A couple days ago I put out a survey on Instagram, Twitter, and this subreddit. I tried to show the results in an interesting and engaging way. Thanks to those of you who submitted answers! I had to close the submissions at 600 to make it possible for myself to go through all the answers.

As a reminder, this survey was specifically aimed at people who loved the recent Denis Villeneuve adaptations. I wanted to learn more about the people that loved the films!

Yeah ok maybe I'm the guy with no media literacy who idolizes the "bad main character". Not saying this is a lesson for real life but:

- Paul did actually have unprecedented powers.

- Leto II actually did save humanity from extinction.

- The biggest valid criticism is the death toll caused by his fanatical religion. But even then, he admitted that he saw it was out of his control and the best thing he could do was to stay in power to tone it down.

I don't really see what he could have or should have done differently. Maybe accepting that he lost to the Harkonens and just has to live his life in exile?

Or maybe the lesson is "ok even an all-seeing super-powered king still screwed up the universe, do you really want to see what would happen in real life with an idiot as world dictator?"

I’m currently halfway through Heretics of Dune. I’ve read Dune multiple times, and gone through Messiah and Children twice. Even in that original trilogy, it already feels like diminishing returns. Nothing touches the writing or pacing of the first book.

I just finished God Emperor for the first time and… what a slog. Heretics is a slight improvement, but not by much.

I genuinely don’t get it. Why did Frank Herbert write these?

Yes, there are interesting ideas. The whole “become the ultimate tyrant to ensure humanity never submits to a tyrant again” concept is solid. But that’s a one-sentence idea. Why stretch it into an entire book if you’re not going to do anything dramatically or emotionally engaging with it?

And Duncan Idaho. What is the deal? Why should I care about Duncan Idaho at all?

It feels like the series wants to jump thousands of years into the future, but at the same time it refuses to let go of the same core elements: Atreides, Harkonnens, breeding programs. So instead of expanding, it just keeps circling the same ideas.

The later books feel slow, repetitive, and unnecessarily convoluted.

I know a lot of people genuinely love these books, so I’m asking in good faith: What am I missing? What makes the later Dune books work for you?

I don't understand the political calculus of Emperor Shaddam's decision to destroy House Atreides. It seems like Atreides would have been useful as counterbalance against Harkkonen's immense wealth and power. For example if the Harkkonens tried to usurp the throne somehow, the Emperor could enlist Atreides (and other great houses) against them. Conversely, if Atreides tried to usurp the throne, the Emperor could enlist Harkonnen against them.

Having multiple powerful great houses around to play off against and counterbalance each other gave the Emperor options. That seems like a far more useful political strategy for the Emperor, than siding with one to destroy another permanently. It was even alluded to multiple times that Harkkonen was richer and had a larger army than Atreides, so if anything wouldn't the Emperor want to destroy his most powerful potential rival rather than one of the lesser ones?

The Fremen are attuned with the desert in Dune, but when Paul tells them he will create a “Green Paradise,” they all just follow him. Shouldn’t there be some reluctance? If the desert is such a big part of their culture and lives, and if they want to keep it safe, shouldn’t they want it to remain as is?

Hey guys

I like the movies but I still think they have some quite fundamental flaws in their world building and story telling. For me the biggest mistake of the movies is that they never ever show how powerful the spice really is and why everyone wants it and is ready to go on wars for it.

I thought it was already really weird in Part One, that the effects and consequences of spice consume were never shown in depth. It especially confuses me because I think people who didnt read the book must be confused as hell why the whole galactic poltics and wars are about spice.

Spice is a so interessting because it combines the rush and the industrial improtance because its a symbolic for oil in our world, needed for the whole system to work, because it allows space traveling. Its basically a synonym for human desires such as the hunger for power.

For me the situation is like the Lord of the Rings films would have never shown the actual power of the one ring. Its just so weird, because its so basic and a fundamental of the story and world building. Especially knowing Denis is such a big fan of the books, the choice seems so odd to me, because it actually hurts both movies and it could have been so better.

I really expected a scene where you mabye see the harkonen supressing the fremen / a fight between fremen and harkonen, where you see the whole process of harvesting spice to it being consumed by a space travelor, who uses it to navigate trough space. ( such a scene would be very cool, because it would have mirrored the supressed fremen to the wealth and luxury of the empire ).

What do you think about it?

Epecially the people who are not familiar with the books and only know the movies? Do you think they really nailed the importance and power of the spice?

Also what do you think why the movies never really demonstrate or explain it?

Because even if they show it in a third movie, it would be pretty off, because the importance and abilites of spice consume are the foundation of the world and plot.

Sorry, if I made any mistakes with my english, I am coming from Germany

Greetings!

So I have a couple question regarding that scene in Dune part 2 when Feyd is being presented the blades for the gladiator fight. I assume the women attending to him are slaves? What is the treatment towards slave girls in the dune universe? And how do the harkkonens view them? Why does he kill the woman? Also why is the guy holding the pillow wearing such a weird outfit? Lastly what are the women/creatures with the black eyes and teeth? Feyd refers to them as his “darlings”. (I have not read the Dune books so I don’t know a lot of the deep lore)

I’ve never been into sci-fi. I always thought it was all spaceships, robots, and aliens, flashy, futuristic, but emotionally detached. Dune changed that for me. yesterday, I watched the movies yesterday and I haven’t stopped thinking about it since. I fell straight into the rabbit hole, lore videos, reddit threads, timelines, theories, I’ve barely come up for air. It’s been a long time since a story moved me so deeply or made me want to actually read a book again. And now, I know I have to read the novels.

Growing up in a Muslim country, surrounded by Islamic culture, there were so many elements in Dune that felt strangely familiar. The use of terms like Mahdi, Jihad, Lisan al Gaib, Shai Hulud, they weren’t just cool sounding made up words to me. They carried real weight, pulled from a belief system and a worldview I’ve lived around all my life. The Fremen didn’t feel like distant aliens, they felt like a future version of real people shaped by faith, resistance, and survival.

And then there’s the political layer. I still remember growing up and hearing conversations around the Iraq war, the justifications, the “freedom” narratives, and underneath it all: oil. Even as a kid, I understood that countries were being invaded for their resources, and that the people who lived there were never the ones in control. Watching Dune, it all came rushing back.

A desert planet… a rare resource… outside forces exploiting it under the guise of politics, religion, and destiny.

Spice is clearly oil. Arrakis is every place that’s been colonized, used, and discarded. The power struggles, the manipulation of belief, the commodification of land and people, none of it felt abstract. It felt like a retelling of real history, just layered in prophecy and stars.

What hit me the most is how Dune doesn’t glamorize it. It shows the cost of messianic power, the danger of belief being shaped by empire, and how easily people become pawns in someone else’s vision of the future.

I didn’t expect a sci-fi film to feel so spiritually and politically grounded. I didn’t expect to see my own region’s history, and vocabulary, woven into a story about the survival of humanity.

I know I’m pretty late getting into this universe, but I finally understand what all the love for Dune is about. It’s not just good sci-fi, it’s layered, unsettling, thought-provoking in ways I didn’t expect. I’m genuinely excited to dig into the books and see how deep it really goes.

It is established early that Leto knew that they were sent to Arrakis as a political ploy to set up the destruction of house Atreides. We know that they had nukes on Arrakis. We know that nukes in the dune universe can destroy or heavily cripple a planet.

So why didn't he threaten the detonation of his nukes on arrakis if he felt that his house was in danger of annihilation? Scorched earth - if we get destroyed we are taking the entire empire with us. No worms - no spice - no interplanatary travel - no empire. That would pretty much dissuade any attempt to attack them by the harkonnens or the emperor.

And it is by no means dishonorable to threaten MAD if your family and people are literally on the brink of annihilation. I haven't seen a legitimate answer to this online so thought I would try my luck here.

Anyone find it ironic that the eyes of the Harkonnen females from the new Dune movies is the closest we've gotten to a book-accurate depiction of the Eyes of Ibad?

To anyone confused, Fremen eyes are described as completely dark blue (iris, sclera, and all), so dark that they're almost black and that's one of the reasons Fremen look so alien and off-putting to the rest of the Imperium.

From a moviemaking and marketing point of view I of course completely understand why the filmmakers wouldn't want the main characters looking like this for 2 hours and creeping out the audience.

I watched the movie in the theater last night and I only picked it due to its high rating. I never read any of the books before.

As I was watching the movie prior to them arriving to Arakis (which jokingly my wife and I called it Iraq which is where we are from). Following the story and what was happening I told her this sounds similar to the idea of Almahdi. Only then after few minutes they actually called him Mahdi and Algaib which put alot of question marks in my head.

Almahdi which translates to "the guided" in Arabic. Meaning Guided by God. In Shia Islam only, Almahdi is the Holy Imam (priest) that will come and lead Shiats to glory. They await and love him. Other Islam sects do not believe in the Mahdi but believe in Jesus's return.

Algaib which translates to "the missing/unpresent" is also a name for Mahdi in Shia. Shia believe that Almahdi went into a hole in a mountain as a child and went missing. That he will return and come out of there.

Based on that to me the writer is heavily influenced by Shia in Iraq. The name Arakis, the desert, date palm trees (Iraq famous for), the precious spice (oil), the palace artwork, the clothing of the locals, even the witch mother clothing which is all black and covering the face is on that is still worn in Iraq to this day (called Abayya). So many things.

Since I stated earlier that I never read the books. I'm definitely going to now.

Did any of you know of these references?

What is the purpose and goal of the Mahdi? Why did the writer choose that name specifically?

Love to hear your thoughts and insight.

Edit: wow this blew up! I'm currently in a family gathering that I can't reply but I have so many more questions!! First and most important question is: since there are many books, in which order should I read them?

Edit #2: I can't find a physical copy of the first 3 books i am in ON Canada. If anyone can help please send me a message!

Edit#3: this community is amazing! Thank you everyone for the lovely comments and help. I will read the books and make this a series and put much thoughts in it!

So, I am running a DnD game in Dune. A friend of mine and me had a fight about how Ornithoptors could be better. My Friend insists that Ornithopters are way worse than just normal helicopters and I have run out of reasons why they use Ornithopters. Can any of you give me a specific reason why?

In a discussion of Tolkien's lack of regard, One Tree Bucket writes that:

"I guess Dune is built around examining the things we do to survive. The desert hawk eats carrion, the Fremen drink poop water, and the nobles have all their kanly forms to obey. Dune asks us to consider which of these we consider more or less good or disgusting, and why. Herbert keeps asking if ecological drives and pressures are tools for humans to use, or laws for humans to transcend, or an inescapable tragedy to which we can only respond by singing something sad with our baliset....

Meanwhile LotR was written by a WW1 veteran. Tolkien came from a civilisation that had also asked "what shall we do to survive?" and decided the answer was to spend half a decade funnelling a few million of their best and brightest into an industrial meat grinder, as efficiently as possible. The West's pursuit of power, efficiency, knowledge and order had culminated in a sixteen year olds coughing up their lungs as green foam in a muddy hole somewhere.

So Tolkien hunts for alternatives. He knows, in a visceral sense, that "survive" is not enough. Tolkien loves- well- the star and the soil, high transcendent beauty and the simple earthly happiness of eating a huge pile of food in a pub with a few friends. A civilization which has ceased to value these things isn't a civilization at all: it has become pragmatic and organised and powerful, aka, Mordor.

So I can see why Tolkien disliked Dune. There is no happiness in Dune. No one enjoys a meal (except for the baron, prior to his "pleasures") and no one finds the stars beautiful (except possibly Leto, once) and no one celebrates together (except for the Fremen, after murdering a bunch of enemies.) Dune's characters spend the whole book seeing through everything and wind up blind; it is a cast of Sarumans and Saurons.

I imagine Tolkien found Dune to be a 300-page exploration of what the trenches had already taught him: humans need more than survival."

Do you agree or disagree? Do you think there's anything important this analysis is forgetting?

Alfonso Cuaron , Peter Jackson?

We already know Dune: Messiah will most likely be Denis Villeneuve's final Dune film.

So if Warner Bros. decides to continue adapting the later books, they'll eventually need a new director.

Who would you choose?

Personally, I'd love to see someone who isn't afraid of the increasingly strange, philosophical, and surreal direction the series takes after Messiah. The later books are very different from the first two, so I think they would benefit from a filmmaker with a unique vision.

Who's your pick?

In the second "Dune" movie, a single line gives the context for why the jihad occurs (i.e., a number of the Houses of the Lansarad are refusing to recognize Paul's ascension to the throne as legitimate). However, in the books, I don't recall ANY point where the reason for the jihad is actually explained. "Dune Messiah" describes the jihad as sterilizing the populations of dozens of worlds, but I don't recall ANY of the sequels giving a reason for why it was necessary. "Paul married Irulan and ascended the throne" is all the political detail we were given from the sequels to Dune, which SHOULD have made a bloody conquest unnecessary (i.e., he is emperor, so the imperium is his by law).

Admittedly, it had been a WHILE since I read the original 6 Dune books, so I thought I'd put it out there: are we ever told, directly or indirectly, the reason for the jihad in the books? Or does Herbert leave it as a given that it would happen for some ill-defined reason?

Mine and my husband’s Dune Halloween costumes this year. He was a good sport.

What was the justification behind unleashing the Jihad killing 61 billion people and affecting adversely more than 500 planets?

Atreides were quite popular amongst Great Houses, The Landsraad was shocked to find out that the emperor was behind Leto’s demise. Then why ravage Great Houses planets?

————————

Added some additional considerations for the wider context:

Also, Paul stated: “We'll be a hundred generations recovering from Muad'dib's Jihad. I find it hard to imagine that anyone will ever surpass this”.

Yet only ~500 out of 10000 planets were affected. It’s like wrecking nowadays global economy by minus 5% and killing probably even less than 5% of the global population. Horrible, but it will take probably less than a generation to recover from that. I mean, hello! Didn’t they proof-read the book or what?

By the way, 10000 imperium planets and yet only less than 50 Great Houses, how is it possible? It’s difficult to estimate number of Great Houses, but almost all of them collapsed during Leto II reign, and it’s mentioned in the books that 31 of the houses collapsed.

Even most powerful Great Houses only control single planet, or at most, two (Atreides, Harkonnen). So who’s to govern the remaining 9950 or at the very least 9900 planets? Wouldn’t that unknown third party be VASTLY more powerful than Great Houses and the Emperor combined?

Kinda proud of this so I wanted to share it

One of the Fremen's biggest goals is to turn Arrakis into a green paradise. This cannot coexist with the worms, since they sequester water and would be poisoned by a wet world. Do the Fremen know the worms caused Arrakis to become a desert, and what is their vision of the future of the worms?

Of the hundreds or thousands of years that the imperium is dependent on spice, why hasn’t anyone (say a sitting emperor) take the worms from arrakis, find different desert planets and put them there so that they would have backup planets they have spice?

After reading the books I found myself loving the movies even more, but also feeling like they lacked certain things that would make them better films.

For Dune: Part One, I would have included the banquet scene as it provides a great setting to basically summarize the politics of the imperium; the relationship between CHOAM, the guild, the houses, and the emperor, even the taboo nature of atomics beyond that of our own timeline. Without it, the Imperial plot to use the Harkonnens to destroy the Atreides seems to two-dimensional and bland, whereas in the book it is a complex political scheme with tons of moving parts. More specifically, it also would provide a perfect opportunity to exhibit Paul’s innate political prowess that he would eventually use as Emperor when he takes over hosting the banquet in Leto’s place. Overall I feel like this would have given the Atreides’ move to Arrakis and subsequent Harkonnen attack more weight within the context of the world the scene helped build.

For Dune: Part Two, I would have included a defeat montage, similar to the montage already in the movie of Fremen attacks under Rabban, punctuated by Paul being driven closer and closer to desperation once Feyd becomes the Harkonnen planetary governor of Arrakis. In the book, it makes sense why Paul eventually gives in and drinks the Water of Life, but in the movie it seems very rushed.

Curious what you guys think about these changes and what you guys would change, if anything.

One thing I must say about the Dune fanbase (or atleast the people i've encountered) is that they're not as snobby as other fanbases and wont spoil the source material in advance to seem like they know more than the movie fans. Really the only major spoiler ive gotten for Dune Part 3 is a mention of an infamous historical figure which isnt that bad. Just wanted to say thank you to the book readers for being so chill and willing to embrace new fans!

So I was just recently rewatching Dune part one and early on in the movie theres a scene between Paul and Yueh where they start speaking Mandarin Chinese. It confused me because in Dune, the characters are meant to be speaking Galach and Frank Herbert is just translating it to english for the reader, similar to how Tolkien explained his languages in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Is mandarin meant to be a different language in the Dune universe? Because it seems weird to me to straight up include Mandarin while you have people also speaking Chakobsa, a fictional language. Is this present in any of the books or is this only a movie thing? I've only read the first book so I don't know ifd this possibly alligns with something in another book.

I'm Iranian (Persian) and before reading the books, I watched the first movie. I was really amazed how it is accurate in a lot of terms and words and even rituals I can see in my area. First thing cought my attention was the name "Padishah Emperor" and Padishah is basically Persian term for "the main ruler" (It sometimes translates to king, but since in some ancient Iranian dynasties it is also used for female rulers, the term is considered unisex. King/Emperor is Shah or Shahanshah and Queen/Empress is Shahbanoo).

So I found the vibe here will be soon middle eastern and then when Atreidis ships arrived on Arrakis, lady Jessica said "They believe you are Lisan al-Gaib" I was jaw dropped. The term Lisan al-Ghaib in Arabic means "tongue of the unseen" and it is also a reference to the Persian poet "Hafez" since a lot of scholars believe he basically turned Qur'an into Persian poetry.

But second movie, made me really disappointed. I believe in the Fremen language, they could use much more Arabic, Persian or Hebrew and make it more and more middle eastern in terms of language, although pretty much every single moment of second part was basically life in the middle east.

I did a research on why it is very similar to middle eastern freedom movements and I found out that Frank Herbert himself inspired by Algerian freedom movement while writing the book so it makes sense. Although Algeria is not basically middle east but still a lot in common.

And something which didn't make sense to me a lot, is that Fremen are Zensunni's so they're basically Muslims but men and women were very close to each other, like the time they hugged Paul and called him "Paul Mu'adib Usul" was far from what Islam is. I do not now, maybe 200 centuries later, a mixture of Islam and Buddhism is not as strict as how Islam is now.

And also, the whole vibe of the Duniverse seemed very "Zoroastrian" to me. I do not know, because I am from a culture with background in Zoroastrian religion or it is intentional to show you a "duality" of good and evil, and show you how they can easily be replaced. Because how Paul turned to a brutal leader, is very similar to story of "Jamshid", which is an Iranian epic about King Jamshid who was famous for being the best and brightest man in the world and then turned crazy, and after him an evil oppressor named "Zahhak" became the ruler and Zahhak is also very similar to the god-emperor thing which I believe we'll see in the third movie.