Jump to content

Talk:Dune (2021 film): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Dune (2021 film)/Archive 3) (bot
 
(28 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|01:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Dcdiehardfan|Dcdiehardfan]] ([[User talk:Dcdiehardfan|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Film|status=|note=|shortdesc=Science fiction film by Denis Villeneuve}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{FailedGA|22:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)|topic=Film|page=1|oldid=1216587338}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |1=
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |1=
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes}}
Line 7: Line 7:
}}
}}
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2021 Top 50 Report|2021]]|13,968,158}}
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2021 Top 50 Report|2021]]|13,968,158}}
{{Top 25 report|September 6 2020|Sep 19 2021|Oct 17 2021|until|Nov 14 2021}}
{{Top 25 report|September 6 2020|Sep 19 2021|Oct 17 2021|until|Nov 14 2021|Feb 18 2024|until|Mar 17 2024}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150k
|maxarchivesize = 150k
|counter = 2
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 22: Line 22:
}}
}}
{{photo requested|of=the costumes used in the film, at FIDM Museum & Galleries|non-free=yes|in=Los Angeles}}
{{photo requested|of=the costumes used in the film, at FIDM Museum & Galleries|non-free=yes|in=Los Angeles}}
{{Old moves
== Plot explanation ==
| list =

* RM, Dune (2021 film) → Dune: Part One, '''Not moved''', 17 April 2023, [[Special:Permalink/1209500320#Requested_move_17_April_2023|discussion]]
This is a very good plot summary - concise but includes all the key facts needed to understand the story.
* RM, Dune (2021 film) → Dune: Part One, '''Not moved''', 21 February 2024, [[Special:Permalink/1210688803#Requested move 21 February 2024|discussion]]

}}
However, there are elements in Dune that can be "jarring" to casual viewers. The key ones are the requirement for swords in such an advanced society, and the lack of computers (and thus the position of Mentats). Would a sentence in the Plot help this, or, should there could be a short "background" section that describes these unique attributes which would be worth clarifying for readers?

I.e. "Dune takes place in a universe where the use of computers and AI is strictly controlled as a result of past machine-wars, and where the development of advanced personal shields has neutralised the power of many types of weapons, and swords are again in use."

[[Special:Contributions/78.16.238.146|78.16.238.146]] ([[User talk:78.16.238.146|talk]]) 10:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
: I realize that there is a large body of Dune franchise Wikipedia articles that comprehensively cover the above points. I linked to them in the first sentence of the plot, which will give the more curious reader access to this body of work and I think addresses my question. [[Special:Contributions/78.16.238.146|78.16.238.146]] ([[User talk:78.16.238.146|talk]]) 10:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
:: {{ping|TAnthony}}, I agree that the film makes no reference to the lack of computers/robots, but it is such a big part of Dune, and to the more curious sci-fi fan who is not familiar with Dune (of which I am one), it seems odd. Given the rich body of Wikipedia articles on Dune, I thought it would be a good thing to note at the start of the Plot start which a reader could further investigate. [[Special:Contributions/78.16.238.146|78.16.238.146]] ([[User talk:78.16.238.146|talk]]) 21:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
:::We just have to be careful about applying aspects and elements of the novel to an article about an adaptation. The film tells its own story. It doesn't get to much into what the function of a Mentat even is, so I think noting the lack of computers is unnecessary. And a plot summary does not need every little detail, and the consequent links.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
::::We shouldn't mention things in the plot summary that are not actually covered in the movie. If people want background on the universe, the franchise itself is linked to from the first sentence of the plot summary. [[User:Spanneraol|Spanneraol]] ([[User talk:Spanneraol|talk]]) 22:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
::::I understand. I did restore that link to the franchise in the first sentence, which I think is helpful for readers. [[Special:Contributions/78.16.238.146|78.16.238.146]] ([[User talk:78.16.238.146|talk]]) 23:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::That link is tangential in this context, and was only recently added without consensus. The proper place to direct readers is to the source novel (which this article does) rather than employ hidden links to the coverage of an overarching plotline that may or may not be relevant to the adaptation at hand. But the franchise article is still accessible through the navbox and other links.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 00:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::I disagree with that. The link to the excellent Wikipedia plot arc and timeline article is helpful to readers (and also introduces them to the reason why there are no computers). The film starts by saying "10191", which is not the "year 10191" (in our terms) so it would be confusing to add it, but putting a link to the plot arc would again explain why 10191 is not what a casual reader might think it is. If others disagree I respect that. I am not sure I would have read the rest of this article to find the other links to the plot arc; I would have just gone to another online source for a plot explanation — which is a pity as Wikipedia editors have done such a good job in other related articles. [[Special:Contributions/78.16.238.146|78.16.238.146]] ([[User talk:78.16.238.146|talk]]) 22:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::[[WP:EGG]]. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 00:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::A link behind “distant future” that explains what that distant future is in Dune terms, is not really an EGG. [[Special:Contributions/78.16.238.146|78.16.238.146]] ([[User talk:78.16.238.146|talk]]) 00:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Readers would expect "distant future" to link to the article [[far future]], not the ''Dune'' plot summary. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 00:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::How about adding the link as a hat (or See also) to the top of the Plot section? [[Special:Contributions/78.16.238.146|78.16.238.146]] ([[User talk:78.16.238.146|talk]]) 00:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::That works for me. The Cast section currently does something similar as well. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 00:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Done that now. Thanks for considering. [[Special:Contributions/78.16.238.146|78.16.238.146]] ([[User talk:78.16.238.146|talk]]) 09:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I actually have a problem with this in both the Plot and Cast sections. Presenting these links as hatnotes implies that they are relevant to the film, which they kind of aren't. We wouldn't do this in the articles for Batman or Superman films, because each adaptation is its own thing. We should be referring readers to the source material, which is the novel and not an overview of the entire series. The lack of computers is not even referenced in the film, is it? I don't think this is something the reader needs to know about to understand what is happening in the film, but if the concept is mentioned in it, a phrase explaining it could be added to the plot summary, like we do in nearly every other ''Dune''-related article. Similarly, [[List of Dune characters]] is essentially a navigation tool that is mostly characters that do not appear in this film, or even the next one. I understand the urge to link every related concept possible, but the plot summary is already slightly overlinked, with some terms seemingly included just for the sake of linking them. That said, I'm not going to remove the hatnotes or anything for now, we'll see if other editors weigh in.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 15:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

:The difference with the various Batman/Superman adaptions, is that the 2021 Dune movie deliberately follows closely to the source books (which the 1984 Dune movie really didn't). Therefore linking in the 2021 movie article to helpful terms in the [[Dune (franchise)]] article(s) makes sense and is helpful to readers (and it was very helpful to me in explaining what I thought were plot-holes/bad writing in the film). I realise better how good Dune is.
:
:In addition, Villenuve's excellent rendition is deliberately sparse and doesn't explain many attributes of the Dune world, which to a first-time viewer like plot holes. I.e. why have swords? why is the lasgun not used more often? where are the computers (and why have mentets)? This is why linking to the [[Dune (franchise)]] articles is very helpful and relevant in this specific case. [[Special:Contributions/78.16.238.146|78.16.238.146]] ([[User talk:78.16.238.146|talk]]) 20:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
::I mean, there's ''so much'' material that is missing from both film adaptations. The "dinner party scene" is such an important section in the book, not even attempted in either film. Filling in the blanks ourselves in the article about the adaptation is clearly [[WP:OR]], and there is a comprehensive navbox at the bottom of the article. All that being said, I don't think the existence of one link to the wider franchise in the article text is a big deal. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
::The many attributes relevant to the Dune world are relevant to the plot of the source material. If an adaptation deliberately decides to not cover attributes that were present in the source material, then those attributes should not be relevant to the film's plot, and thus should not be linked. Newer first-time viewers may come to believe that the source material and film's plot are intrinsically linked as if they were one canon, when this is not the case. [[User:Fanaction2031|Fanaction2031]] ([[User talk:Fanaction2031|talk]]) 16:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
:Removed the plot links. The overarching plot of the series should not be relevant to an adaptation of a film. There are numerous links in the top section to the Dune franchise. The plot section should only be relevant to the plot of the film itself and not outside source materials that haven't been confirmed to completely follow the canon to the adaptation. See plot summaries for The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter films. [[User:Fanaction2031|Fanaction2031]] ([[User talk:Fanaction2031|talk]]) 16:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

How about explaining the date using a footnote like this test edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dune_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1172416175 --[[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:5A39:2500:A4AC:B6C3:CBEC:CF42|2600:4041:5A39:2500:A4AC:B6C3:CBEC:CF42]] ([[User talk:2600:4041:5A39:2500:A4AC:B6C3:CBEC:CF42|talk]]) 23:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

:Was this footnote ever considered; doesn't seem like a bad idea? [[User:Aszx5000|Aszx5000]] ([[User talk:Aszx5000|talk]]) 22:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

== Allegations of cultural appropriation and white savior narrative ==

This section seems very large / UNDUE in the context this article. It could be mentioned in a brief paragraph under casting, but it wasn't a notable element of the wider reception that the film received around the world? [[User:Aszx5000|Aszx5000]] ([[User talk:Aszx5000|talk]]) 16:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:I agree.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 15:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
:I copyedited it a bit, and kept it where it is, but as a paragraph rather than a subsection of its own.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 15:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
::I think that works better. [[User:Aszx5000|Aszx5000]] ([[User talk:Aszx5000|talk]]) 15:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Yeah I didn't want to do more without further discussion.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 17:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
::::I have taken out the content on the white savior which is really about the book and not the film (it was not Villenuve that wrote it). Perhaps it should be added to the WP book article. However, the comments about the casting are directly relevant to the film. [[User:Aszx5000|Aszx5000]] ([[User talk:Aszx5000|talk]]) 20:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Aszx5000|Aszx5000]] @[[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]] A bit late here, but I'm also glad that the issue was fixed as I also thought it didn't warrant a whole paragraph. However, I was wondering if we think this article is ready for a GAN. I think that this article is almost ready but could there be maybe some CE or any other big things left to do? [[User:Dcdiehardfan|Dcdiehardfan]] ([[User talk:Dcdiehardfan|talk]]) 22:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The way the subsection has been merged has unfortunately mixed cultural commentary from non-film critics with the reviews from actual professional film critics. That is a significant disimprovement.

I disagree with the claim that this was [[WP:UNDUE]] emphasis. There was substantial discourse at the time about the alleged "white savior narrative" (I would argue it was always a silly and superficial argument that badly misunderstands that the story eventually subverts that narrative, but the commentators wouldn't know that unless they had read the books) and editors used a selection of the many many available sources. Maybe it can be summarized and shortened but I do think the sub-heading remains necessary and should be restored. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.64.252|109.79.64.252]] ([[User talk:109.79.64.252|talk]]) 01:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:Not every silly comment needs to be incorporated in the article and certainly not s a sub-heading (per UNDUE). Also, if it is not considered a critique of the book, than it is an even more obscure aspect to include in the film. [[User:Aszx5000|Aszx5000]] ([[User talk:Aszx5000|talk]]) 10:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
:: You have failed to address the problem of mixing opinion pieces from non-film critics in with actual reviews, that makes this encyclopedia article less clear. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.166.31|109.79.166.31]] ([[User talk:109.79.166.31|talk]]) 05:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
::::[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' @[[User:109.79.166.31|109.79.166.31]] it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.
:::[[User:Dcdiehardfan|Dcdiehardfan]] ([[User talk:Dcdiehardfan|talk]]) 23:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
:::: I wasn't making a semi protected edit request, I was reiterating my point that attempt at merging of two sections and the removal of the subheading ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dune_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1187812710 diff] of edit by Aszx5000) created other problems that haven't been properly addressed. The old subheading or some other subheading should be restored to separate from political commentators or generalized opinion pieces from [[MOS:FILMCRITICS|actual professional film critics]]. The Critical response section isn't the ideal place for comments from one of the films writers, a casting agent, another casting agent and some academic from Princeton. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.164.19|109.79.164.19]] ([[User talk:109.79.164.19|talk]]) 01:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:109.79.164.19|109.79.164.19]] My apologies for the misattribution, but nothing in [[MOS:FILMCRITICS]] actually precludes this from my understanding, in fact I believe the following permits this: {{tqq|Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, '''although reputable commentators and experts'''—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—'''may also be cited'''.}}. The people's qualifications are clearly identified so that readers can tell the difference between the critics and academics, so I don't see the issue there. I think removing the subheading is fine, as it's still linked to the Critical Reception of the film as they directly criticize the film for doing so. I do agree that the sections should not be merged though and believe that keeping it as a standalone paragraph is fine. I think a case be made for simply being [[WP:BOLD]] and going ahead to improve the content there, because I do believe the Spaihts quote is an instance of [[WP:OVERQUOTE]]. I think I'll plan on CEing the paragraph as I do plan on promoting this to a GA in the near future, so feel free to put any additional input here. Either way, I'd also like to commend you for putting the invisible comment rather than trying to force your edits through. [[User:Dcdiehardfan|Dcdiehardfan]] ([[User talk:Dcdiehardfan|talk]]) 02:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::: I just want to pre-emptively say I do not think this was a case of [[WP:OVERSECTION]] and I think the merge was a mistake. [[MOS:FILMCRITICS]] isn't to preclude anything but opinion pieces from non-film critics should not be misrepresented "reviews" or "critics" and removing the subsection headed made things more ambiguous. (Also after this merge I fully expect someone will now complain about the Critical response section being too long). If you want to keep the sections merged I think a different approach might be better, I will explain...
:::::: It is easy for editors to forget that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and frame things in the same context as when they first encountered it, that of criticism and response. What actually came first, before the film was even made, were the decisions made by the writer Spaihts and the filmmakers as they adapted the books, so as an encyclopedia this background information could be better presented as part of the Production/Writing/Development (there shouldn't really be any need to mention Spaihts in the Critical response section at all if it is properly explained above already). The opinion pieces from self promoting casting agents about a missed opportunity to cast their clients seem obviously biased to me, but it is probably not undue and the acceptable sort of bias and should probably stay. I'd like to seem more and better sources to better show that this section is a fair generalization not just a few fringe opinions. The inclusion of the opinion of one Princeton PhD student and misrepresentation it as "some critics"[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dune_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1192182449] is misleading at best, ''' ''one'' is not some'''. Perhaps the fact that the Washington Post published it makes it noteworthy but I remain skeptical he should be included at all. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.165.74|109.79.165.74]] ([[User talk:109.79.165.74|talk]]) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:109.79.165.74|109.79.165.74]] While I disagree that the merge was a mistake, I do agree that the ways in which details are juxtaposed is incongruous. I would agree that the Spaihts comment should of course be relocated in the Writing or Casting. And no, I think the CR section has an alright length as other GA have things floating around this length. CE and all should be able to appropriately truncate it's length.
:::::::I like the case you pose for a better approach. I think the op pieces are fine and I feel like the way you put it is a bit critical haha, as I do think it is but perhaps a bit of rewording could be necessary, as some may deem that the complaints are valid and may have merits. It does have some bias within it, but I think that's of course implicit and doesn't construe as a [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] violation. I looked at the section again and noticed that one additional source was nixed when CEd, and that was the Slate magazine [https://slate.com/culture/2021/10/dune-2021-movie-vs-book-white-savior-islam.html] source which I think also has some good commentary to add. Either way, I would highly recommend you make an edit request or provide mock edits below so that way you can properly articulate your vision for the article. I would like to have a consensus prior to editing. [[User:Dcdiehardfan|Dcdiehardfan]] ([[User talk:Dcdiehardfan|talk]]) 23:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: I'm trying to highlight problems, and hoping they will be addressed at the discretion of the editor in the manner they see best. Attempts to improve things, broke other things in the process. If problems can be solved and the encyclopedia improved that is enough. Thanks for moving Spaihts to the Production section. I prefer to suggest and not to prescribe a specific edit unless absolutely necessary (for example an edit request with a specific minimal change can be needed to avoid an argument, or when a small mistake needs to be fixed when an article is already locked). If you're aiming for GA review I expect there will soon be criticism far more rigorous than mine, but the article seems to be headed in the right direction. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.167.231|109.79.167.231]] ([[User talk:109.79.167.231|talk]]) 04:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Understandably so for sure. I respect the approach as that will avoid conflicts but yea, I'll of course get to copyediting the thing later as I have other stuff going on right now. And that would make sense, a GAR would be far more meticulous and exhaustive in terms of ensuring quality content, but I frankly think this article is quite close to a GA which is a good thing, there's a lot of information here. Once the Critical Response and Marketing is taken care of however, I believe this should be ready for a GAN. Probably what's best and what I will do is more closely look at the sources, reword things, and clearly identify that para as being something along the lines of "academic" or "scholarly" criticism or the like, based on the scenario. This is definitely a very valid issue that you brought up. [[User:Dcdiehardfan|Dcdiehardfan]] ([[User talk:Dcdiehardfan|talk]]) 04:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

== Post artificial intelligence ==

Book readers will know that Dune is set in a very distant future where artificial intelligence has been outlawed. The film does include the mentat characters and shows their eyes turning white as they do computing tasks in trance like state but does not overtly mention the history or reason for these strange characters. The article body does not mention artificial intelligence at all. [[WP:LEAD]] {{tq|"significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"}}

Twice, an editor has added to the lead section that the film is set in a post artificial intelligence universe.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dune_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1188209936][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dune_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1192811119] I do not believe this trivial detail needs to be emphasized in the lead section. If it should be included it at all it should first be at least mentioned somewhere in the article body, and preferably its significance properly explained. After that then maybe editors can consider if this minor background information really does merit being highlighted or given this extra emphasis in the lead section. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.165.74|109.79.165.74]] ([[User talk:109.79.165.74|talk]]) 21:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

:I'm on the same page as you here - it's simply not needed for an article about the film, and Villeneuve has indeed even managed to make a film that doesn't bring attention to it (I'm not sure it's even mentioned?). Readers know where to go if they want to know more about the Dune universe. [[User:EditorInTheRye|EditorInTheRye]] ([[User talk:EditorInTheRye|talk]]) 21:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::I also agree that this is a trivial detail, and should it need to be mentioned, it could perhaps be clarified in the Production section as a minor thing if really necessary, but it should be ok. With that being said, I'm not sure what the concern is here. [[User:Dcdiehardfan|Dcdiehardfan]] ([[User talk:Dcdiehardfan|talk]]) 23:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::: The change should have been better explained. The change shouldn't have been made a second time without a meaningful edit summary. Instead of waiting for it to happen a third time I preemptively started a discussion, because I'm a little paranoid as I have been false accused of being disruptive for changes that seemed simple and obvious to me, but other editors frequently don't read the edit summaries or seemingly don't understand [[WP:LEAD]] or [[WP:DUE]]. I hope we wont have to revisit this or discuss it any further. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.167.231|109.79.167.231]] ([[User talk:109.79.167.231|talk]]) 03:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

== BoxOfficeMojo gross ==
== BoxOfficeMojo gross ==


Line 102: Line 35:
:I see a ref for the gross data from TheNumbers has been added. I've commented out the BoxOfficeMojo ref for now, as the figures given there are confusing. [[User:Barry Wom|Barry Wom]] ([[User talk:Barry Wom|talk]]) 14:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
:I see a ref for the gross data from TheNumbers has been added. I've commented out the BoxOfficeMojo ref for now, as the figures given there are confusing. [[User:Barry Wom|Barry Wom]] ([[User talk:Barry Wom|talk]]) 14:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


::{{reply to|Barry Wom}} Box Office Mojo has a pattern of double counting grosses with rereleases. For more info on why and how, see [[Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 19#Double Counting]]. In this case, it looks like the UK box office was counted twice. They have corrected the gross for Dune, which is correctly listed as $406 million. I have corrected the gross in the article and commented out The Numbers for now. ~ [[User:Rajan51|Rajan51]] ([[User talk:Rajan51|talk]]) 16:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
== Requested move 21 February 2024 ==

== Plot section rewrite ==
{{ping|Dcdiehardfan}} I reverted this drive-by rewrite of the plot section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dune_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1216540700] I am trying to finish up a GA review and I cannot review an article that changes drastically day to day. Further, the hidden text says not to do this and the user removed that text. Please review their changes and update if necessary. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

:I've failed the GAN. I don't think this should have been nominated since there's no way to review an article that hasn't stabilized to a single version. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
:I am the editor responsible. Apologies for complicating a frustrating, time-consuming GA review process. This reversion seems to be a careless byproduct of that process, and I hope it will be undone with due review of my edit (not by myself); it comes across as an undue effort to preserve stability which stands somewhat at odds with [[WP:BOLD]], not taking into account whether or not the edit genuinely improves the article, and I have never seen such a thing following previous edits of a similar nature. It is not an actual content dispute that can be resolved as a content dispute.
:I did not inappropriately remove an invisible comment, as claimed with "the hidden text says not to do [a rewrite of the plot section] and the user removed that text". I found that two copies of the invisible comment ("This wording was agreed upon on the talk page. Please do not change without consensus.") were enclosing as if brackets two words, "distant future", and took this to refer to those two words in conjunction with the AI discussion on the talk page. Perhaps wrongly, I thought this interpretation of the ambiguously worded invisible comment was so intuitive that the second copy of it was superfluous, and so I removed only that copy. It is false to suggest that my edit either deleted the invisible comment or defied it, given its ambiguity. After that, I improved the quality of the plot summary's writing (minor edits), which did need doing, and also remedied a couple of glaring omissions while avoiding bloat. I worked non-destructively and with due reference to (lack of well-defined) consensus and disputes on the talk page. There has been no "drive-by" recklessness or disruptive activity here, and minimal bold ("drastically" done) editing.
:This talk page thread fails to assume good faith and is disrespectful, especially given its supplementation with sarcastic comments left on my user talk page, and it flouts [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content|WP:OWN]] with the overly literal, unintuitive interpretation that the invisible comment applies to the entire plot summary, given no evidence that I can see. I am very sorry if there is a convention here that I am unaware of, and, again, I hope my contribution can be vetted seriously, with the insignificant hidden metric that is the article's stability no longer a point of contention. I will engage constructively with or disengage from any real content disputes. [[User:PurpleQuaver|PurpleQuaver]] ([[User talk:PurpleQuaver|talk]]) 00:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
::I see nothing failing AGF, disrespectful, or sarcastic in anything I wrote here or on your talk page. Since you are somewhat new as you claim, let me give you a bit of advice: focus on the content, not on the personalities. I would also recommend teaming up with [[User:Dcdiehardfan]] as fellow collaborators, since you can easily get this to GA status in half the time by working together. And if you're committed to article improvement, you could probably skip the GA process altogether and go to FA. Good luck going forward, as this will likely be my last ever edit to this article. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 01:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
::The changes to the plot were not an improvement and had some poor sentence phrasing and the introduction of unnecessary detail (to an already complicated plot). I would have also reverted them as well. I would encourage Viriditas to rethink and return to the GA as there has been a lot of good work tidying up the article and I don't think it is far from GA standard imho. [[User:Aszx5000|Aszx5000]] ([[User talk:Aszx5000|talk]]) 15:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Aszx5000|Aszx5000]] I would also say the Plot edits by @[[User:PurpleQuaver|PurpleQuaver]] definitely jumped the gun but I think some of the changes were for the better. I'm a bit sad that it was PurpleQuaver's edits kinda decked the Stability in the GAR, but I understand that they probably weren't aware and it was a genuine mistake on their part. Either way, I think another reason why the article was highly trafficked and very actively edited during the timeframe of the GAR was due to the release of Dune: Part Two. I'm looking at the page views, and the engagement has since then decreased. I think the prose could definitely use some trims however, especially in the Lead. I do agree we are pretty close, but what I think should be done for now is to probably wait for at least a month or two, see if the article is more stable, and then maybe go for a renom soon. I also welcome PurpleQuaver to provide their suggestions and just let bygones be bygones and not drag the GAR thing out any further; what's done is done atp. [[User:Dcdiehardfan|Dcdiehardfan]] ([[User talk:Dcdiehardfan|talk]]) 23:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
::::[[MOS:PLOTBLOAT]] 'Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.' [[User:Jontel|Jontel]] ([[User talk:Jontel|talk]]) 15:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


== Notification of infobox image change proposal at [[Lady Jessica]] ==
{{requested move/dated|Dune: Part One}}


Hi, I'm notifying editors who may he interested in participating in the discussion at [[Talk:Lady_Jessica#Proposed_infobox_image_change]]. Thanks.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
[[:Dune (2021 film)]] → {{no redirect|Dune: Part One}} – Not only is this the film's [[WP:COMMONNAME]], it is also the [[WP:OFFICIAL]] on-screen title from its initial theatrical release. The only argument against not using the 'Part One' subtitle would be that it was not used on the film's poster. Part One and Part Two are both connected to the same book, [[Dune (novel)|''Dune'']]. [[User:ScottSullivan01|ScottSullivan01]] ([[User talk:ScottSullivan01|talk]]) 20:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Comment''' Don't move the page without a consensous to do so. The requested move hasn't even been done properly. The instructions can be [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|found here]].</s> '''Oppose''' per Rusted AutoParts -- [[User:ZooBlazer|<span style="color:red">'''Zoo'''</span>]][[User talk:ZooBlazer|<span style="color:black">'''Blazer'''</span>]] 21:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Objectively just called Dune. [https://www.warnerbros.com/movies/dune Official WB page for the film]. [[User:Rusted AutoParts|<span style="font-family:Rockwell; color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></span>]] 21:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*:Additionally [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dune_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1151130144 discussion was had not a year ago] about this and consensus was to not move it. [[User:Rusted AutoParts|<span style="font-family:Rockwell; color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></span>]] 21:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A movie is not its marketing. Objectively, the movie calls itself '''Dune: Part One''' in the movie's title card from its original theatrical release. [[User:ScottSullivan01|ScottSullivan01]] ([[User talk:ScottSullivan01|talk]]) 21:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*:It was primarily promoted as just Dune, nominated for accolades as just Dune. As highlighted in the previous discussion Star Wars is still just called Star Wars despite the retroactive addition of Episode IV: A New Hope. [[User:Rusted AutoParts|<span style="font-family:Rockwell; color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></span>]] 21:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*::Again, this wasn't a retroactive change. [[User:ScottSullivan01|ScottSullivan01]] ([[User talk:ScottSullivan01|talk]]) 22:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*:::This doesn’t change anything. The only place you see Dune: Part One was in the film, as a means to signify there would be more. All my points of naming still apply. [[User:Rusted AutoParts|<span style="font-family:Rockwell; color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></span>]] 22:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*::::"The only place you see Dune: Part One was in the film"
*::::Well, that's the only place that matters. The onscreen infilm title is Dune Part One, hence that's the title of the film. [[Special:Contributions/95.93.76.177|95.93.76.177]] ([[User talk:95.93.76.177|talk]]) 16:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
*:::::It’s still just Dune. [[User:Rusted AutoParts|<span style="font-family:Rockwell; color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></span>]] 19:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
*::::::IP, do you realize that many, many films have a different title onscreen than the actual title reflected everywhere else? [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 21:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's perhaps counterintuitive, but Wikipedia guidelines necessarily rely on third party reliable sources rather than the primary source, which in this case is the film itself. And certainly when determining the common name, the film is just not commonly referred to as ''Dune: Part One''.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 18:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the common name for the first film is still '''Dune'''.. that is how it is listed on the streaming services, how it was marketed and is still how people refer to the picture. [[User:Spanneraol|Spanneraol]] ([[User talk:Spanneraol|talk]]) 21:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the first film was announced and promoted as '''Dune''', no subtitle. Now this was obviously for promotional reasons because more people would be driven away if they realized it was a two-parted, but still, we aren’t going back and changing '''It''' to '''It: Chapter 1''', the same rule applies to this film. [[User:Zvig47|Zvig47]] ([[User talk:Zvig47|talk]]) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above comments, especially the ''Star Wars'' comparison. We have discussed this before.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 05:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' This can be SNOW closed to avoid wasting the time. The official title of the film is ''Dune'', not ''Dune: Part One'' (I think we've been over this before, or for another film in a similar situation?). It is very, very common for films to display an alternate title onscreen, but we can verify the actual title in the billing block, MPA certificate, copyright office, etc. As for COMMONNAME, it is most definitely "''Dune''" and not "''Dune: Part One''". "''Part One''" can at best be considered a retroactive title, which we don't use on Wikipedia. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 07:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
*:<small>Normally I would give links to lots of examples, sources, and policies, but this is such a clear-cut case and the consensus is so overwhelmingly clear, I am not going to bother unless this discussion goes in the wrong direction later on. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 07:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Oppose'''. Much like ''[[It (2017 film)|It]]'' (2017), the filmmakers and credits may identify it as Part One, and the sequel may outright have “Part Two” in the title, but the initial and official title of the first film is simply, ''Dune''.
:[[User:TropicAces|TropicAces]] ([[User talk:TropicAces|talk]]) 15:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
::Yes absolutely. I inadvertently commented the same thing below, but I support this as well. '''[[User:CNC33|''<span style="color:#b20032;">CNC33</span>'']]<small> ([[User talk:Conman33|. . .talk]])</small>''' 04:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film|WikiProject Film]] has been notified of this discussion. -- [[User:ZooBlazer|<span style="color:red">'''Zoo'''</span>]][[User talk:ZooBlazer|<span style="color:black">'''Blazer'''</span>]] 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Strong Oppose''' per all above. [[User:Trailblazer101|Trailblazer101]] ([[User talk:Trailblazer101|talk]]) 22:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Similarly to how [[It (2017 film)]] was produced as possibly just one movie before the second was greenlit, it should remain ''Dune'' (2021 film). With both movies we somewhat knew a second part was coming, but they were produced as single films just case we didn't. '''[[User:CNC33|''<span style="color:#b20032;">CNC33</span>'']]<small> ([[User talk:Conman33|. . .talk]])</small>''' 04:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per all above. Pretty clear it is not Commonname and on screen titles or even what the production company call a film are not gospel per above examples. [[User:Yeoutie|Yeoutie]] ([[User talk:Yeoutie|talk]]) 23:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose:''' Just like ''[[The Irishman]]'' isn't ''I Heard You Paint Houses''. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Kailash29792|<b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b>]] [[User talk:Kailash29792|<span style="color: black;">(talk)</span>]] </span> 12:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
*:needed to hear that today. lol! [[User:ToNeverFindTheMets|ToNeverFindTheMets]] ([[User talk:ToNeverFindTheMets|talk]]) 17:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:08, 8 June 2024

BoxOfficeMojo gross

[edit]

The figure given for the UK re-release at BoxOfficeMojo[1] is $28,322,437. The figure for the original UK release is $28,804,796.

Clearly it is impossible for the film to have grossed almost the same amount as the original release on a limited re-release. Hopefully this will be corrected on the site at some point. Barry Wom (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a ref for the gross data from TheNumbers has been added. I've commented out the BoxOfficeMojo ref for now, as the figures given there are confusing. Barry Wom (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barry Wom: Box Office Mojo has a pattern of double counting grosses with rereleases. For more info on why and how, see Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 19#Double Counting. In this case, it looks like the UK box office was counted twice. They have corrected the gross for Dune, which is correctly listed as $406 million. I have corrected the gross in the article and commented out The Numbers for now. ~ Rajan51 (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section rewrite

[edit]

@Dcdiehardfan: I reverted this drive-by rewrite of the plot section.[2] I am trying to finish up a GA review and I cannot review an article that changes drastically day to day. Further, the hidden text says not to do this and the user removed that text. Please review their changes and update if necessary. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've failed the GAN. I don't think this should have been nominated since there's no way to review an article that hasn't stabilized to a single version. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor responsible. Apologies for complicating a frustrating, time-consuming GA review process. This reversion seems to be a careless byproduct of that process, and I hope it will be undone with due review of my edit (not by myself); it comes across as an undue effort to preserve stability which stands somewhat at odds with WP:BOLD, not taking into account whether or not the edit genuinely improves the article, and I have never seen such a thing following previous edits of a similar nature. It is not an actual content dispute that can be resolved as a content dispute.
I did not inappropriately remove an invisible comment, as claimed with "the hidden text says not to do [a rewrite of the plot section] and the user removed that text". I found that two copies of the invisible comment ("This wording was agreed upon on the talk page. Please do not change without consensus.") were enclosing as if brackets two words, "distant future", and took this to refer to those two words in conjunction with the AI discussion on the talk page. Perhaps wrongly, I thought this interpretation of the ambiguously worded invisible comment was so intuitive that the second copy of it was superfluous, and so I removed only that copy. It is false to suggest that my edit either deleted the invisible comment or defied it, given its ambiguity. After that, I improved the quality of the plot summary's writing (minor edits), which did need doing, and also remedied a couple of glaring omissions while avoiding bloat. I worked non-destructively and with due reference to (lack of well-defined) consensus and disputes on the talk page. There has been no "drive-by" recklessness or disruptive activity here, and minimal bold ("drastically" done) editing.
This talk page thread fails to assume good faith and is disrespectful, especially given its supplementation with sarcastic comments left on my user talk page, and it flouts WP:OWN with the overly literal, unintuitive interpretation that the invisible comment applies to the entire plot summary, given no evidence that I can see. I am very sorry if there is a convention here that I am unaware of, and, again, I hope my contribution can be vetted seriously, with the insignificant hidden metric that is the article's stability no longer a point of contention. I will engage constructively with or disengage from any real content disputes. PurpleQuaver (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing failing AGF, disrespectful, or sarcastic in anything I wrote here or on your talk page. Since you are somewhat new as you claim, let me give you a bit of advice: focus on the content, not on the personalities. I would also recommend teaming up with User:Dcdiehardfan as fellow collaborators, since you can easily get this to GA status in half the time by working together. And if you're committed to article improvement, you could probably skip the GA process altogether and go to FA. Good luck going forward, as this will likely be my last ever edit to this article. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes to the plot were not an improvement and had some poor sentence phrasing and the introduction of unnecessary detail (to an already complicated plot). I would have also reverted them as well. I would encourage Viriditas to rethink and return to the GA as there has been a lot of good work tidying up the article and I don't think it is far from GA standard imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aszx5000 I would also say the Plot edits by @PurpleQuaver definitely jumped the gun but I think some of the changes were for the better. I'm a bit sad that it was PurpleQuaver's edits kinda decked the Stability in the GAR, but I understand that they probably weren't aware and it was a genuine mistake on their part. Either way, I think another reason why the article was highly trafficked and very actively edited during the timeframe of the GAR was due to the release of Dune: Part Two. I'm looking at the page views, and the engagement has since then decreased. I think the prose could definitely use some trims however, especially in the Lead. I do agree we are pretty close, but what I think should be done for now is to probably wait for at least a month or two, see if the article is more stable, and then maybe go for a renom soon. I also welcome PurpleQuaver to provide their suggestions and just let bygones be bygones and not drag the GAR thing out any further; what's done is done atp. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:PLOTBLOAT 'Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.' Jontel (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of infobox image change proposal at Lady Jessica

[edit]

Hi, I'm notifying editors who may he interested in participating in the discussion at Talk:Lady_Jessica#Proposed_infobox_image_change. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dune_(2021_film)&oldid=1227983096"