Hacker News Reader

Comment by Andrew_nenakhov | Hacker News Reader

The problem with mentats is deeper, as they are integral in the traitor subplot, which forms the main intrigue part of the first half of the book and pays off in the second half.

In new adaptation Yueh's betrayal came out of the left field without real explanation, wasn't shown how it was motivated, suspicions of everyone vs Jessica and Leto's trust in her are all dropped, and on top of it all Yueh's death was very anticlimactic compared to the old movie.

And also, Paul's awakening was my favourite scene in Lynch's Dune, and it was a letdown in Villeneuve's.

View on HN

Yueh isn’t a mentat and his betrayal is unrelated to mentats. He’s suk, but even this is not integral in understanding that he was a trusted part of House Atreides and then betrayed them. The rest really isn’t needed to further the plot.

Movie adaptations will never be able to be as detailed as books. People that first read a book and then watch the movie will almost always notice there are things that are missing, and if those missing things are something the watcher was really attached to, they will be disappointed. But for people who haven’t read the book, as long as the missing things don’t create large plot holes or confusion, it’s fine. I think Dune does a fantastic job of striking the balance of detail while still telling a cohesive and fascinating story. Stuff like mentats and suk doctors are really fascinating and it’s unfortunate that movies don’t have the time available to expand on them, but the movie is able to stand alone without it.

> Yueh isn’t a mentat and his betrayal is unrelated to mentats.

Thank you, CO! :-D

But I didn't mean that he's mentat, just that Atreides and Harkonnen mentats main activity was related to the traitor plot, which was rather faithfully done in Lynch's version, and was all but omitted in Villeneuve's. The tiny detail that the Baron personally killed Yueh, thus removing the last bit of importance from DeVries before his death, is the final offence to his character.

I personally found DeVries character to be completely unforgettable in the book and there was nothing specifically he did that couldn’t have been replaced by something else, so I suppose that’s part of why I don’t think mostly omitting him from the recent movie is that much of a detraction.

I guess you wanted to say forgettable, but just to expand on that:

I recently read the book and I couldn’t even remember the character now and had to look up who was meant. Maybe that is more a testament to how bad I am at remembering stuff I read in books than how important the character is but there you go.

The more Brad Dourif shines then. Not only he carries a vital piece of exposition, he is quite striking in his small role and leaves a lasting impression. Compare this to that poor creature who sadly dies having done absolutely nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com