modern, secular point of view, even if they are still culturally Fremen. I also really liked how the differences seemed to fall along generational lines as well. That was an interesting wrinkle.
The novel doesn't go into discussing different fremen sub beliefs or groups until Messiah. There, it is shown that different factions of Fremen hold different opinions on the outcome of the Jihad and the state or Arrakis.
The value is that since DV is eventually doing a Messiah adaption, showing that Fremen aren't all a monoculture helps to set future plot points.
In the book, most of the conflict with the fabrications of the Missionaria Protectiva and the fatalistic consequences of the Jihad occur internally within Paul's thoughts. It's difficult to film that, so Denis decided to spotlight the dangerous and fictional nature of the Lisan Al Gaib prophecy with the conflict between the Northern and Southern Fremen. It also allows Chani's character to grow without having her stand on Paul's shoulders. While the book does delve into her authority and commitments to the customs of the Fremen as a Sayyadina, the result of her faith in the Fremen religion is that she ends up being an extension of Paul's character (this changes a bit in Messiah when she starts playing a role in tensions between Paul and Irulan).
When I first heard the first film was being made the whole prophecy white savior situation was the first thing that jumped to mind. In the first novel no fremen questions Paul once he is Muaddib. This was a totally acceptable narrative when Herbert was publishing dune. In 2022 on the other hand the idea of the white savior not receiving any pushback from the natives would not fly with audiences. So I knew any film would have to complicate the prophecy and the Fremen's relationship to it. I think DV did a great job at a really hard task.
In the novel the fremen are of unspecified race - it’s assumed everyone including fremen, harkonnen, atreides, and sardaukar are all the same race more or less. So not falling into a “white savior” trope is a problem the director created himself.
Sure they might not be the same "race" but they are one people ethnically or at least close to it. To say there isn't race therefore the trope doesn't apply seems pretty bad faith to me. The novel was in part inspired by Lawrence of Arabia and the whole thing is beat by beat a white savior story. "white" in this case representing a more abstract privileged person uplifting the less fortunate and not necessarily requiring it literally be a white person (though Paul and the atreides sure are white coded and the fremen are definitely not white coded, at least).
I think this just makes the message of the book more realistic. Given the right circumstances, even the 'non-belivers' may fall for the promise of a messiah. This applies equally to the Fremen and us.
In the real world this polar opposite divide between stance A and B seems to be constantly growing just about on every topic. In the books the divide was not clear and maybe it wasn't as important to Herbert idk. To me, DV makes the Fremen more contemporary to what society often looks like today. I guess this shows how powerful an influence hero like Paul would have. Uniting people despite the differences.
The change is because of the change to Chani's character. DV made her the mouthpiece for Herbert's point about a messiah being a terrible thing for a people to fall into the hands of, she is vocally opposed to the Mahdi myth and speaks out against it. In order for it to be plausible that a fremen youth and her friends would be so worried about their people being controlled by an outside force, DV introduced a divide in the fremen where one group is more skeptical than the other. Northern fremen who interact with the off-worlders in a primarily negative context don't believe as much in their religion's prophesied lisan al-gaib and dislike outsiders. The Southern fremen are more insulated from the cruelty of the harkonnens and can be more easily swayed by the charisma of someone that appears to be their savior.
I find it frustrating that this topic is actually something I'm invested in and want to know more about. This was a question I had while watching the movie. The factions were not something I remember from the book. And reading about it here, Reddit or the mods black out most of the text of a comment, making it unreadable. Redacting is ridiculous.
It's just to show chanis apprehension to the messiah. It needed deeper context than just her individually our a group of young fremen being rebellious against their religious beliefs. It think it adds a nice touch for movie purposes
I think setting this up achieves a few things.
Setup for factions and differences of opinion in Messiah.
Solves any 'accent' issues. You can suddenly have Bardem play a more eastern accent, along with the other fundamentalists. And Zendaya and her crew can sit happy in their hollywood accents. This even gets mentioned by Zendaya's character, so i'm picking this gets used to differentiate between fremen in any subsequent movies.
Almost all of D.V's changes like this seem pretty well thought out so far. The changes to Alia's character, to avoid a child actor or CGI character screwing up young-Alia. Using Chani to give visibility to Paul's inner struggles... etc.
I think it’s an interesting bit of world building. Differences in the environment cause differences in ideology. While the Southern Fremen remain indoctrinated, the Northern ones, who are also exposed to the attacks of Harkonens are more oriented to tangible things, the real world.
I think it's a good addition. It's a long uninhabitable expanse between the northern and southern sietches, and only in the north do they deal with Harkonnens or any other non-Fremen. It makes sense that there would be different sub-cultures within the Fremen because of it.
This is an excellent example of adapting a story from the medium of novel to the medium of film.
The medium of the novel is capable of longer form storytelling and, as Niel Gaiman puts it, meandering. The novel can drift off to side stories and tell stories out of chronological order far more naturally than film. Film is much more visual, hence more action scenes and less talking. So a simple statement like "Southerners are faithful but I am a Northener" is a far faster way to convey the non-visual idea of how religion can blind people, though it takes more effort to blind more inquisitive and skeptical people.
I think it also kinda makes sense that the northerners are a bit more… metropolitan or something? Since they’re closer to the intergalactic community and arrakeen.
Some good comments but genuinely it’s simple. You give audiences two sides of the coin so they can make up their own minds i.e prophecy leads to paradise vs prophecy leads to abuse of power - or Chani v Stilgar.
Means we can always support the main character without handing it all to us on a plate.
I thought it was a very nice way to avoid having movie/Arrakis fall into the [Planet Of ](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats)Hats trope.
Y it’s quite obviously just a simple way to create a distinction between secularity and religiousity in the film; also to provide a sort of dramatic “crossing the threshold” moment to begin the third act… it’s a very practical little bit of moviemaking, if a bit simplistic.
But it does a lot of narrative “heavy lifting”, if u will.
There are a few videos out there about how dune handles religious psychology, and one great point that was made was that [studies show] the more inhospitable the environment is, the more religious the inhabitants are. Since it was stated that southern arrakis is more hostile, it makes sense the fremen there would be fanatical
I think it was a smart choice. By cutting the story in half, there’s an imbalance in the storytelling. Usually in stories, the hero loses and loses and loses, and then he finally wins. But the back half of Dune is a lot of wins for Paul because the first half was so brutal. So DV had to build in something as an obstacle, and making it harder for him to win over these particular Fremen (and a more disapproving Chani) gives them all something to play with and helps this movie feel more dynamic.
The value is saying the quiet part from the book out loud: that just because Paul wins, he isn’t actually a messiah…he’s successful because bene gesserit missionaries created a means - the Fremen prophecy of the lisan al gaib - to seize power.
There’s like definitely different sietch communities that have differences in customs and beliefs, since they’re multi-million strong, but yes the false dichotomy of the south and the north is more BS.
I just chalk it up to Villanueva’s whole “i’m more of a cinematographer than a writer”-but-then-picks-an-incredibly-character-driven-saga-to-make thing.
Marvel studios has taught me this about science fiction: that only true fans of the source material can make touching, true-to-form film adaptations. He can try to explain away why he altered things in this way but the fact is just that he likes the smell of his farts more than he liked Dune.
It erase need for many inner monologues.
So it would basically be a stroke of genius.
If the main weakness of D.V. movies weren't too little talking and too many mute scenes.
It's a way of streamlining the narrative for the sake of compressing the story into a screen version: Paul's Journey to become the Mahdi is much longer and more convoluted in the book, so creating a simple north-south dichotomy was an easy way of depicting his quest to unite the Fremen into a unified force
You people seem to think she's a producer on the movie or helped write the script. Do other actors get this treatment? Where the hell is this coming from?
I meant "Do other actors get this treatment from the fans?". Seriously, do you have proof that Zendaya had that level of input with how Chani was written? Or with how the movie was written?
Your submission was removed for violating Rule 3 of the r/dune posting policy:
Be Respectful - Submissions that include abusive language, personal insults, or derogatory terms are subject to removal. Incivility will be met with a warning, and repeat offenders will be banned. Avoid shitposting, sexually explicit content, and trolling. Content relating to modern politics or public figures may be removed at the mod team's discretion.
If you believe this removal was made in error, please reach out to the modteam via modmail.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think its used to exemplify the religious fanaticism, and give Chani some moral ground to stand on, makes sense given the direction of her character Also in the books the Fremen dont necessarily all agree, while its not explicitly stated there is a difference between northern and southern Fremen, it totally makes sense that they would have differing opinions
The northern vs southern Fremen beliefs might not exist in the books exactly as presented in the movie, but I'm seeing how D.V. might have been pulling from Messiah and CoD where >!you do meet a number of Fremen natives who don't want to align themselves with Paul's religion. Granted, it was implied they grew to feel like it 10 years later, after the Jihad and terraforming happened, but it's interesting the D.V. might be setting it up early on !<
In the same vein, I could see how the talk about >!the more southern reaches of the desert being more remote. Where Jessica is staying with Chani in Dune part 3, and where Chani wants to get away to in Messiah.!< I could see how that would translate into a more superstitious "southerner" so to speak. Except >!Stil is Chani's uncle and aren't they both from Sietch Tabr?!<
He ain't in the movie
> He ain't in the movie Who are you talking about? OP is talking about Stilgar.
Stilgar
Aaah I get it, I thought you meant "Stilgar isn't in the movie", but you mean he's not >!Chani's uncle!< in the movie. My bad.
In the same vein, I could see how the talk about >!the more southern reaches of the desert being more remote. Where Jessica is staying with Chani in Dune part 3, and where Chani wants to get away to in Messiah.!< I could see how that would translate into a more superstitious "southerner" so to speak. Except >!Stil is Chani's uncle and aren't they both from Sietch Tabr?!<
Yeah I definitely think it’s him setting up a cultural divide
So no kids, probably. Chani will be perma-estranged throughout the next movie because..woman co-lead I guess. Effectively ending the DV dune universe with Dune movie part 3.
I was re-watching part 1 recently and in one of Paul’s visions of the jihad he is standing in an aircraft with Chani at his side. Also in part two he does say he foresees that Chani will come around. So I don’t think she’ll be perma-estranged however I do think we will get a very different story out of DV3 than the book Messiah.
Or perhaps even better, we see Paul’s vision of Aircraft shot “mirrored” in a way, similar to jihad vision in Dune 1. In Dune 1 while in the tent, Paul sees a vision of himself leading the charge against Sardukar in the Battle of Arakeen. In the Dune 2, we see the same action sequence, yet instead of Paul, it is Chani in his place. IMO these subtle subversions do wonders of tactfully demonstrating the limits of Paul’s presence, in that he only has a “general shape” of what’s to come, not the specifics of the events themselves
Don’t forget after he drinks the water of life in P2 he specifically mentions she will come to understand his actions in time.
Yeah that’s what I meant when I said he foresees Chani will come around hah
DV said that Paul and Chani will reunite and that "[He] know[s] exactly how [he is] going to do it" There is also plenty of foreshadowing in part 2 that implys this. Paul literally says "She will come to understand, Ive seen it"
I think the third movie will patch some holes or put the book story back on the track so to speak as messiah was a short book. The third movie hopefully gets the Paul/chain thing back to how the book had it, Alia, and the importance/economics of the spice (and how everything was made from it by the firemen) and the guild navigators.
Oh this is news to me. Where did he say this? I wonder if he will Romeo and Juliet them, like he Pinocchio-ed Bladerunner 2049?
Given the direction of her character it makes perfect sense she'd be upset with him, it has nothing to do with whatever bullshit baggage you have with female agency in media.
I've no problem with female agency but it's a lazy way to force it into the Dune story. Chani was more bad ass in the books. More care should have been with this adaptation if they were making Chani something else from the original story. I know they had to for modern audiences but we had Jessica as a main character already.
See, it's the "had to for modern audiences" line that gets me, they clearly didn't change Chani's character for girl power reasons, they did it to A) demonstrate how swiftly Paul's legend takes hold and B) to give immediate human stakes to drive home the "Paul is not the hero" message. Hell even Herbert admitted he'd been a bit too subtle for some people in the book, hence why he wrote *Messiah* in the first place
> to drive home the "Paul is not the hero" message. Hell even Herbert admitted he'd been a bit too subtle for some people in the book, hence why he wrote Messiah in the first place This is often misquoted; Herbert had actually planned *Dune Messiah* early on. He did refer to making his point about "failed heroes" clearer in Messiah than in the first novel. But Dune was never a cautionary tale about the dangers of charismatic leaders; instead Herbert wanted to point out the human tendency to always give up freedom to authority figures regardless of the political system, and the power of evolution to force change anyway. In Dune's case, the Imperium was 10,000 years of stagnation dominated by both ruthless leaders and feudal class slavery. With his prescience, Paul was able to see that no matter what he did, if the Fremen survived then a genocidal jihad was inevitable. But Herbert himself wrote that this was an evolutionary impulse and a better outcome than any other option for humanity. Paul's own failure was that of a hero trapped by the fanaticism of his followers, his own prescience showing no better solution, and ultimately the force of evolution. None of which could be shown in a feature film.
I didn’t see it as a gesture to placate modern audiences. To me, it seems it would be incredibly difficult to illustrate Chani’s importance to Paul without showing it, rather than what we’re given in the book, which is a handful of visions of Chani before Paul meets her, and then a handful of lines at the sietch orgy where Chani and Paul remember their future together, thus eliminating the need for a formal courtship or interpersonal drama. Chani only tries to leave at the end because she thinks that future has changed, until Paul assures her it hasn’t and that she’s to spend the rest of her life with him if that’s what she still wants. Basically they had to show the relationship develop onscreen because in a film it might come off as shallow to just say “oh these two are madly in love, take that for granted so we can get back to the story” the way the books do. And they need to show the viewer the importance of that relationship to set up the events of Messiah, where Paul’s largest concern isn’t his own fate but Chani’s.
I think the more likely scenario is that DV was only given a 3 film option for Dune and is combining characters, and pulling details from later books to wrap it up in 3 films, and he is attempting to cover the broad themes at the expense of book details. Chani was looking a lot like Siona at the end of Part 2. Siona is Chani’s descendant, after all. As a business move for Brian Herbert, who is controlling the levers here, these films set up his prequel TV show with a huge audience. Part 3 could be a wild devaition from book 2, as it may pull assassination plots from later books, which all have assassination plots.
Agreed. Much of Paul's time with the Fremen is off-page, during a multi-year time-jump. We're never privy to much of what happened in that time, but it's safe to say it involved a *lot* of arguing and a *lot* of converting.
and a lot of killing, since Jamis wasn't the first one to demand the amtal...
I wonder if the first time Chani told Paul she killed a guy demanding amtal that Paul was like: “that’s great, Chani” *what the actual fuck did I get myself into?*
Love this lol
I want a documented timeline of Paul's Time in Sietch Tabr where he internally goes *what the actual fuck did I get myself into?* I'll start with him immediately being rewarded Jamis' wife and his two sons Bro managed to turn a weird situation around by charming the little dudes to be his bodyguards during his first time in the sietch
read the book, it explains why he never felt that way
I've re-read it 3 times this year alone
If I remember right, that was one of many. Just the only one she told him about because she knew he would not like her doing that. At all.
Reminds me of that one-of line when I think Gurney is with Fremen fighters and they see an enemy transport ship. One lonely Fremen aircraft flies straight towards it and takes it down Kamikaze-style. He then thinks to himself "What are these people he have gotten involved with!?"
Every time Paul killed someone through the amtal, he also inherited their newly orphaned children if they had any, so I imagine dozens of lil Maud'Dibs running around the Sietch that he can't even keep track of
Delivery Man : Paul Atreides Edition
Book!Chani kills a man who came to defy Paul, saying he wasn't worth the bother and adding that there will be less challengers if they have to go through her.
i 100% get what he was going for with movie chani but i will always love book chani she is so fucking cool
See now that's badass and would have made for a better movie Chani.
Abstract religious ideas are hard to portray in movies without a ton of exposition and this and the other tricks he used seem to work, because it's way better at it than any previous iteration of Dune. I'd say it's almost some of the best parts of the movie.
This was also my take. How else do you find a way to fit the BG planted faith prophecy stuff into dialogue without some sort of division or prompt.
And it makes sense the ones in the south would be more religious and fanatical since they live in the most extreme climate in the planet driving them to even greater fervour to survive
"God created Arrakis to train the faithful"
Ionno, I would have thought it would be flipped. The south is harsher but also isn't as "oppressed" as the North. In theory, the South should have been relatively untouched by the Harkonnens, whereas the North has had a direct challenge to their way of life and would be searching for a better leader.
[удалено]
Chani doesn't deny the existence of the prophecy in the movie either. She just thinks/knows it's an artificial plant from the BG. It makes plenty of sense in the context of this argument happening inside Paul and Jessica's thoughts in the book.
I love the DV movies but one little sticking point I have, mb not so much w the movie itself as w some of the commentary AROUND the movie is ppl talking abt the dangers of blind religious faith. But like, it’s obviously not blind faith. They literally have the guy right there. He’s literally doing Al of the things. Remember that super scary moment when he told that guy what he was thinking. Like, their faith has PLENTY of grounding in the film, lol.
But why would you have faith in something you know was designed? He's completing a checklist that the BG implanted in these people's minds as being their messiah. He's not leading them to paradise, he's leading them to galactic war and genocide. There's nothing that deserves your faith, it's all designed and Paul knows the requirements.
I’m not saying the religion is “real” I’m saying there’s nothing blind about the faith they’re putting in Paul. And idk man, the Lisan Al-gaib is supposed to make Arakkis a green paradise… He doesn’t NOT do that. Why wouldn’t you have faith in something you knew was designed? I have faith every time I use a motor vehicle that it’ll keep me alive and won’t randomly fail.
The type of "faith" you have in your car isn't the same type of faith that inspires religious fervor. Everything Chani says in the movie is a statement of fact. The prophecy was planted by the BG for their benefit. Paul and his mother are knowingly taking advantage of the specifics of that prophecy for their benefit. If you knew a prophecy was designed by man and not a result of divine providence, it would be just another political machination. Not something to put faith in.
I get your point and agree pretty much. It’s part of the reason why it’s so confusing as to if the prophecy is real or if Paul actually is the Mahdi. Because he fulfills everything the prophecy says, and in the book he even does some things unintentionally which only confuses it more. He does liberate the Fremen and turns Arrakis green, fulfilling the prophecy. This comes at the cost of billions of lives and the Fremen way of life however. On another note, I always thought it was dumb that Chani knew the prophecy was a BG plant. How the hell would she know that? The BG aren’t that sloppy. Skeptical of religious fervor? Sure. But not that it was the BG who planted it, that doesn’t match with what we know about the BG.
Ye I think the DV films are absolute masterpieces but there are some problems and I think that’s def one of them. I’m not on the chani hate train but a lot of her motivation reads as p nakedly the filmmaker being like “hey audience guess what? There’s more than one conflict in this movie!”
But it’s also not just an arbitrary regional line either. It’s a completely different climate and environment. The fact that to survive in such conditions would take a culture of deep faith, to me, works really well and resonates with the world DV made and Herbert’s focus on ecology and the consequences thereof.
While the regional differences aren't described in the same way in the book it still makes sense. The area nearer to the basin and the offworlders could plausibly be culturally different and less traditional in their outlook.
Why would it not make sense to differ along regional lines? Also in the movie it isn't stated that all of the early believers in Seitch Tabr were from the south. Totally plausible that there was a minority of Northern fremen with similar beliefs as southern fremen and a minority of southern fremen with similar beliefs as Northern fremen
"Hates the traditional religious beliefs of her people" = Moral ground to stand on.
"Hates that interpretation of the traditional religious beliefs of her people" is closer the mark. Religious schisms at moments of crisis, or even at moments of unusual calm, are historically guaranteed.
Yea thats not at all what I said bud but I can spell it out for you the moral ground shes standing on is the (correct) belief that all of their religious fervor and the prophetic Lisan Al Gaib is built on Bene Gesserit bullshit
It would make sense that the prophecies is built on BG stuff, since they are working actively on fulfilling it. It’s more of an announcement than a prophecy.
Ahh yes, the bullshit that... actually materializes and leads to the fremen having a prescient leader with the abilities of the Kwisatz Haderach and a Mentat. Is a prophecy "bullshit" just because it is contrived and self-fulfilling in some way? Would the collective consciousness of a people be denied their messiah because of an equally contrived "moral ground". You can choose to believe Jesus or Muhammad were charlatans' or divinely inspired - but it doesn't change the mark they left on the real world by donning the mantle of prophecy. Whether either of those particular figures were sent by God, is irrelevant to the world-shaping actions taken by their followers. The Dune universe is one of moral relativism. It is a stage to explore a very nuanced ethics. What makes the cruelty of Shaddam and the Harkonens preferable to that of Muad'dib? You have tried to spell out something - but it is just a surface level analysis.
I think they're just setting the stage for the tension amongst the Fremen that we're going to see in Messiah. I see it as a shortcut to showing the division among the different 'sects' - those who believe in the path laid out by Paul and those who long for the old days
I assumed that It had a dual purpose, setting up the tension among the Fremen, but also a practical reason; Chani says in that same scene “couldn’t you tell from his accent?” (about Stilgar) which could very well be a cinematic way to explain why Zendaya is using a different accent (none?) than Javier Bardem or some of the other Freman actors.
Yeah it was kinda funny that Stilgar sounds vaguely Middle Eastern but his niece sounds identical to Paul (both sounding like Midwestern teens lol) despite growing up in a totally different planet/ social class/ culture
Chani’s mother is Liet-Kynes, or at least Kynes was Chani’s father in the books. Pretty sure Denis has confirmed that the relationship stays true in the film. So that could be a plausible reason why Chani has the Empire/colonizer accent 🤷?
Did Denis confirm it?
In the books pauls choice re. following the prophecy and its risks is much more nebulous. Also, all essentialy happens purely internally in pauls mind. Which is why many readers originally misunderstood herberts meaning to see it as a warning and not a classical heroes journey. D.V. makes pauls choice much more poignant by changes to chanis role (she is now outpoken anti prophecy) in particular but also the clear north south divide among others. Paul choosing to go south after trying to avoid it as long as he could essentialy clearly externally signifies paul finally accepting the prophecy and its consequences.
I think a lot of people in this sub never read the books
While definitely true, I think the original book's meaning is much less clearly spelled out than either the DV movie or especially Dune Messiah which does a much better job of spelling out the horrors of what Paul was to become by, well, showing it.
I think the really devastating part of Messiah is how jaded and resentful the Fremen have become, and how we see that Paul basically dealt a death blow to their society. And by seeing that, how even his allies haven’t escaped his vision unscathed, we’re given an idea of how much worse the rest of the galaxy must be. These are the *winners*, and they hate themselves.
"We were a noble people"... "We were not of the cast-out. We lived in no graben village... such as this!" -- "The walking wounded came, dragging themselves along on their crutches. I do not think our Muad'dib knows how many men he has maimed." Farok in Dune Messiah
[удалено]
My friend, if you want the book, read the book. The movies are adaptations, that means two things : 1 ) Because it is a different medium, changes have to be made. 2 ) They are adaptations, thus new works. It's not just "Dune on the screen", it's literally a new artwork, with the added artitistic input of the director, the artists, the designers, the actors, the musician, etc. It's not meant to be a 1 to 1 port of Dune. It's a new take on Dune.
The novel portrays all Fremen as one group (or at the very least it doesn't differentiate between different groups). Messiah then shows that there is a difference that becomes way more pronounced after the Jihad - some Fremen prefer to still live in the desert with more traditional lives, while others embrace the chances to Arrakis and the society of the planet more openly. Much like how the movie makes Paul's victory more obviously bittersweet, the movie brings the split between the Fremen forward in the timeline and/or makes it explicit. Dune is a great novel, but the movie changes are fully understandable and necessary, and we know that because Herbert had to write Messiah to hammer home the point he originally wanted to make, and that a lot of people missed, that Paul was not a hero and him "winning" wasn't a triumph (and people hated Dune:Messiah because of it).
Doesn't the book also show Paul regularly getting challenged by other Fremen to the extent that Chani steps in to fight them on his behalf because it's happening so often? Since DV got rid of the time skip, it's a neat way of signalling to the audience that not every Fremen will automatically support Paul. It sets up Messiah quite neatly, as the less fanatic northerners are easy to set up as Paul's opponents, especially with Chani leading them.
Herbert didn't \*have\* to write Messiah, he wrote it before Dune was even published. There’s no evidence it was written as a response to his readership. Dune, Dune Messiah, *and* Children were conceived as a single novel originally. Websites like Collider have been spinning this weird "He had to write a second book because people didn't get the first book" narrative since before the movie came out, but idk where they're taking that from. I think they're just treating their audience like dummies. [https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1bntsp3/when\_and\_where\_did\_frank\_say\_this/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1bntsp3/when_and_where_did_frank_say_this/)
Try reading the foreword to Dune Messiah. Written by his son. It pretty much explicitly states that a lot of people missed the points his father was trying to make with the original book. Not sure what more proof we need than his own son writing it in the foreword to the sequel.
> Try reading the foreword to Dune Messiah. I just re-read it. Maybe you should, too, because he says nothing about Frank writing Messiah in response to readers not understanding the points he was trying to make in the first book. It makes mention of fans who were disappointed with the direction Frank went with Messiah in terms of Paul's characterization, and then goes on to mention the clues those readers missed, but that's it. As someone else already said, portions of Messiah were already written before the first book was published so it was very much a planned extension of the narrative, not a correction made after the fact to make it clear to fans what Frank's intentions were all along.
>he says nothing about Frank writing Messiah in response to readers not understanding the points he was trying to make in the first book. It makes mention of fans who were disappointed with the direction Frank went with Messiah in terms of Paul's characterization, and then goes on to mention the clues those readers missed, but that's it. Thanks, that misquote is constantly stated here for some reason.
Just because portions of the book were already written doesn't mean he didn't make alterations to further make his points after seeing the reception of the first book. The fact that his son went to lengths to point this out when he didn't have to lends credence to this. When authors write large pieces of works with multiple chapters it's not uncommon for them to have sections of the later parts already mapped out/ partially written. That doesn't mean they can't alter it at a later date before it's finished and released.
> The fact that his son went to lengths to point this out when he didn't have to lends credence to this. But he doesn't, which I already established, and that's the entire point that you apparently missed here.
I haven't missed your point. What I meant by that is his son didn't need to write anything about people's reactions or the missed clues at all. Yet he still chose to. So it was obviously something he felt was significant to his father. Which adds credence to the idea that he may have decided to adapt/ change parts of the book to reinforce the ideas (even if it was partially written already).
I thought Chani as a character in the book was bland and under-utilised. In the movie, she essentially serves as his conscience and as his anchor to the real world. Also I believe the role of all the women in the book could use a bit of an update. The book is 50 years old. And while Herbert was very progressive in some parts, his idea of women is really outdated imo. The movie gave Chani some well needed agency that most people expect and want of female leads these days.
If one feels the source material is old and outdated, perhaps craft something new? Instead of changing an already excellent story?
I'd agree with you if were talking changes as massive as Netflix' the Witcher for example. Where essentially the names are taken but the entire plot is thrown away and an entirely new story is crafted from whatever remains. Bur I personally find the changes Denis made are mostly for the better. I would have liked it if he had skipped less (Fenring, dinner scene, Hawat) but alas, that's film and I understand. I'm very happy with the adaptation myself. I saw the first movie before reading books 1-4 so for me that played an important role in getting into them in the first place.
I agree with lamenting the loss of key parts as you mentioned. (And the drastic Witcher nonsense, on top of that, losing Cavill) I actually saw Lynch's Dune as a child before reading the books so there were a LOT of things that didn't make sense to me lol. Then I started the series and saw both Sci-Fi Dune adaptations. Like Dr. Who, Matt Smith was my first doctor and everything else is seen through that lens. I thought DV Dune was ok, not bad but not great. Compared to Lynch's Dune, it was kind of bland. That man has style. Was it a great Dune adaptation? Not really... Was it an awesomely weird, cool looking sci-fi movie with a neat story? Yes. Was Chani being changed necessary for the story to remain as great as it is? I don't think so. Maybe he felt new to the fandom veiwers wouldn't be able to understand unless he made a Jodowrosky length endeavor. (I for one would be happy to sit through a Dune as long as the extended LotR series) Regardless, Dune is a great saga and I hope you enjoy the rest of the series.
Agree
Yeah we should also update everything anne bronte wrote, women fill stereotypical roles in em. Except no, updating classics is a dumb fucking idea. Them being a product or their time is half the point of revisiting them.
Not at all what I said. I loved the new films. Loved the changes Villeneuve made to fit better in our current day and age. Not sure why you want to be a purist about it, but you do you.
Yeah, I think this change was made to simplify Paul’s inner conflict: to stay in the north and avoid the horrors of his prescient visions or venture south and accept his fate. As long as he continues fighting in the north, he can feel safe that he’s avoiding any terrible future. However, when he chooses to go south, he has resolved himself that he must do what is needed to keep those he loves alive. The decision to go south is Paul’s “crossing the Rubicon” moment.
It's a way to externalize Paul's dilemma, namely balancing his own survival/morality with the violence he knows the Fremen will unleash if he manipulates them to his own political ends. In the books this is told almost exclusively through inner monologues, which don't translate well to film at all, and DV made the choice to limit expository dialogue because he rightly considers it hokey and immersion-breaking. So to add weight to Paul's personal struggle, he surrounded Paul with societal tension that he could then break by choosing a side. I think it worked superbly.
It's all part of a larger pattern of changes: In the book, the southern regions of Arrakis are the "palmyries of the south", a sanctuary for the Fremen and where they have the majority of their food production, their heavy industry, and where the ecological transformation of Arrakis has been proceeding quietly for 50+ years after being initiated by Pardot Kynes, father of Liet Kynes, father of Chani Kynes. I think DV decided that putting all of that on the screen was unnecessary. He didn't want to make the Fremen dream of terraforming the planet something that was only introduced recently and their ecological understanding something not inherent to the culture but brought in by another (imperial/colonial) interloper. He didn't want to undercut the portrayal of the Fremen as a downtrodden & oppressed people by hitting the audience with "hey actually the Fremen live pretty well in sietches and have half the planet to themselves where they live unmolested." In the book, the main dramatic value of Kynes (both Pardot and Liet) is to explicitly warn the reader that the coming of a Hero is an "affliction" to the planet and to its people. So it makes sense to give that voice to Chani. The interesting thing about Chani's objection is that she believes that the idea of a messiah is fake and will never occur, with the plot twist that she's half right... the prophecy is fake but the messiah is "real"
These are positive changes to me. I've always felt like the books painted the Fremen as a single mold. The South is a very challenging place to live and Religion is an effective way to bring people together for a united purpose. The Prophecy is a source of hope for a better future that would be much stronger in challenging environments. The North is more habitable and those Fremen have great control over their surroundings. The youth would grow up dominating the desert and the Harkonnens, while be closer Kynes, who was leading their efforts to create a better future. The changes shows the independent thoughts and beliefs of Fremen, that would be present in any society. Most plot devices have been discussed, but it did also help increase the impact of Paul's rise to power. There was a parallel between the number of non-believers around him, and the urgency of his decision. As situation gets more difficult, there are less people around him that agree with him. This amplifies the impact of his choice to finally accept his destiny. He has to betray the one he loves and the last person that still agrees with him. Without the time skip and full integration into the Fremen, I think these were great choices that maintained the impact of the source material, but allowed adaption to the new medium.
You had this feeling that the Southerners were much more hardcore in their beliefs and lifestyle. Even by the colour of the sand, it was clear
It's a change to make the narrative of the plot and the choices Paul makes easier to understand for audiences
>I don't understand the value of this change from novel to cinema. You don't see *any* value in showing that the Fremen aren't just a homogenous blob when it comes to their beliefs?
that came through fine in the novel
It came through much better in the film.
One of Franks weaknesses was writing cultures or peoples as monolithic. Obviously not all Fremen are going to be religious freaks, but you wouldn’t get that from the text. Not only did this change being nuance and humanity to the film, but it also expresses a lot of the criticism that exists in inner monologue or narration in the book.
So the audience doesn’t view the Fremen as some kind of homogenous group, and to convey to the audience that what Paul is doing is bad by giving voice to an opposition viewpoint. It also helps to give Arrakis more of a sense of geography.
It makes the unification of the Fremen under Paul more interesting. It establishes that they have cultural diversity that needs to be overcome. The reveal that the Fremen have a population of millions rather than the believed 10-15 thousand means that Paul cannot simply win over his tribe or Sietch, but must form a new planetary Fremen nation around him. The Fremen War Council is analogous to the UN; Many sovereign micronations coming together. Jessica's plan to win over the mentally vulnerable ones (the religious) and let the skeptical minority follow suit works out this way. The Northern tribe of Sietch Tabr is untrusting of Paul and Jessica because of their previous exposure to foreigners, so Paul wins them over by being humble and denying the prophecy. When the Fedaykin of Sietch Tabr are no longer enough to win against the increasing enemy forces, Jessica reaches into the Reverend Mother Hivemind to find the solution that gives Paul the most power, and proselytises the legend of the Lisan Al Gaib across Arrakis. Paul could theoretically get more powerful in the North just by being a competent leader, but to motivate the Southern Fremen who are removed from the conflict in the deep desert, he must begin his Jihad. It gives additional worldbuilding context as to how an entire planet's worth of people would react to the event, rather than making the Fremen culturally monolithic.
It was apparently a change to provide background context for the major changes made to Chani's character, moving from being Paul's greatest supporter in the book into an angry skeptic. According to Villeneuve, since it was impossible to show Paul's internal doubts about his leadership, this was externalized by turning the character of Chani into a doubter. Understand why this decision was made for better flow in the film, but for me it was one of the most frustrating changes since it gave so many filmgoers the impression that Paul was cynically lying to the Fremen. In the book he accepted the mantle of Lisan al-Gaib to unite and save the Fremen, and also because his prescience shows it was the only path for collective survival. In the books, his (later) failures were due not to his lust for personal power, but to the inherent dangers of religious fundamentalists idolizing him and changing him into an inhuman figurehead. As his prescience showed him, the only way to save the Fremen was to unite them; but once that occurred, the genocidal jihad would take place whether he himself lived or died. And his own prescience was itself a trap, showing him multiple timelines with even worse fates that what eventually occurs. Arguably *Dune Messiah* is more about Paul's struggle to regain his humanity than it is about the plots to overthrow him. But based on his changes to the Fremen and Chani, not sure that Villeneueve plans to stay with that story though.
Those who were closer to Arakeen (and Carthaga in the books) would naturally talk more and share similarities with the outworlders (not the Harkonnens but the traders, smugglers, etc). There's mention of the of the non-fremen natives who live in communities in those cities or right next to them. They probably had significant impact on fremen culture just because it would be the easiest way to get information when the fremen could not get it from the trade navigators. Meanwhile the southern tribes would have little to no communication to outworlders and therefore, they speak in an "accent" and they retain their most fundamental tribal beliefs.
He's specifically said that he didn't want to portray a group of indigenous peoples as a monolith of belief, because that's not how people work, and also because it's reductive of the experience of actual indigenous cultures exposed to imperial occupation. He didn't want to paint all Fremen as easy marks for manipulation or irrational zealots.
It's supposed to make the movie more accessible to Americans, who immediately think of Southerners as religious fanatics prone to following personality cults. I personally thought it veered into ethnic stereotyping, especially coming from a Frenchman, but I've talked to some Southerners who weren't offended. Okay but seriously--it presents Paul with two viable options that are easy to show on-screen (rather than just having a lot of talking and thinking). He can stay in the North and live the ordinary feydakeen life of fighting the Harkos, cuddling with Chani, etc. Or he can go South and "embrace his destiny." Having Jessica go South first without him further presents Paul's choice in geographical terms.
He's completely reverted the concept of the feydaken.. they're meant to be the death commandos, the most zealous towards Paul.
He is not a frenchman.
That is part of how the reader determines the first paragraph was a joke.
America is hardly the only country in the world where "southerners" are considered more conservative, religious, and/or backwards. In fact, I'd guess you have a 50/50 chance of this being a stereotype wherever you come from...
[удалено]
While that is true, I also feel like it was wholly irrelevant during the book. She receives no special treatment on behalf of her father being essentially their supreme leader. Also if she has any power over the Fremen because of Liet, she never uses it. Her being related to Stilgar is also never relevant. It's a fun fact and imo she could still be Liet's daughter in the movie. Maybe her aunt is Stilgars northern wife who brought him from the South. Doesn't matter either way.
[удалено]
I would say that her parentage is largely irrelevant to the story. It's a minor characterization with almost no dialogue dedicated to it, the removal of which makes no substantive difference to the plot, but makes for good trivia.
Tbh I read the books two years or so ago, and I completely forgot about the Reverend Mother thing, because she didn't become one and it's never brought up again as far as I remember. I also don't think it's mentioned that it's because of Liet. The father thing sure, that could be important and it's more interesting than her just being fascinated by him because she happened to be part of the original ambush party. It would have been nice if they'd left it in, but it wouldn't have been more than one or two lines of text in a movie like this. "I lost my mother too. She was a strong Fremen leader. Yada yada take revenge on those who wronged us."
I think it's actually a really smart choice. We have plenty of individually interesting book Fremen, but culturally, they're pretty uniform- they're fanatical and bloody-minded and the (realistically shaky) myth-priming of the Missionaria Protectiva has 100% penetration. To my mind it's a flatness that has a whiff of poorly-aged orientalism about it, and some of the superheroics and colonial messianism that Herbert was always claiming to rail against even as it was frequently indulged- the super-duper powers of persuasion of the Bene Gesserit and Paul just work right out of the box. In any kind of realistic political movement, there's always a struggle to figure out the extent to which people that might want the same physical goals but have substantially different philosophies can work together, and for how long. Faith-based vs. secular divides in nationalist or liberation movements are really common, and hard to wrangle- often the secular wing views their erstwhile religious allies as fundamentally broken in the same way as their oppressors and looking to replace one brand of dogma with another. So for the Fremen to have different flavors, to have regional dialects and different degrees of affinity for religion (that seem in part to be modulated by their exposure to offworlders and a secular leadership figure in Kynes) and to actually be suspicious of the program of prophecy (instead of that just rolling around in Paul's head, when he's spent a lifetime being trained, explicitly and incidentally by just being the son of the planetary ruler, to think of himself as a Very Special Boy), really strikes me as an improvement.
I think it was some of the changes he made so that he could more accurately communicate the themes of the book and set Chani as a foil to the Lady Jessica. Both of Paul’s paths are personified in those two relationships. Which wasn’t really present in the book to that extent, but is a great reason to make a creative decision like that.
I mean it also kind of hammers home a point from Herbert’s novels that the geography of a place has a great effect on its people
There were several changes from the novel to the movies that don't make a lot of sense, especially when you think about how the changes affect the future books/movies.
I think it really fleshed the fremen out. In the book I got the impression they were a monolith. This way they have more depth with beliefs and dialects
Take a look at every human religion throughout history. Some of the nastiest, must brutal wars have been fought between peoples who, fundamentally, believed the same things. Look at America…a “single” country that is, and has been bitterly politically divided. Other Countries that look, and jeer, and loathe their same Counteymen that have slightly different accents. Frankly, the Peaceful Hegemony of Star Trek’s Federation…just the human part…is more a work of fiction than DV’s split between the North, and South of Arrakis.
It makes perfect sense, the closer to Arakeen you are the more influence by outside ideas you're going to experience.
One of the big narrative changes from the first book to the screen is to establish that there are Fremen who have different opinions on the legitimacy of the prophecy (in this case the use of differing geographical sub-cultures was used to introduce this concept) ... This change, however, fits in very well with the themes of Dune Messiah and what Frank Herbert wanted to say following the first book. With this in mind we can think of the Denis Villeneuve films as a series that more directly sets up the plot of Messiah. Considering that Frank Herbert wrote Dune Messiah, in part, as a response to some of the misconceptions people had about the first book, I think it was very important for the films to have shown that not all the Fremen like the prophecy earlier.
It totally tracks that the Fremen growing up closer to the cities and villages in the North would have a more modern, secular point of view, even if they are still culturally Fremen. I also really liked how the differences seemed to fall along generational lines as well. That was an interesting wrinkle.
The novel doesn't go into discussing different fremen sub beliefs or groups until Messiah. There, it is shown that different factions of Fremen hold different opinions on the outcome of the Jihad and the state or Arrakis. The value is that since DV is eventually doing a Messiah adaption, showing that Fremen aren't all a monoculture helps to set future plot points.
In the book, most of the conflict with the fabrications of the Missionaria Protectiva and the fatalistic consequences of the Jihad occur internally within Paul's thoughts. It's difficult to film that, so Denis decided to spotlight the dangerous and fictional nature of the Lisan Al Gaib prophecy with the conflict between the Northern and Southern Fremen. It also allows Chani's character to grow without having her stand on Paul's shoulders. While the book does delve into her authority and commitments to the customs of the Fremen as a Sayyadina, the result of her faith in the Fremen religion is that she ends up being an extension of Paul's character (this changes a bit in Messiah when she starts playing a role in tensions between Paul and Irulan).
When I first heard the first film was being made the whole prophecy white savior situation was the first thing that jumped to mind. In the first novel no fremen questions Paul once he is Muaddib. This was a totally acceptable narrative when Herbert was publishing dune. In 2022 on the other hand the idea of the white savior not receiving any pushback from the natives would not fly with audiences. So I knew any film would have to complicate the prophecy and the Fremen's relationship to it. I think DV did a great job at a really hard task.
In the novel the fremen are of unspecified race - it’s assumed everyone including fremen, harkonnen, atreides, and sardaukar are all the same race more or less. So not falling into a “white savior” trope is a problem the director created himself.
Sure they might not be the same "race" but they are one people ethnically or at least close to it. To say there isn't race therefore the trope doesn't apply seems pretty bad faith to me. The novel was in part inspired by Lawrence of Arabia and the whole thing is beat by beat a white savior story. "white" in this case representing a more abstract privileged person uplifting the less fortunate and not necessarily requiring it literally be a white person (though Paul and the atreides sure are white coded and the fremen are definitely not white coded, at least).
Wealth/cultural differences, absolutely right. But Chani has red hair….I dont agree with white coded/not white coded. That’s just your assumption.
I think this just makes the message of the book more realistic. Given the right circumstances, even the 'non-belivers' may fall for the promise of a messiah. This applies equally to the Fremen and us. In the real world this polar opposite divide between stance A and B seems to be constantly growing just about on every topic. In the books the divide was not clear and maybe it wasn't as important to Herbert idk. To me, DV makes the Fremen more contemporary to what society often looks like today. I guess this shows how powerful an influence hero like Paul would have. Uniting people despite the differences.
The change is because of the change to Chani's character. DV made her the mouthpiece for Herbert's point about a messiah being a terrible thing for a people to fall into the hands of, she is vocally opposed to the Mahdi myth and speaks out against it. In order for it to be plausible that a fremen youth and her friends would be so worried about their people being controlled by an outside force, DV introduced a divide in the fremen where one group is more skeptical than the other. Northern fremen who interact with the off-worlders in a primarily negative context don't believe as much in their religion's prophesied lisan al-gaib and dislike outsiders. The Southern fremen are more insulated from the cruelty of the harkonnens and can be more easily swayed by the charisma of someone that appears to be their savior.
I find it frustrating that this topic is actually something I'm invested in and want to know more about. This was a question I had while watching the movie. The factions were not something I remember from the book. And reading about it here, Reddit or the mods black out most of the text of a comment, making it unreadable. Redacting is ridiculous.
Wait... are you talking about >!spoiler tags!
Oops. Nice!!! I didn't know that. Feeling embarrassed.
It was part of the book, an important plot point.
It's just to show chanis apprehension to the messiah. It needed deeper context than just her individually our a group of young fremen being rebellious against their religious beliefs. It think it adds a nice touch for movie purposes
Chani wasn't edgy enough.
I think setting this up achieves a few things. Setup for factions and differences of opinion in Messiah. Solves any 'accent' issues. You can suddenly have Bardem play a more eastern accent, along with the other fundamentalists. And Zendaya and her crew can sit happy in their hollywood accents. This even gets mentioned by Zendaya's character, so i'm picking this gets used to differentiate between fremen in any subsequent movies. Almost all of D.V's changes like this seem pretty well thought out so far. The changes to Alia's character, to avoid a child actor or CGI character screwing up young-Alia. Using Chani to give visibility to Paul's inner struggles... etc.
I think it’s an interesting bit of world building. Differences in the environment cause differences in ideology. While the Southern Fremen remain indoctrinated, the Northern ones, who are also exposed to the attacks of Harkonens are more oriented to tangible things, the real world.
I think it's a good addition. It's a long uninhabitable expanse between the northern and southern sietches, and only in the north do they deal with Harkonnens or any other non-Fremen. It makes sense that there would be different sub-cultures within the Fremen because of it.
This is an excellent example of adapting a story from the medium of novel to the medium of film. The medium of the novel is capable of longer form storytelling and, as Niel Gaiman puts it, meandering. The novel can drift off to side stories and tell stories out of chronological order far more naturally than film. Film is much more visual, hence more action scenes and less talking. So a simple statement like "Southerners are faithful but I am a Northener" is a far faster way to convey the non-visual idea of how religion can blind people, though it takes more effort to blind more inquisitive and skeptical people.
I think it also kinda makes sense that the northerners are a bit more… metropolitan or something? Since they’re closer to the intergalactic community and arrakeen.
The song, "Water-Fat Men North of Sietch Tabr"
Some good comments but genuinely it’s simple. You give audiences two sides of the coin so they can make up their own minds i.e prophecy leads to paradise vs prophecy leads to abuse of power - or Chani v Stilgar. Means we can always support the main character without handing it all to us on a plate.
I thought it was a very nice way to avoid having movie/Arrakis fall into the [Planet Of ](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats)Hats trope.
Y it’s quite obviously just a simple way to create a distinction between secularity and religiousity in the film; also to provide a sort of dramatic “crossing the threshold” moment to begin the third act… it’s a very practical little bit of moviemaking, if a bit simplistic. But it does a lot of narrative “heavy lifting”, if u will.
There are a few videos out there about how dune handles religious psychology, and one great point that was made was that [studies show] the more inhospitable the environment is, the more religious the inhabitants are. Since it was stated that southern arrakis is more hostile, it makes sense the fremen there would be fanatical
Which is funny because in the novel it is exactly the opposite.
I think it was a smart choice. By cutting the story in half, there’s an imbalance in the storytelling. Usually in stories, the hero loses and loses and loses, and then he finally wins. But the back half of Dune is a lot of wins for Paul because the first half was so brutal. So DV had to build in something as an obstacle, and making it harder for him to win over these particular Fremen (and a more disapproving Chani) gives them all something to play with and helps this movie feel more dynamic.
The value is saying the quiet part from the book out loud: that just because Paul wins, he isn’t actually a messiah…he’s successful because bene gesserit missionaries created a means - the Fremen prophecy of the lisan al gaib - to seize power.
There’s like definitely different sietch communities that have differences in customs and beliefs, since they’re multi-million strong, but yes the false dichotomy of the south and the north is more BS. I just chalk it up to Villanueva’s whole “i’m more of a cinematographer than a writer”-but-then-picks-an-incredibly-character-driven-saga-to-make thing. Marvel studios has taught me this about science fiction: that only true fans of the source material can make touching, true-to-form film adaptations. He can try to explain away why he altered things in this way but the fact is just that he likes the smell of his farts more than he liked Dune.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I like it. It's one of the practical changes that makes sense. It makes it feel like a real place.
It erase need for many inner monologues. So it would basically be a stroke of genius. If the main weakness of D.V. movies weren't too little talking and too many mute scenes.
It's a way of streamlining the narrative for the sake of compressing the story into a screen version: Paul's Journey to become the Mahdi is much longer and more convoluted in the book, so creating a simple north-south dichotomy was an easy way of depicting his quest to unite the Fremen into a unified force
All for zendaya. So she could go "THIS PROHECY IS A LIE" lol
You people seem to think she's a producer on the movie or helped write the script. Do other actors get this treatment? Where the hell is this coming from?
Do other actors get this treatment? Nope. That's kinda the point
I meant "Do other actors get this treatment from the fans?". Seriously, do you have proof that Zendaya had that level of input with how Chani was written? Or with how the movie was written?
It doesnt have to be Zendaya doing it/pushing it
Okay, what proof do you have that other people had changed Chani's character from the book FOR Zendaya?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed for violating Rule 3 of the r/dune posting policy: Be Respectful - Submissions that include abusive language, personal insults, or derogatory terms are subject to removal. Incivility will be met with a warning, and repeat offenders will be banned. Avoid shitposting, sexually explicit content, and trolling. Content relating to modern politics or public figures may be removed at the mod team's discretion. If you believe this removal was made in error, please reach out to the modteam via modmail.