[dmreedy]

I don't necessarily disagree with the position that compromises were made, but

> better off as crusaders rather than jihadis

At the risk of sounding edgy, I'm not sure I see the distinction between these two things? My impression of Herbert is that the pseduo-arabism that he draped over his themes didn't serve as a moral judgement or a stand-in for motivation, but to provide some remove for his immediate audience (lot of assumptions in that phrase I realize) so that they can examine morality without getting immediately defensive?

He seemed interested in discussing Religion, the phenomenon. Not the phenomenon of a particular real instantiation.

Or is that what you meant, too?

[AmericanChopper]

Some of the main themes of the book revolve around anti-colonialism, with the book drawing very obvious parallels to western interference in the Middle East after the discovery of spice, sorry I mean oil. Jihadis fighting against colonial forces fits into this theme perfectly. Crusaders on the other hand were just a different group of colonisers who had previously sought to conquer the Arabs. This doesn’t fit into the main themes at all, it completely subverts them.

[yamtaddle]

It subverts the themes, and, relatedly, it's kinda whitewashing. "These future space-witches didn't synthesize a complex mythology and religion based on all Earth's religions—nah, it's just Christianity, because why do you need any of those others?"

"Jihad" also has a much-broader meaning than "crusade" without needing to reach into figurative senses of the word, which colors the whole thing rather differently.

[EDIT] Oh, and the book pretty clearly draws fairly heavily from Lawrence's Seven Pillars (at least a couple scenes or sequences are practically lifted from it, aside from the general vibe and structure of an untested officer from lush England being sent to a distant desert, proving himself among the locals, gaining insight during a nigh-fatal fever, and playing a major role in leading them against a superior occupying force while leaning heavily on the local forces' distinct mobility & supply advantages, with the ultimate goal and final culmination of the project in the taking of a major capital city) and downplaying the Muslim elements of the Fremen pushes that aside a bit, which is... fine, I guess, but not exactly an improvement.

[AmericanChopper]

I agree, and you’re absolutely right about about the word Jihad. I think one of the more sad elements of this is that the Fremen were basically the only good guys in the story (in the first book at least).

My own personal speculation is that the provocative nature of the word Jihad wasn’t actually the main controversy they were trying to avoid. I think the pagan nature of the Fremen, and the depiction of Paul as the Mahdi would be far more objectionable to a Muslim audience. But in any case it shows a lack of courage from the filmmakers. Rather disappointing imo.

[dmreedy]

Ah, yes, fair enough. Though to be fair there is of course a transition from "Occupied" to "Occupier" as the story progresses. Which I think is part of that broader curiosity about the origins of zealotry, and its vector.

But I do agree that that particular axis is one of the weaker parts of the adaptation. Though I'm not convinced personally it subverts the theme entirely; just maybe skips a few steps.