Not including the spacing guild was the biggest story breaking change. By far. It fucks up literally the entire plot as spice is now basically just irrelevant space cocaine and Paul is incapable of forcing the emperor to abdicate. They could've fixed that in the second movie but they didn't.

I absolutely agree, but that's a problem for the second movie.

Changing Liet Kynes to a black woman and her not even being the mother of Chani is actually quite a significant change.

Agreed. It's not explicitly mentioned in the book, but it seems obvious that Paul and Chani bonded, in part, because both of their fathers were murdered by the Harkonnen and the Emperor.

They pretty much completely fucked up Pitr de Vries not only by making him a irrelevant side character but also by sending him to Salusa Secunda which doesn't make any sense as that planet is supposed to be the Emperors big secret but for some reason he gives the mentat of the Baron access to it.

I consider this a relatively minor change, as the first movie portrays it, the scene shows the harsh conditions of the planet, introduces the strength of the Sardaukar, and moves the plot along between the Baron and the Emperor. But you're right, that this scene isn't explicitly in the book. But, it's not lore shattering, as Piter is killed by the poisoned tooth by the Duke shortly after the Harkonnen retake Arrakis.

Then there's a lot of other fuck ups and details they simply didn't bother to include or important characters that got far too little screen time. But honestly it's been quite a while since I've seen the movie so I can't remember everything anymore.

That's definitely a criticism I have of the Villeneuve movies, too. If you add together the total runtime of parts 1 and 2, and compare it to the total runtime of the SciFi miniseries, they're almost identical, but the SciFi miniseries included almost all the content from the books, and Villeneuve's movies left a ton out, which destroyed the lore and story. It was purely to stroke Villeneuve's ego, too, as he loves his long establishing shots.

But Dune 2 is indeed significantly worse as that movie made the entire series completely unsalvageable.

This has been my argument. While Dune part 1 could've at least been salvageable by a much better implementation of part 2, the part 2 we did get was lore shattering. I'll post another comment I made below:

This movie is absolute subversive garbage to the author and his works. Every single time film makers "adapt" a work and think they know better than the author, they ruin it.

Chani was one of Paul's most ardent supporters. Paul and Chani's love is integral to all of the following Dune books, through their children. Herbert explicitly stated, multiple times, that the Fremen are extremely zealous and pragmatic, such that if any of them suspected Paul was using them for his own ends, they'd end him on the spot, take his water, and sleep well that night. For Chani, of all the characters, to be the one that doubts Paul, is subversion and ruination of the character, the Fremen, their ethos, the story of the first book, and all subsequent books. It's a spit in the face of Frank Herbert.

And for what? To insert the overt messaging of subsequent books, in the first book? For "empowering" female characters that were already empowered in the books? This directly contradicts the plan Frank Herbert laid out and what he wrote. Villeneuve tried to claim Herbert was unhappy with how his fans received the first book, not realizing his warning against blindly following leaders, which is false. Herbert laid out the plans for the first few books before the first was even published. He intended for the first book to mostly be a classic hero's journey, for the reader to be duped just as much as the Fremen, because Paul was entirely justified in his actions. The warnings against hero worship in the first book were extremely minor, and told from a post hoc perspective. To try to lay all blame on Paul, before he's done anything wrong, is attempting to moralize pre-crime, which other scifi rightfully points out to be repugnant.

And, through Paul's last words in the ending scene of the movie (part 2), it attempts to lay all blame for the galactic war at his feet, when the book directly contradicts that assertion. Paul, for a long time, had seen multiple paths forward, all leading to that galactic war, even if he died. He only manipulated events so that he, his mother and sister, and Chani could live, so they could have children, and a have semblance of happiness, and so he could gain revenge against the people who murdered his father and people. The Fremen were going to wage their holy war regardless of what happened. And on top of this, the movie tries to moralize to the audience that the Fremen are blameless, that they were entirely manipulated by Paul, trying to assuage all guilt they hold for their own enaction of that galactic war. This removal of guilt from the Fremen is even more subversive because Villeneuve, the producers, and casting directors hired exclusively non-white actors to play the Fremen (who weren't described as such in the books), which plays into the current political climate that non-whites are oppressed by evil Whitey (all the bad guys in the movies are White or Albino White) and blameless for all of their actions. Herbert was a nuanced author, and he never laid full blame on that galactic war at the feet of Paul. In fact, multiple times, Herbert said the galactic was was inevitable. Herbert let the reader think things through for themselves, to let the words and works speak for themselves.

I can't believe any Dune fan could forgive this garbage, much less enjoy it, simply because it has a shiny veneer.