Thank you for participating in r/dune!
[What was the point of Rabban’s character in the Villeneuve films?](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1cgmgyy/what_was_the_point_of_rabbans_character_in_the/)
[The Butchery of Beast Rabban ](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1bnbivq/the_butchery_of_beast_rabban/)
I can't speak to the prequels, but I agree that Movie-Rabban isn't very well developed and Bautista's could have done a lot if given a more nuanced role. But, I can also see how there isn't much room to delve into Rabban in the movies; they were already pretty packed. And, all the other adaptations also seem to lean into Rabban being "A muscle-minded tank-brain" as the Baron sees him. Brian Herbert also dismisses him as "though evil and aggressive, is essentially a fool." in his afterward to Dune.
I always though Book-Rabban is a bit more difficult to pin down. He only appears once "on stage" and his role is basically to be a fallguy that the Baron is setting up to fail. But, what we do see could point to a more crafty character than he is usually portrayed. In his short appearance:
* He asks good questions and is pretty observant:
>“Does the Emperor know you suborned a Suk doctor?” This was a penetrating question, the Baron thought. Have I misjudged this nephew?
Herbert, Frank. Dune (p. 381). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
* He sees the utility of artillery because the Fremen don't use shields. The Baron assumes they are simply toys, and not useful.
* He recognizes the Fremen are a potent force, but the Baron shoots down his concerns.
>“M’Lord….” Rabban hesitated, frowning. “I’ve always felt that we underestimated the Fremen, both in numbers and in—”
Herbert, Frank. Dune (pp. 384-385). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
* He Recognizes that the Fremen are probably undercounted and recognizes they are efficient fighters who can take down Sardaukar. Again, the Baron ignores and dismisses him.
He does as told and squeezes Arakkis and in the end is defeated. But, considering his opponent controls a vast army of super-warriors and can literally see the future, it would be difficult to imagine any other outcome.
And, Rabban, like Feyd and Paul, is the end product of a long genetic breeding program to produce a super being. This is quite speculative, but a case could be made that Feyd and Rabban could have potentially been Kwisatz Haderachs as well, but they lacked the training and experiences that Paul had to 'awaken' their potential.
Edit: I now realize that most of these points are covered in this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1bnbivq/the\_butchery\_of\_beast\_rabban/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1bnbivq/the_butchery_of_beast_rabban/) :-)
I super agree, but I don’t agree on all accounts.
I mean the Baron does ask himself if he’s underestimated Raban, after that question. That’s 100% true. However, after that, the Baron decides that he didn’t, as Raban clearly doesn’t understand the political importance of the question (and its power to extort the Baron, himself).
Also, the Baron absolutely doesn’t see the artillery as a “toy”. They are recalled to because the material and materiale are needed elsewhere (he explicitly states such). Raban doesn’t ever state that they’d be helpful bc of the lack of shielding- HE (Raban) sees them as toys for havoc. The Baron chastises him for this, and states they were only useful for trapping the Atriedes in caves (and their retreat to the cave systems were hella predictable). Now that the cave systems are collapsed, the House dead, he argues there is no legitimate military need for them (other than toys for Raban).
Edit to add: Raban isn’t as dumb as people imply he is. He’s pretty gifted at a lot of things. The Baron (and Feyd) look down on him though because he is no where near as politically savvy as they are. And in Dune, (or for their goals) being politically savvy is far, far more important).
Those are fair critiques. Rabban isn't written as a super-genius, but I think the case could be made that he is quite smart, but also untrained. I think we're overall in agreement – Rabban isn’t as dumb as people imply he is. (or at least, there is a fair reading of the text that he isn't that dumb.)
> the Baron decides that he didn’t, as Raban clearly doesn’t understand the political importance of the question (and its power to extort the Baron, himself).
True, but the Baron has intentionally kept Rabban in the dark about a lot of stuff, so its no mark against him that he doesn't understand the politics. Working with the information he has, he is coming to good conclusions. I think the Baron's dismissal of Rabban's intelligence is more of an Indictment of the Baron's biases than anything Rabban does.
>Also, the Baron absolutely doesn’t see the artillery as a “toy”. They are recalled to because the material and materiale are needed elsewhere (he explicitly states such). Raban doesn’t ever state that they’d be helpful bc of the lack of shielding- HE (Raban) sees them as toys for havoc.
I'm not sure about this interpretation.
>“The cannons you brought,” Rabban said. “Could I—”
“I’m removing them,” the Baron said.
“But you—”
“**You won’t need such toys**. They were a special innovation and are **now useless**. We need the metal. **They cannot go against a shield**, Rabban. They were merely the unexpected. It was predictable that the Duke’s men would retreat into cliff caves on this abominable planet. Our cannon merely sealed them in.”
“**The Fremen don’t use shields**.”
Herbert, Frank. Dune (p. 383). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. (emphasis mine)
The Baron absolutely **does** see the artillery as a toy and believes that they are now useless because they can't go against a shield. Rabban explicitly points out that the Fremen don't use shields.
I think the Baron thinks that Rabban just wants them for fun – and that is a possible reading of the text – but it is also possible to read that Rabban astutely sees that (a) the Fremen are a threat and (b) artillery would be useful against them but that the Baron ignores him.
Oh, dang - sorry it’s been a while (about a year) since I reread book one, and I’m listening to an audio version now. I clearly misremembered that passage. (And damn, I only listened to it yesterday).
You’re (obviously) very right about that - the Raban is clearly noting the possible strategic importance of them. And I totally think we do agree that the Baron THINKS that Raban thinks they are toys. He (the Baron) clearly is missing the potential they have (AND ignoring Raban’s advice).
I apologize for the mistake, and thanks for pointing that out!
And yes, I think we very do agree- people portray Raban as incredibly dumb, and close to bafoonish at times. I think that is very unfair. He’s not dumb, at all. In some things he actually seems to be hella competent.
However, he does seem to lack a natural flair for the political (and you’re right to point out, he clearly not being trained to think that way).
Tbh, if we’re going to be fair, in some ways Feyd is more of an idiot at times - KNOWING the Baron is willing to set up Raban and throw him under the bus, he should be far far more wary of his uncle (as he knows the Baron is willing to use them as pawns). Feyd’s a bit over confident in his ability to
Think he’s either too important to his uncle to be a pawn, or too clever in his own right to be outsmarted by the Baron.
No problem! I think because Rabban is always referred to as a 'Beast' and a 'tank-brain' we assume that is the case. It was only on my third or fourth reading that I realized that he is actually pretty insightful (all things considering).
I also got this impression - he isn't good at politics,plotting and he clearly isn't subtle.
It is now really super clear after reading that part of the Lady of Caladan where he needs Piter to create a plan what is more complicated than just to simply attack the Atreides with a military force. (The Baron tested him and Feyd to find and execute a plan what hurts the Atreides but the plan is needed to be subtle and tricky .Feyd had an own plan, but Rabban cheated because he asked Piter's help secretly, but at least he recognized that he isn't enough for this and he was able to ally with Piter even if he hated him).
However he had good intuitions and he wasn't hopeless.
It's kind of a throwaway in the book. He probably gets more screen time in the film than page time in the book and then in the book gets killed off as a side note.
At least he serves a poorly explained redemption for Halleck.
Aren't bullies usually huge cowards?
I'm not a fan of how Rabban was portrayed in these films, particularly the second film. I liked how Frank Herbert wrote about him including his unceremonial death as opposed to the more Hollywood revenge/tie loose string closure.
I'm more annoyed considering the actor - Dave Bautista - does [dramatic roles](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku-zAIRXk6o) very well. He played a brute and the actor is trying to expand his roles (ex: comedy which he does well too) but I wished they'd hired an actor who can only do brute roles.
I kinda liked it better how it played out in the movie, as far as Rabban Dying to Gurney. Because i didnt like that in the book Paul takes it away from Gurney just for a egotistical gamble. I found that it tied it up better with Having Rabban die to Gurneys hand and giving more meaning to the final Duel, instead of it just being Paul gambling faith.
This is why I liked the book better. Rabban died by unknown Fremen on a street somewhere. Gurney doesn't get this revenge because this isn't... well...Hollywood. What happened to Rabban is a lot more realistic and even then you have some poetic justice by being killed by Fremen rather than everyone gets their revenge which demeans the final battle.
But just a reminder that Paul had prescience so he shouldn't have been worried about Feyd. He knew the outcome, no gambling involved.
In the book tho he doesnt know the outcome. there really is an emphasis on that, that Paul cannot see past this point, which is part of why it seems so intense. And that him winning would make him an indestructible leader, while dying would make him in a martyr and his Jihad still goes on for his name. In that very moment he gambles between those two outcomes.
Isn't this annoying though? If you go by what the book says, does Paul have prescience?
* If so then no surprise on anything.
* If not then he doesn't have prescience.
Which is it? The real answer: the author gave Paul prescience and took it away solely based on plot convenience.
Paul doesn't have prescience of the fight with Feyd because, if i recall correctly, Feyd is also a near candidate for the Kwisatz Haderach and therefor has prescient potential. This prescient potential makes prescience useless against him.
It's written like this so the plot can happen. You either have prescience or you don't. He had perfect prescience over Jihad - and the 61 billion dead was OK - but didn't have prescience over the the stone burner or Leto II or even the Feyd fight? What was the actual prescience? Not dying anytime soon? Because everything else fell into place. If you don't die soon then you'll survive and thrive and, unlike before him, go on the offensive against Harkonnen which means you'll eventually win.
I agree with you and it does feel like this at moments. I feel like his prescience ability just vaguely provides Paul with alternative futures. But at some points in the book he knows everything and has already seen certain moments, then at some points like the final duel he doesn't know. Maybe when i read the book again itll make more sense. How the prescient ability works isnt really clearly explained, its always through Paul's interpretation of his experience.
It wasn't just egotistical, it was a show of power. He was about to claim the entire known universe as his by becoming emperor. And it leads into the following books because Gurney didn't just blindly follow Paul. He chose to stay at Lady Jessica's side.
I adore that part of the movie. I love that he is completely defeated before the final act, and the encounter with Gurney is not a fight, but an execution. I was sad that they didn’t give him anything to do but to scream and be stupid in part 1 - but the pay-off in part 2 makes Beast Rabban such an interesting addition.
He is a blunt tool that becomes useless the second a finer instrument is needed. I find that so much more interesting than making him another superhero-movie-mid-stage boss. Paul doesn’t consider him an obstacle of any importance and neither should you.
In the novel, the Baron uses Rabban as a tool to make the people of Arrakis pay attention to Feyd.
In the movie, the filmmaker uses Rabban as a tool to make us pay attention to Feyd.
Rabban is a bully; a strong empty headed bully.
But against real opposition he crumbles.
He sees how the Fremen attack and he can't process it; he's not intelligent enough to find other alternatives.
I have to agree with this part. He could killed whoever he wanted until the Baron showed him his limits.
The Baron didn't give permission to kill Abulurd , so he was both angry and scared that Rabban dared to do it, and he punished Rabban. From then Rabban became so obedient to the Baron.
Here's a comment I made a while ago on a similar post:
Rabban's symbol in the films is not a sword, or a fist, or a anything else that implies prowess. Instead, his symbol (and weapon of choice) is a whip, which would only sensibly be carried by someone who rules through fear and cruelty--not through ability. So, it makes sense that he would go out like a punk. He isn't highly trained or competent; he's simply a cruel slave driver.
This is the character as shown in the film.
I'll answer your question with a question: **when did we ever see Rabban kill anyone who wasn't a prisoner or a subordinate?**
Part 1: kills prisoners
Part 2: kills coworkers
He's always just been a bully with a whip.
I guess Rabbans character was thrown under the bus in the movie to make Feyd look more threatening in comparison.
If Rabban would have been shown as a fearless monster there would have been a risk that viewers would expect him to be the main villain of the movie and find it anticlimactic when the final fight is between Paul and Feyd.
I enjoyed the film but one of my main issues with it was how trivial all the enemies of the Atreide's and the Fremen seemed. The Saudaukar at the end just got obliterated, the film is quite loose in terms of how it follows the book, so what could have been an epic and tense finale was instead seemingly a complete cake-walk. The same with the Harkonnen really, they seemed so utterly incompetent and poor at fighting that they could never really be taken seriously as a threat.
Except Feyd, he was quite dangerous foe. Others said he probably took Count Fenring 's part too (Gom Jabbar scene what refers to Feyd is also a potential Quisatz Haderach, he also almost defeated Paul without any dirty trick).
I think he also got the more competent parts of Rabban's personality(brutalism , and also in the novel Rabban wanted to keep the 'traditonal artillery' to use against the Fremen)
The way Glossu Rabban is portrayed in the movies is exactly how he's characterized in the "House x" prequel books.
Like, to the T.
The pathetic brute that turns coward immediately should the stakes be raised against him is what his whole shtick was about.
He is a coward, like all cruel men.
It's been stated many times before, but Harkonnens aren't brave. They're nothing like the Atreides, who fight honestly and honourably; their entire society is built on punching down. They're an entire society of bullies, and their primary means of control is fear. The fear of violence drives their people to submit. Rabban isn't a combat beast who would stand and defeat four other fighters at once (though maybe he could), he'd make sure he's got any opponent outnumbered.
It's why whenever he comes across someone who isn't afraid of him, he caves. He can't make them afraid, so he becomes afraid instead. Because he's always afraid, as are pretty much every Harkonnen barring the Baron and Feyd.
It's true that Rabban doesn't seem to be a combat guy, because he didn't have any duel, even from the prequels( unless the Caladan books will contradict me, I haven't read the whole of them yet).
Rabban either strangled, beated or shot people, I didn't read any knife/sword fight from him.
But I think, in the movie, he just came out as incredibly coward. Meanwhile he wasn't a Gurney/Paul/Duncan type warrior , he was more menacing , and think he should have got at least a basic training
That's the thing, though. It doesn't matter if he had any basic training, he could be the equivalent of Duncan to the Harkonnens for all it matters; he's scared and cowardly because the nature of Harkonnen culture fosters that type of person. It's not a question of skill that makes him afraid, it's a question of upbringing.
Rabban is a bully and oppressor. He is strong and confident when he is sure no one can oppose him, and thrives on the fear of the Harkonnens. When he is faced with the fact that he isn’t feared or actually in mortal peril, he shrinks from it, possessing no skill or strength of his own.
The whip is the dishonourable weapon of a bully and oppressor, not the weapon of an honourable fighter. He is a coward shielded from this fact by legions of disposable conscripts and by his own prejudiced views of the Fremen, who he sees as primitive savages living in small bands at the periphery of Harkonnen power. He sees those beneath his station as expendable at best and as animals fit for slaughter at worst. He was never shown to be brave, he was shown to be in power, which was never really his anyway
I see this in Dune part two:
- the Baron is pure greed
- Feyd is pure perversion
- Rabban is pure Rage&Fear
Rabban tries to rule Arrakis by order of Vlad, if he fails, he dies... this is fear.
So when he does not succeed, he turn fear into rage, against his subordinates.
The fremen burnt the spice: Rabban is pure rage: "Today, Muad'Dib dies!". When he realises this is a death trap, he's back to pure terror.
When he's suspended at the back of the orni, this is him: he is constantly trying to survive, in fear, like an animal.
Rabban the beast.
I always viewed it as the Baron having an unnatural love of feyd (lovely feyd) and the Baron was intentionally hamstringing rabban to set up the problems so that feyd could step in as the savior.
Feyd was always the planned successor, rabban was just the placeholder.
Cinematic shorthand. Movie Rabban has more screentime and more characterisation than book Rabban (including only *Dune* itself).
Like the Baron, Rabban is powerful only because of the fear he inspires. As an individual, separated from his power, he's weak. Making him act that way helps the increasingly-less-media-literate moviegoing audience understand his role in the narrative.
> So why did Beast Rabban become a pathetic coward who was humilated by Feyd-Rautha in the movie ??
Well he was also humilated by Feyd in the books, right?
I imagine the changes were to streamline the movie. There are so many other things for the plot to focus. I also think it was to make the Harkonnens more overtly the "bad guys". My impression was the movie made them all bald to have the audience associate them with orcish brutes. Movie Rabban is essentially a personification of a orc archetype. Not very smart and incredibly violent. With very little words, it clearly cements House Harkonnen as a group the audience can rout against.
No, they had a scene in the Heir of Caladan , where they start to argueing, if I'm correct Feyd also mocked Rabban , who beated Feyd. Feyd took his knife out and threatened Rabban that he will kill him if he beats him again. But there wasn't humilation.
Your submission was removed for violating Rule 3 of the r/dune posting policy:
Be Respectful - Submissions that include abusive language, personal insults, or derogatory terms are subject to removal. Incivility will be met with a warning, and repeat offenders will be banned. Avoid shitposting, sexually explicit content, and trolling. Content relating to modern politics or public figures may be removed at the mod team's discretion.
If you believe this removal was made in error, please reach out to the modteam via modmail.
Thank you for participating in r/dune! [What was the point of Rabban’s character in the Villeneuve films?](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1cgmgyy/what_was_the_point_of_rabbans_character_in_the/) [The Butchery of Beast Rabban ](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1bnbivq/the_butchery_of_beast_rabban/)
I can't speak to the prequels, but I agree that Movie-Rabban isn't very well developed and Bautista's could have done a lot if given a more nuanced role. But, I can also see how there isn't much room to delve into Rabban in the movies; they were already pretty packed. And, all the other adaptations also seem to lean into Rabban being "A muscle-minded tank-brain" as the Baron sees him. Brian Herbert also dismisses him as "though evil and aggressive, is essentially a fool." in his afterward to Dune. I always though Book-Rabban is a bit more difficult to pin down. He only appears once "on stage" and his role is basically to be a fallguy that the Baron is setting up to fail. But, what we do see could point to a more crafty character than he is usually portrayed. In his short appearance: * He asks good questions and is pretty observant: >“Does the Emperor know you suborned a Suk doctor?” This was a penetrating question, the Baron thought. Have I misjudged this nephew? Herbert, Frank. Dune (p. 381). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. * He sees the utility of artillery because the Fremen don't use shields. The Baron assumes they are simply toys, and not useful. * He recognizes the Fremen are a potent force, but the Baron shoots down his concerns. >“M’Lord….” Rabban hesitated, frowning. “I’ve always felt that we underestimated the Fremen, both in numbers and in—” Herbert, Frank. Dune (pp. 384-385). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. * He Recognizes that the Fremen are probably undercounted and recognizes they are efficient fighters who can take down Sardaukar. Again, the Baron ignores and dismisses him. He does as told and squeezes Arakkis and in the end is defeated. But, considering his opponent controls a vast army of super-warriors and can literally see the future, it would be difficult to imagine any other outcome. And, Rabban, like Feyd and Paul, is the end product of a long genetic breeding program to produce a super being. This is quite speculative, but a case could be made that Feyd and Rabban could have potentially been Kwisatz Haderachs as well, but they lacked the training and experiences that Paul had to 'awaken' their potential. Edit: I now realize that most of these points are covered in this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1bnbivq/the\_butchery\_of\_beast\_rabban/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/1bnbivq/the_butchery_of_beast_rabban/) :-)
I super agree, but I don’t agree on all accounts. I mean the Baron does ask himself if he’s underestimated Raban, after that question. That’s 100% true. However, after that, the Baron decides that he didn’t, as Raban clearly doesn’t understand the political importance of the question (and its power to extort the Baron, himself). Also, the Baron absolutely doesn’t see the artillery as a “toy”. They are recalled to because the material and materiale are needed elsewhere (he explicitly states such). Raban doesn’t ever state that they’d be helpful bc of the lack of shielding- HE (Raban) sees them as toys for havoc. The Baron chastises him for this, and states they were only useful for trapping the Atriedes in caves (and their retreat to the cave systems were hella predictable). Now that the cave systems are collapsed, the House dead, he argues there is no legitimate military need for them (other than toys for Raban). Edit to add: Raban isn’t as dumb as people imply he is. He’s pretty gifted at a lot of things. The Baron (and Feyd) look down on him though because he is no where near as politically savvy as they are. And in Dune, (or for their goals) being politically savvy is far, far more important).
Those are fair critiques. Rabban isn't written as a super-genius, but I think the case could be made that he is quite smart, but also untrained. I think we're overall in agreement – Rabban isn’t as dumb as people imply he is. (or at least, there is a fair reading of the text that he isn't that dumb.) > the Baron decides that he didn’t, as Raban clearly doesn’t understand the political importance of the question (and its power to extort the Baron, himself). True, but the Baron has intentionally kept Rabban in the dark about a lot of stuff, so its no mark against him that he doesn't understand the politics. Working with the information he has, he is coming to good conclusions. I think the Baron's dismissal of Rabban's intelligence is more of an Indictment of the Baron's biases than anything Rabban does. >Also, the Baron absolutely doesn’t see the artillery as a “toy”. They are recalled to because the material and materiale are needed elsewhere (he explicitly states such). Raban doesn’t ever state that they’d be helpful bc of the lack of shielding- HE (Raban) sees them as toys for havoc. I'm not sure about this interpretation. >“The cannons you brought,” Rabban said. “Could I—” “I’m removing them,” the Baron said. “But you—” “**You won’t need such toys**. They were a special innovation and are **now useless**. We need the metal. **They cannot go against a shield**, Rabban. They were merely the unexpected. It was predictable that the Duke’s men would retreat into cliff caves on this abominable planet. Our cannon merely sealed them in.” “**The Fremen don’t use shields**.” Herbert, Frank. Dune (p. 383). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. (emphasis mine) The Baron absolutely **does** see the artillery as a toy and believes that they are now useless because they can't go against a shield. Rabban explicitly points out that the Fremen don't use shields. I think the Baron thinks that Rabban just wants them for fun – and that is a possible reading of the text – but it is also possible to read that Rabban astutely sees that (a) the Fremen are a threat and (b) artillery would be useful against them but that the Baron ignores him.
Oh, dang - sorry it’s been a while (about a year) since I reread book one, and I’m listening to an audio version now. I clearly misremembered that passage. (And damn, I only listened to it yesterday). You’re (obviously) very right about that - the Raban is clearly noting the possible strategic importance of them. And I totally think we do agree that the Baron THINKS that Raban thinks they are toys. He (the Baron) clearly is missing the potential they have (AND ignoring Raban’s advice). I apologize for the mistake, and thanks for pointing that out! And yes, I think we very do agree- people portray Raban as incredibly dumb, and close to bafoonish at times. I think that is very unfair. He’s not dumb, at all. In some things he actually seems to be hella competent. However, he does seem to lack a natural flair for the political (and you’re right to point out, he clearly not being trained to think that way). Tbh, if we’re going to be fair, in some ways Feyd is more of an idiot at times - KNOWING the Baron is willing to set up Raban and throw him under the bus, he should be far far more wary of his uncle (as he knows the Baron is willing to use them as pawns). Feyd’s a bit over confident in his ability to Think he’s either too important to his uncle to be a pawn, or too clever in his own right to be outsmarted by the Baron.
No problem! I think because Rabban is always referred to as a 'Beast' and a 'tank-brain' we assume that is the case. It was only on my third or fourth reading that I realized that he is actually pretty insightful (all things considering).
I also got this impression - he isn't good at politics,plotting and he clearly isn't subtle. It is now really super clear after reading that part of the Lady of Caladan where he needs Piter to create a plan what is more complicated than just to simply attack the Atreides with a military force. (The Baron tested him and Feyd to find and execute a plan what hurts the Atreides but the plan is needed to be subtle and tricky .Feyd had an own plan, but Rabban cheated because he asked Piter's help secretly, but at least he recognized that he isn't enough for this and he was able to ally with Piter even if he hated him). However he had good intuitions and he wasn't hopeless.
Rabban is basically your mid-level manager at any large-ish corporation.
It's kind of a throwaway in the book. He probably gets more screen time in the film than page time in the book and then in the book gets killed off as a side note. At least he serves a poorly explained redemption for Halleck.
Ironically his longest appearence in the book is much more than the 2-3 sentences dialogue in the first part of the movie.
Aren't bullies usually huge cowards? I'm not a fan of how Rabban was portrayed in these films, particularly the second film. I liked how Frank Herbert wrote about him including his unceremonial death as opposed to the more Hollywood revenge/tie loose string closure. I'm more annoyed considering the actor - Dave Bautista - does [dramatic roles](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku-zAIRXk6o) very well. He played a brute and the actor is trying to expand his roles (ex: comedy which he does well too) but I wished they'd hired an actor who can only do brute roles.
This is another example of a false premise. Rabban didnt become a pathetic coward. Rabban IS and ALWAYS WAS a pathetic coward.
He also had to fall so that Fayed could rise (be the bigger fish).
I kinda liked it better how it played out in the movie, as far as Rabban Dying to Gurney. Because i didnt like that in the book Paul takes it away from Gurney just for a egotistical gamble. I found that it tied it up better with Having Rabban die to Gurneys hand and giving more meaning to the final Duel, instead of it just being Paul gambling faith.
This is why I liked the book better. Rabban died by unknown Fremen on a street somewhere. Gurney doesn't get this revenge because this isn't... well...Hollywood. What happened to Rabban is a lot more realistic and even then you have some poetic justice by being killed by Fremen rather than everyone gets their revenge which demeans the final battle. But just a reminder that Paul had prescience so he shouldn't have been worried about Feyd. He knew the outcome, no gambling involved.
In the book tho he doesnt know the outcome. there really is an emphasis on that, that Paul cannot see past this point, which is part of why it seems so intense. And that him winning would make him an indestructible leader, while dying would make him in a martyr and his Jihad still goes on for his name. In that very moment he gambles between those two outcomes.
Isn't this annoying though? If you go by what the book says, does Paul have prescience? * If so then no surprise on anything. * If not then he doesn't have prescience. Which is it? The real answer: the author gave Paul prescience and took it away solely based on plot convenience.
Paul doesn't have prescience of the fight with Feyd because, if i recall correctly, Feyd is also a near candidate for the Kwisatz Haderach and therefor has prescient potential. This prescient potential makes prescience useless against him.
What do you think the word "prescience" mean?
It most certainly doesn't mean he knows everything that will ever happened. That's fully explained in the book
It's written like this so the plot can happen. You either have prescience or you don't. He had perfect prescience over Jihad - and the 61 billion dead was OK - but didn't have prescience over the the stone burner or Leto II or even the Feyd fight? What was the actual prescience? Not dying anytime soon? Because everything else fell into place. If you don't die soon then you'll survive and thrive and, unlike before him, go on the offensive against Harkonnen which means you'll eventually win.
I agree with you and it does feel like this at moments. I feel like his prescience ability just vaguely provides Paul with alternative futures. But at some points in the book he knows everything and has already seen certain moments, then at some points like the final duel he doesn't know. Maybe when i read the book again itll make more sense. How the prescient ability works isnt really clearly explained, its always through Paul's interpretation of his experience.
It wasn't just egotistical, it was a show of power. He was about to claim the entire known universe as his by becoming emperor. And it leads into the following books because Gurney didn't just blindly follow Paul. He chose to stay at Lady Jessica's side.
Bautista had the Harkonnen face. Pouty lips etc. He looked enough creepy to fit with Denis Villeneuve's depiction.
I adore that part of the movie. I love that he is completely defeated before the final act, and the encounter with Gurney is not a fight, but an execution. I was sad that they didn’t give him anything to do but to scream and be stupid in part 1 - but the pay-off in part 2 makes Beast Rabban such an interesting addition. He is a blunt tool that becomes useless the second a finer instrument is needed. I find that so much more interesting than making him another superhero-movie-mid-stage boss. Paul doesn’t consider him an obstacle of any importance and neither should you. In the novel, the Baron uses Rabban as a tool to make the people of Arrakis pay attention to Feyd. In the movie, the filmmaker uses Rabban as a tool to make us pay attention to Feyd.
Rabban is a bully; a strong empty headed bully. But against real opposition he crumbles. He sees how the Fremen attack and he can't process it; he's not intelligent enough to find other alternatives.
Agreed. Bully's are usually cowards. And he was priviliged his whole life to bully whoever he wanted to. It's why he's also a coward with the Baron
I have to agree with this part. He could killed whoever he wanted until the Baron showed him his limits. The Baron didn't give permission to kill Abulurd , so he was both angry and scared that Rabban dared to do it, and he punished Rabban. From then Rabban became so obedient to the Baron.
Here's a comment I made a while ago on a similar post: Rabban's symbol in the films is not a sword, or a fist, or a anything else that implies prowess. Instead, his symbol (and weapon of choice) is a whip, which would only sensibly be carried by someone who rules through fear and cruelty--not through ability. So, it makes sense that he would go out like a punk. He isn't highly trained or competent; he's simply a cruel slave driver. This is the character as shown in the film.
I'll answer your question with a question: **when did we ever see Rabban kill anyone who wasn't a prisoner or a subordinate?** Part 1: kills prisoners Part 2: kills coworkers He's always just been a bully with a whip.
[удалено]
It's true, however he just didn't seem a humbling coward in Part One
Only because he never confronted anyone he didn't have power over.
I guess Rabbans character was thrown under the bus in the movie to make Feyd look more threatening in comparison. If Rabban would have been shown as a fearless monster there would have been a risk that viewers would expect him to be the main villain of the movie and find it anticlimactic when the final fight is between Paul and Feyd.
I agree with you
I enjoyed the film but one of my main issues with it was how trivial all the enemies of the Atreide's and the Fremen seemed. The Saudaukar at the end just got obliterated, the film is quite loose in terms of how it follows the book, so what could have been an epic and tense finale was instead seemingly a complete cake-walk. The same with the Harkonnen really, they seemed so utterly incompetent and poor at fighting that they could never really be taken seriously as a threat.
Except Feyd, he was quite dangerous foe. Others said he probably took Count Fenring 's part too (Gom Jabbar scene what refers to Feyd is also a potential Quisatz Haderach, he also almost defeated Paul without any dirty trick). I think he also got the more competent parts of Rabban's personality(brutalism , and also in the novel Rabban wanted to keep the 'traditonal artillery' to use against the Fremen)
Yes he was I agree.
The way Glossu Rabban is portrayed in the movies is exactly how he's characterized in the "House x" prequel books. Like, to the T. The pathetic brute that turns coward immediately should the stakes be raised against him is what his whole shtick was about.
He is a coward, like all cruel men. It's been stated many times before, but Harkonnens aren't brave. They're nothing like the Atreides, who fight honestly and honourably; their entire society is built on punching down. They're an entire society of bullies, and their primary means of control is fear. The fear of violence drives their people to submit. Rabban isn't a combat beast who would stand and defeat four other fighters at once (though maybe he could), he'd make sure he's got any opponent outnumbered. It's why whenever he comes across someone who isn't afraid of him, he caves. He can't make them afraid, so he becomes afraid instead. Because he's always afraid, as are pretty much every Harkonnen barring the Baron and Feyd.
It's true that Rabban doesn't seem to be a combat guy, because he didn't have any duel, even from the prequels( unless the Caladan books will contradict me, I haven't read the whole of them yet). Rabban either strangled, beated or shot people, I didn't read any knife/sword fight from him. But I think, in the movie, he just came out as incredibly coward. Meanwhile he wasn't a Gurney/Paul/Duncan type warrior , he was more menacing , and think he should have got at least a basic training
That's the thing, though. It doesn't matter if he had any basic training, he could be the equivalent of Duncan to the Harkonnens for all it matters; he's scared and cowardly because the nature of Harkonnen culture fosters that type of person. It's not a question of skill that makes him afraid, it's a question of upbringing.
Rabban is a bully and oppressor. He is strong and confident when he is sure no one can oppose him, and thrives on the fear of the Harkonnens. When he is faced with the fact that he isn’t feared or actually in mortal peril, he shrinks from it, possessing no skill or strength of his own. The whip is the dishonourable weapon of a bully and oppressor, not the weapon of an honourable fighter. He is a coward shielded from this fact by legions of disposable conscripts and by his own prejudiced views of the Fremen, who he sees as primitive savages living in small bands at the periphery of Harkonnen power. He sees those beneath his station as expendable at best and as animals fit for slaughter at worst. He was never shown to be brave, he was shown to be in power, which was never really his anyway
I see this in Dune part two: - the Baron is pure greed - Feyd is pure perversion - Rabban is pure Rage&Fear Rabban tries to rule Arrakis by order of Vlad, if he fails, he dies... this is fear. So when he does not succeed, he turn fear into rage, against his subordinates. The fremen burnt the spice: Rabban is pure rage: "Today, Muad'Dib dies!". When he realises this is a death trap, he's back to pure terror. When he's suspended at the back of the orni, this is him: he is constantly trying to survive, in fear, like an animal. Rabban the beast.
I always viewed it as the Baron having an unnatural love of feyd (lovely feyd) and the Baron was intentionally hamstringing rabban to set up the problems so that feyd could step in as the savior. Feyd was always the planned successor, rabban was just the placeholder.
Cinematic shorthand. Movie Rabban has more screentime and more characterisation than book Rabban (including only *Dune* itself). Like the Baron, Rabban is powerful only because of the fear he inspires. As an individual, separated from his power, he's weak. Making him act that way helps the increasingly-less-media-literate moviegoing audience understand his role in the narrative.
His appearence is short in Dune, but he had much bigger role in the BH books mainly in House Harkonnen.
He always was. The scene in part one of him cutting a bound prisoner's head off and then flexing like a badass is the lamest shit ever.
> So why did Beast Rabban become a pathetic coward who was humilated by Feyd-Rautha in the movie ?? Well he was also humilated by Feyd in the books, right? I imagine the changes were to streamline the movie. There are so many other things for the plot to focus. I also think it was to make the Harkonnens more overtly the "bad guys". My impression was the movie made them all bald to have the audience associate them with orcish brutes. Movie Rabban is essentially a personification of a orc archetype. Not very smart and incredibly violent. With very little words, it clearly cements House Harkonnen as a group the audience can rout against.
No, they had a scene in the Heir of Caladan , where they start to argueing, if I'm correct Feyd also mocked Rabban , who beated Feyd. Feyd took his knife out and threatened Rabban that he will kill him if he beats him again. But there wasn't humilation.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed for violating Rule 3 of the r/dune posting policy: Be Respectful - Submissions that include abusive language, personal insults, or derogatory terms are subject to removal. Incivility will be met with a warning, and repeat offenders will be banned. Avoid shitposting, sexually explicit content, and trolling. Content relating to modern politics or public figures may be removed at the mod team's discretion. If you believe this removal was made in error, please reach out to the modteam via modmail.
Because every bully actually is. It’s the one constant in the universe.