MovieChat Forums > Dune: Part Two (2024) Discussion > The arena scene was simply padding

The arena scene was simply padding

posted 2 months ago by stevewyzard (1272)
4 replies | jump to latest

I saw the movie last night and was mostly impressed, just as I was with Part One. Yet I couldn't help thinking that Feyd-Rautha's black-and-white arena scene was just padding and didn't really add anything to the movie. Irulan has already described him as a psychopath and we've seen that all the Harkonnens are heartless, bloodthirsty killers. (Aside: how do they get so many victims to be part of their personal staff/entourages? Would you want to work for them?) I suppose the scene could be simply preparation for his final fight with Paul, but we've already been shown his prowess as a fighter.

It's been decades since I've read the book, so if this is taken directly from it, I duly apologize to all the Frank Herbert fans. But the filmmakers obviously made a number of changes (especially to Chani's role), so why would they add this if it's not in the book? Other than giving Austin Butler even more opportunities to glower into the camera, the only thing I can think of would be his discovery that one of his victims has not been drugged, which informs the viewers yet once again how duplicitous the Harkonnens are.

[–] OuterSpace (78) 2 months ago

Like you mentioned it was to show his prowess in blade combat so there would be more drama and stake with the final fight against Paul. Plus it allows the movie to show and further hammer in the ruthlessness of the character for the proceeding events.

And yes, the arena scene was in the book though there it was more in-depth and with some political intrigue going on which, like so much else, was removed from the movie.

[–] UMAD (657) 2 months ago

obiovusly it was bad because they erased tuphir hawat from the movie which in the book tuhphir had an assasin with a poisoned blade trying to assasinate feyd. the whole idea was to show how sneaky and smart thufir was. not that fatass that they had in part 1 portraying him and then cut him all together lol.

[–] SOteric (117) 2 months ago

You're right - they streamlined the story and made a lot of changes from the book. I'm sure the screenwriters believed that Thufir Hawat should have died in the Harkonnen attack rather than be captured and forced to work for them. They will no doubt justify the changes by saying that they couldn't show everything.

[–] phony (215) 2 months ago

No no no, you dont get it. We MUST show how evil Feyd-Rautha is, ok? He is a bald menace! The audience needs to understand this. He kills people at random. Look at him wrong? DEAD! No, no, dont give the character nuance, that will distract the audience of the fact that he is EVIL!!! He is SO evil, you have no idea! He put a blade in his tongue for chrissakes! That is EVIl. Florence told us he is a psycho!!!!11 Dont you get it?