Talk:Dune (2021 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article creation

Captain Assassin! and Rusted AutoParts: when this article is ready to be created (once filming starts), I am a page mover and can clear Dune (upcoming film) before we move this draft there. That's assuming that neither of you is able, of course ;) Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk

That would be greatly appreciated, thank you TAnthony. At present I’m not able to delete existing redirects. Rusted AutoParts 16:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential filming start

Filming is potentially set to begin tomorrow as per a dedicated Dune social media account. However it is social media, in addition to being unsupported by any sources. Rusted AutoParts 14:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Filming has begun. Rusted AutoParts 15:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, obviously I've cleared the redirect and moved the draft. I also disambiguated the Lynch film to Dune (1984 film) and updated all incoming links in article and file space.— TAnthony^Talk 22:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Casting citations?

There are no citations / sources for casting. I see Sharon Duncan-Brewster is cast according to IMDB, but have no other sources yet (I hope she plays Princess Irulan!). If IMDB is not a good source for casting information, what sources are used to support the other info on actors' roles? Kdevans (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

see cites in Casting section. All there. --Masem (t) 21:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Dune 2020: In the Premise section:

Dear Wikipedia,

The description of "spice" is inadequate. Spice is actually used by Guild Navigators to fold space, enabling almost instant hyper travel through space. They call it "travelling without moving" and is one of the key fundamental components of the story

Regards Mark Mark A J Ford (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. Those of us who have been editing the article are aware of this, and though I think this is covered by the phrase "accelerated levels of thought", I've added specific mention of foldspace travel. We have to be careful about the level of detail we include in an article about an adaptation when our source material is the originating novel.— TAnthony^Talk 20:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, while I don't think this crew will take the original material that far out of context, it still might happen. We should not assume a scene by scene recreation yet. --Masem (t) 22:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Where is Feyd-Rautha?

There is one character that's missing from the upcoming Denis Villeneuve film Dune. And that character is Baron Vladimir Harkonnen's other nephew Feyd-Rautha. He is nowhere to be found and there's no actor to portray the character. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably just keeping that under wraps. We still don’t know Stephen Henderson’s character. Just a matter of waiting. Rusted AutoParts 15:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Since it has been established that the film is going to cover half/part of the novel, I've wondered if some characters like Feyd and Irulan might only appear in the next film.— TAnthony^Talk 17:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Heads up on new information tomorrow (4/14)

VF is expected to have a large piece tomorrow, this one [1] is just an initial tease (nothing I can see to add immediately). --Masem (t) 13:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

As promised, here's VF's larger take [2]. I will try to incorporate later. --Masem (t) 13:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

Add Dune 2020 official logo 173.79.40.106 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, I've seen Reddit and know there's a logo there, but not yet official. Expecting the big Vanity Fair reveal tomorrow to have a confirmed source. --Masem (t) 21:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Mistake in the plot overview

The plot to destroy the Atreides, although primarily facilitated by and I’m sure delightful for the Harkonnens, was actually primarily engineered by the ruling House Corrino, in particular the 81st Padishah Emperor. This is well-established in the first book. Cerroverb (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I added the Padishah Emperor as one of those behind the trap. We don't want to go too far as we don't know all the diffs esp. since no name has been attached yet to the Padishah Emporer yet (more important in the second half of book if they stay with that. --Masem (t) 16:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There shouldn’t even be a plot summary at this time; the movie isn’t to be released until December. We can’t go off the plot of the original movie either. ⌚️ (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

We've included a premise, which includes introductory details used in nearly all the press coverage of the film.— TAnthony^Talk 19:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

As well as the fact that this Vanity Fair article today pretty much assures the "premise" we have is pretty much on agreement with how much Denis V. has said about the film. --Masem (t) 19:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah I wasn’t paying attention to the article and assumed someone tried to put a whole plot there. ⌚️ (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

As the movie HAS been released, why is there no detailed plot of the movie up yet?

3D Release Not Actually Confirmed?

The cited source for it being released in 3D along with IMAX only mentions IMAX and not 3D.

Ukrainian distributor of the film says that a movie will have a 3D releases.--Sourlemoning (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Graphic novel

I don't think the paragraph about the planned graphic novel adaptation (Dune (graphic novel)) is very related to the object of this page, because that adaptation is not related to the film. Maybe it serves a little as an advertisement, creating a hype to the movie, but it is the same when Marvel Comics releases a comics series Falcon & Winter Soldier (2020) before the TV series The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (2020). Does Wikipedia write about this? At least it should indicate that that comic book will not have a connection to the film, outside of the shared primary source.--Sourlemoning (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As the one that added it, it might end up better at the franchise page ... but the timing of its release is specifically due to the film, as is the board game's re-release, for example. Maybe a different subsection to indicate other cross-promotional marketing, but it does not seem wrong to mention that other Dune franchise pieces were released to capitalize on the film's release. --Masem (t) 14:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I did add something, but that does bring to mind that, while I can't add it now due to lack of non-speculative sourcing, but that there is expected to be a newfound interest in Dune with the film's release, which is why these elements are being promoted. If we can write more about that newfound interest as we get closer to the film's release, then certainly it will make more sense to include them, but for now, I've preluded that they aren't film-releated. --Masem (t) 14:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Colbert interview

Stephen Colbert does an interview with the Dune cast and Villeneuve. Has potentially some good info to add. Rusted AutoParts 15:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

David Dastmalchian

Would it be worth including him in the infobox billing? I know he’s not included in the billing being used from the trailer, but he is however in the WB film description between Chen and Duncan-Brewster. Rusted AutoParts 00:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Theater or streaming

I was expecting the article to say exactly how this film will be distributed; that is, whether COVID-19 considerations would cause the film to be released in theaters (the article says IMAX but nobody is going to theaters now), or drive-ins (remember those? they're making a comeback), or streaming video. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

They have not said anything about any streaming option , so we cannot write to that at this point. --Masem (t) 13:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW closed. (non-admin closure) Nohomersryan (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Dune (2021 film) → Dune (upcoming film) – The film keeps getting delayed and it could be moved once again. Changing the year to "upcoming" makes it easier to identify as of right now. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: WP:NCFILM states that For upcoming films where the release date is currently unknown, use (upcoming film) if disambiguation is necessary, for example Wikipedia (upcoming film). Once a release date has been confirmed by a reliable source, the page can then be moved to the correct year disambiguation. Reliable sources have confirmed the release date to be October 2021. If the year changes again, we can move the title again. To base a decision on what might happen is WP:CRYSTAL.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, it could, but we have a hard Oct 1 2021 date. If it is moved again before then, we'll just move it to the new date. Only if it was moved to a a "future date" then "upcoming film" would be appropriate. --Masem (t) 22:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There's presently a set 2021 date and until there's an announcement to change that, there's no reason to suspect it'll fail to see a 2021 release. Rusted AutoParts 22:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and close: The release date has been delayed to October 1, 2021 is made official and confirmed by numerous sources: [3], [4], [5] ApprenticeFan work 23:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bait30 et al. We never go back to the generic (upcoming) disambiguation once an official date has been announced.— TAnthony^Talk 23:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above. El Millo (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose changing the title because the announced date might be changed sounds like it would be a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Obviously if the date is officially changed it can be moved then but it shouldn’t be before it happens.--76.67.170.18 (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. If it does get bumped back a year, it can be moved to Dune (2022 film). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because we have a verifiable release date, even if it may change. Wikipedia follows reliable sources in what they say about when a film comes out, and there is no need to add a degree of uncertainty. We can always move it to 2022 (argh, I hope not) and update the links and redirects easily enough. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. While using an announced date sounds like CRYSTAL to me (as announcements are liable to change or not be met), WP:NCFILM is a guideline that embraces this use of speculative announced dates.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There is an official date. Whether that date changes is out of control, but it was determined not by a result of our speculation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anno Dominus known in A.G.

I find this general introduction to be lacking when the correct year is known.

"In the far future of humanity, Duke Leto Atreides accepts stewardship of the dangerous desert planet Arrakis.”

Wouldn’t the accurate time frame be preferable??

“In the far future of humanity, 10,191 A.G. (26,392 A.D.), Duke Leto Atreides accepts stewardship of the dangerous desert planet Arrakis.”

14255 B.G.  =  1945 A.D. Atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

14255 BG + 10191 AG = 24447 years

1945 AD + 24447 Years = 26392 AD.

24.78.228.96 (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

We know this from the book but we don't know how the movie will handle it. --Masem (t) 14:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

So you want wait and see if he makes the same mistakes as David Lynch did. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt instead, he basing it off of the books, and he's been accurate so far. I mean you could say the same thing about the rest of the sentence, far future? Stewardship? Will the movie handle these things the same as the book?? 24.78.228.96 (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The other factor is that it doesn't matter how exact "far into humanity's future" this happens as well. We generally try to containerize fiction without having to seek out companion sources unless essential for understanding, and this is exactly the type of case that the exact year relative to our present is not required. --Masem (t) 14:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay but using that logic, how do you know he will set it in the far future, or even our future? Using your logic, we don't know how the movie will handle it. Oh, and I just read the rest and noticed an error, the spice doesn't make faster than light travel possible, the Holtzman Drive does, the navigators use spice to make it safer. Its the same mistake David Lynch made. And, that's one of the ugliest run on sentence I've ever seen, so don't tell me you trying to be encyclopedic. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC Should article state year the story begins, 26392 AD?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to include the proposed date, especially without a reliable source for it. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the article contain the de facto (known) start year of the book that the director has promised the movie will be faithful to, 26392 AD? 24.78.228.96 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• No No sources to support it. ~ HAL333 22:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral - Summoned by bot. I changed the premise intro to indicate that the section is referring to the book, so you could put in the exact date, but I don't see it as being necessary. Interested readers can go to the book's article for more details. I'm neutral about it - I don't see that it really matters one way or the other. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• No, unless you can provide a source Summoned by bot. A google search for that year and Dune brings up nothing relevant. Unless there is a source about the movie that states this, I don't see that we can include it. If the proposal is to infer this date from the book, that's assuming things about the way the movie interprets the book, so we would still need a source. Chris vLS (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• No, unless sourced "Faithfulness" to the novel does not guarantee that an exact year will be established in the film or its supporting materials. Further, though I've seen in-universe dates in other Dune articles over the years, 26392 is original research in that it requires us to calculate it based on other dates/time spans mentioned in the text.— TAnthony^Talk 15:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• No, unless Villeneuve puts it in trailer/movie But the RFC because I believe it is worth discussing, precedent as work done: Villeneuve promised to be faithful to the books, and if he is that accurate I would like to see the article also be that accurate. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• No for now per above arguments. If it has not been specifically stated in regard to the film, we should not be specific either. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This seems crystal ball-ish. It's best to wait for the facts. Trillfendi (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The movie hasn't been released (say it never is...), so from that perspective... 24.78.228.96 (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dylan O'Brien

Dylan O'Brien recently tweeted that he "couldn't be more excited to share this film with you all", to which the official Dune Twitter account replied to. Should we take this as confirmation that he's in the movie, or do we wait for more info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiniteNexus (talk • contribs) 22:38, July 21, 2021 (UTC)

Update: this was probably just a joke, according to BuzzFeed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Twitter is never a good source for information, with very rare exceptions. Sleptlapps (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Those are official, verified accounts, so they comply with WP:TWITTER. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Inconsistency about the status of the planned sequel

Under Production/Writing: "Villeneuve ultimately secured a two-movie deal with Warner Bros. Pictures, in the same style as the two-part adaptation of Stephen King's It in 2017 and in 2019." Only source for this is a single Vanity Fair article which itself cites no sources for the above claim. Under Future/Planned sequel: "Although the sequel has not yet been officially green-lit by Legendary, Villeneuve has stated that the 2021 film will roughly cover the first half of the novel, with a follow up covering the remaining half." Source for this one is a Collider article, published the same day as the Vanity Fair article. Furthermore the rest of that section is about how the potential sequel is in jeopardy, pending box office performance of the first film. Given a lack of clear information regarding whether a sequel has actually been greenlit, the complete lack of any sort of official announcement, and the confusion about whether WB or Legendary has the decision-making power here, I feel like the phrasing "Villeneuve secured a two-movie deal" is misleading at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.0.122 (talk) 14:28, July 28, 2021 (UTC)

None of that is inconsistent. First, as Vanity Fair is a reliable source, we do not require them to back up their claims, we take what they say at their word (unless there's other reliable sourcing that puts doubt to that). Second, its clear that the two-film deal greenlit the production of one film and made all deals related to the second film on the basis that it would it would be greenlit. That's securing a two-movie deal, not the same as greenlighting two films. --Masem (t) 14:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticism in the intro section?

Should criticism from movie reviewers really be in the introduction? I'm referring to "but was criticized for its slow pacing and abrupt ending" specifically. The film for the most part has received overwhelmingly positive reviews; it's a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes and 75 on MC. It sort of gives the impression that the film opened to mixed reviews by having it in the introduction. Overall, it's a small minority who said this so I'm not quite sure why we need this here? I think that's what the "critical response" section is for. I feel like we only have this here to appease the small vocal minority of detractors. Miss HollyJ (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

See earlier on this page, we're waiting for the film's wide release to then summarize in the lede because people were complaining when we were only going off a film festival's release. It will be there eventually. --Masem (t) 18:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(I'll add that as I predicted, the scores only went up as more reviews had filtered in, so those that were complaining that we were too early were probably wrong in their fears) --Masem (t) 18:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Masem:: Well, the summary statement we discussed holding off on was added to the lead sometime in the last week or so. I trimmed it up recently, as it was way off base in regard to the film's positive reception, but in doing so I left the criticism portion in. Looks like an IP editor just removed it.

I'm not opposed to its removal, but it's worth noting that even in reviews deemed positive by RT, the pacing and abrupt break in the story is often criticized. This analysis is supported in refs 110 and 111, which are the only summary citations we have in the article outside of RT and MC. One could make a convincing case that it needs to be retained based on that fact, though as HollyJ suggests, there's probably a better way to phrase the entire sentence so that it doesn't look like the positive and negative criticism was an even split. The trick is to do it in such a way as to avoid weasel words like "some critics". Open to suggestions (or we can simply leave it out until it's challenged). I have a feeling this is going to be a contentious area for some time to come. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

What should be done, and likely after the wider release, is look to see how many of the reviews (which should be 100+) now talk about the pacing and the like, and if only 3-4 talk about pacing issues, then that's definitely UNDUE in the lede. It was reasonable when we were at 40 reviews from RT. --Masem (t) 12:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree that once the wider release hits, refs 110 and 111 will likely become outdated and irrelevant (or maybe that's happened already); they'll need to be replaced with something more recent or simply removed altogether. What happens at that point should have a direct impact on this discussion and whether any negative criticism is WP:DUE in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Recognizing that a consensus has more or less been reached, and not wanting to upset that, it's worth noting that Dune is long past a mere "film festival release." The film's had its wide release in over 30 countries, and it will have its release in several more countries this weekend, including the 2nd and 7th most populous countries in the world. When we say we're waiting until "wide release," do we specifically mean U.S. wide release? - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 02:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The "wide release" being referenced here is in regard to English-speaking territories and in the context of critical reviews. The bulk of that portion of the release will happen on 10/21 and 10/22 (UK, New Zealand, Canada, US, etc), and as we inch closer to those dates, more reviews (in English) should start pouring in. We're getting very close to reaching that point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Movie states the year is 10191. If anyone has an issue feel free to reply Triosdeity (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been discussed, see this RFC EditorInTheRye (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@EditorInTheRye: That was for a different date that was calculated by a user. The film clearly states the year 10191. One user stated not to add it unless it was stated in the movie, and it is stated so surely its valid? Triosdeity (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Even if directly given by the film, does that really help the general reader compared to something like "far in humanity's future"? --Masem (t) 13:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it gives perspective to any general viewer not familiar with the source material. --SpiritedMichelle (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Masem Except the film never says "far in humanity's future", it says 10191. Triosdeity (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Completed plot when?

When would it be appropriate to add a complete overview of the plot with spoilers and everything? --SpiritedMichelle (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It has been out in a enough public venues in Europe and other places that it would be reasonable, but keeping in mind that if it follows close enough to the book, it may not be needed since we can point back to the book. --Masem (t) 22:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No. It would not be appropriate. The purpose of this article is specifically for the film as it is presented. The plot summary is incomplete on purpose because the filmmakers choose to make the film that way. The book and 1984 film provide a complete overview should a person desire to learn more. - Gorba (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Lack of Arab representation in the cast

The plot of the books, and consequently the film, draws heavily on Arab and Islamic culture, to the point were almost all the non-English terms and names are in Arabic, as well as key mythology. Therefore it has been criticised that at there are no Arab actors in the film, even though the "Fremen" are basically Arabs in space. This issue has been covered in multiple sources[6][7][8][9][10], so should be notable enough to include here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

None of those seem like reliable or expert RSOPINION sources, outside of the SyFy Wire one. There may be more after the US release, but if this is all there is for now, this would not be appropriate to include per UNDUE. --Masem (t) 23:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That was just a sample (and I disagree, many of them would pass RS), there are many other reviews and articles that cover this in RS:[11][12][13] The point is this looks very much like an oversight in the article, and you don't have to look very hard to find reliable sources that cover it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at these sources: The Independent calls it "It’s a small, but noticeable chip in the paint when it comes to Dune" related to the lack of such casting. The Week and The Nerdist have literally one line on this, nowhere enough to bring that to the forefront. Also, its a bit odd to use the 2019 SyFy opinion piece about the unreleased film as the primary source for this. (Also, Medium is a outlet for anyone to publish their own opinion, so it is absolutely NOT a realiable source). So yes, at this point, this is a very minor point that is worth keeping an eye out for more sources to see if it surpasses UNDUE but if this is all we have, we'd be pushes a WP:RGW-type issue here with its inclusion. --Masem (t) 23:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a criticism brought up independently by multiple reviews, and while not necessarily covered in depth by said reviews, I don't see why that should even be necessary when the same issue is raised repeatedly. Anyhow, now the issue has been raised here for other editors to evaluate, and I'm sure it will become more conspicuous once the second film comes out. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I have yet to see this become a controversy, but if it does, it requires reliable sources to discuss it in the article. Trillfendi (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "controversy", it's a criticism raised in multiple reviews by such outlets as The Independent, The Week, Nerdist, Syfy, Medium.com, etc., which are all reliable sources. Again, more could easily be found, this is just what I found through a quick search. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Be bold and add it in yourself. Triosdeity (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Not without some sort of consensus. I can sense it would just lead to a pointless edit war, hence this discussion first. But I just want to make clear again, multiple reviews published by reliable outlets have made the same critique independently of each other, that alone would warrant inclusion already at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I support the addition either way. It's well within the Wikipedia guidelines, as long as you cite the reliable sources. Triosdeity (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There hasn't been enough controversy or media coverage to warrant adding such a section. As such, Editors should not add it to the article. - Gorba (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

To add, when I was doing some news searching and reading, I do think a section on lack of MENA rep is appropriate with more recent source, but I really think that before adding it, consider looking anything, ideally from Denis or scriptwriters, on how they were trying to shift the film away from some of the arabic aspects. (eg a big thing that I can't see a strong source for but all over weaker RSes and forums is the omission of "jihad", and in place using "crusade", with the speculation that in today's post-9/11 world, "jihad" would be a bad thing to focus on, but that's just part of trying to shift away from arabic influences and using MENA actors). There's something there, but haven't found a definitive source yet, but again, we just got the wide release so more may come soon. --Masem (t) 14:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Any discussion of this needs to be NPOV and also not be original research. Alaney2k (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that all of the Fremen actors are non-white. [14]. So clearly Villeneuve has changed the context. At some point I think there will be discussion of ethnicity in this and subsequent films. Alaney2k (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Here [15] for example is a good article to try to rationalize why Denis V. make the change, discussing in depth that Herbert did base Dune on Islamic principles but which today may have problems. This is the type of framing that would be good to have around "the film was criticized for lack of MENA casting", though still would be nice to have a statement from Denis or others on the film to explain exactly why rather than critical speculation. --Masem (t) 22:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Another source [16] from a high quality RS summarizing the criticism. --Masem (t) 04:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

And yet another piece [17] which also gets some of the screenwriter's comments why they veered way. (This is not only about casting but pulling away from Islamic/Arab terms). --Masem (t) 04:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes - *entirely* agree - seems the recent ref is a well detailed and considered presentation of the issue - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added a section on the lack of MENA casting as well as the white savior narrative using these more recent and better sources. --Masem (t) 13:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Regarding part 2

NOT a reliable source for this [18] but that means to start watching for RSes that may be affirming that Part 2 has been greenlit. Do not add until we have that. --Masem (t) 01:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Budget versus Break-even

The article states, "Deadline Hollywood reported that a total box office gross of $300 million "will make many happy from an image-standpoint, even if breakeven is far north of that." However, the summary section states the budget is $165 million. How can break-even be more than $300 million if the budget was only $165 million? 73.146.6.14 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Budgets rarely include the marketing and promotional part spent by the distributor (WB in this case). So between the $165M production costs and the ~$135M advertising, the film would need to net $300M to make all parties that spent money come out even. --Masem (t) 01:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the studio's cut is traditionally around 50-55% of the total box office gross (pre-COVID anyway). Theaters get a cut from each ticket sold, and the percentage that goes to the studio will vary depending on the country/territory it is being shown in. They get higher cuts from US and European markets and less of a cut in other markets such as China. So they typically multiply the total budget by 2 to find the box office gross needed to break even, which may be even higher than that number due to unannounced marketing costs as Masem points out and/or if they use a third-party distributor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Critical reception summary in lead

We can speak on this in more depth on the article talk page if needed, but wanted to let you know I restored the previous phrasing in this edit. Ref #'s 116 and 117 are sources that estimate overall reception, and both focus on Villeneuve's adaptation and directorial style/execution. Based on those two sources alone, it should be enough to warrant this in the lead, but there's also source # 123 which explicitly states this as well. "Ambition" is a good phrase, but it doesn't encapsulate that its intended goals were achieved. You can be ambitious but fall well short, right? I also think it's important to note that these reviews are overwhelmingly focusing on the director and his take/spin on the novel, and the sources that do this secondary analysis for us (116 and 117) seem to agree. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward, though, I think we need better sources than 116 and 117. Those were based on early reviews when there were less than 40 accumulated on Rotten Tomatoes. Now that there are over 245 on RT, there have to be better options out there that have covered it in more depth by now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I appreciate your thoughtful message, and I have copied it here to the article's talk page so that other editors can be aware of the discussion as well. I don't think taking individual article reviews and looking only positive reviews is really the best way to determine the overall critical consensus. As stated in the critical reception section, Villeneuve's direction was polarizing, while the scope, ambition, and visuals appear to be generally praised by most reviewers, including those who had complaints about the film. Some critics took issue precisely with the overall execution (especially the pacing and storytelling) but still liked other characteristics about the film (especially how it looks), including The Times, Variety, and TheWrap reviews. This same criticism is also in the sources you mentioned that provide short bits of a few selected reviews. The major criticism seems to be towards Villeneuve's overall execution and finding that the ambition was not fulfilled. If the lead was changed to something about how positive reviews praised the overall execution, then that would be more accurate, but saying that the "overall execution under Villeneuve's direction" was generally praised seems to ignore precisely the criticism that the film has received. I don't think the criticism is significant enough to be included in the lead, but I also don't think the lead should present a certain aspect as generally praised when most criticism seems focused on it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that if we wait a "few days" (like a week from release) that we will find articles that capture the overall review sentiments that we can use without having to try to extract it ourselves. Dune is such an important work for many many reasons that there are going to be those looking critically at how critics took the work. And until we can have that or do a proper extraction ourselves, the lede should be vague and if any follow what at least RT is describing as the critical consensus. --Masem (t) 22:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sure quite a few editors here are glued to the various news feeds from Deadline, CinemaBlend, etc., and will probably spot them first, but I'll try to keep an eye out as well for new articles that crop up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60, if you think I'm misreading the sources or misinterpreting the phrase "overall execution under Villeneuve's direction", feel free to put that phrase back in as a placeholder. Fanaction2031 had also added it back, and it is expressed in the positive reviews. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with stating "ambition" for now for the reasons you mentioned. I would object, however, to beginning the statement with "The film received praise for..." as another editor tried recently. If we're listing both positive and negative criticism, sure that works, but that's not the case here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Update

The summary of the critical response in the lead has changed somewhat since the above discussion but the hidden warning comment urging discussion remains. So I'm going to be extra careful and explain my edits. An anonymous ipv6 editor changed the text to read "critical acclaim"[19] and although enjoyed the film and I would certainly like that WP:PUFF to be true it is not the case, the Metacritic score is not in the higher range to justify that wording, so I manually restored the previous "generally well received" wording.[20] -- 109.76.210.115 (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping a note. Surprised that change lasted this long. You did the right thing reverting that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted again.[21] I would not mind at all if editors want to start a new discussion and change the emphasis in light of the many awards the film has won and all the other praise the film has received since. For now though it still seems fair to restore the text (and that particular rephrase[22] was not ideal, as it could be read to imply that each element listed received critical acclaim). -- 109.76.141.172 (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Title?

Well, a few million more people have seen this film in the last 24 hours, and when I saw it, the title screen most definitely read "Dune Part One". I'm just ttaking the temperature here, if there seems to be interest in changing the article title to match I'll open a formal requested move. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I went to the theater to see it yesterday and was surprised to see the title as "Dune Part One" in the opening. Every article I see about the movie it's just referred to as "Dune." I think the status quo is perfect, with the "titled onscreen as Dune: Part One" in parentheses. Incerto501 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we'll have to relook if/when the sequel is greenlit, but until there is 100% affirmation of production on the sequel (per WP:NFF), having this as "Dune (2021 film)" is fine. If the sequel is made, then we can talk "Dune: Part One" and "Dune: Part Two" (ala Kill Bill) to avoid naming conflicts, assuming they don't otherwise subtitle the sequel something weird. --Masem (t) 18:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We should use It as a template because the film is split into two parts. The first film is called It (2017 film) and the second is called It Chapter Two. The 2017 It film does not call itself "It: Part One," so we should stick with what the film calls itself on-screen, namely: Dune: Part One. Therefore I think it is okay to omit the year here and simply call it "Dune: Part One." We should create another page for "Dune: Part Two" similar to "It Chapter Two" whenever it is greenlit. - Gorba (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The thing is though we'd still have to keep the year to distinguish it from the 1984 Lynch version and to some extent the 2000 version even though though it was a miniseries I think. With It (2017) it makes sense to include the year to help distinguish that film from I.T. (2016) and It! (1967), as well as the 1990 miniseries. Also it's not a guarantee that there will be a Dune: Part Two even though things are looking good (https://deadline.com/2021/10/dune-matrix-sopranos-sequels-hbo-max-theatrical-model-1234859504/). Are any big entertainment sources calling it Dune: Part One? It seems like Villeneuve tacked that subtitle into the opening credits to help get fans on his side and start a social media campaign if WB is wavering on a sequel. Kind of a "Just a reminder, this is only half the story, folks!" type thing. Incerto501 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, at this point, we can only speculation, and we'll have to see how it all shakes out. (Critics are noting the "Part One" subtitle but aren't considering that part of the title in bulk). But I definitely think right now, it would be far too premature to call this article "Dune: Part One", as "Dune" clearly meets WP:COMMONNAME, and we have to have disambiguation in place. --Masem (t) 00:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Although the title onscreen is Dune:Part One we should follow notablity rules which is that the film is commonly referred to as Dune so I don't think we should change it. If in the future it is referred to as part one in sources then the title change should be fine deity 12:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this although Dune 2 now has a release date[23] so I imagine "Dune Part One"/"Dune 1" will gradually become the common name for the film. Incerto501 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Plot summary

I watched this last night and the plot summary is not completely accurate.

I'm going to make a few changes and note them here.Aspenguy2 (talk)

Kynes, cornered by Sardaukar troops, lures a sandworm to devour them along with her. No, this isn't a true description. Kynes escapes down a different tunnel and is then found by 3 Sardauker assassins and knifed. She rolls down the dune, followed by the Sardaukar. Kynes then lures a sandworm to devour them all. Minor addition adding info about the carryall failing. Current plot summary is 657 words.Aspenguy2 (talk)

Who's speaking here. This is confusing? - Gorba (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Plot summaries need to stay concise, and there is no reason to describe things scene by scene. As soon as one starts nitpicking and inserting smaller details, that's when we get plot bloat. --Masem (t) 16:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

They need to stay concise and accurate. "They" didn't spot the sandworm, Leto did. Kynes merely confirmed it with binoculars. So, how does changing "They" to "Leto" make it less concise? It actually makes the summary more accurate. You can't get too much plot bloat because the plot summary is already approaching the 700 word max.Aspenguy2 (talk)

Also, Kynes wasn't "cornered". Cornered means "trapped" and in this context, someone had to corner her and that is not what the scene shows. The scene explicitly shows that Kynes thought she could escape until the Sardauker puts a sword through her back. So, the use of "cornered" is an inaccurate description of the scene. It's not nitpicking, it's using the right words to describe the scene.Aspenguy2 (talk)

How is this accurate? - "disguised" Sardaukar troops - How were they disguised? You can clearly see by the different armor that there are Harkonnen troops and Sardauker troops. How were they "disguised"?Aspenguy2 (talk)

It is REALLY annoying when people revert plot edits without discussing and justifying why my edits were incorrect. My edits to the plot made the plot summary more accurate which is the goal of any edits. I'm not adding any plot summary points, I'm correcting the plot summary. So instead of responding to my points, Masem simply reverted the edits because their opinion was it was "plot bloat". 03:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenguy2 (talk • contribs)

Title stylization?

Would it make sense to add a "stylized as ⊃⋃⋂⊂" (or possibly ⊃⋃⋂⪽?) at the beginning of the article along with the "titled onscreen as Dune: Part One" bit? I know it's a common practice on Wikipedia pages whose subjects use nonstandard capitalization, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate in this case. Just something I was thinking about after seeing a few folks online jokingly refer to the film as "DUNC". Lukebee (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not a stylization, that's just a font choice. --Masem (t) 19:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

I would like to include critics' complaints about the lack of Middle East and North African (MENA) representation in the film and its creative space, seeing as the original work and the film were directly inspired by MENA cultures. Here are the sources:

https://english.alaraby.co.uk/features/dune-escaping-realm-cinematic-arab-subversion

https://www.polygon.com/reviews/22733349/dune-review-denis-villeneuve-timothee-chalamet

https://slate.com/culture/2021/10/dune-2021-movie-vs-book-white-savior-islam.html Spiderswarz (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

See the section above, we are considering a section but there's a right way to approach it to acknowledge what changes were purposely made. Because of the sensitivity of this topic, it doesn't make sense to rush to include, as well as making sure we're using the best sources for it. --Masem (t) 01:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderswarz: Your suggestion is a good one, but the article won't be unprotected so you can edit it. Feel free to propose the section you want to add on this talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2021

The reception part references an article from slant Magazine challenging that dune is a white savior story. I don't know who in their right minds decided to put that article because of the lack of that writers understanding of dune and the subsequent novel dune messiah. But there exists literally a book which shows that Paul Atriedes is no messiah, no god. There are no saviors in dune there cannot be. This article and it's shallow take on dune's rich philosophical theme is abomination towards the source material and it's inclusion on the Wikipedia page is absolutely useless. Everyone who's read dune know it's not a white savior story or a savior story in any way. Period. 2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:6806:DEF3:6A55:A636 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There is sufficient criticism that Dune is a white savior story, and the fact that Villieneu actually addresses how he approached it (why it is a criticism of the white savior narrative) makes it relevant to this article. --Masem (t) 01:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Second time making an edit request. The Slant Magazine writers narrative and cherry picked inferences on original source material dune and dune messiah isn't enough to label the novels as white savior story. How can a story be called a savior story when there is really no savior in the end? The writer ends his take on dune by saying even though paul destroys what he builds we come out of it as a coming of age story. Which is his interpretation of dune and dune messiah. But the philosophical themes of dune messiah aren't that shallow. Countless other reviewers of the original dune and dune messiah have lauded frank herbert for making dune a cautionary tale about there being no saviors. So why does Wikipedia for the sake of being politically correct wants to include one persons interpretational opinions over thousands of reviews of dune messiah book that already exist out there who have stated the fact that dune can never be a savior story of any sort. It's the anti thesis of it. This absolutely mockery of herberts original work written by people who have no interest in understanding the deeper philosophical themes of the proposed "fictional" world. 2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:6806:DEF3:6A55:A636 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources and not the personal opinions of individual editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

White Savior Criticism

Not at all any personal opinions of a book reader but here’s an article that deconstructs the complete criticism of the argument that dune and dune messiah are white savior stories or savior stories in general. Cherry picking individual criticism for the new movie is not done as the issue has been raised several times since Herbert first released dune. There’s extensive rebuttal in the following article with enough sources, comments from Herbert, counter arguments etc. about dune, dune messiah not being white savior or a savior story in any way. The argument is much more complicated than that.

https://hdernity.medium.com/dunes-not-a-white-savior-narrative-but-it-s-complicated-53fbbec1b1dc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:4c3:bba0:70b8:e518:8c80:4a24 (talk) 02:47, 2 November, 2021 (UTC)

The nature of Dune (the novel) being a white savior novel has been discussed in reliable sources multitude of times, and we're not changing anything based on one Medium piece (which is not a reliable source). That said, the way I had included it presumed it was factually a white savior narrative which I have changed to be one claimed by some. But it is impossible to ignore this, it comes up easily enough in the criticism and Villeneu directly discussions how he approached this aspect in his film, so it absolutely belongs. --Masem (t) 03:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You didn’t even read the article did you? The article is not the source but it’s secondary sources which is FRANK HERBERT himself deconstructing this notion of his material being labelled white savior. So now for you random editors the writer of the goddamn novels is unreliable as well? Well enjoy your little agenda to mention useless critiques when literally the complete community of dune fans know dune can never be a white savior or a savior Story in anyway. “ A White Savior film is often based on some supposedly true story. Second, it features a nonwhite group or person who experiences conflict and struggle with others that is particularly dangerous or threatening to their life and livelihood. Third, a White person (the savior) enters the milieu and through their sacrifices, as a teacher, mentor, lawyer, military hero, aspiring writer, or wannabe Native American warrior, is able to physically save—or at least morally redeem—the person or community of folks of color, by the film's end.”

Now that is the textbook definition of a white savior story and it’s been refuted countless times that nothing of that sort happens in dune, dune messiah. ITS LITERALLY ITS CRITIQUE. How can you people be so uninformed about the source material before editing its Wikipedia page. Frank Herbert has become an unreliable source for his own story, god what has modern Wikipedia come to.

Also edit novel was “considered” as grammatically correct to “consider” if that’s all you gonna edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:70B8:E518:8C80:4A24 (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Please learn to indent your comments and sign them as per WP:TPG, or else that could be considered a form of disruptive editing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not knowing your ways 2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:70B8:E518:8C80:4A24 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Herbert may state he wasn't writing a white savior narrative, but it is still the case that today, Dune the novel as well as this film and Lynch's film are seen by some to be a white savior narrative, even taking into account what Herbert said (hence why important to phrase it not as a fact). The issue is coupled with the fact that most see the Fremen as inspired by Middle Eastern culture (and thus the lack of MENA casting), and in this film, that casting was replaced with African-American and other non-white actors, which appears to some critics to further the white savior concept. We are going by what RSes have said about this, not what passionate fans of the novels have concluded. --Masem (t) 05:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well then I don’t want to explain anything else here. Go by whatever credible or incredible sources you like to put even if the criticism is written by people who judge dune as just dune and not dune messiah included which clearly shows Paul’s descent to madness and in turn peril of the fremen. No one was saved, no one was redeemed and no one became a god. It’s sad that deep philosophical themes of frank Herbert have boiled down to this. Also the MENA issue and Herbert borrowing things from Islamic culture to base fremen is again a different argument. He technically based them on San people as well (people from Southern Africa, but I don’t see calls for southern African representing here? Technically tho jamis’ character was played by a native African, and you can only include as many in an international cast. People are telling frank Herbert who he based fremen on is just again idiotic as he stated it’s based on Bedouin, northern African and san from Southern Africa. And their religious themes on Buddhism and zen. The whole concept of MENA representation is written by people who don’t even know the fremen culture and their inspirations in the first place. The argument is put up just because of Arabic influenced names that’s all, so do more research which is there on Wikipedia itself not anywhere else before introducing sources who lack this critical information for their butthurt reviews), but regardless it is futile to have this conversation when one cannot understand the basic fact that you cannot call anything a savior story when nothing is saved in the end. So no matter how uninformed the reviews or these criticisms might be on source material and trying to really understand its philosophies, Wikipedia insures that their stupid and uninformed opinions are deemed to be highlighted against pure facts. Which I think is an absolute waste of space and Inturn results in more people drawing these uninformed conclusions without even finishing the second book. So yeah go in with their trusted sources.2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:BD88:4EDA:678E:6D5B (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The goal is to present opposing views with due weight and let the reader investigate for themselves. We, as editors, are not here to take sides and proclaim one view to be more correct than another. See WP:RGW. Now if it can be backed by reliable sources that one view is in the extreme minority compared to another, then we can adjust the coverage to reflect that, but we are strictly limited to what's being portrayed in the sources. Also keep in mind that the author's intention can be very different from the way the work was received. We should cover both, as any well-informed reader would want to be aware of the significant viewpoints, even when they contradict. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has read Dune Messiah here. And that’s the problem. “One view is extreme minority compared to another”, the answer and the most credible source is the second book itself. There’s no savior story in a white savior argument yet people want to weigh in on opinions? Go read your definition of “white savior story” then go read the complete second novel and tell me how does the book fulfill the white savior definition in first place. You don’t need any sources, opinions or interpretations to Logical arguments. No savior, no white savior Story. It’s as simple as that.2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:BD88:4EDA:678E:6D5B (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is a strict policy against original research, which includes interpretations and analysis of published material. That's not our role as editors on Wikipedia. As I linked to in my last post, which you should definitely read, we follow the sources. And the sources in this case are those that do the interpretations and analysis for us. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Trying to edit this article based on what one reads in Dune Messiah would be a problem. I wonder if someone has bothered to call Leto II a white saviour. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

He's more of a worm savior. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

SJWs have to ruin everything. Just enjoy the movie. Already trying to get it cancelled because too many white people liked it I see. Colliric (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Colliric, please note that Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for you to post your personal opinions per WP:FORUM. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure I apologize. I got too upset. Won't happen again. Colliric (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

21st Century Sensibility

The subject of adding female characters is a valid one, but calling it "21st Century Sensibility" definitely creates a bias. I don't entirely feel comfortable changing it yet, but I would recommend it be changed. -- Mentor397 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the wording a bit. "21st century" wasn't tied to anything quoted, just that in the 50+ years things have changed, and that's definitely a part addressed in the sources. -- Masem (t) 21:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I... don't want to seem like I'm arguing whether I think it should be changed - I don't, really, but rather, that I don't think Wikipedia should seem to have an opinion one way or another. We/they/it should report the facts, but refrain from judging, if that makes sense. It might not. I'm not explaining it very well -- Mentor397 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Just say "female characters"--96.246.161.214 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Year of setting

The first line of the plot summary says "in the year 10191". This is misleading, though admittedly because the title card itself is misleading; on screen it just says "Year 10191". Problem is, they don't use our calendar system: it's not the Anno Domini system, so it's not "10191 AD" but "10191 AG" - After Guild. The Appendix to the novel actually explains that it's closer to around 20,000 years in the future. By stating "in the year 10191" the article implies that it's "the year 10191 AD" when they never claim that. Maybe it needs a footnote?--96.246.161.214 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to just say something like "in the distant future" rather than providing a specific year, or else just remove it entirely and start with "Duke Leto". The exact year is not relevant to understanding the basic plot. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The date is only mentioned at the start and plays zero role throughout the whole movie. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 08:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

In that case I argue it should be cut, if only based on "concision" to keep the word count lower.--96.246.161.214 (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't make the assumption that movie and novels will have the same "universe". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it's in the same universe. But it's not illogical to think things like dates will be based on the novels. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Not illogical, but at this point OR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the year should be added back, as it informs the reader that the film is set in the far future (and not in the present day). I don't think In the year 10191 is misleading at all, as it follows the film's on-screen title card word for word and does not violate WP:OR. Still, I would be fine with In the distant future as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone removedrestored (I'm too tired, misread it) the year.[24] It not a plot detail I would consider essential but it does help set the scene in a concise way, so I get that some editors might want to add it back again. -- 109.78.205.154 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I somehow managed to misread that earlier diff, in any case User:Wallyfromdilbert has again removed the year from the plot section. It is difficult to argue against any delete when WP:FILMPLOT recommends brevity. -- 109.79.165.40 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert, would you be opposed to restoring the In the distant future line? I do believe this is relevant to the plot as it informs readers that this film is set in the far future rather than the present day. Some examples of film articles which state its far-future setting: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no issue with saying "in the far future", which implies significant human advancement. --Masem (t) 02:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus, no opposition from me. I think the "far future" suggestion by Masem is a good one as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added it in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how and when this happened, but it looks like someone added back the year? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Spoilers? Right in the "Cast" section? Seriously??

It may be unbelievable to some, but, some people are actually encountering Dune for the first time ever via this 2021 movie.

Does there seriously need to be a spoiler right there in the CAST section which should be perfectly safe and spoiler free??

Zendaya as Chani, a young Fremen woman and Paul's love interest. Daughter of Dr. Liet-Kynes.

I just saw the movie last night for the first time ever and despite not being able to make out about half the dialog, I'm quite sure this was not revealed, but is now spoiled simply because I wanted to know who one of the actors was and thought I could trust Wikipedia to not have SPOILERS around such simple information.

Polaris75 (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a movie review site, it explicitly does contain spoilers with no spoiler warnings. The movie actually contains several spoilers on the book, it is not at first clear that Liet and Kynes are the same person, and it certainly isn't clear until rather late in the novel that the Sadukar come from Salusa Secundus, but they just trot both things right out in the open like it's no big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Their parent/child relationship is in the book, and it may be in the next film, but it's not in this film, so including it in this article would be speculation. I agree it should be removed. Smyth (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree- I removed it. Staecker (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Now that I think about it, Chani mentions that her great aunt gave her a chrysknife. That may turn out to be what they go with. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Polaris75 you are right on several levels but you cannot even mention spoilers anymore because the guideline WP:SPOILER have been misinterpreted by some as an excuse for all kinds of bad behavior, poor writing, and including things in the wrong place, or in this case of including unsourced information in the cast section. (I don't think this fact about her parentage was even mentioned in the first book, it certainly wasn't in this film.)

Also it is terribly reductive to describe any character as a "love interest". It is not a good description of Chani because even though Paul is having visions of her, it describes his perspective not hers. -- 109.78.202.228 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I like the new wording. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a relief, nice of you to say so.[25] There's probably someone who will argue that it is original research to call her "mysterious" and someone else might still disagree with description of a twenty-five year old as a "young woman" and say it is subjective (in some cultures 25 would be old). I expect it will be mercilessly rewritten sooner or later but I can only hope it will be an improvement. So long as it is concise and relevant to this film and doesn't say silly things like "love interest" it should be fine. -- 109.78.202.157 (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

HCA Film Awards

Can someone add the HCA Film Awards nominations? Dune leads the ranking with ten nominations.--88.27.205.205 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The article was not locked you could have made the edit yourself but please make sure to use reliable sources and not WP:FANSITEs. Someone went ahead and added it.[26] -- 109.78.202.157 (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Time to split the awards list?

The list of the various accolades this film has received has grown quite lengthy – it's currently over 150 awards by my count, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it grow a little more still. It's certainly on par with many of the lists seen in Category:Lists of accolades by film, and several films from this year have already split their awards lists, including The Power of the Dog, Belfast, and West Side Story. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes please. As a matter of readability I hate these tables and cannot wait to see it removed and a short bit of prose added instead, {{Table section needs prose}}. As a matter of Wikipedia policy I vaguely recall there is some recommended size it should be before a split happens but a split definitely will happen sooner or later, so either go ahead and just do it already or if you want to be cautious start a Draft first and wait a little longer for approval. -- 109.78.200.28 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022

Change $399,4 million to $399.4 million JackieDon (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dune_%282021_film%29&type=revision&diff=1070520791&oldid=1070507231 Cannolis (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo: from $400 to $691.5

The taking shown in Box Office Mojo has suddenly changed from $400 to $691.5. It is right?--88.27.205.207 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the box office results of previously unreported countries have been added.Bullenwächter (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Can someone confirm "with sources" that the collection is wrong? The latest editions of certain users take it for granted, but do not prove it with sources.--88.27.205.240 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it a coincidence that the total it suddenly jumped by is about what you'd get from multiplying the recorded international totals by 2? 2400:4150:7AE0:3F00:2C24:CF86:3E21:B8DB (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That is speculative. Anyway, if it was a bug, Box Office Mojo would have fixed it by now, and it's not. In addition, I have seen that several journalistic publications already consider the $691.5 to be valid and include it in their articles.--88.27.205.251 (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo upgrade: $400.1.--Xabier (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3