Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9490092" data-attributes="member: 7026594">I lean toward Soloist's (among others') read.  There's nothing juvenile about Chani's presentation throughout the films or  her reaction. And I think her reaction must be read in context with what's gone before.That moment is a dramatic one, and maybe to adolescents watching the movie primarily for young leads Tim and Zendaya the sense of romantic betrayal has additional resonance and dramatic juice, but I don't think that's the intended point.  The films consistently portray a balance of love and conflict between them.  Of her skepticism at his actions and choices and use of her people, and her role as something of a conscience for him.  The conclusion is a moment of truth in terms of what course he has chosen, and how it's a break from her.  The marriage is merely a minor element of it, not the cornerstone.Edit: I think [USER=5889]@Stalker0[/USER] hit the nail on the head in post #4 of the thread.  Chani externalizes Paul's inner conflict, and her questioning him and finally breaking from him more clearly illustrate the point Herbert was disappointed that so many readers missed.  That Paul is not a savior to be trusted.  Her sticking by him as she did in the book despite his choices would subvert the point and betray the character as established in the movies.  My recollection of The Hobbit's production was that Jackson never wanted to do it in the first place. I remember hearing how it got bloated in production from one movie to two, and finally to three, and I remember a bunch of rumors of how previous intended director Guillermo del Toro fought with the studio. My impression was that the studio pushed for the bloating and expansion into a trilogy for maximum profit.  And that Jackson tried to make the best of a bad situation by filling in more of the runtime with appendix material so at least he'd be inventing less and fans could enjoy a bit more Blanchett, Lee, and Weaving. I'm also in the crowd which really disliked the trilogy despite enjoying bits and pieces of it, and some of the performances.  I thought Martin Freeman did quite a fine job, as did Richard Amitage.  But I haven't watched these movies a second time and don't intend to. I have happily revisited the 1977 animated version, though.  Which abridges more than I like, but does SO much well, and has several really excellent voice performances.</blockquote>

Verification