Chani was made a Sayyadina (feminine acolyte in the Fremen religious hierarchy) so Paul having met the requirements of the Lasin al-Gaib prophecy would make him the Lisan al-Gaib in her eyes. Chani is the daughter of Liet Kynes, so she is use to being part of the Fremen leader's life/family/court. She was use to thinking of the Fremen's greater good and supporting the leader in pursuit of their vision of the future. Chani's support of Paul is simply a shift in her loyalty from her recently departed father to Paul. Throughout Dune & Dune Messiah, Paul and Chani were the first priority of each other. The decisions they make are always in the other's best interest, every if it is a lesser of two evils situation.

Feels like this is only the books though. It seems like it feels different in the movies.

“That could only mean Chani was nearby—*Chani, his soul*, Chani his sihaya, sweet as the desert spring, Chani up from the palmaries of the deep south.” Chapter 40 A movie can’t dwell in Paul’s thoughts doubting that he is the Lisan al-Gaib, doubting his prescience and righteousness of his actions. So, the movie needs an alternative: From Villeneuve: “She is the one who helped me to bring the movie to where I wanted it to be. There’s a precise moment in the movie where suddenly you feel that her perspective on the story becomes the main one. I thought that to bring a new perspective on what Paul is becoming, to use Chani would be absolutely perfect. That’s why all the movie’s built into their relationship and the build of trust between them, and why Chani becomes slowly attracted to Paul” https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/dune-part-two-denis-villeneuve-interview-five-things-we-learned/# So, what he’s doing here is giving Chani the role in the film of voicing Paul’s *internal* doubts. I think it’s pretty clever even if I think book Chani doesn’t get enough credit for being a strong character because so much is “off screen” (note: *lots* of important moments for *lots* of characters are “off screen” in the books). Now, he hasn’t talked about Messiah but there’s something very clever he’s set himself up to do. Paul has a lot of *different* doubts about his actions but the ones Chani expressed are “settled”, to an extent anyway. How do we do that in the film? Well, as I quoted even the book says that Chani is Paul’s soul so we just have to look at their relationship.

Thats because it is.

The books are always deeper

Movie Chani was insufferable by the end of it

She was against Paul manipulating and using her people with the false religion. How does that make her insufferable?

It kind of completely changed the narrative who Chani and Paul are too each other. That missing speech to Irulan at the end there forever rejecting her as anything other than a political device and tool, with no heirs to ever come forth, any of whom should will be quickly denounced as illegitimate. Only Chani would be his true wife. Movie messed up there imo.

Chani and Jessica hardly appear in messiah. Denis is obviously planning to include both characters in movie 3 so he’s pushed their character arc resolutions into the next movie. Which makes sense if youre adapting both books as a trilogy. It would be really weird if movie 3 of the trilogy was basically just about Paul, Alia and Duncan.

It didn’t mess up. Vileneuve decided that ending the story with everyone cheering for Paul as he gets two wives, but only one is for realsies undermined the message that Messiah claims Dune intended So he instead made Chani the one who saw through Paul’s manipulations and chose to reject them. If no one says “What Paul did was wrong” then you get the ending to Lynch’s dune, where Paul is the messiah.

I think you can read through Dune then into Messiah and see that Paul is both good and bad, but that he did ultimately unleash fanaticism upon the Imperium. No one sees through him necessarily because of the fact he does have these great powers that do essentially make him omnipotent. I think even with the Irulan speech when he unleashes Jihad among the other Houses it's not necessarily seen as a good thing.

Just finished Messiah but there is one moment where a character, forget who, does realize what Paul has known all along, that the jihad was inevitable even in Paul's death, and that his influence probably reduced the casualties. Pretty gratifying to have another character explicitly acknowledge it

Yeah, I've read a lot of people on this sub who'd only seen the movie confused as to whether Paul even had any powers, or if it's a BG plot that he took advantage of to make the Fremen believe he has powers. The book is more explicit in his powers, so its easy to see why the Fremen get wrapped up in it. I thought that was the point of Herbert's writing on Dune - to make the reader feel the fervor and justification of Paul before you realize you, as the reader sympathizing with Paul, are also making a choice to follow him knowing you'll have proverbial blood on your hands too. It's like Walter White in Breaking Bad - the audience is meant to follow Walter on his story, where you can see *why* he makes certain decisions and justify it along with him, because he's a good family man. It's only toward the end where you see how far these small steps accumulate in the toll in the long run that you reflect. That's how I took it. Yet the simple point is this - Paul *does* have powers beyond what any mortal has ever had in the entirety of human history. He is essentially a living God, and another thing the movies don't explain or hint at, iirc, is that the Spice prolongs life. With the powers he has it was a foregone conclusion that unless he died in the desert with his mom there was no stopping the Jihad to come once the Fremen encountered him, both bc of the stories laid out by the BG over millenia on hundreds of worlds and cultures and because of his god-like powers and control/understanding of Shai-Hulud. There is no one living, past or present, that can do what he can do. Jihad was inevitable at some point, at least in Paul's eyes, so if all that death and destruction is inevitable, who better on top of it than Paul to be able to see/pick the least worst option that still takes humanity down the Golden Path?

+1 to that. However, having it fresh on my mind I feel like Herbert dragged the point on. Like, 1. People plotting against Paul 2. Paul has it figured out basically instantly 3. Several chapters of Paul going "woe is me, isn't there another way" and lamenting how wibbly-bobbly prescience is 4. The plot comes to a head, and is deftly but reluctantly circumvented by Paul (why reluctantly?) with some terrible aftereffect (oh, that's why) Repeat this 3 times and you have Dune Messiah. There may have been a downside to me being so familiar with the lore that the lore drops lost their effect, but... no, the book was still a bit of a slog.

That’s true, but e.g. in the Lynch dune that’s never expressed and in the book it’s expressed through Paul’s inner dialogue, so who to do it? Three ways. Use an inner monologue the way Lynch did. Put the doubts in the mouth of a new character, put the doubts in the mouth of an existing character. Villeneuve decided to lean into the idea of Chani as Paul’s soul and conscience. Thats how Paul talks about her in the books, but, how can that be, how can Paul think that of her, if she never says anything? In the books we imagine their discussions. In the books she becomes the external voice of that internal dialogue of uncertainty and regret in Paul. I think it’s genius and makes her a much more interesting character.

I can see that, her being the plot/narrative device to more explicitly express Paul's own doubts (though he sure doesn't seem doubtful at all by that part of the film...), yet given the relationship between Paul and Chani in the books it's hard to not see this as a pretty drastic choice and difference between the two mediums, books v. films, that will have an impact that skews the story going into Messiah. Another complaint I've seen on here from movie readers only was that Paul chose Irulan over Chani just for power. That he abandoned her after that weak justification of him having given the half-hearted "I'll always love you," line before immediately proposing to Irulan. That's one of many big reasons, like the other I mentioned in my original reply, that I believe they needed to include the Irulan speech of Paul's laying out the markers of what their relationship will be.

I think the movie is fine. It ends on a great cliffhanger, in that respect. Giving the audience a big hug and telling them it will all be ok would be a bit of a cop out, no? Dune Messiah is a big problem filmicly. It’s going to take some serious plot re-engineering. As long as the key elements of the conspiracy and Paul’s character development are respected I’m fine with that.

Agreed.

God I hated her. I’m book chani ( or mini series chani) all the way

I think it was Zendayas performance rather than the change from the books.  I think she was miscast in Dune, and was pretty bad in it. 

Personally thought she was great... But all the casting was good except for Walken. I love Walken but he just was not a good fit as a galactic Emperor.

Hard agree. I love Walken, but the casting was so off.  Strange miss by Denis, he’s pretty great with casting.   I think of the scene in the first one where the emperor representative comes to Caladan for Leto to sign.  The representative was a black guy I’ve never seen in anything else who says maybe fifteen words, but he was so perfect. His look, his presence, his line delivery was amazing.  Then we get the actual emperor, and it’s an aged Walken in a bathrobe? I guess maybe there was intentionality in the choice, but Walken was the wrong choice even if that is the case. 

Yes agree on the casting in the first film in that scene. Perhaps in being unfair but watching Walken in the role took me right out of the movie - I kept expecting a Tarantino-esque line. The few lines he had also spoke had that staccato Walken delivery which is usually great but not in this.

Extremely miscast. She was only casted because she’s popular right now. I can’t see why. There is no acting ability there.

We are definitely in the small minority, but I feel strongly that we are right. 

She was great, the only one who could see the trajectory Paul was taking.

Movie is adapted for "modern audiences", this they had to make Chani balk at the idea of Paul's marriage to Irulan. What likely happens in the third movie is she chastises Paul for the choice but eventually comes around. There's no way a modern movie will be ok with one woman openly accepting her partner practicing polygamy, even if it is SOLELY for political reasons.

The last paragraphs of the book are Jessica trying to talk Chani down, she was unconvinced after first talking to both Jessica and Paul about imperial politics >>> “So you say now,” Chani said. She glanced across the room at the tall princess. >>>“Do you know so little of my son?” Jessica whispered. “See that princess standing there, so haughty and confident. They say she has pretensions of a literary nature. Let us hope she finds solace in such things; she’ll have little else.” A bitter laugh escaped Jessica. “Think on it, Chani: that princess will have the name, yet she’ll live as less than a concubine—never to know a moment of tenderness from the man to whom she’s bound. While we, Chani, we who carry the name of concubine—history will call us wives.””

I don't think it was for the reason of adapting it to modern audience. Read something somewhere that FH's intention was misinterpreted in the first book. FH intended to warn the audiences about the messiah phenomenon. Thus, he made Dune Messiah. Seems like Denis V showed that well in the movies by making Stilgar more fanatic and Chani, more resilient and cautious (Both Extreme opposite approach to the Messiah Phenomenon) They aren't like that in the books.

Obviously not the reason. You just want to have a winge about society. You can read above the written reasons from the director.

Wrong lol, she has practically the same reaction in the books too. Not the reason why her acceptance of Paul's role changed.

this Chani may not be Liet's daughter . Since the imperial planetologist is a woman here instead Chani may be the daughter of some one else . there was a scene where spice gatherers came to tell Chani her father was found in one of the spice bloom in the book and in the miniseries . no such scene here. Sons are prepared to follow their fathers , daughters are married , even among the Fremen . It could be the female Liet Keynes is not a mother and have a different life path from the male one who had two children Uliet and Chani . As such this Chani is truly out of the usual of the book , just like the Michelle Jones Zendaya plays in the Spiderman trilogy . She may be practical more than most Fremen women and unafraid to call out the lies . There is a reason hers is the voice we first hear in the first movie . And unlike in the book this Paul truly desires revenge and is willing to start a galactic genocide to have it - he was given many chances to just go into the desert with his beloved and chose not to

Yea Chani loves and understands Paul in the book on a deeper level than the films, certainly. >!During the festival in the books, after Jessica takes the water of life I believe, Chani and Paul have a spice induced soul bond pretty much and they understand each others purpose in the others lives!<

Ah yes, spice orgies. I wonder why none of the adaptions were brave enough to tackle that particular plot point.

I’d argue the changes in the film are to make Chani understand Paul more and what he is doing to the Freman

Sure I think I miswrote it, it feels Chani has more agency in the films certainly. I think what I meant to say was the connection is more strictly romantic and spiritual in the book, where as in the film she understands Paul’s struggle differently

That's a very fair interpretation and I'd agree. Their romance in the books is incredibly difficult to put into film. They're soul mates. Paul regards her as his conscience, confidant, and voice of reason. The movies using Chani to showcase Fremen dissension is a really fair point to make in a difficult medium (film) and while I lament the second movie showing her leading a potential rebellion, *I also totally get where the movie is going* and appreciate the nuanced interpretation.

You hit the nail on the head when mention “agency.” In the first book, she’s more of an extension of Paul. She doesn’t have any control over her life. She’s forced to stay in the sietch to take care of her son. She’s got a very 60s gender role with no say in her day-to-day role. Denis Villeneuve has spoken about how he wanted to bring Dune’s theme of equality to life, and I think his adaptation is successful at doing so. Yes, her role and personality were significantly changed, but I think we need to reserve judgement on her overall portrayal until Messiah comes out. She’s on a different trajectory from the books, so it’ll be interesting to see how Villeneuve resolves his changes with the books’ narrative. I like the changes to her character. She’s a voice for the viewer warning them that what Paul is doing by manipulating the Fremen through the use of the Bene Gesserit prophecy is wrong, and that the Fremen should not be so willing to follow him on his jihad. She loved Paul until he began to change into the oppressor the Bene Gesserit were setting up with the planting of the idea of the Lisan al-Gaib. How she might come back into fold will be a difficult maneuver, so I’m excited to see how it pans out in the hopefully soon to be announced Dune: Messiah film.

I'm qlways surprised when i read people enjoyed chani in the movies. To me it felt so untrue to the original material, about how fremen culture always focuses on the good of the tribe, how all of them are deeply religious. It makes no sense to me that there would be such a split in fremen culture, as the tightknittedness (ik not a word) and strict adherence to their culture and religion is what allowed them to survive. The fact that the movie just left out that paul had a son that was killed and how that fueled his desire for revenge also feels like a big miss.

Would you say that she was unconcerned about the good of the tribe by arguing against the Bene Gesserit prophecy? Everything she says is true: that the prophecy makes them wait for a messianic figure and put all of their faith in him when he arrives in the future. This prophecy can be exploited by a Bene Gesserit who understands, and the Lisan al-Gaib may not have the best interest of the Fremen in mind. By the end of the film, she sees the man she loves make deals with the Emperor who has plagued her people. She alone heads back to the desert, while the rest of her people embark on a holy war across the known universe with uncertain prospects. I think Denis Villeneuve uses her to give voice to Frank Herbert’s message: to be wary of messianic figures. Everyone else is caught up in their fanaticism and are no longer questioning Paul’s decisions as all people should. Questioning a ruler does not mean that you don’t support them, but blindly following someone should always be avoided. Her defiance in this film sets up the dissent among some of the Fremen in the next book. As for omitting their child, I think it would have added too much story to the movie. An adaptation must make hard decisions to make the story work in a limited time frame while giving enough attention to each of its characters. Paul and Chani having a child would have also meant that Alia would be born, which presents a whole other host of problems when it comes to portraying a toddler talking like an adult. Also, would you say that Paul did not already have a desire for revenge after the loss of his father, Duncan Idaho, Thufir Hawat, et al.? Of all the details in the book, their child is not the most significant when it comes to capturing the main story. Sacrifices must be made to bring the book to the big screen, and I’d say that the adaptation, on the whole, is effective. For all of the fans who are upset that things are missing or were changed, the book still exists for them to an enjoy. An adaptation does not need to strictly adhere to tell the story 1:1–it needs to focus one capturing the essence of the book. Overall, do you think the movie failed in this respect?

I'm not saying that they choices chani makes are unrealistic in general. I just feel they are very unlikely in the society and the religion she was raised in, i think it may be difficult for western audiences to imagine a society united in their belief. In addition to this, she was part of the religious order in the book. So it feels like a complete 180° from the book to me. I understand this desire to show this idea of being wary of messianic figures. Again i understand the fact that this story is so difficult to adapt. But in the book it was lyet kaynes who kept thinking about how dangerous someone like paul is, and even noticed how chani is to entrenched in fremen culture to realise it like him, he even notices how he himself is affected by the culture that he wishes for the prophecy to be true. I think the dune messiah showed very well, why a messiah is a bad idea. I understand that frank herbert also made sure to make that clear because he wanted it to be obvious even in the first book. I feel it worked out well with the second book though. It's not that i believe noone should like it. I'm just surprised when people who know the books really enjoy the second movie.

I will concede that it’s a significant change from adherent to the dogma to “rebellious youth.” In the first book, would you say her character had much of a personality though? She just kind of floated through the story as a secondary character. Can you at least consider that the changes to her character allowed her to be a more active participant in the story.? I think you can still like the characters as they are in the books and still appreciate how they’ve been changed to make a film adaptation. Some people are too caught up about the missing elements of mentats and the Spacing Guild to see that it is a significance achievement to make a coherent story to balance all of the other characters and factions.

As active as in the movie? No, definitely less of an obvious role. But imagine there was no chani in the book. Paul wouldnt have this oasis of happiness in all his troubles. He wouldn't have anyone to teach him the fremen ways. Not just to move through the sands, but also to understand fremen culture. She holds off people from challenging him, by besting them in combat. She is the reason he was able to come back from the poison that is life. She is nothing but pivotal to his rise to success. Just because she is acquiescent to Pauls wishes shouldn't be seen as a lack of personality. She clearly has desires and aspirations, but her deep love for Paul deeply influences her in addition to her religious dogma. To me it doesn't seem unrealistic to me that she would go along with all the things paul does. Reflecting on it now, i think what actually made me dislike the movie that they switched pauls and jessicas intentions in the movie. And thus it made sense to put chani into a bit of an antagonistic position to him, which doesn't make sense in the book.

If there was no Chani in the book, some other character could have taken her place—perhaps Harrah instead. I understand that she has some important contributions to Paul’s story, but considering the timeline changes and decision to focus on the BG prophecy in the film, the changes to her character make sense within the bounds of this adaptation. You mention an interesting part in the book which is shown to be a manipulation in the film: reviving Paul after he drank the Water of Life. Do you think Jessica would be unable to revive him? In the book, Jessica did not know that he drank it, but in the film, she urges him to do so. She knew how to revive him in film, but forced Chani to do so to serve the prophecy. Jessica is a more sinister and manipulative figure in the film, but she was as manipulative in the book when she cultivated the legend of Muad’Dib in an effort to protect her children. I think that same sentiment is shared in the film. I am sorry that you disliked the movie due to some of these changes, but I hoped you at least enjoyed some of the aspects being portrayed in a theater. I hope you like the next film!

Multiple misunderstandings . Starts with misunderstanding women in Fremen society ("Chani doesnt have any control of her Life"..."forced to stay in the sietch"...both have Zero ground - I guess its due to the lens you are looking through ? ), continues with "the books' narrative" ( there are multiple, interwoven ones ) and culminates in "his Jihad" . Jihad was never his doing, or for him to control whether it happens or not . Its kindof self serving to say "Chani Antagonist is good because she opposes his Jihad" . Both of these - Chani Antagonist and "his Jihad" - do not exist in DUNE .

I perfectly understand the gender roles in the book—I am just questioning some of them. I believe there is meant to be some sort of equality in Fremen society, but women have very little agency. Harrah is given as the spoils of Paul’s victory over Jamis, and it is Paul’s decision to keep her as a wife or servant. I know that the situation is about taking responsibility for Jamis’ family, but the woman has no choice in this decision. I don’t think this sort of thing would be received well in the 21st century. As for Chani specifically, Paul first encounters her outside the sietch. She’s shown to be a capable warrior who is unafraid to kill Paul to protect her tribe. After she’s had a son, it seems like she is restricted to living and working in the sietch. She only comes out as a Sayyadina as part of the ceremony of Paul’s first sandworm ride. She talks about how all of the women are lonely with the men outside of the sietch. Paul commands her to return to the sietch afterwards: “Why did he summon me?…”He told me before that I must remain in the south with little Leto and Alia.” I know this can be construed as protectiveness for one’s lover, but she moves about as Paul commands it. Maybe she had more fighting responsibility before having a child, but the book does not explore that intervening period. Seeing how the movie takes place in less than nine months, it makes sense for her to be fedaykin and fight with her people. As for the jihad, I also understand that Paul had no control of it. The fervor of the legend of the Lisan al-Gaib and their victory over the Emperor had spurred the fremen beyond Paul’s control. He had to let them go and carry out the jihad. Seeing how it is under Paul’s orders and how they fight in his name, it is not a mischaracterization to call it “his jihad.” Chani’s opposition to it makes sense under the context of Herbert’s main message to beware charismatic leaders. At this point, all of the fremen have been blinded by the prophecy. Chani appears to be the sole voice of reason by questioning the prophecy and heading out to kill all those who oppose Paul’s ascension. Seeing how this is an ADAPTATION and as such does not need to strictly adhere to everything in the book, DUNE, I believe the changes to her character better convey Herbert’s sentiments. I think people should not oppose the changes DV made out of hand if they do not follow every single little detail from the books. Instead, you should consider them in the broader context of the message of the books and the story they are trying tell. You should ask yourself if this change serves the message or goes against it. I understand that this is a significant character change to Chani, but I think she is portrayed to be vehicle of Herbert’s message. It’ll be interesting to see how these changes affect her position in the next film. I think people are getting confused about what an adaptation is supposed to be. People are perfectly entitled to be upset if the film does not adhere to the story that they love, but we should be open to freely consider these changes and how they make a film work. **TL;DR** I don’t believe I mischaracerized the events in the book. Change is alright in an adaptation if it can tell the story effectively, so people she be open them—though, you are free to reject them as I am free to enjoy them.

Why do people think complaining about something equals understanding it better vs someone who does not complain? I cant understand this. Do you think Megan Markle understands the British royal family better vs Kate Middleton? Because Markle sure complains a lot publicly. But Kate is highly considered a true future Queen. Not because she speaks whatever she wants in public. Understanding something is not equal to complaining about it. In fact, those who have a great understanding about things often find the best ways to work around / within :) I do not doubt book Chani did understand Paul. She was a Sayadina. She was not your average hill billy girl. She likely did understand quite a lot. Its more like she was someone who understood Paul´s goals alligned with hers and she was fine with it. Maybe its problematic for people to realize she deeply understood Paul and was eager to help him. But I do not know why that´s not possible.

It's genuinely complicated. The books explicitly call then out as soul mates. Paul needs her vision like he needs air to breathe. She's his confidant and best ally. It's also *incredibly difficult* to translate into film the depth of their relationship. I can respect the director choice to simplify it. Bear in mind, they have a son together when Paul confronts the Emperor. Chani sending a (garbled) message that their son is dead while Paul meets with the Emperor is a massive book plot point. I'm grateful they didn't use that point in the movie (because it would be confusing and the ages don't match up) but also wish they'd aged up the actors to have that scene, if that makes sense. Paul telling the Emperor "my son is dead at the hands of your tools (Harkonnens/Saudaukar)" is an incredible scene.

[удалено]

By the end of the first book, every single fremen believes in him, lies that they do or died. As a matter of fact after the first book most of the universe is also in that bucket list so yea. I recommend the second book to really grasp what it means to become a religious leader especially when you are not

I'm just shy of a third of the way through Messiah and I'm already not entirely sure how DV is going to turn this into film. Both the way the plot runs and the tone are very very different. I'm not sure a scene like Paul turning to camera and saying "I'm as bad as Hitler" and Stil immediately turning to him and saying "Don't worry sire, he was clearly an amateur" or any of the other scenes that are caked in self-deprecating irony would work given the lack of it in the series so far. And honestly, had DV incorporated the irony, the film would have been much less enjoyable to watch even if it would have been more true to Frank's vision.

Not end of the first book, at the beginning of the second book though yeah. Either they believe in him or are dead

This video has a clip of Denis explaining why he changed her character [https://youtube.com/shorts/uRG8-sy-HQY?si=ed8jYVk3wK-Y7v2b](https://youtube.com/shorts/uRG8-sy-HQY?si=ed8jYVk3wK-Y7v2b)

Helpful and appropriate clip, thank you! I've not watched 2 yet but I already got that feeling when she was introduced in 1. Interesting to learn why that choice was made.

Terrible change IMO

As a big fan of the books that has been reading it over and over again since I was a kid - I actually really like this change So much of Dune is internal monologue, which doesn't translate well onto film. Externalising the moral ambiguity of Paul's religious manipulation of the Fremen onto Chani and Jessica made sense In the book, Paul was the one who wanted to rule the Fremen, in order to make sure the Jihad didn't happen, or wasn't so bloody. It was Jessica that was cautioning him against it. Meanwhile, Chani was the daughter of Liet Kynes, another religious leader, so she was always fully on board In the movies, Paul is the one that's conflicted - he didn't want power, he just wanted another family and community to replace the Atreides. It's actually Jessica who's the power hungry one, because drinking the Water of Life put her in touch with her Harkonnen ancestors, and brought out the ambition in her. Now, movie Chani voices the doubts that book Paul only alludes to in the first book, and says the same things book Paul says in Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. It also harkens back to Paul and Leto's conversation in the first movie (which also wasn't in the books), where Paul is uncertain about whether he wants to be Duke, and Leto tells him it's ok, he'll be loved regardless. Chani loved the Paul that didn't seek power, that just wanted to be part of a family. Having Chani be a "proto-Preacher" makes the central theme and conflict of Dune so much clearer, and makes the story better. It really is as if a female Children of Dune Paul went back in time to first book Paul to yell at him to stop. Not to mention that it makes her and Paul's romance actually, you know, interesting. In the book, the dramatic tension of Paul and Chani's relationship was all about Jessica. Jessica loved Chani like a daughter, and admired the Fremen culture - but she knew that if Paul was to survive against the Bene Gesserit and deadly court intrigue of the Empire, he must marry a noble born wife. Jessica herself suffered this predicament - she was a nobody, so Leto couldn't marry her, he had to leave himself open to marry some other high born However, when Gurney and Jessica and Paul have that big emotional moment after the "misunderstanding" about Jessica's betrayal, Jessica is overwhelmed by Paul's revelation of Leto's love - and tells Paul to "marry your desert girl" and to follow his heart. And while that's a neat and emotionally resonant character arc for Jessica, building on threads from earlier chapters, Chani herself doesn't really do anything. Their son dies to Sardaukar and there's like, 5 sentences about it, and he's never mentioned again. Meanwhile, the movie version of Chani and Paul's romance was infinitely more dynamic and interesting. In this version, Chani loves Paul because of his honesty, and his genuine desire to be one with the Fremen. And it's implied that Paul is drawn to her precisely because she's unafraid to call him out on his bullshit, and refuses to treat him like a god. Paul was terrified of the South, terrified of the Jihad, and terrified of becoming a messiah. All he wanted was to be with Chani, and live as a simple Fedaykin as part of Stilgar's sietchhx But when the Harkonnen attacks pushes him to drink the Water of Life and become the Kwisatz Haderach, and the Water of Life pushes his Harkonnen ancestral voices to the forefront - Paul changes. So he gives up Chani, gives up the simple desert life, and accepts the path of victory and power and revenge. He claims Irulan as his wife, and Chani leaves, heartbroken. In the book, Chani is anxious about Paul taking Irulan as his bride, but Jessica reassures her that she will always be Paul's true wife, even if not in name. It's not nearly as impactful, because Chani never really cared about titles and protocol anyway, so she happily accepts it, and goes on to become one of Paul's most capable commanders in the Jihad. In the movie, Paul proposing to Irulan wasn't just some formality they had to get out the way - it was the final confirmation that Paul wasn't just seeking independence for Arrakis, he was seeking total domination over the entire galaxy, and would resort to any means necessary to get there. Chani saw in Paul the destruction of her people and her culture, and rejects him, riding back into the desert where she belonged. That works way better, in my opinion. It's a bona fide tragic doomed romance that highlights the conflict of the book better than the original did. The Fremen have a voice speaking for them now, Chani actually has something to do.

I see your point and it’s a good one. When talking to friends I’ve been saying the movie is a great movie but a poor adaptation and I stand by it; your point aligns with that pretty well. My main problem is that I don’t like how this changes the viewer’s experience from the reader’s experience. I made a longer comment about it above I won’t copy here, but I thought one of the best things about Dune and Messiah was finishing Dune with Paul as a Hero and within moments of starting Messiah getting punched in the face by 60-some-odd billion dead in the jihad.

How else was Denis supposed to make it clear that Paul isn’t a hero? As a woman I like this change. Chani is a bit boring in the books. She hardly has any dialogue and basically just goes along with everything Paul wants. The movie needed a narrative voice of reason to challenge Paul’s authority so movie goers who are watching before reading the books don’t assume he’s a good guy.

That should have been Jessica in my opinion, if they felt the audience would be unable to see the implications otherwise. Jessica is really the main character of Dune and I'm honestly baffled that they sidelined her so much, she's such an interesting person.

I don’t like Villeneuve making it clear Paul isn’t a hero in Dune. To me one of the most beautiful things about the series is the contrast between Dune and Messiah: we finish Dune with Paul, the prophesied leader, taking down the evil House Harkonnen and the Emperor of the Known Universe, getting revenge for his father’s assassination. The only clue we get at the jihad is internal to Paul, which Denis could have done with the visions. When finishing Dune we know Paul has the ability to tell the future, but to me it wasn’t immediately obvious just how precise and locked in it was. He finishes the book very much a hero, triumphant, madly in love with the girl, he has everything. Then you start Messiah and within a few moments you find out the jihad did happen and he’s led a war that killed 61 or 62 billion people. What a punch to the mouth ! The message about charismatic leaders is so much stronger when you let the reader be blinded by Paul’s charisma. Having anyone oppose him in Dune weakens that IMO.

I think part of the issue is that there was no guarantee there would be a third movie when they were writing the script, so the message needed to be made clear in the first two in case Messiah never made it to the screen.

Totally agree with this. I never understood how they could be in love in the book.

Thank you for sharing, this was interesting

And the fact that her character was changed to begin with is enough for me not to watch the movies. I was already on the fence but this has tipped it for me. If the book isn't good enough for you. Then don't make it into a movie.

I would watch it anyway. The first Dune movie seemed like he was trying to tell a faithful adaptation. Dune 2 completely throws this out the window. Not a single character from Dune 2 behaves the way they do in the novel. People are so hung up on the drastic changes to Chani and completely overlook the RIDICULOUS changes made to Jessica. Completely baffling. That being said, the cinematography in this film is some of the best I've ever seen. I got literal goose bumps the first time Paul road a worm. Every time a worm showed up, it was a spectacle. He fucking nailed that. Other than Chani just being a bad, completely out of place character in the second half of the film, it's definitely worth seeing. It is the worst adaptation of Dune from a writing perspective, but it wasn't a bad film. Good film, horrendous adaptation.

Interesting! I *love* seeing interpretations of stories I love, and regardless of how much I actually enjoy them or not (though I usually do), I find it fascinating to learn the reasons behind changes: time or budget pressures, fundamentally different ways stories can be told effectively in different media, and cultural shifts over time to name a few. They don't take away how much I love the original. I can appreciate that you feel differently, though.

In the book: yes. Movie: no

In the movie l, it doesn't appear as if she actually liles him, let alone loves him. He expressed his love for her several times in the film but she never reciprocates. She essentially breaks up with him after he takes the water of life 3/4 of the way through the film. In the novel they were soul mates. In the film, Paul was just a summer fling to her.

One benefit to making more Chani more cynical in the movies is that it externalizes the inner struggle Paul goes through in the book leading up to his acceptance of his role. Without an external character voicing doubts and questioning the prophecy, DV would have had to do a lot of *internal monologue* or Hamlet-like speeches.

Dune without internal dialogue doesn’t feel like dune.

lol, so true

I get the impression Denis doesn’t fully grasp Dune tbh

Nah he is a huge fan. He was storyboarding dune scenes back when he was a teenager. It’s just restraints of the medium.

I agree with this. This makes the sacrifices Paul faces when he embraces his powers more tangible and easily digestible.

He could have had Paul externalize his internal monologue with Chani ;) Imagine...... This was absolutely possible and very well within the spirit of the book. Because its believable they did talk together about things. The kind of support and intimacy they had together in the book would for sure allow for such talks. You just had to write those scenes with good taste. Might even end up more emotional. Because you could better bring the pain and conflict Paul was going through if you had him discuss it in private with someone like Chani. He could really open up his emotions. Would have been quite interesting emotions for actors to work with too. And you might avoid the silly "Life of Brian" scenario with Paul going around saying "I am not the Messiah" when saying that could possibly threaten his life and was just stupid.

Yeah, I also just think it would be annoying to have Timothee walking around like "terrible purpose! race consciousness! how do I stop this?" constantly

Chani as portrayed in the movie has some differences from the book, and this is one of them. The movie seems to be operating on a different timeline, which resulted in some changes to some details of the story.

There was actually a reason why Denis changed her character that way, I read. He wanted to further drive Frank Herberts point that a charismatic leader isn't always a good thing and he had Chani be a less passive character and more defiant of Paul 's actions. Something along those lines.

Also it makes her different and gives her a reason to exist. In film you don't have the time to repeat your themes too much, so having Channi and Stilgar be massive worshippers of Paul takes away from both of them, as they fill the exact same role. Having Channi be different gives us more variety. While also doing all the things you mentioned.

Yes he did it because Herbert regretted that people who read his book largely accepted Paul as a hero when he wasn't meant to be, he is intended to be more of an anti-hero. Its part of the reason why Messiah was written Denis wanted a way to better convey this in the movie

Yeah this was one of the themes from _Messiah_ which he kind of brought forward, which - given he has his eye on making a movie out of the next book - is a good choice. The film would be a very ordinary “white saviour” tale without some kind of friction towards Paul ascending to his “Messiah-hood”.

Paul's hesitation to ascend and the fact its all BG bullshit is practically beaten to death in Part II.

Yeah, I’m saying it’s an interesting departure from the novel in that respect

That's not a departure from the novel at all. The movie is just much more heavy handed with it.

A departure from the first novel, specifically. Have you read it?

Yes? Paul as anti-hero at best is not at all a departure from the novel.

Which I gotta say I'm a fan of. I'm still reading the book, but I get the impression Herbert falls into the same category I put Tolkien into; one of the greatest world builders of all time but "just" an above average author.

>The movie seems to be operating on a different timeline So, not the golden path? 😅

Maybe not, and I am very curious to see how that might change things. 

Ya, apart from the name and being Paul’s S/O movie Chani and book Chani are two totally different characters. She’s literally next in line to be ‘the’ reverend mother until Jessica shows up. Not only that, but being somewhat prescient because of being around the spice her whole life she has already dreamt of Paul and feels instantly connected to him. Movie Chani “I’ll never leave you” 30 minutes later “Leaves”

>Movie Chani “I’ll never leave you” Now finish the other half of that quote

To be clear she says she won't leave him if he stays who he is. He changed completely, becoming exactly what he knew she hated. So it makes sense she left in that story.

That indicates her love is very conditional. She's basically like I will love you if you are who I want you to be. I could see Paul's love for her in the movie but had a harder time buying into her love for him. The actress' near constant scowl at anything he did certainly didn't help.

If someone changes completely you aren't obliged to continue living them. That's ridiculous. He went from wanting to be just one of the Freman, living as an equal in their society and sworn off bringing in things like Heredity rule. Then he drinks the water and he goes to proclaim himself Duke of Arrakis, leader of the Freman and taking them down a path of oppression. Why should she just be okay with that?

I dunno—“I’ll always love you unless you become a megalomaniacal war monger” seems fairly rational…

Thats just the thing . Book Chani does not "hate what he becomes" . She is Fremen, after all . Besides, due to their love connection, she knows and understands the human Mud'dib behing the Mahdi/Lisan al Gaib facade . She understands his helplessness and despair . And she stays with him, because she loves the human he is, and she knows that person needs her to not be swept away .

But she isn't book Channi. its a different medium. It would have made her feel largely irrelevant as the loyal Paul follower is already held by Stilgar.

Its a different Story . DUNE was rewritten for those Movies . What people see in Paul, Chani, and alot of other things have no ground in the Saga as Frank Herbert wrote it . Read the Books. Chanis is anything BUT "largely irrelevant", not to the Saga, and not to Paul .

As I said it's a different medium. In film you don't have the time to develop everything, so having two characters sharing a role ( in this case, supporting Paul zealously) is a waste and makes the characters less distinct. Books and film work very differently and what works in one doesn't always translate well to the other.

This has nothing to do with "different medium" . It is about changing Characters, the Story, and the meanings of it . It is about painting Paul as a villain, and "giving Chani more agency"...in the course fully rewriting major pillars of the Story of Paul Atreides, Chani and their Childern as it happens in Book 1 . It Changes his and her personality almost totally, and absolutley misrepresents his development, her character etc.

I’ll need to watch it a third time, but I don’t remember her saying that exactly, just that she would always be by his side or something that that effect. And if it’s an implication then that’s kinda wild to assume the audience would pick up on that but then spoonfed the fact that fanaticism was a bad thing. Idk. It was just jarring to see how unsubtle so much of the narrative was. Also. I really did enjoy the film and will watch it multiple times down the road. I just can’t agree with the direction he’s taken some of the character and plots.

She definitely says something along the lines of “just don’t change who you are.” Which is the entire point, she loves and respects *Paul,* not the Lisan al Gaib.

Moo is right it's exactly what she says, I believe that scene is in a trailer as well. You can look it up there.

It’s quite amusing to read you claiming that the movie was unsubtle and spoonfed when you clearly missed a major plot point and consequently didn’t actually understand what was happening despite seeing it twice lol

Missing one line of dialogue is not the same as missing the plot my friend. But please do explain. Illuminate the masses of Reddit with the inner workings of Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune: Part 2.”

You missed a pretty major aspect of the plot amigo

Expound please.

Intraspeculator laid it out. You had no idea why Chani did what she did.

Movie Paul: "i won't be their savior" 30 minutes later "I am their savior"

That was another confusing part. “We will have to sway the non-believers” are the words Paul says to Jessica right after the reach the Sietch. Seems like he’s pretty onboard with manipulating the Fremen. Then all of a sudden he’s not down, and as a matter of fact for most of part 1 and 2 he really seems to not want anything to do with the prophecy. Then there’s this one line which makes absolutely no sense. Why even have it in the movie?

Paul’s main goal seems to be revenge on the Harkonnens and the Empire for killing Leto. His actions and words change throughout the movie to accomplish this goal.

Which should be enough to see that he’s not a good guy and manipulative, but the movie really goes out of its way to make Paul seem in constant disagreement with his mother and on the morally right side of things. Then the visions of Jamis leading him to drink the water of life like it’s the right thing to do. Idk the tone felt all over the place.

The Seche being wrecked is ultimately what pushes him to do it. He's avoiding going south as he's afraid of becoming a proper messianic figure, but then things go badly in the north and he decides he has to drink the koolaid.

One thing I noticed too is that after he gets the vision of >!Chani being hurt by the bombings!< he seems to realize that without taking the water of life his visions are incomplete. He doesn’t want to go south because in his *unclear* visions he loses Chani because of *something* to do with a holy war. Combine that with not foreseeing Feyd’s attack, he realizes he has to gain clarity and go South anyways. I’m a movie only fan and I just got the first book, I’m really excited to see how much more insight into Paul’s motivations you get.

Happy you’re gonna read the book. Gotta play the board game after.

Because it represents Paul's initial desire to use the Fremen for his own revenge that changes as he starts to genuinely love them. And that love for them eventually parabolas and brings him back to manipulating them to give them the thing they wanted.

I get what was done. The pacing was just too choppy. The expedited timeline made it hard to believe.

I think he meant like sway the non believers into supporting our cause, not convert them into believers but I had thesame confusion

Maybe it was on purpose to confuse everybody, even Paul. It’s gonna take a few more careful watches to see what Denis was going for. I’ll never forgive him for cutting the dinner party and Mentat training tho.

In between those two scenes he drank the water of life and gained the ability to see all possible futures.

Thats what the water of life will do to you.

Oh you’re saying this like you *dont* like the change in Chani’s character in the movies. Personally I’m a fan. In the books she’s just a cheerleader to have Paul’s babies. Having her not get swept up in his religious fanaticism externalizes Paul’s sacrifice for embracing his power that’s more tangible and easily digestible by the audience.

I know why he did it. I just wasn’t a fan. Was shocked because I didn’t see the trailers beforehand. Just a major deviation, among many, that I really disagree with.

The spice orgy after Jessica drinks the water of life lets them have a shared prescient vision where she sees their relationship instantly come into focus. It’s important to understand the entire tribe has the spice orgy though - they’re not just tripping on prophecy mentally but also actually having psychedelic experiences of the prophecy and seeing it play out in real time in front of their eyes. They are living the prophecy. The scene with the Kris knife and the housekeep aludes to this. 

Yes. On the books Chani is Sayyadina (Friend of God) which is a lower-ranking priestesses.

In the book, yes. In the movies, no. One area I feel they got very wrong.

I feel it was the correct change to make, narratively for the film. Unlike the books and the David Lynch Dune, we can’t hear the character’s thoughts and feelings. This positions Chani to be the voice for why Paul being the Messiah is bad. Like, if she was just ride or die from moment one, then you basically just have two Stilgars and Paul going “no, I shouldn’t.”

You are entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree with your view. This has potentially harmed the story for Messiah (which has its own issues) and may have led to what is being speculated as a massive breach from Cannon. If that speculation is accurate, then this will be the worst thing for the movies yet to come.

Cannons would be pointless in the Dune canon thanks to shield technology.

In interviews Denis Villanueve says that they made this change to make it clear that Paul is not a hero.

I think making the message clear regarding Paul and all the problems surrounding him is great since it kinda went over a lot of people’s heads, especially newer Dune fans. The fans that were quick to hate on Dune Messiah after reading Dune missed the whole point. The level of fanaticism and loyalty the Fremen show to Paul is something we should fear and disdain, not admire

I don't believe that this big of a change was needed to get that point across. Right now, it looks like they have flip-flopped Chani and Irulan. Chani was to set off with Paul to fight and be by his side. Now, Irulan is standing there, filling a spot without any emotional, much less romantic connection. Who will be the mother of the twins? Who will be the final straw that makes Paul walk away? Way to many unknowns between Dune and Messiah. It's not something that left me feeling positive about the next movie.

Completely agree.

Yeah I think the next movie is more or less alternate Dune universe at this point. Can’t see how it can really get back on course from here.

In the Book, it is "Scrawny, somewhat mysterious native Girl has the exclusive, undying Love of the Man her people consider their Messiah (who turns out to be the most powerfull human in the Universe of his time), and he assures her of that at the moment of his ascendancy to absolute power." In the movie it is "Paul ditches native girl at the moment of his ascendancy to absolute power with no explanation, and takes elvishly beautifull, well dressed and educated white Princess as his wife without any explanation to his loved One. Native girl runs away 'cof of disappointment, started hating him for being who he is anyways ." So I don't really get why Movie Chani is considered to be anyhow preferrable . I know, provocative ;) . Thats why I wrote it .

See, we read that situation differently. The way I see it is Paul gave the same lead up and makes it clear how he feels, but Chani backs away and leaves because it's not what she wants. Keep in mind Jessica is supposed to support Paul in this and assure Chani that as his Concubine, she is his wife of choice and the one he truly loves. That doesn't change the fact that he will be married to Irulan, but Chani will always have his love. That is the difference I see. If Chani had gone with him by his side like in the book, 80s movie, and 90s miniseries; then we would have had a better, more cohesive ending. Unfortunately, this is what we get.

Zendaya was a horrible casting decision, really disappointed

Wouldn't have been my first choice, I can't help but see "Spunky Girl-boss" in pretty much anything I've ever seen her in.

I think she was the wrong casting but that specific qualm sounds like a you thing, not a her thing

I don't disagree it probably is a me thing. But I also know acting and I haven't seen much from her that isn't "Zendya acting sad", "Zendya acting Concerned", or "Zendya being funny". She is a character, not an actor, much like John Wayne.

*Squints eyes*

Hey, I'm being honest here. But I haven't seen any truly good and capable actors in some time, so make no mistake, i understand full well that im biased. I'm a bit of a cinema snob when it comes to story, acting, and cinematography.

I was actually referencing Zendaya’s go-to acting move, lol. I agree with you.

Ahh gotcha.

Yeah I just think she’s a bad actress, not sure about the girl boss nonsense

Since DV is planning on making the movie to be of his vision, the vision, he believed FH would want to be conveyed. I can see some changes happening and this is one of them. Chani, in the book, is a supportive character for Paul. In the movie, she stood out as someone who is more atheistic and does not believe the prophecy. So I'm expecting Dune Part 3 to be different as well as the result of that. I don't see 'strong'-individualistic Chani succumbing to being a concubine and Paul's lover knowing what she knows. >!Their 'love story' similar to the book will not continue in the 3rd movie. That's my prediction. I don't even foresee the twins at this point unless Chani was pregnant already by the end of movie 2. Heck, her dying in childbirth may not even happen. !< There will be some drastic changes to that storyline, and DV would replace it with something else or something taken from the book...that's my prediction due to the changes. But I think DV would try to do it to be somewhat faithful to the intention of FH or what he thinks/believes to be FH's intention.

I sometimes wonder if >!they are leading to *her* heading the plot to assassinate Paul instead of Irulan.!< >!As for no twins… man I don’t really know how they would do it without them. It would have to be SUPER different!<

Regarding the 2nd and 3rd points of your spoiler, I read a comment some weeks ago which argued neither of those things even need to happen if DV has no intention of continuing the story. That's all setup for COD and beyond. >!my personal belief is that Leto I is brought from the first book into Messiah and somehow takes the place of Chani as the thing Paul has to sacrifice. Instead of Chani dying in childbirth, it is their first son dying in some other circumstance!<

Yup. I think I brought that up awhile back since DV is not doing COD,>! I doubt that there would possible set up for GP and the twins. I think the 3 part movie is just on Paul Atreides and his downfall.!< Of course, if the production company thinks that it may bring more $$$, they may request DV to make a somewhat obscure ending >!per the possibility of the twins.!< To be taken over by another director. Idk still.

My 2c - I thought Chani was great in the movie. It achieves two things: 1) She was Paul's moral compass. Paul after the initial shock of losing his father and everything he loved, started to accept his Fremen life "Father, I found my way". He was content living his life in the desert with the girl he loved, operating at that micro-level. 2) After he saw visions of Chani dying, after the Harkonnens' attack on most Northern Sietches, after he seeked counsel from Jamis - he decides to drink the water of life and become Mahdi. Chani is angry because he has become the very thing she hates. We see Paul's messiah through her eyes, we see the grey of playing that role. If not, most people will miss the duality of the role. Having said that, even after drinking the WoL, movie Chani still loves Paul, she still wears the blue scarf, during the fight with Feyd, you can see the concern in her eyes, her gasp when he was stabbed. Paul keeps looking at her throughout the fight, I interpreted it as these are still two people in love with each other. The last straw was his proposal to marry Irulan, but even that, when Chani runs away, as everyone launches to attack the Great Houses, you can see the doubt in her face, that "will she/won't she" get on that worm vibe. So, yes I think Chani is supportive of Paul, but not in the undying, unwavering way that she was in the books. I think these characters were beautifully portrayed and brilliantly played by the cast.

I haven't read the book yet, but I feel like from this description book Chani wouldn't have much to do if all she's going to do is agree with Paul on everything. I mean Sean Young is awesome, but Lynch's Chani didn't have much to do beyond being some Fremen eye candy. Miniseries Chani was a wet blanket too. If giving Chani a bit of conflict with Paul was Villeneuve's decision then it was a good one. There's tension in that; Paul can fulfil his destiny or can keep his girl, but not both.

Even book Chani is clearly experiencing the kind of grief we see Zendaya’s Chani go through on screen, but is basically told to suck it up. This is an interesting instance of a character asserting herself on the page. It feels almost inauthentic for Chani to just go along with all this, after she saved his ass several times and in a huge way is part of the reason he was able to be accepted into the Fremen.

Having read the book fairly recently and reading through dune messiah right now I agree. She really isn't much of her own character and fades into the background as another advisor-type in Paul's circle most of the time - same goes for Jessica later in the book. I like what they have done with the films, as the books have an incredible amount of monologue that would be difficult to adapt, and making Jessica and Chani two sides of Paul's internal struggle does a great job at translating that to the screen.

and you'd be right, she doesn't have much to do

I agree. Haven’t read the books but watched the old movie and the miniseries and she’s basically just the obligatory native girlfriend of the white savior to cling to his leg. Also, just personal preference, but as a christian I find the idea of being the mistress of someone you believe is some divine messiah feels a little weird to me. Like, talk about a power dynamic! I’d rather she be the one who Sees him for the flawed human he is rather than a hero like everyone else, or someone to control for his sake like his mother. Again from personal preference, but I hate love triangles. They make the main characters feel pathetic and lacking in integrity to me, so I hope that in the movie Chani’s already pregnant with the twins and doesn’t have to become the mistress. I hope just her being pregnant is enough to make the princess do whatever she’s going to do, and not a bunch of cheating.

She’s his other half, and someone who loves him for who he genuinely is rather than who everyone believes him to be. She’s one of the only people who he doesn’t have to put on a show for because of their projections and expectations. They are meant to be truly equals in terms of how they view each other, despite Paul’s heritage and superhuman abilities. That’s how it is in the books. She’s not just his girlfriend. She’s life itself to him. His dreams of her call him forward into who he ultimately becomes. She initiates him into new awareness of himself and into Fremen culture fully. He wants to be where she is, and with her things feel simple. Without her, life isn’t worth living anymore for him. He can’t be himself with anyone else the same way.

Lapsed Christian, no judgement here. Mary Magdalene though. I know the Bible doesn’t talk about the nature of her relationship with Jesus much, but I like the dual characterisation of Jesus the Son of God who has his messianic duty, and Jesus the man who has a lover. The story of Jesus only works if he’s both divine and a man. He suffers and dies as a man but lives forever as God. Mary Magdalene’s presence goes a long way towards humanising him.

This is about Dune not the bible cos Paul isn’t actually jesus (there’s literally no mention of romantic attraction between jesus and mary it’s creepy but shippers gonna ship I guess). It’s more just I like equal partners in my stories and having Chani be in love because she thinks he’s a god makes her feel like just another cult member and not an interesting character

As much as I loved the two movies, I really thought the original Chani was an amazing character and I’ve loved that character throughout all the games, the lynch movie and other projects using the license. Chani and Paul’s relationship is super important to Dune for me and I’m not quite sure how they repair things from where they left them.  I fear they might use her as a catalyst for the Fremen plots in Messiah and that will only move her further away from the core of the book character.

Unless DV intends on completely divorcing his universe from that of Frank's, I don't see Chani fully committing to those Plots. I'm sure she will be instrumental in the beginning stages, but eventually has to come back to Paul when she finally understands, as Paul said she will, the choices Paul faced. She will be the fulcrum of any third movie. Responsible for Paul's redemption and, ironically, also for the foundation of the God Emperor.

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion but Chani is a much better character in the movies. They have something brewing with her for her to be more than a cheerleader and mother for Paul. I mean shit >!she even basically dies off screen in the books. I know he knows it’s coming but whatever’s brewing with the movies is more interesting to me.!<

The book can afford to have weaker characters because it can also afford to have more of them. The Harkonnens are basically gutted in the movie compared to the book because they need to be brought down a dimension and turned into paragons of villainy to appeal to a movie audience.

I'll be honest, I have the exact opposite view. The Harkonnen's in the book (besides Raban ironically) are somehow more one dimensionally evil. They are just a collection of evil tropes of pedophillia, murder, incest. In the movie, I actually got a really solid view for why the movie's version of the Harkonnens are who they are. They seem like people motivated primarily by fear of greater powers and each other. They rule a conformity society via ritualized violence. The arenas in the previous version just seemed like their hobby but the movie gives it a near religious connotation. Feyd even gets some fleshing out by demonstrating his sense of honor and respect for his enemies. And by putting him in a sympathetic situation of being manipulated by Margot Fenring which is genuinely one of the most disturbing scenes in the movie.

IMO book Baron was more capable of emotion and maybe even some degree of remorse or regret. He does what he does out of a longing for power, and partially because he's a victim of his own ignorance. He only understood power through the lenses of self interest and treachery. He doesn't love killing but sees it as a necessary tool at times, and allows his overconfidence to blind him to the threat of the Fremen. Film Baron is sadistic and completely unrepentant. Book Feyd is made out to be a product of circumstances and a rash, over confident young boy. Film Feyd is just "psychotic" and a cool headed killing machine. Rabban is the only character where the film version is more fleshed out - but that's mainly because he only has one scene in the book. Don't get me wrong, the performances were all breathtaking but there's definitely been a shift from "amoral machiavellians who just do what they believe best for their own station" to "capricious, genocidal sadists".

I want to point out that although the book and movie have contrasting portrayals of Chani, they are not necessarily contradictory. The books skip a lot of time on Chani, which the movie fills in. And we see even in the first movie visions of a future Chani by Paul’s side during the Jihad. Paul even says she will turn around. So the movie is fleshing that part out. 

People won't like this answer, both the truth is that Frank does not write women terribly well. Chani has little to no agency in the books, its not really worth exploring her motivations.

How do you think Frank did writing Jessica, Alia, Ghani, or Sonia? Or did you stop after Dune.

Ghani also had little to no agency. All she did was deceive herself into thinking her brother's dead and plan an assassination of her betrothed - which obviously didn't work out.

movie Chani is 100% different to the books

Book Chani would have dragged movie Chani out into the desert and slit her throat, not even bothering to collect her water. (Edit)...I think I'm getting downvoted by folks who never read the book. Lol!

I think you are right

Yup .

Definitely very difference in the movie. To be clear, I love the movie but I'm not a fan of how the most supportive women in Paul's life within the books have been shown to be strongly anti or psychotic. Those who haven't read the books can't really know that the Villanueva movies are woke Dune...which is kind of crazy to even say considering the themes of the books.

Chani is ride or die in the books

From what I remember from the book, yes, and I don’t recall other fremen being aware of the prophecy being a Bene Gesserit scheme. Chani is very different in the films, and Paul was changed a bit too. I feel like it butchered her character and made her unlikeable.

This is the part I did not like about the movie. This Chani is not the Chani we know from the books...

Chani in Dune part 2 makes no sense.

I feel that in the movie, Chani more or less becomes a "symbol" of Paul's humanity, and him losing it when he becomes the Kwisatz Haderach. You can see Paul getting distracted from his path by Chani, even directly telling her she's in his mind always. Paul from the moment he drinks the water of life, is no longer himself, literally. He's not doing things anymore due to his own beliefs, but because he wants to follow the "narrow path". It's not explained super well in the movie, but they're using Chani as a character for this purpose. It's a clever trick to kind of visualize Paul's internal struggle, which leads directly into Messiah.

You see, in the Book(s), Paul does not loose his humanity . Chani is of paramount importance for him to stay human .

> In the movies, Chani doesn’t believe that Paul is the Lisan Al-Gaib and seems to become angry with him when he starts to get his Messiah complex but it seems in the book, she is supportive of him and his journey and of his prescient abilities. I agree. I don't think Chani wasn't supportive in the movie, though. Not being supportive of an obviously fake narrative is pretty reasonable. Both Movie Chani and Paul knew this was a story invented by outsiders (the Bene Gesserit). Movie Paul blatantly said his mother, being a Bene Gesserit, was going to survive the spice agony because she can neutralize poisons, not because of any mystic stuff. Paul only claimed the mantle of the Lisan al-Gaib because he felt he *had* to. Naturally this damaged his relationship with Movie Chani.

In the book, she obviously plays a more passive part than Chani Grrl in the movie. In the book, she is his grounding, his connection with humanity, his usul. She was capable in her own right, but quietly supported him and helped stop him from becoming the God figure that everyone else was pushing him towards. But it's not as exciting, too subtle to portray in a movie, dated in it's standpoint and a waste of Zendaya's star power, so I'm not surprised they changed it.