i gotta say i am absolutely fascinated by how they adapt feyd-rautha, and not so much in the sense of the character they create, but rather the way they come to this decision.
because it ultimately comes down to this: dune as a story subverts expectations of storytelling structures and narratives. just how paul has a subverted hero's journey, feyd has a subverted "anti-hero" journey. and i put that in quotations with a reason, because ultimately, feyd is not a villain, and he isn't even really an anti-hero, either. here's the thing: the book does end with this showdown between them two, but in the book, this happens...kind of just cause. there is nothing very spectacular about it, the fight isn't very long, and feyd is... kind of unimpressive if not downright embarrassing.
but when that's how the book ends, screen adaptations need feyd to be a character that makes it seem like this fight is worthwhile, so they have to (i mean they don't have to) give him traits that make him a more compelling character.
the thing is, though... the og feyd-rautha is not really a character at all. not only in the sense that he's in the book very briefly, and his actual personality only somewhat comes out. but also in the sense that his purpose in the book is not to be a compelling, structured character. but instead, his point is to essentially be a tool that serves as an extension of the baron's character. he's more so a consequence, a threat of what could be (under the baron's influence), and also a way to show how far the baron's corruption and distortion goes. to the baron, he's like a prized possession, or an object (of various uses, but no actual personhood). to the reader, he's also an object, he's more like a background, a setting, a symptom of the environment that the author is trying to communicate to you. he has a few roles, and most of them seem like they're produced/staged (e.g. they tell scary stories about him among the slaves, but are those stories true? we don't know but i'm willing to bet at least not entirely) and somewhat contradictory (e.g. he's willing to degrade himself by speaking very timidly to the baron and he also wants his head on a spike), and the only sentiment regarding his presence that we actually see is lady margot describing him as incongruent. that's it. his character is just one big bunch of pretty much... nothing. there is something compelling about it, and he's this character that you feel a lot missing from. like you can feel the fact that you haven't really seen anything from him, and it seems like you... should've. because that's the expectation, and it was unmet.
but then when it comes to the screen adaptations, no matter how much (or not) they try to follow this subverted expectation, they can't seem to help themselves and hold back with his character, because they want payoff, their audience wants payoff and the story feels flat without it. but that's the point. feyd-rautha dying in the book was flat. there was little real reason for it (mostly political), the fight wasn't hyped up, it all just kind of... happened. it didn't feel like something was achieved, or like there was some sort of revenge/deserved consequence at play (like in the newest movies ig). it was just there
