Dune II

[pendell]

(2) Leaving the Baron's dead body out for the desert to reclaim struck me as a very Fremen payback to an enemy, but, as we see before hand, they suck the water out of defeated Harnonnens early in the film so perhaps they either don't want his fluid or your "it's a Harkonnen move" is closer to the intended message.

It's not a Fremen revenge; water is too precious to waste on Dune and in the books the fate of all dead, friend or enemy, was to be rendered down for their water. The movies still follow this, but add the caveat that the Harkonnen-based water is too polluted by chemicals to be potable so they use that water for other purposes; there's a lot more you can do with water than drink it after all.

An average 70kg human has 42 liters of water -- and, in the books , just two liters of water carried in the Atreides survival pack was fantastic wealth in the books. The Baron is considerably larger than that -- say, 180 kg? Approximately 100 liters of water. No way Fremen would leave that much water to evaporate in the open desert; it would be an act equivalent to taking a suitcase full of hundred dollar bills and setting fire to the contents.

The point Paul is making is not a Fremen one -- the point is that the Baron is so defiled , so polluted, so low, that he is unfit to receive any kind of honor in death, even that granted to ordinary commoners. It is a gesture of utter contempt and degradation.

While it is cruel, it also pays the Baron back in his own coin. You may remember in Dune 1 there was this spider-thing on Giedi Prime which understood human speech. It isn't explicitly spelled out, but I believe this is supposed to be all that's left of one of the Baron's enemies, corrupted and twisted into a travesty of life and kept as a trophy by the Baron.

Paul, in fighting the Harkonnens, has become the Harkonnens. That's the point Villanueve is trying to make with that scene.

Eldan has already pointed out that the "Black sun" is, in fact, an orange dwarf which admits much of its radiation in the infrared spectrum, below the wavelengths of visible light. Herbert didn't know this, but Villanueve most assuredly did, and leaned into it. I think it a valid artistic choice.

Giedi Prime in the books we don't really see. We see the gladiatorial arena and the inner rooms of the Baron's palace, almost nothing of the outside world. From what I can dimly remember of the Fenring's trip to the arena it is an industrial hellscape inhabited by poor and impoverished people. every one of them anxious to please the Baron and escape from the desperate , brutish lives they lead. Possibly, however, I'm conflating that with the later prequel novels of Frank Herbert's son, Brian, who explored the world in more detail. Nonetheless, the Harkonnen's drive for personal wealth at the expense of any other concern suggests that Giedi Prime would be a polluted wreck of a world. If that is the conclusion Brian Herbert drew, it is not unreasonable, but I think we have to consider the later novels fan fiction so far as the original book-universe is concerned.

Still, it makes one wonder whether Giedi Prime is the result of Harkonnen greed, or Harkonnen greed is the result of Giedi Prime. How would photosynthesis happen on a planet with no visible light? What green things would there be, and would you even see the color green outside of the internal, inhabited spaces? It may be the Harkonnen attitude towards nature is shaped by the fact that there is no loveliness in their natural surroundings worth preserving, and that it must be ruthlessly exploited if human life is to survive at all, an attitude which proves troublesome when they leave Giedi Prime for other worlds in the Imperium. That's speculation on my part, of course.

Respectfully,

[KorvinStarmast]

Still, it makes one wonder whether Giedi Prime is the result of Harkonnen greed, or Harkonnen greed is the result of Giedi Prime. How would photosynthesis happen on a planet with no visible life? What green things would there be, and would you even see the color green outside of the internal, inhabited spaces? It may be the Harkonnen attitude towards nature is shaped by the fact that there is no loveliness in their natural surroundings worth preserving, and that it must be ruthlessly exploited if human life is to survive at all, an attitude which proves troublesome when they leave Giedi Prime for other worlds in the Imperium. That's speculation on my part, of course.

Respectfully,

They would have evolved / adapted differently if the world is like that. The 'fanfic' nature of the prequels seems a fair assessment.
The industrial hellscape on Giedi Prime also makes sense.

From Eldan

though Herbert likely wouldn't have known that.

Indeed, which makes Lynch's Harkonnens better than Villeneuve's.
From my PoV, Lynch got that part closer to right. (He also had Sting, and Sting had hair).

[Ionathus]

Indeed, which makes Lynch's Harkonnens better than Villeneuve's.
From my PoV, Lynch got that part closer to right. (He also had Sting, and Sting had hair).

Sting aside, I'll back Villeneuve's Harkonnens any day.

I never felt menace or threat once from Lynch's Baron. He was a cartoonish buffoon of a villain. He was all the ugliest stereotypes of Book!Baron turned up to eleven, and he was a chore to watch. Compare that to Villeneuve's interpretation, who gave me everything I wanted from Baron Vladimir Harkonnen: calculating, vindictive, gluttonous, threatening. The way Skarsgård moved and spoke was breathtaking and terrifying to me. Inherently unnatural without cheapening his presence at all.

The Baron is the best example but the other Harkonnens follow the same general thoughts. Even if the "details" are further from canon, the "feel" of their portrayals feels more true to the spirit of the book.

Which is honestly my overall take on these films: even if they don't tick as many "canon" boxes as other adaptations, I put them light-years ahead in capturing the world I pictured in my head when I read the book. I don't mind if an adaptation changes the minutiae as long as the general thrust of the story captures the original's spirit.

Case in point: the scientific basis and evolutionary implications for an infrared sun are shaky at best, but not enough to break my suspension of disbelief. There are enough plausible explanations that I don't struggle with it. And the vibes I get from an entirely monochrome planet (and the coolness factor of the shots being filmed entirely in infrared) go a long, long way to curating that tone for me.

[Eldan]

They absolutely look and feel right, though I think they could have taken five minutes to show Feyd's little palace intrigue, they already had the first half of it in the movie. It would have established him as cleverer than Rabban.

[pendell]

They absolutely look and feel right, though I think they could have taken five minutes to show Feyd's little palace intrigue, they already had the first half of it in the movie. It would have established him as cleverer than Rabban.

We demonstrated that in-movie when Feyd-Ruatha took over the military campaign against the Fremen and started actually hitting them where they live, while all Rabban could do was send out useless patrols to get killed in the sand, then punch out his own officers when they objected. It demonstrates Feyd is smarter and better and folds into Paul's story neatly, saving us some minutes of screen time. Which, at 2 hours 46 minutes for the finished product, is important.

Also, we had the gom jabbar test for Feyd which sets him up nicely as a potential Paul-analogue, a Kweisatz Haderach in his own right. Better than both his tank-brained cousin and his bestial uncle who was, as discussed, more a two-legged animal than a reasoning being. In fact, in the books he was tested by Gom Jabbar and failed, which is what killed him. At least, that's how I interpreted the scene when Alia tells him "you've met the Atreides Gom Jabbar". Harkonnen acted like an animal and got the gom jabbar needle , receiving the same "death of an animal" he got in the movies.

Thing about the Harkonnens -- in the book-universe they and the Atreides have had a feud going since the original Battle of Corrino which established the current Empire. An Atreides officer had a Harkonnen subordinate banished for cowardice. At this late date, the rights and wrongs of that event are too distant to tell. But the Harkonnens have spent millenia regaining their lost status, which perhaps is one reason they have been so consumed with greed for finances; for them, money is their path back to power, which apparently they only recently attained. "Baron" is one of the lowest noble titles. Their "cheap brassy city of Carthag", contrasted with the Imperial city of Arrakeen, suggests the Harkonnens are still noveau riche in the eyes of Imperium great society, tawdry money-grubbers who have attained their position by being willing to do things others are too proud or too scrupulous to do. It's what made Baron Vladimir Harkonnen what he is.



Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ionathus]

Thing about the Harkonnens -- in the book-universe they and the Atreides have had a feud going since the original Battle of Corrino which established the current Empire. An Atreides officer had a Harkonnen subordinate banished for cowardice. At this late date, the rights and wrongs of that event are too distant to tell. But the Harkonnens have spent millenia regaining their lost status, which perhaps is one reason they have been so consumed with greed for finances; for them, money is their path back to power, which apparently they only recently attained. "Baron" is one of the lowest noble titles. Their "cheap brassy city of Carthag", contrasted with the Imperial city of Arrakeen, suggests the Harkonnens are still noveau riche in the eyes of Imperium great society, tawdry money-grubbers who have attained their position by being willing to do things others are too proud or too scrupulous to do. It's what made Baron Vladimir Harkonnen what he is.

That context is super interesting, thanks for sharing. Is some of this info in the original Dune, or was it only fleshed out in later works/prequels? I ask because I don't remember any of it, and I've only ever read the first book.

I had never thought about it but yeah, Baron is actually a much, much lower title than Duke (e.g. Leto) if we're going by modern standards -- and I also wouldn't expect the hierarchy to change meaningfully in a future society. It's weird to think of the Harkonnens as the "underdogs" given Paul's POV in the back 2/3s of the book, but politically-speaking I would believe it.

[Metastachydium]

How would photosynthesis happen on a planet with no visible light? What green things would there be, and would you even see the color green outside of the internal, inhabited spaces? It may be the Harkonnen attitude towards nature is shaped by the fact that there is no loveliness in their natural surroundings worth preserving

I cannot stress enough how much I approve of the stated criterion for qualifying as lovely and worth preserving!

I had never thought about it but yeah, Baron is actually a much, much lower title than Duke (e.g. Leto) if we're going by modern standards -- and I also wouldn't expect the hierarchy to change meaningfully in a future society. It's weird to think of the Harkonnens as the "underdogs" given Paul's POV in the back 2/3s of the book, but politically-speaking I would believe it.

Well, in a premodern context, no Baron would really count as much of an underdog socially. And in a modern context, well, it really was a common aristocratic rank and title among the nouveau riche – just as good as the others, but cheaper to buy!

[Talakeal]

I never felt menace or threat once from Lynch's Baron. He was a cartoonish buffoon of a villain. He was all the ugliest stereotypes of Book!Baron turned up to eleven, and he was a chore to watch. Compare that to Villeneuve's interpretation, who gave me everything I wanted from Baron Vladimir Harkonnen: calculating, vindictive, gluttonous, threatening. The way Skarsgård moved and spoke was breathtaking and terrifying to me. Inherently unnatural without cheapening his presence at all.

Thats what makes it so good though! Lynch’s Dune was basically Fat Bastard with a jetpack, and that is something I will never forget. Scarsgard’s baron is more realistic and faithful, but is a pretty generic sci fi villain.

[Ionathus]

Well, in a premodern context, no Baron would really count as much of an underdog socially. And in a modern context, well, it really was a common aristocratic rank and title among the nouveau riche – just as good as the others, but cheaper to buy!

Not across all of society, no. He still rules a planet, after all. But a Baron would still have far less power than a Duke, and Leto Atreides is a Duke at the beginning of the original book. So in the context of their main rivals, you could argue the Harkonnens are underdogs in that matchup specifically. That's the point I was focusing on.

Thats what makes it so good though! Lynch’s Dune was basically Fat Bastard with a jetpack, and that is something I will never forget. Scarsgard’s baron is more realistic and faithful, but is a pretty generic sci fi villain.

Maybe, if our only criterion is being purely memorable in an "absolute value" kind of way where, good or bad, you're just judging the strength of the impression each portrayal made. I still think Skarsgård brought something unique to his portrayal -- it takes a lot of effort to look that menacingly lazy -- but if he felt generic to you (and McMillan's felt iconic) then I can't tell you how you felt.

But I was also comparing each adaptation's faithfulness to the book Baron, and I stand by my opinion there. Watching Villeneuve's version recaptured the same feelings I'd had reading the prose descriptions of the Baron years ago, whereas Lynch's version was Baron Harkonnen in name only. I'd pick Villeneuve's version for both quality and faithfulness, even if Lynch's repulsive screeching problematic pus-balloon technically ticked more of the "canon checkboxes" (debatable).

[KorvinStarmast]

Thing about the Harkonnens -- in the book-universe they and the Atreides have had a feud going since the original Battle of Corrino which established the current Empire. An Atreides officer had a Harkonnen subordinate banished for cowardice. At this late date, the rights and wrongs of that event are too distant to tell. But the Harkonnens have spent millenia regaining their lost status, which perhaps is one reason they have been so consumed with greed for finances; for them, money is their path back to power, which apparently they only recently attained. "Baron" is one of the lowest noble titles. Their "cheap brassy city of Carthag", contrasted with the Imperial city of Arrakeen, suggests the Harkonnens are still noveau riche in the eyes of Imperium great society, tawdry money-grubbers who have attained their position by being willing to do things others are too proud or too scrupulous to do. It's what made Baron Vladimir Harkonnen what he is.

It was far better presented, in this light, in the book than in this film. (Nice summary, Harkonnen's as "social climbers" et al, which is symbolized by the Baron in this film slowly crawling up the stairs toward the throne before Paul kills him.

[Seppl]

That context is super interesting, thanks for sharing. Is some of this info in the original Dune, or was it only fleshed out in later works/prequels? I ask because I don't remember any of it, and I've only ever read the first book.

All of that is in the first book, when Duke Leto reminisces about the nature of the feud with House Harkonnen, and some more in the appendices, where the history of the nobility gets some background.

The titles are just for prestige, though. House Harkonnen pretty much bought their way into nobility. They command more planets, more wealth, more armies than a lot of other great houses with more prestigious titles, including Duke Atreides. Where Leto's title plays a greater role is in general politics, where the voice of a prestigious old dukedom, cousin to the imperial house, is sure to be heard. Whereas House Harkonnen may be respected for their power, but not generally liked.

[gbaji]

I dont think they can keep Jihad in a post 9/11 world, even if we are past the Jingoism counterlash here in America.

That trend predated 9/11 though. WoTC changed the name of the "Jyhad" collectible card game to "Vampire: The Eternal Struggle" after the first limited run. For much the same reasons (avoid controversy, and/or folks just reading more into a word/label than intended).

-No timeskip means Alia is still in the womb. We missed out on a two year old being the Atreides Gom Jabbar, cheerfully murdering her grandfather, and then scaring Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohaim nearly out of her wits. I guess when I type it it seems a bit creepy, but in the book it was pretty cool.

And is a significant factor later on in Children of Dune. So... strange to leave that out. They kinda wrote themselves into a bit of a corner with that one. Well, not a corner exactly, but they are now dooming any future CoD sequel to having to write additional changes to the character, to account for the change they made here.

-The Spacing Guild is entirely not present. They were a major part of the negotiations over spice (why nukes? why not just "water of life reaction?" seriously, it takes like 20 seconds to explain) and are part of why the Emperor's little throneroom seems unserious. Nobody's there but the Emperor, his guards, and a few nobody minions with weird collars. I think one or both of the other adaptations did this much better.

See. This is another problematic change. And a strange one because you have to spend 10x more screen/dialogue/explaining time to make up a (series of) alternative explanation(s) than it would take to simply explain how spice is used, why it's important to the Spacing Guild, and why the Spacing Guild is critical to all things related to interplanetary travel. That naturally sets up the actions by the Guild, and why they would be forced to support Paul's actions in the first place (and in turn, why no one will act against them while they are doing this).

Assuming the plan is to set up Dune Messiah, that seems like a really really odd detail to leave out.

-The Paul/Chani relationship with some more distrust is an understandable choice, although it also leaves him without any close emotional support (as he can't trust his mother, particularly in this adaptation where she is more on The Side of What Must Happen instead of Paul's side). However, they really screwed up the ending. In the book, Jessica is talking to Chani, and the novel ends with a line to the effect of "History will remember us as we really are, as wives." Instead, Chani's running off into the desert, there's no indication that Paul isn't planning to have babies with Irulan, and I have no idea what the plan is to get from here to Leto II(#2) and Ghanima. This seems like pointless drama BS, like you'd get in a TV serial that needed to stretch from 17 episodes to 20. Maybe Children of Dune is going to pick up right where Dune II leaves off, and we get 30 minutes of Solving Relationship Drama with the Superpower of Actually Talking?

Yeah. I think someone may have touched on this earlier and that they decided to push the character a bit in the direction she eventually goes anyway. But yeah. It's too early in the actual book(s) for that. In the book, she's totally on Paul's side, and he's on hers. They are the couple, and Irani is merely a formal/political relationship and everyone knows this. She "wins" in that regard, while Irani is relegated to being eternal second fiddle.

Now things change over time, but that's the result of events in Messiah. So... why not have that change happen there? I get maybe foreshadowing the lack of a "happily ever after" when you know there are more books in the series versus the ending of just the one book. But it does feel like they went a bit too far with this at this point in the story.

Sting aside, I'll back Villeneuve's Harkonnens any day.

I never felt menace or threat once from Lynch's Baron. He was a cartoonish buffoon of a villain. He was all the ugliest stereotypes of Book!Baron turned up to eleven, and he was a chore to watch. Compare that to Villeneuve's interpretation, who gave me everything I wanted from Baron Vladimir Harkonnen: calculating, vindictive, gluttonous, threatening. The way Skarsgård moved and spoke was breathtaking and terrifying to me. Inherently unnatural without cheapening his presence at all.

Yeah. I liked the Lynch film (cause it's great on its own merits, despite flaws). But yeah. The Baron was basically a joke character. "Cartoonish Buffoon" is just about the perfect description. Honestly, it's a bit of a muddle for me. The characters are supposed to be a bit "strange" in how they behave, and yes, the Baron is portrayed as quite a bit more competant and sinister in the book than in the Lynch film. But Feyd is supposed to be, not just so much more competant, but also more sinister, and evil (in his own focused way), than the Baron. I would assume that Lynch wanted to really drive this home in his film. But then again, his portrayal of Feyd kinda set the bar somewhat low for that. No knock on Sting's performance, the character was more or less absent from the film, and other than dancing around and proclaiming the horrible things he'd do to Paul, there wasn't a whole lot to work with. So yeah, had to make the Baron comical just to make Feyd seem "something more" in comparison. Maybe? Dunno.

Um... But yeah, they definitely captured the nature of Harkonnen's much better in these films than in the original. I personally thought they went a little too far in some ways, but.... artistic license I guess. It's a tricky balance to show "greed/avarice" and not make it cartoonish like in the Lynch film. But IMO, they made him a bit too much of a mastermind (or someone doing a good job pretending to be one), versus the perception I had of him in the book. Dunno. Hard to get that "just right" IMO.

The Baron is the best example but the other Harkonnens follow the same general thoughts. Even if the "details" are further from canon, the "feel" of their portrayals feels more true to the spirit of the book.

Yup. Not perfect, but done well for the specific take on the story they were making here.

Not across all of society, no. He still rules a planet, after all. But a Baron would still have far less power than a Duke, and Leto Atreides is a Duke at the beginning of the original book. So in the context of their main rivals, you could argue the Harkonnens are underdogs in that matchup specifically. That's the point I was focusing on.

IIRC, this was part of the point in the book. It's kind of a classical feudalistic move by a king/emperor. You place a lower status noble into a strong position, to put a higher status one in check. He puts someone like the Duke in charge of Arrakis, and the Duke's family will be the next Emperors in a generation of two. He makes a show of doing that, but sets up the Baron to take over (and kill the Duke), and he eliminates a threat to his position and power, and gains a loyal lapdog in the process.

Well. At least, that's the plan. Obviously, things don't go according to plan. And it's not even failings of his own. The Bene Gesserit have their own plans as well, and they don't really serve what the Emperor may want. As someone up thread said, one way or another, one of these two houses was going to be taking control. And, of course, their plan was already screwed over by Jessica by having Paul in the first place.

Heck. The whole mess that happened was really about them scrambling to try to fix things in a way that kept them controlling things in the background anyway. And things just got worse for them from there.

But I was also comparing each adaptation's faithfulness to the book Baron, and I stand by my opinion there. Watching Villeneuve's version recaptured the same feelings I'd had reading the prose descriptions of the Baron years ago, whereas Lynch's version was Baron Harkonnen in name only. I'd pick Villeneuve's version for both quality and faithfulness, even if Lynch's repulsive screeching problematic pus-balloon technically ticked more of the "canon checkboxes" (debatable).

Yeah. Same as with my comments above. There are multiple aspects to his character. Which you choose to focus on will affect how the audience percieves said character. This version is good. But honestly? This is three versions so far, and none of them perfectly match up with my mental image of him from reading the book. They all contain elements though. Just different ones.

[Metastachydium]

Not across all of society, no. He still rules a planet, after all. But a Baron would still have far less power than a Duke, and Leto Atreides is a Duke at the beginning of the original book. So in the context of their main rivals, you could argue the Harkonnens are underdogs in that matchup specifically. That's the point I was focusing on.

Well, again, in a premodern context, a Duke might have more lands, more influential relatives and some extra tools to throw at their own problems, but unless we are talking a Doyal Duke kind of setup, the two packages overlap more than they differ and a Duke certainly holds no authority over a Baron as such. The gap is far smaller than one might think.

[pendell]

That context is super interesting, thanks for sharing. Is some of this info in the original Dune, or was it only fleshed out in later works/prequels? I ask because I don't remember any of it, and I've only ever read the first book.

Everything I've written comes from the first book or its appendices. In the Appendices, we learn that the founding battle of the Empire was the battle of Corrin, after which the current Imperial house took its name -- Corrino. We know that Atreides and Harkonnen soldiers were in the same army serving what would be the Imperial house and had high rank. We also know that , after the battle, an Atreides commander had a Harkonnen subordinate cashiered for cowardice.

The rest about the Harkonnens is background in the book. Leto explains that he chose to set up in the old Imperial capital of Arrakis, Arrakeen, rather than the Harkonnen's "cheap and brassy capital" of Carthag. They mention the Harkonnens wish to buy the throne. The question is, with what coin?

Then you look at the Atreides home on Caladan and on Dune. They obviously aren't a house of great wealth but have great, traditional pride. Leto's father loved bullfights, in which he competed as a matador, and was in fact killed by one. They still have the head of the bull which did the deed as a decoration in the house, and they've never cleaned the old Duke's blood off the horns.

Put all these clues together, and what you see is an old, old house of the sort that used to be common in the 19th century UK. The title Duke has been around for some time, and may have been given to the original officer at the battle of Corrin at the same time the Emperor took that title for himself. The real world analog would be someone who fought in battle and was given a large tract of agricultural land as a happy-ever-after for himself and his descendants. It's an artifact of the pre-industrial age, when kings preferred to give out land instead of cash; land can produce a crop every year and can grow in value. Also in the middle ages, cash was not all that easy to come by; it was an age in which the "treasury" could literally be contained in a strongbox in the king's own bedchamber, which he would sleep on!

The Harkonnens, by contrast, are the kind of house which would have been made by the economic changes of the 19th century and of colonization such as the East India Company. In fact, when we meet them they are colonizing Arrakis, in the sense of utterly plundering its wealth at the expense of the indigenous people living there. The Harkonnens we meet are crude, boorish people with no social grace but great skill with money and great brutality. It's the sort of noveau rich person you might meet in high-society Britain in the 18th century after having made vast wealth from, say, slave-trading. They may be able to buy the old nobility ten times over, but the old-school nobility will still regard them with utter contempt. Both for the utter ruthlessness of their methods and their complete inability to behave in ways expected at court. The title Baron must be (relatively) new -- an officer banished for cowardice obviously would be in complete disgrace, all titles and military rank forfeit. Which means that the title has been acquired at some point between now and then, probably later than the Atreides title, and probably acquired the same way the Harkonnens got everything else -- by buying it. It used to be possible to get a minor title of nobility, such as Baronet, by purchasing it -- in fact, that title Baronet was originally created as a fundraising mechanism by the crown to sell titles to rich people. Baron is just one step above that, and was probably a combination of wealth coupled by -- services rendered. The Harkonnens have always been good at getting things done and they aren't squeamish in the methods they employ. I can well imagine an earlier Harkonnen, enabled by their wealth, to have performed some service for the Imperial house which was rewarded with a title, though both the Imperial house and the rest of the nobility would view them with contempt. The Harkonnens would return that contempt in spades; they had earned everything they had, and would think nothing of the aristocratic dandies who look down on them despite having nothing to their account save having been born into the right family, and whom the Harkonnens could buy and sell ten times over.


There would be bad blood between the old nobility and the new social climber under the best of circumstances, and the age-old feud between the families makes it all the worse.

The Harkonnens have great wealth and power but socially they are second-class, and will be forever, sneered at and looked down at by those who have neither a fraction of their power or wealth. It can make a person mad. It may be one of the reasons why the Baron intends to place his own nephew on the throne himself, which will instantly catapult them to the very top of Imperial society for all the generations, as well as ruling the Empire for at least Feyd-Ruatha's lifetime.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tyndmyr]

The titles are just for prestige, though. House Harkonnen pretty much bought their way into nobility. They command more planets

Strictly speaking, I believe they control just the one planet in true fiefdom. This 1:1 appears to be largely true for all save for House Corrino, by virtue of them being the Imperials. Each great house is only spoken of having a single world, to the best of my knowledge. Corrino appears to hold Kaitain and Secundus.

The Harkonnens hold Arrakis in quasi-fief only at the story's onset. This explains why the Empire can simply replace them at will. Arrakis is being offered as fief-complete to House Atreides, so it replaces Caladan entirely. They will *only* have Arrakis, not both....but it will be theirs forever, and as a world it is the source of ludicrous wealth. This is why it is outed as obviously bait for a trap. The offer is too good to be true....yet also moves House Atreides away from their homeworld. It is a move that makes strategic sense if you wish to crush a house, but not as a genuine offer....it would offer too much long term power.

This is also why when Paul ascends to the throne, House Corrino loses Kaitain, and the house is banished to Secundus. No longer the Imperial house, they have only a sole world.

This isn't honestly all that well explained in the books, at least initially. The term fiefdom is thrown around a bit, but without Hawat's explanation, the trap would not be at all clear to the reader, because the limitations on the great houses are not well established early on. The movie also does not delve into this much, but the politics do ultimately rest on the deeply feudalistic balance of powers we see. The individual houses are clearly inferior to the Imperials...but not so greatly so that united houses would not pose a mortal threat to the Emperor. Leto's popularity with the other nobles makes him a potential threat.

This is somewhat complicated by the existence of CHOAM, which is apparently some kind of economic megacorp that largely represents all guilds, but which has its various responsibilities meted out by Laanstrad vote. This probably doesn't map as cleanly to historical systems, but the Harkonnens are definitely portrayed as dealing heavily with them, and greatly enriched by the history of running Arrakis.

[KorvinStarmast]

pendell, that was a fine post, thanks for taking the time and effort to unwrap a bit of the feudal/imperial politics.

How does Firefly/Serenity relate to Dune? IMO, its from a concept that Whedon had expressed in an interview when he was explaining some of the quirks of his world building for that series.

People bring their religion with them. People bring their cultures with them.
Herbert used that core premise as world building foundation in Dune, and I think that Whedon learned from that.

[Millstone85]

I still haven't seen the movie but I just want to say...

When I made a thread about the trailer, I thought I was being clever by spelling it ᑐ U ꓵ Є as finding the right characters took some time.

But it turns out that ᑐ ᑌ ᑎ ᕮ was the intended set, taken from Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics.

[Ionathus]

How does Firefly/Serenity relate to Dune? IMO, its from a concept that Whedon had expressed in an interview when he was explaining some of the quirks of his world building for that series.

People bring their religion with them. People bring their cultures with them.
Herbert used that core premise as world building foundation in Dune, and I think that Whedon learned from that.

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on that, and the interview you're talking about. Firefly was highly entertaining as a character-driven show -- the show's cultural analysis, though, never felt all that deep to me. Definitely not on the levels of Dune. It always felt more like a backdrop for the fun Cowboys In Space action. If there's a specific parallel you're thinking of, I'd love to hear more about it.

[KorvinStarmast]

the show's cultural analysis, though, never felt all that deep to me. Definitely not on the levels of Dune.

I doubt Whedon tried to replicate the depth of Dune. He was trying to wrtie a TV series (he had done Buffy and Angel before that) and his core cultural baseline was "the old west after the civil war" model of the American Western (and American history) set 500 years later in space, and it included the wrinkle that a lot of Chinese phrases were folded into the jargon of the show.

A key character bit of the show, though, was Shepherd Book: who carried a Bible with him. As far as most of the fans can tell, his origins were something like The Operative before he became disenchanted and, wait for it, found religion. Counterposed to that is Mal, who begins (in the scenes where he and Zoe are fighting for the resistance before they have to lay down arms) as being of a religious bent. But if you listen to the dialogue with an even remotely discerning ear, Mal as a character is presented as one who has lost his religion (or lost faith).
And then there is the Safe episode, where the religious community wants to burn someone for being a witch.

Anyhoo, not sure where I heard or saw Joss saying that (might be in some supplemental material in the discs I have with all of the eps) but I remember being struck by that point in terms of what his intentions were.

Was Joss's world building as in depth as Herbert's?
Not hardly. Firefily is good, to be sure, but Dune is both a masterpiece and something of "a life's work" kind of creation.
As I said, I think Whedon learned that from Herbert in terms of how it applies to science fiction in space where the focus is on the people, not on the tech.

(I also think that Fireflay was informed by the Traveller RPG ...heck, about halfway through the first episode that I ever watched I remarked that "this looks like a Traveller scenario" ... I got the same impression from the original Alien movie).

[gbaji]

Well, I think that Dune is exploring and using a more fuedal "war of the roses" style setting and concept. While Firefly is more of an "antibellum south" bit.

One part of me really wonders if Whedon got into a late night conversation with friends (possibliy with drinks involved), and the question of something like the civil war happening, but having nothing about slavery, but just purely based on economic and cultural differences, would the conflict itself be something people would find believable in a "that could happen" way, and which "side" would most people side with and find more sympathetic? And to be fair, if this was the sociological intent, then Whedon also put his thumb pretty firmly on the scale as well, but... Still a very interesting setting. It's instantly recognizable, but also different as well.

And if that was it, it would be "that's interesting". But he also tosses in analogs to the old west as well, complete with the concept of robber barons, outlaws, and all the rest of the stereotypical stuff we'd expect. He gets the audience to cheer for a group of bandits in this setting, pretty much because the "powers that be" are horrible authoritarian "meddlers", what with their big gleaming cities, and high quality medical care, and good quality schools (obvious indoctrination centers, naturally!), and all of the other terrible signs that one is in a disopian future (I'm only being somewhat tongue in cheek here). But again, Whedon puts his thumb on a scale a bit by giving us some really evil bits within that power structure (the men in blue, and the operatives). It's a great study in "what makes someone a hero" IMO.

And yeah. He then adds in the whole "this is the future, and there will be multicultural/historical influences, so I'm going to include that as well". Which is where we get the mix of Chinese and English spoken in the show.

Does it go as in depth into the politics of the setting as Dune? Not even close. But then, in Dune we are focusing on characters who are the nobiity in the setting, so the political machinations are central to the story. In Firefly, we focus on the effects and actions of "ordinary people" set in the world we're looking at. We get the politics in play via the secondary effects they have on the characters. Which I think works just fine.

So... two settings. Very different. Portrayed to us via different lenses. But IMO, both with plenty of depth. It's just a shame that we didn't get to see Whedon's setting explored more than it was (and unfortunately, Herbert's could have maybe used with less exploration in later books).

[Tyndmyr]

The setting is explored rather more via the comics, novels, etc, but I dare say that none of them hold up to the show. The actors themselves had wonderful chemistry, and the interaction of the characters really made the show so much more than its setting alone. That one season is lightning in a bottle, but I'm not sure it could be recreated, even if the show were remade and recast, it might lack all the heart of the original, and without that, it isn't much.

There have been rumors of a Disney reboot. No idea if true or not. I think it might be best to simply enjoy the show for what it is at this point.

Dune, as a book, was quite odd. For one thing, Herbert just swaps perspectives nearly constantly, unconstrained by chapter breaks or anything else. This is deeply unusual. I would normally call it a sure sign of terrible writing, but in this particular case, it...largely flows successfully anyways. It wasn't all that profitable initially, and the series grows increasingly weirder the deeper we get. The prequel deluge of books is almost something else entirely. Does one consider them canon? Eh. Maybe. I feel relatively certain that Herbert's notes were not so complex as to inform all of them, and at least much of the effort is a purely financially motivated effort.

Space Feudalism is kinda cool, and the balance of power is intriguing, yet the answer proposed is surprisingly dark. Society does not emerge from defeating the evil directly into good, but instead...mostly just continues to suffer, with disaster awaiting around every corner, and a wild succession of also pretty evil factions.

[pendell]

So apparently there are a lot of complaints about Christopher Walken's portrayal of Shaddam IV, Emperor of Humanity, in Dune II. Here's One Rebuttal

Emperor Shaddam isn’t just the big bad of Dune; his role as the mysterious tyrant ruling over the world is key to the story’s thematic exploration of leadership and the corruptibility of power. The Emperor was never supposed to live up to the hype; even within the story, he’s supposed to be a let-down. Walken’s performance may not have been particularly striking or memorable, but that was an intentional choice on director Denis Villeneuve’s part, because it would’ve detracted from the message if he was an omnipotent badass.

...
Shaddam isn’t supposed to be a villain like Thanos or the Night King; he’s supposed to be a subversion of that kind of big bad. Throughout the Known Universe, he’s prophesized as a Thanos-like big bad, but in reality, he’s really not that smart or powerful. He just seems exhausted after years of tyranny.

The Emperor is controlled by the Bene Gesserit, and even Irulan seems more capable than him. Baron Harkonnen even described the Emperor as a “jealous old man” in the first film, so the stage was set for Shaddam to have an underwhelming introduction in the second one. Thematically, this ties into Paul’s “Lisan al Gaib” arc. He worries he can’t live up to the prophecies that promised his arrival; by the same token, the Emperor doesn’t live up to the legend surrounding him.

Quibbles about his accent or speaking patterns aside, Walken’s performance as the Emperor is actually perfect for what Villeneuve set out to do with Dune: Part Two. He might sound like a New Yorker in space, but Walken does make the Emperor look like a much weaker character than is usual for the big bads of these kinds of action-packed sci-fi franchises – and that’s a good thing. Dune isn’t supposed to be another archetypal sci-fi story hitting all the familiar beats with the same character templates seen in countless other sci-fi stories.

...

Frank Herbert set out to upend the clichéd conventions of sci-fi narratives with a more realistic tale of intergalactic intrigue. In the real world, powerful tyrants and publicly shamed villains never amount to the myths about them; no matter what rumors or legends are spread about them, everyone is ultimately just a vulnerable human being. That’s how Walken played the Emperor in Dune: Part Two, and it was much better than if he’d just played Shaddam as Palpatine.

Quite. The Emperor in the original Dune novel that I read, and this is even further brought out in the appendices, is a weak ruler. He may be the nominal Emperor of the Known Universe but he is having a very hard time riding herd on the Great Houses such as the Atreides and Harkonnens, nor is it difficult to imagine him being manipulated by the Bene Gesserit. He's not a Sith Lord who started as an extremely competent politician. He's Emperor because he was born to the title. The great wealth and the Sardaukar are in inheritance, and he really doesn't have any idea how to use them. In the old days, this tended to be a flaw of hereditary monarchy -- you would have an Augustus who would take control as a brilliant politician, but the children would grow up in palace life and be sheltered from both from all the hard work and from ordinary people. It's not at all uncommon for them to become rulers in name only, figureheads, being manipulated by a prime minister or guardian or Lord Protector or some other powerful politician who will exercise the real power. The clueless Sultan being manipulated by the cunning vizier goes back at least to the Thousand And One Nights, maybe further.

Why is it assumed that every Emperor is Palpatine? Palpatine was the founder of an Empire, so of course he was hyper-competent. Shaddam is neither a founder nor even much of a maintainer, he's simply the end product of thousands of years of palace life. In my read of history, kings or emperors of mediocre quality are far, far more common than Palpatines or Augustuses. Walken's portrayal is simply more realistic than a Star Wars space opera.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Bavarian itP]

Shaddam has been a weak ruler in the David Lynch movie too (the guild navigator in the tank gives him orders!), and in the last chapter of the book, it is basically stated that the emperor only rules because the guild needs a patsy. Also the Bene Gesserit deny him a male heir, which is something they probably not would have dared with a strong ruler. The appendix also say that Shaddam let the skills of his sardaukar deteriorate, I think? (or that might be from the Encyclopedia) In light of all that, Walkens interpretation and performance was perfect. If there are complaints about that, they are clueless about the whole story.

[Ramza00]

TIL that David Lynch directed the spice scene in Season 8 of seinfeld

[Dr.Samurai]

"It's realistic" is not a good justification for anything. Has to be compelling as well.

"More common than not" is also not a good justification for anything.

My issue is not with Shaddam's portrayal as much as Christopher Walken is a character actor of himself and stuck out to me amongst everyone else in the movie. The movie is pretty stylized and visually deliberate, and Walken didn't fit with the theme for me.

But even still, the bits that Pendell quoted are not compelling to me. Appeals to "how it really was" are an appeal to pick up a history book instead of a sci-fantasy novel.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, I think that Dune is exploring and using a more fuedal "war of the roses" style setting and concept. While Firefly is more of an "antibellum south" bit.

Right. We are in violent agreement.

The point I was discussing was "people bring their culture with them" even in the dystopian Sci Fi future.

two settings. Very different. Portrayed to us via different lenses.

No kidding? Herbert's magnum opus preceded Wheedon's story by almost 40 years and was part of the rich legacy of Sci Fi writing that informed all Sci Fi that came after the golden age of Sci Fi.

The prequel deluge of books is almost something else entirely. Does one consider them canon?

I don't. And yes, Dune was very much a breaking with expectations/genre conventions story.

Space Feudalism is kinda cool

Star Wars uses it...sort of.

So apparently there are a lot of complaints about Christopher Walken's portrayal of Shaddam IV, Emperor of Humanity, in Dune II. Here's One Rebuttal

I find myself in agreement with the rebuttal. The 'secret society ruling from behind the throne" aspect of the Bene Gesserit is a key feature of Dune's world building. (I don't think that it was informed by the Illumaniti story, but he may have picked up a trace of that... and applied it to his basic framework, as a mix of Nuns and Jesuits).

[hamishspence]

I find myself in agreement with the rebuttal. The 'secret society ruling from behind the throne" aspect of the Bene Gesserit is a key feature of Dune's world building.

And indeed, the whole point of Irulan in the book is to be a Bene Gesserit on the throne (even if it's her husband that's the de jure Emperor).

The Emperor and his Truthsayer were carrying on a heated, low-voiced argument.
Paul spoke to his mother: "She reminds him that it's part of their agreement to place a Bene Gesserit on the throne, and Irulan is the one they've groomed for it."
"Was that their plan?" Jessica said.
"Isn't it obvious?" Paul asked.
"I see the signs!" Jessica snapped. "My question was meant to remind you that you should not try to teach me those matters in which I instructed you."

[gbaji]

Right. We are in violent agreement.

The point I was discussing was "people bring their culture with them" even in the dystopian Sci Fi future.

Right. Probably should have put a quote in there to show what/who I was responding to. I was talking about how just because there was less political focus in Firefly does not equate to less cultural focus. Dune is fantastic, but at least in the first book, we really only see indepth cultural details about the Fremen (because much of the book details this via Paul and Jessica living with them for so long). Every single character involved in the story is directly connected to a very specific political conflct. As such, everyone is viewed through this lens.

We know very little about day to day life among the various people who are ruled by each of these different political factions in Dune (though we can certainly make some broad speculations!). To say that Firefly has less cultural depth is not correct IMO. It's literally showing us everything about the cultural effects/impacts of the current and recent political conditions. That's front and center. Dune, on the other hand, is showing us the political movers and shakers that make the changes in the world around them in the first place.

Not saying one is better/worse than the other (they each have different approaches and purposes). Just saying that "politics != culture" (and sure, making some other observations about Firefly as well).

[Ramza00]

And indeed, the whole point of Irulan in the book is to be a Bene Gesserit on the throne (even if it's her husband that's the de jure Emperor).

Yep, the series is about narcissism or another word for that name goes there ( i do not really care what you call it and not going to get into a naming discussion )

Herbert from 1959 to 1964 crafted a text that was combining way too much magic mushrooms, with Jung, and a mild amount of Freud, but also far more Catholic, Muslim, but also Greek and Hindu religion (can not trace all the lineages without it becoming a complex web but also the board rules). A text he did as a stay at home husband with the kids while his wife brought home the bacon as a person who did advertising copy.

The Bene Gesserit are supposed to be the people who know (past memory) but also say no to the emperor. The person who bears the emperors heir and those son and daughters will be a blending of two desires, the emperor themselves and other peoples desires including the Bene Gesserit that says no.

Why would Paul who knows the (past memory) both the male and female lines, who loves and resents his own momma, marry another Bene Gesserit w/ Irulan ? He chooses a sham marriage on purpose, perverting the ancient tradition of the momma of the emperors kids always being a Bene Gesserit for he has the power to do so.

He will betray and destroy a 10,000 year tradition for he has the freedom to do so and force everyone in the universe to bend to his whims or die to his army or economic die due not being able to space travel.

[hamishspence]

He chooses a sham marriage on purpose, perverting the ancient tradition of the momma of the emperors kids always being a Bene Gesserit for he has the power to do so.

I was under the impression that the decision to marry the Emperor to a Bene Gesserit (Anirul, Bene Gesserit of Hidden Rank), and then deny him sons, giving him only daughters (the oldest being Irulan) was catalysed by the fact that their Kwisatz Haderach program was so close to completion.

And that prior to this the Bene Gesserit weren't always the Imperial spouses - Irulan was supposed to be the first Bene Gesserit Empress to take the throne itself, and married off to the Kwisatz Haderach. And, being so much older than him (he was supposed to be the grandson of Jessica), able to control him.

With Jessica's having him one generation early, interfering with the plan.

Irulan's description doesn't make it sound like it's something that happens with every Emperor:

When he wanted, he could radiate charm and sincerity, but I often wonder in these later days if anything about him was as it seemed. I think now he was a man fighting constantly to escape the bars of an invisible cage. You must remember that he was an emperor, father-head of a dynasty that reached back into the dimmest history. But we denied him a legal son. Was this not the most terrible defeat a ruler ever suffered? My mother obeyed her Sister Superiors where the Lady Jessica disobeyed. Which of them was the stronger? History already has answered.