Talk:Dune (2021 film)

Plot explanation

This is a very good plot summary - concise but includes all the key facts needed to understand the story.

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."

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. 78.16.238.146 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@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. 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.— TAnthony^Talk 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. 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. 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.— TAnthony^Talk 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. 78.16.238.146 (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:EGG. 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. 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. 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? 78.16.238.146 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. The Cast section currently does something similar as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Done that now. Thanks for considering. 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.— TAnthony^Talk 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 --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? 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? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree.— TAnthony^Talk 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.— TAnthony^Talk 15:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that works better. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't want to do more without further discussion.— TAnthony^Talk 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. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 @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? 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. -- 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. 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. -- 109.79.166.31 (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: @109.79.166.31 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.

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 (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 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. -- 109.79.164.19 (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@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: 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. 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"[1] 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. -- 109.79.165.74 (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@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 NPOV violation. I looked at the section again and noticed that one additional source was nixed when CEd, and that was the Slate magazine [2] 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. 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. -- 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. 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 "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.[3][4] 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. -- 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. 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. 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. -- 109.79.167.231 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

BoxOfficeMojo gross

The figure given for the UK re-release at BoxOfficeMojo[5] 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)

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)

Requested move 21 February 2024

Dune (2021 film) → 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. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• 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 found here. Oppose per Rusted AutoParts -- ZooBlazer 21:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Objectively just called Dune. Official WB page for the film. Rusted AutoParts 21:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Additionally discussion was had not a year ago about this and consensus was to not move it. Rusted AutoParts 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. 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. Rusted AutoParts 21:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Again, this wasn't a retroactive change. 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. Rusted AutoParts 22:32, 21 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. 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. Zvig47 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above comments, especially the Star Wars comparison. We have discussed this before.— TAnthony^Talk 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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Much like 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.

TropicAces (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. -- ZooBlazer 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per all above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)