Talk:Dune (2021 film)

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

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closing as SNOW with clear consensus for not moving. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

  "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. 95.93.76.177 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  It’s still just Dune. Rusted AutoParts 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? 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.— TAnthony^Talk 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. 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)

Yes absolutely. I inadvertently commented the same thing below, but I support this as well. CNC33 (. . .talk) 04:04, 25 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)
• 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. CNC33 (. . .talk) 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. Yeoutie (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Just like The Irishman isn't I Heard You Paint Houses. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  needed to hear that today. lol! ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Principal photography

The principal photography location list, at the start of the article, lists countries with the exception of Budapest, the capital of Hungary. Perhaps, for consistency, consider replacing Budapest with Hungary. Andreas Toth (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)