Ask Lemmy

It was unnecessary and disruptive (and what was that "Chani is a leader of an internal rebellion in the Fremen" all about in Dune Part 2?!), Chani served her purpose in Dune like pretty much other characters did besides the protagonists Paul and Leto II, who simply take more of the stage because, as prophetic beings infused with semi-omniscient knowledge, have more depth to them. The rest are mostly just people, and we all know people, but Dune was never about the characters... and maybe that's why it cannot be adapted for the masses. I mean, even events like a jihad that kills billions and the death of Paul's first child (was this even in the movie?! But sludge covered Baron Harkonnen was front and center, lol, without even mentioning his pedophilia!) are just brushed off, written in some sentences tops. The meat and potatoes of Dune are the philosophical explorations, in particular "how would anyone handle excess knowledge?", and as such Chani played her role as much as Leto and Jessica did, you change the characters and you just muddle something clear. I didn't even mind when they genderswapped Paul's short-lived mentor in Arrakis, cause it really doesn't matter much, but they replaced Chani with just Zendaya. They also put way more action scenes in it but didn't show the very important dinner scene, didn't properly explain why it was important to have a "male Bene Gesserit" (again, modern sensibilities), didn't properly explain Paul's visions and left it very inconsistent/inconclusive, but these long (beautiful, certainly) shots with empty silences were there, because that's what matters in fricking DUNE...

For those who don't care about the depth of Dune and the points Herbert tried to make, the movies are lovely. And for the ones who do, we'll always have the books, so whatever, I guess. But I got my COVID shots quickly just to watch Dune Part One and I'm still a little bit salty, lol, that's all.