Talk:Dune (2021 film)/Archive 2

I came here to make a comment in regard to the same section of the intro. When the film has largely very positive reviews, the current phrasing ("Some reviews praised the film for its "dazzling" scope and ambition, while others called it abrupt and “boring”, criticizing the truncated nature of the original source material and lack of storytelling to balance the spectacle.") seems to pretty clearly give undue weight to the more negative criticism since it goes more into detail about it and takes more words to describe it. If I came into this article knowing nothing about how the film had been reviewed, that phrasing would make me think it had mixed/mediocre-on-average reviews at best. Alphius (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Then maybe we should just do away with it. As someone pointed out, this has only played at one film festival and most critics haven't even had a chance to review it. The reception section is for this sorta thing. But this isn't some big critically acclaimed film blowing everyone away. Maybe we can just get rid of it, and make brief mention that it played at the Venice film festival and leave it at that until opening weekend, when we will have a better idea how it actually was received. Thoughts? P.S. In the meanwhile we can add some additional praise if that is how you feel. 2601:280:5:B9AB:D3C:D0BE:FEC1:67CC (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – I personally think there are too few reviews to summarize critical reception in the lead. I would suggest removing any summary statement until RT has exceeded 75-100 reviews, which is bound to happen in the near future. If one is retained, then I agree with Masem's assessment that a majority of those assessed so far are positive, so the summary statement in the lead should be weighted accordingly to reflect that. It currently isn't and will likely mislead anyone who reads it that the reviews are lukewarm and mixed, as Alphius points out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable compromise, and I concur. I removed it for now, pending more reviews. 2601:280:6:C7EB:311F:673E:A417:4101 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You should refrain from editing this area while it is under discussion. Consensus hasn't been reached. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You should refrain from telling other editors how to conduct themselves. You are not an admin. If you have a problem, then follow protocol and file a complaint.2601:280:6:C7EB:311F:673E:A417:4101 (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing, and now we know the IPs in this discussion are confirmed meatpuppets (per this SPI). Masem, feel free to collapse comments where necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, except the SPI was essentially "declined", for the kneejerk bad-faith nonsense that it was. Nice try with the

WP:GAMING tactic. Can't get what you want, so you try to ban a bunch of users, eh? Users who didn't even know what a meatpuppet was until you tantrumed about it. No one was deliberately trying to game this, except maybe you. Better luck next time. Peace out. Makofakeoh (talk

) 07:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

At the same time, assuming that it truthfully was a group of new editors unaware of how WP functions, coming together to work to challenge standard practice for how RT/MC reviews are used to summarize critical reception of films is problematic. If they truly wanted chance, they should have done that at the Film Wikiproject (

MOS:FILM. Challenging one film and being coy about motivations is very suspicious from our side too, and the constant edit warring as a group also did not help. --Masem (t

) 12:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope,

casting aspersions may be begging. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 14:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Like it’s up to you.haha Keep nursing that bruised ego. See ya around.2601:280:8:BF30:9DCF:4C51:C000:5001 (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

As a note: headlines of articles are not considered part of reliable sources and cannot be used to justify material, eg the wording "divisive" from [4] cannot be included that way as it only appears in the headline. See

WP:HEADLINES --Masem (t

) 17:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I added another source, in case you missed it, and all the sources say the same thing. They simply don’t corroborate your broad analysis. RT already says what you are trying to say without your unnecessary personal editorializing. Again, let the sources speak for themselves.2601:280:8:BF30:9DCF:4C51:C000:5001 (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Btw, Metacritic already says “generally positive”. No need to synthesize it beyond that, given that the redundancy then takes valid information and warps it into misinformation- suggesting a wide enough release as far as ALL critics are concerned. Again, we should wait until all critics get a chance to see it (which they can’t do until opening day since this film has NOT been released yet).2601:280:8:BF30:9DCF:4C51:C000:5001 (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You are missing the point above that a film can have generally positive reviews and still have divided reviews, which is supported by all sources. That's the binomial distribution of scores, most being high but a few notably being very low. That's been captured accurately. Failing to capture that there are generally positive reviews for the work is violation NPOV as addressed above, but so would failing to capture the essence of the divide between reviews as well. --Masem (t) 17:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, we change update this once the film has wider release - but that wont be for a month and change. For the time being, it is completely acceptable under policy to summarize sources as we are doing and then update things as more reviews are documented - but as I've said, given that most top critics have seen the film it is very unlikely that the review averages and trends are going to change that drastically, based on historical film trends. If the film was coming out Friday, for example, then yes, we could wait, but it makes no sense to have a current statement about the film for the month+ period. --Masem (t) 17:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources already say everything you want it to say. However your editorializing and analysis suggest wide spread critical acclaim for which there is none, simply because this film has not properly opened yet. Again, there is no opening weekend and you are clearly trying to hype the movie. 2601:280:8:BF30:9DCF:4C51:C000:5001 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Once again no personal attacks, period. -you will be blocked for making those. And nowhere is anyone adding "widespread critical acclaim". "Generally positive reviews" does not equate to that, particularly when we add that reviews were divided. There's no editorialize here, as it reflects factually what the summary of all reviews are based on RT/MC, and the fact that reviews are also split per RSes. Those are not contradictory points. --Masem (t) 17:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no personal attack. We just don’t agree, and when in doubt (which we are) we should let the sources speak for themselves, directly quoting and objectively paraphrasing them where we can, while leaving out our personal analysis. I understand what you are saying, but according to rules against Wikipedia “original research” you are just wrong. I simply don’t want to censor the sources that don’t agree with you. We can both say “the film received many positive reviews” and “divided critics after the first screening of this” since that is what the sources say. We are going in circles on this. You essentially got more than you wanted , so we should drop this until opening day of the film. 2601:280:8:BF30:9DCF:4C51:C000:5001 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is

not about winning. Let's look at the DS source

more closely. It sampled the following 6 reviews:

• Sandwell review at Digital Spy – Rating: 3 / 5
• Brooks review at The Guardian – Rating: 5 / 5
• Crow review at Den of Geek – Rating: 4.5 / 5
• Zacharek review at Time – Rating: None (positive per RT)
• Travis review at Empire – Rating: 5 / 5
• Looughrey review at The Independent – Rating: 5 / 5

Is it correct in summarizing that reviews were divisive? Not one negative review listed there, and the most negative is mixed at best, yet still considered positive overall. I'm not saying divisiveness doesn't exist to some extent, but this source is not a good example. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

There are more than one source(s) that says this. Can you not read the other sources cited that call the film "boring"?

.....I think the problem is this, it is "only generally positive" among a sample of critics who attended ONE film festival. That's the problem. A plurality isn't a majority, not until opening weekend. Because most critics around the world didn't fly just to Italy to see it.lol..You and I weren't there. But there is enough reports to suggest a divided reception, which you are falsely inferring "as negative". I left out the word "negative" for a reason. The problem with the critics is NOT that this a polarizing film, like "Natural Born Killers", which has positive and negative detractors. THE PROBLEM with this movie is that Dune is such a precious property, like Lord of the Rings. There are critics who loved it but many critics who thought it "was good" BUT "NOT good enough" and they are expressing their disappointment, saying an epic film with the promise and long history of Dune either needs to be a masterpiece or it will disappoint no matter how good it is. That is what is dividing critics, that many of them feel like the film didn't need to be split in half or drag for so long while other critics loved the serialized nature of it, with multiple parts.

.....Same thing happened to Kill Bill which everyone agreed was good but not great because it was split in half, something Tarantino himself later regretted btw. In any case, as the reader reads the whole paragraph (where the sources do just fine speaking for themselves without our analysis) it becomes very clear that, yes most critics had "a positive reception" but they are divided over it because there is a very real argument if this film was good enough given the task at hand. This is like "Gone With The Wind" for the sci-fi crowd, k? Anything less than an epic masterpiece will register as a failure, even if not negatively so. That is where you are missing the forest for the trees- that films are not necessarily up and down things.

.....Again, this isn't a football game where the movie WINS or loses. There is no scoreboard. It's an organic thing. George Lucas (genius he was) once pointed that out in his complaint about Hollywood that (to paraphrase) "A movie can be good, bad, in between, but a movie is binary. Either it works, or it doesn't, despite how good or bad it might be. The key is to make a movie that 'works' and not get hung up on how bad it is turning out, or how good it needs to be, otherwise you will suck the joy right out of it, and you forget how good that buttered popcorn tastes." Food for thought ;) 2601:280:103:41BB:B834:E0D9:651A:B252 (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a37490215/dune-remake-reviews-divided/ Is an example of what the other editor is getting at here. "Divided" ftwMakofakeoh (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We can start by eliminating the sources that only muddy the waters for no good reason. I have only reviewed the DS source, which was brought up in recent discussion. Perhaps there are others as well, or perhaps the others are legit. Either way, we should scrutinize the sources we allow in, and a passing mention of divisiveness (not even made correctly) doesn't do the article justice and verges on

WP:POVPUSH. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 19:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I've blocked Makofakeoh for clearly disruptive editing, either logged out or meatpuppetry with other individuals, here at this article and others. Whether it's sock or meat is kinda irrelevant at the level of disruption being caused. -- ferret (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I added a "

Given that we have a Production section that leads off with "Background" over "Development", that seems like an obvious place to me, as a reader, to look for prior information about Dune the novel and any previous adaptions. --Masem (t) 12:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not generally a huge fan of see also sections and I would have reverted that edit as well, because of the repeated link. Graham87 14:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the link already being included, the 1984 film is mentioned and discussed in a paragraph almost exclusively dedicated to it in the Writing section. The reversion was not knee-jerk, it was taking into account how present the 1984 film is in the body of the article. This article isn't very long either, with 85kB and only 21kB of readable prose. —El Millo (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This "general rule" is hardly deviated from, and I see no reason to do so in this case, especially with the 1984 film being mentioned extensively in the article. A sure no go. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Dune (2021 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Dune Parents Guide at Filmy Rating Sumit2641 (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Not particularly clear what you want to add, and also, if this was an external link, Wikipedia is not a collection of links... --Ferien (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it safe to add the infobox/tracklistings for the albums (or atleast the sketchbook) to the section, or will that be handled differently? I don't want to go ahead and do it just in case the preference is to create a separate article(s) and just link that to the section instead. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking with it having a whopping three soundtrack albums, we should eventually make a separate article called Soundtrack albums from Dune (2021) (or something like that), but if you want to add a table now that just means somebody will copy and paste it into the new article later, so no effort wasted :-) EditorInTheRye (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@EditorInTheRye: I'll draft it all in one for now and adjust accordingly depending on any additional comments left if anyone else contributes to the discussion. Thank you for replying. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I was reading the section on critical response and I felt this line was rather dubious.

A small number of negative reviews were expected given Villeneuve's directorial style and the film's source material.

I read this as a claim that negative reviews can be ignored. It is a rather bold claim using just one guy's opinion. --Óli Gneisti (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, that's not appropriate to just have as an unqualified statement like that. I've made it clear it's a reviewer's opinion (which is fine in the criticism section as long as we say so). Not sure it's a notable opinion, but the site had its own article, so I left it in there. EditorInTheRye (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up. I modified the statement from its previous form, but it definitely still needed work. Looks better now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added some additional context in the Background section (related to fan expectation and some of the problems of previous adaptions, based on a Guardian article) that hopefully thus give more appropriate context that this claim here adds onto since it builds on the fan expectation problem. --Masem (t) 22:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

@

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)

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)

NOT a reliable source for this [5] 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)

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)

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)

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.

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[6] 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)

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)

This edit request to Dune (2021 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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[7][8][9][10][11], 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:[12][13][14] 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

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. [15]. 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 [16] 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 [17] from a high quality RS summarizing the criticism. --Masem (t) 04:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

And yet another piece [18] 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^[1] 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)

This edit request to Dune (2021 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

talk

) 01:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

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

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.

talk

) 01:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

talk

) 03:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a relief, nice of you to say so.[19] 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)

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.[20] -- 109.78.202.157 (talk

) 04:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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. –

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. —

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

Someone removedrestored (I'm too tired, misread it) the year.[21] 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

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)

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)

This edit request to Dune (2021 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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, {{

start a Draft first and wait a little longer for approval. -- 109.78.200.28 (talk

) 14:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

I saw that the convention for other film articles was to use the named refs template, and I noticed this article does not. I was wondering if people think this article should use the named ref template? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not an article uses the "list-style" reference (where all the references get ganged up with names like I think you mean) or remain inline is a style choice set by the first author of the article, per

WP:CITEVAR. If there is consensus to swap to list-style from inline, that can be done, but it is definitely not a requirement set by the film project. --Masem (t

) 12:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I assume you're thinking of Marvel/DC film articles.

List-defined references have long been the standard on MCU articles, and this has since spread to some other comic book films because they're mostly edited by the same group of editors. But like Masem said, this by no means a requirement for film articles. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 18:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus @Masem Yea, as a matter of fact, I was referring to MCU/DCEU film articles, as they tend to use the named refs template. For reference, you can check articles like The Batman or something to see what I mean. I mistakenly thought that there was a fixed citation template for film articles, but I can see that is not the case. With this being in mind, I think then that the article can be continued as normal, though wouldn't changing to the list-defined references take up less space than a list-style one? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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"[22] and although enjoyed the film and I would certainly like that

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.[24] 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[25] 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)

So, since there hasn't been any recent posts as of yet, have we now reached a consensus as to how we'll regard it? I think that we should still regard the film as having a positive reception, it still has a substantial amount of criticism regarding the ending of the film, which doesn't automatically make it negative. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I decided there was no point keeping a comment warning not change the text without consensus when the text had already been substantially changed without consensus, so I removed the warning comment.[26] I could have reverted yet again but it seemed like a

WP:FILMLEAD (so it doesn't become a laundry list claiming praise for every last aspect of the film) and generally keep checking that fans don't over-inflate the praise but IMO it looks okay at the moment. -- 109.78.206.47 (talk

) 16:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly the praise was inflated to critically acclaimed again. I am a fan of this film too but we have to try and be neutral and white an encyclopedia article. I have manually reverted the text in the lead to dial it back down a few notches.[27] -- 109.79.160.156 (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the linked mention of his full name in the infobox and lead, the first mention of Jon Spaihts in the article's prose is in the "Development" section, where his full name is used, but not linked. His full, linked name is used next in "Writing" and again in "Casting", then last name only in "Critical response", then full linked name twice in "Dune: Part Two and potential third film", then last name alone 3 times in "Dune: The Sisterhood", followed by his full unlinked name in the last sentence of that same section. Is there any particular reason for the inconsistency throughout? I noticed the same thing with Zimmer's name (but to a much lesser degree), which is mentioned in full and linked in the music section, and then again in the 6th pgraph of "Dune: Part Two and potential third film". Same for Villeneuve: after the first usage of his full name in "Development", it is used again in the last sentence of the article alongside Spaiht (every other mention in-between is his last name only). I assumed last name alone in subsequent mentions after the first full name usage in prose is general practice, based on other film articles I've seen (though not all adhere to this), so my apologies if that takeaway is incorrect. Just thought the inconsistency was odd when I noticed it, and felt I should ask in case it needs correcting. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I never noticed that anomaly. Feel free to correct it, I think that it's a valid issue and needs to be fixed. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Since I noticed that some other film articles, such as The Batman contain a Design section, I was wondering if this article should also contain a Design section. I believe that there is more than enough substance to sustain it. There are many links which discuss costume design and what not, so a section can be added there. I think details on production design could be also added from other links and interviews. Not to mention, there is tons of information within the Making of Dune THR citation. I was wondering if that should be a good idea and if it could be done? Here are the links btw just to get an idea

1. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/style/dune-west-side-story-designers-fidm-movie-costume-exhibit-1235111138/

2. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/03/awards-insider-dune-movie-costume-design

3. https://www.vogue.com/slideshow/dune-costume-designers-interview-definitive-science-fiction-fantasy

4. https://variety.com/2021/artisans/design/dune-costume-design-stillsuits-denis-villeneuve-1235066832/

5. https://www.thewrap.com/dune-costume-designers-jacqueline-west-bob-morgan/

Links on production design:

1. https://deadline.com/2022/03/patrice-vermette-zsuzsanna-sipos-2022-oscars-best-production-design-1234987200/

2. https://www.moviemaker.com/dune-production-designer-patrice-vermette-denis-villeneuve/

3. https://www.thewrap.com/dune-production-design-visual-bible/

4. https://www.gamesradar.com/dune-production-designer-and-cinematographer-on-bringing-denis-villeneuves-vision-to-life/

5. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/oscars-dune-west-side-story-production-design/

-72.202.142.244 (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. Most of the time this doesn't happen simply because sources aren't available. (I would recommended trying to find a good book on the Making of the film, because early efforts tend to get heavily rewritten if and when an official art-book like that gets released.) -- 109.78.206.47 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Great job on the "Design" sub-section. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Late reply here, but yea, I’m proud of it too. Many thanks goes to @ErnestKrause for being WP:BOLD and taking the initiative here to add it in using the sources above. I did rewriting and some citation formatting, but there is some ce I want to do to trim it down. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Production officially began today (July 18) on the sequel. I think it's time to split this into its own article. Thanks!