Jump to content

Talk:Dune (1984 film): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Elvis (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Poor article...
Line 13: Line 13:


[[User:Elvis|Elvis]] 15:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Elvis|Elvis]] 15:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Poor article... ==

This is a very poor article, in my opinion, on the film. It's less about the factual details of the film (if at all), and more a biased, totally opinionated assessment of the film as an interpretation of the novel, when the sentence "Some have criticized the film as not being wholly accurate to or in the spirit of the novel." would suffice. It seriously needs working on by someone knowledgable about the details behind the film's making and needs to have almost the entirety of the "Review" removed or placed under a different heading as criticism of the film. Just my two cents.

Revision as of 17:07, 13 August 2004

I'm not sure I care for the changes by 130.64.34.233 (splitting the penultimate paragraph into monospaced lines); I think italics could work just as well. Should this be changed back? RcktScientistX 01:05, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • I think this was probably unintentional: he/she used leading spaces to start the paragraphs, and in wiki markup that renders in monospaced type. I think I fixed it: if not, just edit away. - Nunh-huh 01:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kwisatz Haderach

Isn't he? Granted, Paul denies being the Kwisatz Haderach, but later he admits to it. ("I am the Kwisatz Haderach." "Once you denied to me that you were the Kwisatz Haderach." "I can deny nothing any more.") Also, he does (to me) seem to meet the glossary definition, which would seem to be authoritative, regardless of what he claims in the dialogue.

Strictly speaking, I suppose, Paul is *a* Kwisatz Haderach. As is his son, Leto.

it looks like this is an comparison of the movie and the tv-series and not an article about the movie.

Elvis 15:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poor article...

This is a very poor article, in my opinion, on the film. It's less about the factual details of the film (if at all), and more a biased, totally opinionated assessment of the film as an interpretation of the novel, when the sentence "Some have criticized the film as not being wholly accurate to or in the spirit of the novel." would suffice. It seriously needs working on by someone knowledgable about the details behind the film's making and needs to have almost the entirety of the "Review" removed or placed under a different heading as criticism of the film. Just my two cents.