They were Harconnen. I ended up watching parts for some of the same reasons and some others. Great production value, just made to be faithful to modern audiences and not the source material.
in the book its revealed a large portion of the troops were sardaukar wearing harkonnen gear to try to hide the fact that the emperor was behind the attack
I really wanted the action/battle like David Lynch's version, but it didn't have that. Was it beautiful? Yes. Is it well done? Yes. But I prefer the mysticism of the Lynch film. But I was disappointed with Chani's reaction in the end.
The lynch version was WEIRD--it looked, sounded and felt like an alien universe. I forgive a lot if a movie creates a truly original world.I agree about the mysticism--but Lynch's movie cries out to be a miniseries--there was little drama, we were TOLD so much that should've been dramatized. I'm curious as to how Part 2 handles that, but so far the religious/ethnic grouping and their conflicts feel very Today. But we'll see when I watch the rest.
As much as people shit on the Lynch version. I can't help but feel that a story like Dune crammed full of internal dialogue and people fleshing out their ideas. Having internal monologue in his version I felt was a great idea. Sure it comes off as corny and almost theatrical in a way. But it does a pretty good job at giving you a window into what these people are feeling and thinking. I still think that the box scene is more powerful in Lynch's version with Paul reciting the litany against fear in his head.
I love the Lynch movie, warts and all (and not just on the Baron's face. Is this thing working?). I thought I posted a video about it on here. Next time I descend from the attic and hit the storeroom I'll see if I can find it. Lynch's version is original--it's genuinely WEIRD, which more science fiction should be. Imagine Lynch directing a Star Trek movie...
I used to be able to watch anything out of curiosity. Now I find I just don't have that morbid curiosity. I'll probably stumble on it years from now and be too tired to change the channel.
I'm trying to remember how the character was treated in the TV miniseries. Chani is an absolute blank in the Lynch version, which is one reason I still dream about an expansion. (Lynch says no.)
@@UpInTheAtticJSW In the miniseries Chani played the straight up romantic interest of Paul and she was loyal to the cause ,not part of a separate Fremen faction. She conflicted a bit with Jessica because Jessica wanted to control Paul's children. Chani in the new film is miscast and turned into an angry 'strong woman' . I haven't bothered to look up why she wanders off by herself at the end . The 2 miniseries are far superior to these new films for me.
@@mrbill4206 I prefer the actress who played Jessica in Lynch's DUNE--she IS that character to me--but I thought the one in the second miniseries (Alice Krige, I think) was excellent. You couldn't ask for more of a 'strong woman with agency' (Blech), but you BELIEVED she was that strong. That's the point of all the mostly silly debate about those sorts of characters--believability. Pauline Kael in her review of Lynch's DUNE (1984) said Linda Hunt's character could've declared herself true empress, and the movie audience would've been all for it--because her housekeeper FELT powerful, we BELIEVED she was a strong characte--and she's barely in the movie.
@@JohnInTheShelter I think the actress in the new film is in over her head as Chani and was chosen because she is the 'newest big thing' in Hollywood. And you're right. Actresses can exude strength with no overt over-acting. I think it's called gravitas.
They did much worse with the space guild's motivation in the end of the movie... and this is not even a current mindset thing. I'll let you see it, but the movie lost all its essence and there is no more reason to fight for spice because of it.
Any adaptation of Herbert's work to film requires actors that are more character actors. These parts are very nuanced as well as the body of work as a whole being very difficult to adapt. So them using big name actors in this way was a real big turn off. I was already tired of seeing the same old actors being used in multiple films. So when they use these for this film, I was disappointed.
I like to see complete unknowns in scifi movies. I want to feel I'm stepping into a completely new world. This is why injecting a modern sensibility is SUCH a turnoff to me. The first part had none of that, which helped me skate over the familiar faces. Can't have everything, which is fine. But if you're selling this as Something Unlike Anything You've Ever Seen, seeing modern gender role politics is a real bringdown.
I think youre missing the point of this change somewhat, dennis had talked about why he made chani this way and its was because of how many people incorrectly interpreted the first book when it came out. the thing is a large part, possibly even the majority of the general audience realistically is stupid and without direction will take the story of dune at face value and dennis didnt want that to happen a second time. so to avoid this he created a way for the story to more accurately portray the intended vision of frank herbert to a larger audience. Dennis didnt dislike the idea of a woman blindly following a messiah as part of dune, the change wasnt some act of feminism it was purely an act of story writing and in my opinion is a very elegant way to adapt the story. and dont get me wrong you dont have to like this change, especially as a fan of the books i can see why this change may be frustrating as it is quite a large change from the original story. however adding this feminism for the sake of feminism narrative is just silly, dennis is a huge fan of the books and obviously is not going to try and shoehorn in any narrative that wasnt part of frank herberts vision. with that said though, dune is clearly a feminist piece of literature. feminism is nowhere near its main theme but the mental abilities and power of women are far above men and male and female fremen are treated as equals, these are 2 very important themes in the book and there are women with power over men throughout the story. so even if dennis made this change purely for the feminist idea it wouldnt exactly be something new to the story of dune
If this was a problem you had to use some outsider. You could have Paul and Jessica talking about it and make it extra clear they know they are using the Fremen religion to their own personal goals. But you should never use the Fremen. Because their religious fanaticism is a key plot element. Once you undermine this key plot element, you undermine the entire plot. Not to say you severely destroy Chani's tragic arc. Which in turn destroys a lot of what is the emotional power behind events all the way into Children of Dune. This is incredibly dumb..... Its like you do not understand the books at all and what are their key elements. And you just write yourself into a corner where you cant possibly hit the same emotional notes the books manage to achieve. You are stuck with something which will feel without a soul.
@@Ruimas28 yeah thats very fair, like i said i think its very reasonable to not like the change even if i personally think it works for what dennis was trying to do. my issue was with this video in particular was the whole feminism angle this guy was talking about
@harrybiz3523 Exactly the problem. It isn't for Dennis to "fix the story" and tell us how to feel about something. It's to tell a story and let the audience decide. This is a trope that has popped up a lot lately, the filmmakers trying to set the moral bar for the audience, as if they know better.
@@Luciphell but he saw that letting the audience decide doesnt work well with dune and it would be stupid of him to not use that hindsight. and thats not to say its the fault of dunes writing, dennis wasnt trying to "fix" the story he was just making the intent clearer because unfortunately a lot of people wont think very critically about it. it sucks that he had to do that but again if you already know people are going to interpret your movie incorrectly it would be dumb not to do anything about it
@@harrybiz3523 It's this sort of thinking that is the problem. "We know better, we don't want you to come to your own conclusions since they may be ones we do not approve of, so we are going to hit you over the head with it until you get it right." It's a Liberal writing trope that has taken prominence over the past decade.
It is worth sticking with, even if Chani is a different character to that portrayed in the book. I can take her being used as a "modern audience" proxy even if I'm not really that modern! Thanks again JSW.
These responses are, of course, mine, and they're personal, and can change. I don't turn off a movie because of its perceived politics, but THIS time it just felt so arbitrary. (I cut a line about how I LIKE this character better than the Lynch and Herbert Chanis.) I reserve the right to change my mind. :)
@@komasdfg We all know they will make Chani an insufferable "Strong Female" "GirlBoss" pseudo antagonist in the next movie, because of girl power and because is impossible for Hollywood to stop this tendency of avoid following the source material, absurd...
@@joelburgos69Many in Hollywood can only create female characters that are either nothings or gods. They're not much better with male characters but audiences don't want to see weak men; they're okay with nothing women who just look good.
Dude, watch the rest of the movie. It's good. Chani is great in it. In the books there are men and women who are skeptical of Paul (Mo Adeeb) the whole way through, AND even in the sequel. If women having agency in film gives you such a problem, what do independent women in the real world do to you. Movies weren't better when women were just sidekicks with tits. Go to blockbuster and watch some 90s classics if you can't handle a bit of real world diversity in the characters on screen. How old are you? Have women played such a minor role in your life? If so, maybe it's because that's how you want to see them.
" If women having agency in film gives you such a problem," Deal with your personal issues on your time, not mine. Since you need things explained to you like you're two, your silly Woke Internetspeak comment doesn't apply to me--and it's not the point of the video. Comment again when you're not so weak that you have to take every opportunity to wave your hands in the air and shout "I'm one of the GOOD ones, don't hate me, childbearing-persons!"
It amazes me that people like you believe that a book about imaginary events 16,000 years in the future should require conforming to gender norms and values that emerged 22,000 years before. It's pure hubris and self centered.
It amazes ME you posted a longish post that has nothing to do with my actual thoughts. I want to see what ethics and morals could be in the future, guided by human (future) history and imagined norms. I don't want to see a 2024 figure injected into Frank Herbert's well-thought-out imaginary future. Please take your virtue signalling elsewhere.
Um. The wider story of Dune is ultimately a cautionary tale about a great many things as most science fiction of the 1960s was. It's a tragedy. Dune is all the bad things about humanity played on the scale of galaxies. In the context of the wider story changing Chani actually means the version of Chani you're defending is wrong. Like a lot of Dune Chani is a representation of something, a stand in. And just like a lot of Dune it's a send up of the idea represented. It is ironic to champion anything in Dune because the very act of it being in the Dune universe makes it kind of a bad thing. Or it wouldn't be there.
I haven't seen this yet. I liked part 1. I love the David Lynch version and it changed a lot of the source material. Of course it had to, to fit everything into one movie, but it changed a lot of things for no real reason. Some of those weird changes are my favorite parts of the movie, and others are just awful. I'll probably watch this at some point, but I'm a little less excited than I was. I don't like when a film treats the audience like they are stupid.
Lynch makes some genuinely intelligent movies, and yet he never talks down to the audience--he assumes we are all smart enough to grasp what's going on, even if it's kind of vague and mystical.
??? I just finished reading through God Emperor. This is one of my 10 favorite films of all time. I don’t like Chani’s arc in Dune: Messiah. She’s mostly irrelevant compared to book 1. I think her movie interpretation is a master stroke.
A positive review of Herberts post-Children of Dune books said Herbert took the ideas of the first three books and then went DEEPER. I really like that idea, of not trying to widen the universe so much as to delve deeper into them. I haven't read the last Herbert Dunes but look forward to them. I'm all for improving characters, but this just felt forced, and blatant. There are ways of deepening the character without it feeling so fake.
Spice = Oil... Dune equals Space islam and the Middle East.. End of Debate. The novel was serialized in Analog magazine from 1963 to 1965 as two separate serials: Dune World and Prophet of Dune. People saying that nobody knew that Oil was in the Middle East are completely WRONG. George Bernard Reynolds drilled the first oil well in the Masjid-i-Solaiman oil field in Khozestan province, Iran. The discovery led to the formation of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), which later became British Petroleum. The British government acquired most of APOC's stock in 1914, giving them dominance in the Iranian oil industry. Large scale discovery and Oil production began in the rest of the Middel East shortly after 1945. As I said, NO DEBATE
Terrific post. I suspect Herbert knew all of this when he was writing. P.S. The Analog art was by John Schoenherr, and began an association between him and Dune that lasted decades. He's my favorite DUNE cover artist. (Vincent DiFate and Bruce Pennington are right up there.)
@@UpInTheAtticJSW Yes, Herbert absolutely did know of these things. He even mentions his Arabic friends commenting on it back then, in his own words. But there have been lots of discussion about this and lots of uneducated people saying that Dune's spice had nothing to do with oil because oil was not known of at the time, in the Middle East, which is completely false. The Author even admits that he drew direct inspiration from the Middle Eastern Oil for spice, as a means of long range travel, which it absolutely is and also the Religion of the Fremen being directly influenced by islam and it is the basis for their religion. While the Emperor and the other houses basically being the Western powers and a mix of the West's systems. Spice, found on the Dune world allows for long range travel in the Dune books and the Fremen space islam is there. Oil allows for long range travel on planet Earth in real life. The sands of the Middle East, in which oil production is located, in massive deposits is dominated by islam, on Earth. The connection was admitted by the Author but there are still some really dense individuals that say it has nothing to do with Dune.. It really is astonishing to see that level of denial about something already confirmed by it's creator.
Well said, and now I will not waste my time watching this movie. Tired of hollywood destroying some of my most loved books of my youth with girl power BS.
They were Harconnen. I ended up watching parts for some of the same reasons and some others. Great production value, just made to be faithful to modern audiences and not the source material.
In the ambush scene the fremen were attacking Harconnen troops. Harconnen wore black. Saducar wore white.
in the book its revealed a large portion of the troops were sardaukar wearing harkonnen gear to try to hide the fact that the emperor was behind the attack
Correct. ✅ Had the same thought.
If you didn't like that in the first 15 minutes, you're really not going to like the end
I really wanted the action/battle like David Lynch's version, but it didn't have that. Was it beautiful? Yes. Is it well done? Yes. But I prefer the mysticism of the Lynch film. But I was disappointed with Chani's reaction in the end.
The lynch version was WEIRD--it looked, sounded and felt like an alien universe. I forgive a lot if a movie creates a truly original world.I agree about the mysticism--but Lynch's movie cries out to be a miniseries--there was little drama, we were TOLD so much that should've been dramatized. I'm curious as to how Part 2 handles that, but so far the religious/ethnic grouping and their conflicts feel very Today. But we'll see when I watch the rest.
As much as people shit on the Lynch version. I can't help but feel that a story like Dune crammed full of internal dialogue and people fleshing out their ideas. Having internal monologue in his version I felt was a great idea. Sure it comes off as corny and almost theatrical in a way. But it does a pretty good job at giving you a window into what these people are feeling and thinking. I still think that the box scene is more powerful in Lynch's version with Paul reciting the litany against fear in his head.
I love the Lynch movie, warts and all (and not just on the Baron's face. Is this thing working?).
I thought I posted a video about it on here. Next time I descend from the attic and hit the storeroom I'll see if I can find it.
Lynch's version is original--it's genuinely WEIRD, which more science fiction should be.
Imagine Lynch directing a Star Trek movie...
Don't bother going back and finishing it. I'm not that familiar with Frank Herberts' Dune universe, but this one was a shadow of the previous one
I used to be able to watch anything out of curiosity. Now I find I just don't have that morbid curiosity. I'll probably stumble on it years from now and be too tired to change the channel.
It’s better than the first one. It’s Empire Strikes Back to A New Hope.
I was hoping Paul would look at little miss angry woman and say "What's yer problem? I thought you wanted to be free and a have green planet".
I'm trying to remember how the character was treated in the TV miniseries.
Chani is an absolute blank in the Lynch version, which is one reason I still dream about an expansion. (Lynch says no.)
@@UpInTheAtticJSW In the miniseries Chani played the straight up romantic interest of Paul and she was loyal to the cause ,not part of a separate Fremen faction.
She conflicted a bit with Jessica because Jessica wanted to control Paul's children.
Chani in the new film is miscast and turned into an angry 'strong woman' .
I haven't bothered to look up why she wanders off by herself at the end .
The 2 miniseries are far superior to these new films for me.
@@mrbill4206 I prefer the actress who played Jessica in Lynch's DUNE--she IS that character to me--but I thought the one in the second miniseries (Alice Krige, I think) was excellent. You couldn't ask for more of a 'strong woman with agency' (Blech), but you BELIEVED she was that strong. That's the point of all the mostly silly debate about those sorts of characters--believability. Pauline Kael in her review of Lynch's DUNE (1984) said Linda Hunt's character could've declared herself true empress, and the movie audience would've been all for it--because her housekeeper FELT powerful, we BELIEVED she was a strong characte--and she's barely in the movie.
@@JohnInTheShelter I think the actress in the new film is in over her head as Chani and was chosen because she is the 'newest big thing' in Hollywood.
And you're right. Actresses can exude strength with no overt over-acting. I think it's called gravitas.
They did much worse with the space guild's motivation in the end of the movie... and this is not even a current mindset thing.
I'll let you see it, but the movie lost all its essence and there is no more reason to fight for spice because of it.
Any adaptation of Herbert's work to film requires actors that are more character actors. These parts are very nuanced as well as the body of work as a whole being very difficult to adapt. So them using big name actors in this way was a real big turn off. I was already tired of seeing the same old actors being used in multiple films. So when they use these for this film, I was disappointed.
I like to see complete unknowns in scifi movies. I want to feel I'm stepping into a completely new world. This is why injecting a modern sensibility is SUCH a turnoff to me. The first part had none of that, which helped me skate over the familiar faces. Can't have everything, which is fine. But if you're selling this as Something Unlike Anything You've Ever Seen, seeing modern gender role politics is a real bringdown.
P.S. That was the way Lynch cast much of his DUNE. They would've been able to handle a deeper screenplay.
I think youre missing the point of this change somewhat, dennis had talked about why he made chani this way and its was because of how many people incorrectly interpreted the first book when it came out. the thing is a large part, possibly even the majority of the general audience realistically is stupid and without direction will take the story of dune at face value and dennis didnt want that to happen a second time. so to avoid this he created a way for the story to more accurately portray the intended vision of frank herbert to a larger audience. Dennis didnt dislike the idea of a woman blindly following a messiah as part of dune, the change wasnt some act of feminism it was purely an act of story writing and in my opinion is a very elegant way to adapt the story. and dont get me wrong you dont have to like this change, especially as a fan of the books i can see why this change may be frustrating as it is quite a large change from the original story. however adding this feminism for the sake of feminism narrative is just silly, dennis is a huge fan of the books and obviously is not going to try and shoehorn in any narrative that wasnt part of frank herberts vision.
with that said though, dune is clearly a feminist piece of literature. feminism is nowhere near its main theme but the mental abilities and power of women are far above men and male and female fremen are treated as equals, these are 2 very important themes in the book and there are women with power over men throughout the story. so even if dennis made this change purely for the feminist idea it wouldnt exactly be something new to the story of dune
If this was a problem you had to use some outsider.
You could have Paul and Jessica talking about it and make it extra clear they know they are using the Fremen religion to their own personal goals.
But you should never use the Fremen. Because their religious fanaticism is a key plot element. Once you undermine this key plot element, you undermine the entire plot.
Not to say you severely destroy Chani's tragic arc. Which in turn destroys a lot of what is the emotional power behind events all the way into Children of Dune.
This is incredibly dumb.....
Its like you do not understand the books at all and what are their key elements.
And you just write yourself into a corner where you cant possibly hit the same emotional notes the books manage to achieve.
You are stuck with something which will feel without a soul.
@@Ruimas28 yeah thats very fair, like i said i think its very reasonable to not like the change even if i personally think it works for what dennis was trying to do. my issue was with this video in particular was the whole feminism angle this guy was talking about
@harrybiz3523
Exactly the problem. It isn't for Dennis to "fix the story" and tell us how to feel about something. It's to tell a story and let the audience decide.
This is a trope that has popped up a lot lately, the filmmakers trying to set the moral bar for the audience, as if they know better.
@@Luciphell but he saw that letting the audience decide doesnt work well with dune and it would be stupid of him to not use that hindsight. and thats not to say its the fault of dunes writing, dennis wasnt trying to "fix" the story he was just making the intent clearer because unfortunately a lot of people wont think very critically about it. it sucks that he had to do that but again if you already know people are going to interpret your movie incorrectly it would be dumb not to do anything about it
@@harrybiz3523
It's this sort of thinking that is the problem.
"We know better, we don't want you to come to your own conclusions since they may be ones we do not approve of, so we are going to hit you over the head with it until you get it right."
It's a Liberal writing trope that has taken prominence over the past decade.
A commentor here: "Movies weren't better when women were just sidekicks with tits"
I'll respond when you have actually watched the video.
It is worth sticking with, even if Chani is a different character to that portrayed in the book. I can take her being used as a "modern audience" proxy even if I'm not really that modern! Thanks again JSW.
These responses are, of course, mine, and they're personal, and can change. I don't turn off a movie because of its perceived politics, but THIS time it just felt so arbitrary. (I cut a line about how I LIKE this character better than the Lynch and Herbert Chanis.)
I reserve the right to change my mind. :)
i wonder how would Chani be portray in Messiah.
@@komasdfg We all know they will make Chani an insufferable "Strong Female" "GirlBoss" pseudo antagonist in the next movie, because of girl power and because is impossible for Hollywood to stop this tendency of avoid following the source material, absurd...
@@joelburgos69Many in Hollywood can only create female characters that are either nothings or gods. They're not much better with male characters but audiences don't want to see weak men; they're okay with nothing women who just look good.
Dude, watch the rest of the movie. It's good. Chani is great in it. In the books there are men and women who are skeptical of Paul (Mo Adeeb) the whole way through, AND even in the sequel. If women having agency in film gives you such a problem, what do independent women in the real world do to you. Movies weren't better when women were just sidekicks with tits. Go to blockbuster and watch some 90s classics if you can't handle a bit of real world diversity in the characters on screen. How old are you? Have women played such a minor role in your life? If so, maybe it's because that's how you want to see them.
" If women having agency in film gives you such a problem,"
Deal with your personal issues on your time, not mine.
Since you need things explained to you like you're two, your silly Woke Internetspeak comment doesn't apply to me--and it's not the point of the video. Comment again when you're not so weak that you have to take every opportunity to wave your hands in the air and shout "I'm one of the GOOD ones, don't hate me, childbearing-persons!"
She doesn't have tits
Great analysis. No way around it today. Woke garbage. Still a good movie.
It amazes me that people like you believe that a book about imaginary events 16,000 years in the future should require conforming to gender norms and values that emerged 22,000 years before. It's pure hubris and self centered.
It amazes ME you posted a longish post that has nothing to do with my actual thoughts.
I want to see what ethics and morals could be in the future, guided by human (future) history and imagined norms.
I don't want to see a 2024 figure injected into Frank Herbert's well-thought-out imaginary future.
Please take your virtue signalling elsewhere.
Um. The wider story of Dune is ultimately a cautionary tale about a great many things as most science fiction of the 1960s was. It's a tragedy. Dune is all the bad things about humanity played on the scale of galaxies. In the context of the wider story changing Chani actually means the version of Chani you're defending is wrong. Like a lot of Dune Chani is a representation of something, a stand in. And just like a lot of Dune it's a send up of the idea represented. It is ironic to champion anything in Dune because the very act of it being in the Dune universe makes it kind of a bad thing. Or it wouldn't be there.
I haven't seen this yet. I liked part 1. I love the David Lynch version and it changed a lot of the source material. Of course it had to, to fit everything into one movie, but it changed a lot of things for no real reason. Some of those weird changes are my favorite parts of the movie, and others are just awful. I'll probably watch this at some point, but I'm a little less excited than I was. I don't like when a film treats the audience like they are stupid.
Lynch makes some genuinely intelligent movies, and yet he never talks down to the audience--he assumes we are all smart enough to grasp what's going on, even if it's kind of vague and mystical.
??? I just finished reading through God Emperor. This is one of my 10 favorite films of all time.
I don’t like Chani’s arc in Dune: Messiah. She’s mostly irrelevant compared to book 1. I think her movie interpretation is a master stroke.
A positive review of Herberts post-Children of Dune books said Herbert took the ideas of the first three books and then went DEEPER. I really like that idea, of not trying to widen the universe so much as to delve deeper into them. I haven't read the last Herbert Dunes but look forward to them.
I'm all for improving characters, but this just felt forced, and blatant. There are ways of deepening the character without it feeling so fake.
Spice = Oil... Dune equals Space islam and the Middle East.. End of Debate.
The novel was serialized in Analog magazine from 1963 to 1965 as two separate serials: Dune World and Prophet of Dune.
People saying that nobody knew that Oil was in the Middle East are completely WRONG.
George Bernard Reynolds drilled the first oil well in the Masjid-i-Solaiman oil field in Khozestan province, Iran.
The discovery led to the formation of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), which later became British Petroleum. The British government acquired most of APOC's stock in 1914, giving them dominance in the Iranian oil industry.
Large scale discovery and Oil production began in the rest of the Middel East shortly after 1945.
As I said, NO DEBATE
Terrific post.
I suspect Herbert knew all of this when he was writing.
P.S. The Analog art was by John Schoenherr, and began an association between him and Dune that lasted decades. He's my favorite DUNE cover artist. (Vincent DiFate and Bruce Pennington are right up there.)
@@UpInTheAtticJSW Yes, Herbert absolutely did know of these things. He even mentions his Arabic friends commenting on it back then, in his own words.
But there have been lots of discussion about this and lots of uneducated people saying that Dune's spice had nothing to do with oil because oil was not known of at the time, in the Middle East, which is completely false.
The Author even admits that he drew direct inspiration from the Middle Eastern Oil for spice, as a means of long range travel, which it absolutely is and also the Religion of the Fremen being directly influenced by islam and it is the basis for their religion.
While the Emperor and the other houses basically being the Western powers and a mix of the West's systems.
Spice, found on the Dune world allows for long range travel in the Dune books and the Fremen space islam is there.
Oil allows for long range travel on planet Earth in real life.
The sands of the Middle East, in which oil production is located, in massive deposits is dominated by islam, on Earth.
The connection was admitted by the Author but there are still some really dense individuals that say it has nothing to do with Dune.. It really is astonishing to see that level of denial about something already confirmed by it's creator.
Agreed.
Well said, and now I will not waste my time watching this movie. Tired of hollywood destroying some of my most loved books of my youth with girl power BS.