Dune Part 2 Response Is Less About the Movie and More About Hollywood's Problems

Some questions tell me more about the writer of the article than about what's not in the movie.

> What is the functional difference between House Atreides and House Harkonnen when they both share the same brutalist architecture and technology?

For the Fremen, very little. For the urban population in and around Arrakeen, the Atreides are obviously less brutal (and closer to baseline human) than the Harkonen.

> How exactly do the Bene Gesserit operate

Not every questions needs an answer.

> what makes Lady Jessica different enough from the others that she’s seen as a traitor to her own people when she’s acting exactly the same way as them?

She decided on her own to risk bringing the Kwisatz Haderach, putting a very long term plan in jeopardy because her husband wanted a son rather than a daughter as dictated by the plan.

> Part 2 scrubbed much of the intentional Islamic influence from Herbert’s text, such as never calling Paul’s war a “jihad,” and replacing the Arabic words used by the Fremen in the novel with a new fictional language.

Isn't a desert being mined for a vital resource and being occupied by colonial powers oppressing the indigenous population enough to make the connection?

It feels a bit like criticising 2001 or Contact for now showing how the aliens look.

Dune Part 2 is an excellent adaption but all adaptions of Dune are ultimatley inferior to the books. I was actually disappointed when I was watching it but I could see how it was trying to tell the story. The story is just way too complex and has too many things going on to adapt to movies or tv.