Talk:Dune (2021 film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Regarding Sisterhood of Dune?

Currently, under the Future section, there is a paragraph about the prequel series Sisterhood of Dune. A production start date of November 2020 is announced, but I assume this clearly didn't happen presumably due to COVID. I was wondering when and if an article will be created for the series or will this just redirect here? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

There's currently a draft at Draft:Dune: The Sisterhood. The mainspace Dune: The Sisterhood redirects here until production begins and the draft can be moved there. —El Millo (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

If this "clearly didn't happen presumably due to COVID" then why is this sentence still included in the article? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Dune trilogy?

Source: https://www.indiewire.com/2021/08/denis-villeneuve-dune-trilogy-dune-messiah-1234659470/

Per this article by IndieWire, Villeneuve said he wants to make a trilogy including a film adaptation for "Dune Messiah". Should this be added into the article, perhaps as a "potential trilogy"? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Already done by another user. Villeneuve will hopefully be able to complete his planned trilogy of films if the first is successful from a financial standpoint. --SpiritedMichelle (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

On the statement in the lede about criticism

Basically around the content in this diff (though this is not the only diff) [1].

The 2601 editor that is objecting to the statement "The film has received positive reviews from critics..." and instead is rewording that in a way that drops a summary of the review aggregations: there's no original research or anything taking what we know right now to be an 86% score from RT and considering that that represents, as an average "positive reviews". We're not saying the film is notable for positive reviews, but simply that this a quick and dirty way to summarize the reception. We then move into what were some of the clear highlights and the clear detractions by those critics. This is nearly standard practice for any film article, period, outside of cases where the reception is far more complicated to write about (eg Ghostbusters (2016 film)). This is not any type of "fanboy favoritism" going on here. --Masem (t) 13:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but the critical disappointment about Ghostbusters 2016 was note/newsworthy about that film. The critical reaction to this expensive but ho-hum adaptation of Dune is not newsworthy at all. This is why we have a “reception” section, for aggregators like RT and all that. But the lede is only for the most salient parts of summary. And it is not necessary to mention the insignificant unscientific paltry 80% RT pseudo consensus there of sorts.

The “tradition” argument you are making is misleading and actually highlights an ongoing problem with film articles- that they become a place for studio plants and fanboys to engage in corporate spin for movies.

Read this: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/dune-review-round-up-denis-villeneuve-b1914281.html?amp OR go as far back as this https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a37490215/dune-remake-reviews-divided/

Again, even among the sources themselves, it is debatable that the critical consensus is overwhelmingly “positive”. It’s actually divided. Truth is that the reaction is mixed if a qualitative analysis is used. It’s not a football game where you let a lame aggregator add up positive reviews and negative reviews and see who won. lol Which is why Wikipedia actually warns against giving aggregators too much weight as they are not authoritative.

You are right that this sorta thing is a bad habit on Wikipedia, a “tradition” that turns Wikipedia into a running joke as unreliable.

Again, you are willfully being WP:POINTy. Again, the 'point is' that we should only include tidbits in the header that are noteworthy or news-worthy. The critical praise/lack of praise for this is NOT noteworthy. For example, "Dark Knight" was notable for its praise, where the 2016 GhostBusters or the "Last Jedi" was notable for being critically panned, etc. (e.g. What is "note/newsworthy” about this adaptation of Dune is the protest by the filmmakers and actors involved in it over the choice to stream it so early- fearful that it will rob the film of box office $$$).

Again- Wikipedia isn't the place for PR for films, and the critical consensus on this isn't clear yet.

Again- Aggregators like RT and MC are NOT authoratative, per past discussions and debates by seasoned editors. They do not indicate if a movie is a cultural phenom or even a bad movie. Look at "Pulp Fiction", which was a one movie revolution, or even "Star Wars". RT wouldn't be able to gauge that kind impact. Again- Only time and history can tell and this movie is simply not blowing away the audiences like "The Dark Knight" did years ago, or films like it. This is WHY Wikipedia: OR was the line drawn in the sand, warning us against "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Please refreshen yourself on the subject. And sorry, but my soapbox is higher than your horse. 2601:280:F:116E:54E7:1359:87EE:A7D5 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no PR here; this is standard film article practice - how a film was received is implicitly considered why it is notable and is always included in the lede. Yes, those articles you link show there are splits in the reviews, and we cannot not present the negative criticism if we are also presenting the positives at the same time, it is not like there is one or two isolated reviews. This is essential content to make sure we are not ignoring NPOV due to the split reception. But by the review aggregators there are generally more positive reviews than negative reviews such that we can safely call the reception "generally positive" -- not "overwhelmingly positive" (which no one is attempting to do). So the line as given in the lead is a fair capture of the general state of the reviews, what reviewers found good and what reviews found bad.

If the reviews were so split as to be closer to 50-50 good/bad, then we'd have called it out as "mixed reviews" in the lede, but this is not what we have from the aggregators. That's what we base that assessment on. --Masem (t) 15:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

And again, this is why we have a “reception section”. And no one is disputing any of that if you want to include that stuff there. But even the sources themselves are “divided” on whether this film is positively received by the consensus of critics worldwide. For the lede, it serves no purpose other than spin to omit that factual reality. Stick to the reception section please if you need to make that point. The critics are split enough that the lede would mislead the viewer and set the wrong tone if it suggested otherwise. 2601:280:F:116E:54E7:1359:87EE:A7D5 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As for “standard tradition”, only in the sense that in the opening weeks of a big movie that Wikipedia embarrasses itself like this with obvious fanboy (and studio plant) PR spinning that turns these articles into advertisements for these movies. It’s more of a bad habit that some of us frustrated editors are painstakingly working to fix. Keep it simple, factual, verifiable and newsworthy. We are supposed to be like journalists here, and not advocates. Re-read the Wikipedia mission if you forgot this. It goes for film articles as well.2601:280:F:116E:54E7:1359:87EE:A7D5 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It is bad faith to assume that editors are following standard practice to summarize the reception of a film based on aggregators, and how a film is received (or any work of contemporary media) is part of its importance that needs to be covered in the lede. Now I do agree that using early reviews from low-level sources which often are more overtly praising of a film than from more high-level reviewers to build out a review summary is a problem. But I can tell from the reviews listed for RT that nearly all of the major top-level critics in film have spoken out on this, and thus while the RT score can change as the film gets its wider release, I don't expect the RT score to change all that much given what the top-level critics have already said about it (most who have rated it positively). --Masem (t) 16:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no bad faith here, again, considering that no one is disputing that this stuff can be included in the reception section. There is an ongoing problem on Wikipedia regarding movies and politics. It’s not bad faith to point it out. You are being fallacious when you keep pointing out aggregators like RT. Please, then, read the established etiquette about aggregators like RT or MC where you will find warnings about them being NOT authoritative. The fallacy you are in engaging in is called an appeal to authority, a form of triangulation. The sources themselves can’t even decide if Dune is a critical hit or not, proving my point. Even RT’s score isn’t all that impressive compared to other movies. It’s silly and childish to cite “top level super duper critics” in your argument since that is an arbitrary distinction by “Rotten Tomatoes” that has no weight with Wikipedia. (i.e.) Award winning and world renouned critic Owen Gleiberman is about as “top level” as you get and he gave Dune a mixed to negative review. If you like RT that much perhaps you should edit for them. Lol … For now, please be objective. The reception section exists precisely for that kinda contribution and the lede shouldn’t be redundant or misleading in that regard. 2601:280:F:116E:54E7:1359:87EE:A7D5 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is a fantastic essay by my fellow editors that explains the limitations of “Rotten Tomatoes” and aggregators, given that they are misused on Wikipedia by fanboys and POVtrolls to shoehorn misinformation about films into articles: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Review_aggregators 2601:280:F:116E:54E7:1359:87EE:A7D5 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, even better, check out the critical section of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Critical_reception It spells out how aggregators can lead to abuse, by giving “undue weight” to unsubstantiated assertions. 2601:280:F:116E:54E7:1359:87EE:A7D5 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

From the article above, “ Use secondary sources to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today.” Nuff said. 2601:280:F:116E:54E7:1359:87EE:A7D5 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

None of that discourages the careful use of aggregators to summarize the reception of a film, though I agree that it does recommend strong caution when the sample set is small and disproporationate in terms of the types of reviewers it brings in- the problem I alluded to (eg those trailers that spot 4/5-star reviews from publications you've never heard of). But that's not the case here; the cross section of reviews based on the given showing are top tier, and while there can be a chance, this is exactly a good cross sample to work from for including a summary of the reviews. Yes, maybe one or two top critic gave it a low score/review, but it is still the case on average there are far more positive reviews than negative at this time. And yes, assuming we state "generally positive" now, we have to be ready to change this when the film gets a wider release and has 100+ some reviews to consider. --Masem (t) 17:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That's just it. You are not using it "carefully" when applied to the lede, as you are doing here. Again, the etiquette as outlined by the article above is to use "second sources" and to not fall into the trap into assuming that aggregators are some final word or judgement, in other words- they are not authoritative for our purposes here, because they violate the rules about journalistic verifiability as prescribed by Wikipedia. The sources clearly disagree not only among themselves, but with your assertion. It is debatable if Dune is a darling among the critics right now. It's actually dividing them. Maybe in a week or two we will have a better idea where this stands. The TL;DR version: RT isn't proof of anything, and the "reception section" is the place for this speculation, not the lede. 73.95.134.231 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The summary of "generally positive reviews" is coming from the aggregators, and in reviewing what critics are included, given that this includes most of the top level critics, this is not a oddly skewed cross section. Most of the reviews are positive, but there are - as noted by those sources - some that are more critical and we aren't ignoring those negative ones, but they do not change the fact that presently most reviews from top critics are positive per the aggregators. --Masem (t) 17:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

And aggregators themselves, by themselves, are not verifiable sources according to Wikipedia. Please re-read that article on the (often ignored) etiquette about editing film articles. The sources in RT itself are subjective critical reviews. Outside "secondary sources" have reported (for now) that the critical consensus is divided and RT isn't a journalistic source. Again, it is simply an aggregator. What part of that do you not understand? Please stop wasting our time on this nonsense. As others have pointed out, you are being WP:POINTy. 73.95.134.231 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILM: "Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews." that's exactly what we are doing. So no, this is actually allowed and standard practice for all film articles. --Masem (t) 18:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW that advice (" Use secondary sources to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today.") is specifically related to older films - released years ago where the reception from its initial release those years ago may have changed compared to contemporary aspects. That's where we need secondary sources to avoid OR. Eg: that Shawshank Redemption has become one of the top films despite it being a lukewarm critical film at release. That advice doesn't speak to the few months while a film moves from limited to wide-distribution release. --Masem (t) 18:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope, the intent is to suggest that overall we don't let aggregators act as sources, using "older films" as an example how in hindsight, when the hype is over, things are clearer in retrospect. Hence, why verifiable sources is the 'only' standard and source, not aggregators of sources that by themselves are useless. You are actually making my point, that only time and history can tell. For now, there is not a clear consensus in the press about this adaptation of Dune. This isn't like "Star Wars" for which there were lines around the block to see it. Or even "The Dark Knight", which blew away critics and audiences alike. Again, the reception section more than covers this, and the lede has even been simplified to remove "divided" and "divisive". Simply put, some critics like it for similar reasons (the scope and ambition) and others dislike it for similar reasons (it's bad pacing and presumptuous cliffhanger ender). For the last time, this is about the lede, not the "reception section", and your point/contribution is covered sufficiently there. Please move on. 2601:280:3:279D:5D0E:9E5:AAFA:70AB (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I was involved in the discussions related to that section, so I know exactly what it was talking about, you're taking it way out of context. --Masem (t) 18:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

And, there you go again with fallacious appeals to authority, or which you ain't on that debate. Simply put, we shouldn't be swayed by the hype of a tentpole film and feel the need to put positive spins on big movies because of fan worship or studio fear of bad press (i.e. look at the wikipedia drama over "Once Upon In Hollywood", the drama of which actually made it into the press...lol). It is simply dishonest to put it in the lede that this hohum adaptation of Dune is receiving some kind of overwhelming love by the critics. AND, trust me...I get it, you and other editors like to exploit that 'nifty quiet little loophole that RT and MC has created for films you clearly are stoked about' (read: a tradition of violating the rules of Wikipedia that are seldomly enforced until someone like me makes a stink about it). Yes, yes, yes... it's a GREAT loophole that allows biased editors to shoehorn their agenda. But that doesn't mean that- to paraphrase the quote Jeff Goldblum from Jurassic Park- that "Just because we can, we should". You know where I stand, so I'm dipping out. For future reference, please refer to my above words, the essays I listed, or even the veried sources themselves like this one [2] HEADLINE: Dune: Critics divided over Denis Villeneuve’s ‘dazzling’ and ‘boring’ sci-fi adaptation 73.95.134.231 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

First we don't use headlines for sourcing though yes, the description of the reviews being split is still in the body of that article. But the problem is that you are selectively reading a line or two of guidelines and not the whole thing nor the understanding of how these came together, which is why I'm pointing out those flaws in that logic. And here's the other facet is that even looking at RT and only the top critics [3] there are 18 total listed and only 4 that are not considered fresh/positive. By that standard, it is a failure of NPOV to present the reception of the movie as primarily mixed, because it clearly has many more positive reviews than negative (of which we can use RT to source that). We should (and are doing so now) source that there was polarized reviews, most being high, but several on the far opposite end that were very critical of the film, and that's the split reception that we are properly documenting. But overall, the film factually has generally positive reviews, period. We cannot give too much weight to the negative reviews of the film per NPOV though they still need to be covered in proportion to the number of positive reviews. --Masem (t) 19:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the anon. The wiki rule page of sorts she keeps referencing is both cogent, and reasonable, and says the following:

"The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources."

"Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly..."

"Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic...To avoid giving these sites undue weight in such circumstances...This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used."

"Use secondary sources to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today."

It's absurd and unencylopedic to suggest this film is anything more than just another blockbuster struggling at this point. My 2 cents.Makofakeoh (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, you are missing critical parts of the wording of that guideline. The full text relevant to RT or MC (the bolded text key to what you are claiming is important but does not apply to Dune) is "Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (When referencing Rotten Tomatoes, reference the score from All Critics, not Top Critics.) Caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates. Also, the data from these websites is potentially less accurate for films released before the websites existed; therefore, care should be exercised in determining whether to refer to them. To avoid giving these sites undue weight in such circumstances, consider whether it is best to place the data lower in the section." Further "For older films, it is important to distinguish between contemporary critical reception (from reviews published around the time of initial release) and subsequent reception (from reviews made at later dates). Use secondary sources to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today." Again, does not apply to a new film like Dune. Using "generally positive reviews" is not weasel wording. --Masem (t) 21:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Again? Brah, don't confuse me with the anons. And there isn't a consensus in the press one way or another about the critical success or failure for Dune2021 brah. I've seen citations both ways. There is the Wikipedia way, and there is your way. Apparently.

The anon(s) keeps calling you out on WP:OR, and she/he has a point. This 'method' for which you have to determine if a film is successful or not is personal to you, and only you. Wikipedia has its own standards for verifiability. We let the sources speak for themselves, sans our personal analysis. We are armchair reporters, not shills.

No original research, brah, means NO personal analysis:

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)

"The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed".

Your opinion is already represented in the critical reception section. There is no need to advertise it in the intro header.

And not that it should matter but, no offense, it just wasn't that good a film. Jus saying, fanboy. Cheers brah. Makofakeoh (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No personal attacks, period. Second, there is no original research to use what RT or MC has aggregated to come up with a conclusion of "generally positive reviews". Using RT/MC this way is expressly allowed by the same guideline you are quoting to be used as citations for this. It is clear looking at what reviews they have cataloged that most are positive and a few are negative. We need to be clear there are some very divided opinions, which we can use sources like the Independent to state that (that would be original research to call the opinions that divided, but we have sources for that), but using RT to identify the majority are positive are complete within bounds of NOR and MOS:FILM. --Masem (t) 22:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay. And this was addressed and more than covered by the reception section. But this dispute with the anon(s) seems to be about the intro header. Which should be concise, cogent, and matter of fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Introductions This tantrum over including it elsewhere sets the wrong tone for the whole article, and spreads misinformation. Dune2021 isn't some instant critical masterpiece. For now, it's just another movie making the rounds that critics are arguing over. Like the anon said above, "maybe in a few weeks we can see if this movie is the hit you hope it is". Not worth all this fuss and edit warring. Learn to compromise. Later. Makofakeoh (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Makofakeoh: I'd advise you to do without the ad hominem, personal attacks, and the sarcastic "brah" if you want a discussion to be kept civil. it just wasn't that good a film, you haven't seen it, almost no one has, and most likely Masem hasn't seen it either. If you see WP:OR, say explicitly what it is, use diffs, cite statements, etc., because citing Rotten Tomatoes isn't original research. —El Millo (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm from Hawaii, and it is meant as a term of friendliness.Makofakeoh (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I know what it means, but its use was clearly sarcastic, as your words weren't precisely friendly. Quite the opposite. —El Millo (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record, it wasn't meant as sarcastic at all. So don't put words in my mouth. And disagreeing with someone who is being disruptive, and pushing a POV agenda in violation of WP:NPOV isn't exactly going to make a lot "of friends" around here. Wastes everyone's time, which is par for the course. If you examine his/her talk page, you will find he's been warned about being disruptive like this before. Anywho. It's water under the bridge. Let it go. I shared my 2 cents. Moving on. So should you. Cheers. Makofakeoh (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You're still assuming bad faith. What I've been arguing is 100% in line with NPOV policy because summarizing RT in the lead with "generally positive reviews" while addressing that there is some split reviews is neutral. Making is seem like there are equal amounts of positive and negative reviews is violating NPOV because that's not true. --Masem (t) 23:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What the anonymous IPs and other editors are saying is that there are several news sources saying otherwise, saying that critics “are divided”. And even if it is tradition to bend the rules and give undue weight to aggregators like RT we really shouldn’t unless it compliments the sources. An aggregator doesn’t trump or override actual reputable sources that don’t verify or corroborate your assertion. 2601:280:2:19E1:C88A:91F5:A25B:9850 (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

A film can have "generally positive reviews" and still have reviews that "are divided" - these are not conflicting points. Normally film reviews cluster like standard distribution around a review score, but Dune here clearly has a binomial distribution (lots of high scores, and fair number of low scores). --Masem (t) 01:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s opened at one film festival overseas. It’s not even in wide release. That’s hardly a critical consensus. We need to wait until it actually opens so most critics get a crack at this, not the elites. 96.75.103.41 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, except the SPI was essentially "declined", for the kneejerk bad-faith nonsense that it was. Nice try with the WP:GAMING tactic. Can't get what you want, so you try to ban a bunch of users, eh? Users who didn't even know what a meatpuppet was until you tantrumed about it. No one was deliberately trying to game this, except maybe you. Better luck next time. Peace out. Makofakeoh (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

At the same time, assuming that it truthfully was a group of new editors unaware of how WP functions, coming together to work to challenge standard practice for how RT/MC reviews are used to summarize critical reception of films is problematic. If they truly wanted chance, they should have done that at the Film Wikiproject (WT:FILM) or at the MOS for film articles MOS:FILM. Challenging one film and being coy about motivations is very suspicious from our side too, and the constant edit warring as a group also did not help. --Masem (t) 12:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope, the SPI case is still very much open, although the open admission pretty much sums that up. I wouldn't ask for any additional action, but continuing with uncivil behavior and casting aspersions may be begging. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

As a note: headlines of articles are not considered part of reliable sources and cannot be used to justify material, eg the wording "divisive" from [4] cannot be included that way as it only appears in the headline. See WP:HEADLINES --Masem (t) 17:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not about winning. Let's look at the DS source more closely. It sampled the following 6 reviews:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can start by eliminating the sources that only muddy the waters for no good reason. I have only reviewed the DS source, which was brought up in recent discussion. Perhaps there are others as well, or perhaps the others are legit. Either way, we should scrutinize the sources we allow in, and a passing mention of divisiveness (not even made correctly) doesn't do the article justice and verges on WP:POVPUSH. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

See also

I added a "See also" heading for the film Dune (1984 film). It was knee-jerk reverted by Facu-el Millo. What needs to be remembered is that many readers are now using hand-held devices and the mobile site needs to be accommodated. Some users/readers will be visually impaired, and the TOC will be read out aloud by screen readers.

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. A "See also" section is not mandatory—some high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one.

...editorial judgment and common sense (emphasis added). I know what the guidance: is "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." This was considered.

This article is TLDR, IMO, and mention of the 1984 film is buried in a mass of prose. For the same reasons, multiple wikilinks in different headed sections may also be helpful. I will ping Graham87 for his comments.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

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

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

Music section

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

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

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

"Expected" in Critical Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism in the intro section?

Should criticism from movie reviewers really be in the introduction? I'm referring to "but was criticized for its slow pacing and abrupt ending" specifically. The film for the most part has received overwhelmingly positive reviews; it's a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes and 75 on MC. It sort of gives the impression that the film opened to mixed reviews by having it in the introduction. Overall, it's a small minority who said this so I'm not quite sure why we need this here? I think that's what the "critical response" section is for. I feel like we only have this here to appease the small vocal minority of detractors. Miss HollyJ (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

See earlier on this page, we're waiting for the film's wide release to then summarize in the lede because people were complaining when we were only going off a film festival's release. It will be there eventually. --Masem (t) 18:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(I'll add that as I predicted, the scores only went up as more reviews had filtered in, so those that were complaining that we were too early were probably wrong in their fears) --Masem (t) 18:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Masem:: Well, the summary statement we discussed holding off on was added to the lead sometime in the last week or so. I trimmed it up recently, as it was way off base in regard to the film's positive reception, but in doing so I left the criticism portion in. Looks like an IP editor just removed it.

I'm not opposed to its removal, but it's worth noting that even in reviews deemed positive by RT, the pacing and abrupt break in the story is often criticized. This analysis is supported in refs 110 and 111, which are the only summary citations we have in the article outside of RT and MC. One could make a convincing case that it needs to be retained based on that fact, though as HollyJ suggests, there's probably a better way to phrase the entire sentence so that it doesn't look like the positive and negative criticism was an even split. The trick is to do it in such a way as to avoid weasel words like "some critics". Open to suggestions (or we can simply leave it out until it's challenged). I have a feeling this is going to be a contentious area for some time to come. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

What should be done, and likely after the wider release, is look to see how many of the reviews (which should be 100+) now talk about the pacing and the like, and if only 3-4 talk about pacing issues, then that's definitely UNDUE in the lede. It was reasonable when we were at 40 reviews from RT. --Masem (t) 12:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree that once the wider release hits, refs 110 and 111 will likely become outdated and irrelevant (or maybe that's happened already); they'll need to be replaced with something more recent or simply removed altogether. What happens at that point should have a direct impact on this discussion and whether any negative criticism is WP:DUE in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Recognizing that a consensus has more or less been reached, and not wanting to upset that, it's worth noting that Dune is long past a mere "film festival release." The film's had its wide release in over 30 countries, and it will have its release in several more countries this weekend, including the 2nd and 7th most populous countries in the world. When we say we're waiting until "wide release," do we specifically mean U.S. wide release? - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 02:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The "wide release" being referenced here is in regard to English-speaking territories and in the context of critical reviews. The bulk of that portion of the release will happen on 10/21 and 10/22 (UK, New Zealand, Canada, US, etc), and as we inch closer to those dates, more reviews (in English) should start pouring in. We're getting very close to reaching that point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Movie states the year is 10191. If anyone has an issue feel free to reply Triosdeity (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been discussed, see this RFC EditorInTheRye (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@EditorInTheRye: That was for a different date that was calculated by a user. The film clearly states the year 10191. One user stated not to add it unless it was stated in the movie, and it is stated so surely its valid? Triosdeity (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Even if directly given by the film, does that really help the general reader compared to something like "far in humanity's future"? --Masem (t) 13:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it gives perspective to any general viewer not familiar with the source material. --SpiritedMichelle (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Masem Except the film never says "far in humanity's future", it says 10191. Triosdeity (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding part 2

NOT a reliable source for this [5] but that means to start watching for RSes that may be affirming that Part 2 has been greenlit. Do not add until we have that. --Masem (t) 01:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Budget versus Break-even

The article states, "Deadline Hollywood reported that a total box office gross of $300 million "will make many happy from an image-standpoint, even if breakeven is far north of that." However, the summary section states the budget is $165 million. How can break-even be more than $300 million if the budget was only $165 million? 73.146.6.14 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Budgets rarely include the marketing and promotional part spent by the distributor (WB in this case). So between the $165M production costs and the ~$135M advertising, the film would need to net $300M to make all parties that spent money come out even. --Masem (t) 01:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the studio's cut is traditionally around 50-55% of the total box office gross (pre-COVID anyway). Theaters get a cut from each ticket sold, and the percentage that goes to the studio will vary depending on the country/territory it is being shown in. They get higher cuts from US and European markets and less of a cut in other markets such as China. So they typically multiply the total budget by 2 to find the box office gross needed to break even, which may be even higher than that number due to unannounced marketing costs as Masem points out and/or if they use a third-party distributor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Completed plot when?

When would it be appropriate to add a complete overview of the plot with spoilers and everything? --SpiritedMichelle (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It has been out in a enough public venues in Europe and other places that it would be reasonable, but keeping in mind that if it follows close enough to the book, it may not be needed since we can point back to the book. --Masem (t) 22:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No. It would not be appropriate. The purpose of this article is specifically for the film as it is presented. The plot summary is incomplete on purpose because the filmmakers choose to make the film that way. The book and 1984 film provide a complete overview should a person desire to learn more. - Gorba (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Title?

Well, a few million more people have seen this film in the last 24 hours, and when I saw it, the title screen most definitely read "Dune Part One". I'm just ttaking the temperature here, if there seems to be interest in changing the article title to match I'll open a formal requested move. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I went to the theater to see it yesterday and was surprised to see the title as "Dune Part One" in the opening. Every article I see about the movie it's just referred to as "Dune." I think the status quo is perfect, with the "titled onscreen as Dune: Part One" in parentheses. Incerto501 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we'll have to relook if/when the sequel is greenlit, but until there is 100% affirmation of production on the sequel (per WP:NFF), having this as "Dune (2021 film)" is fine. If the sequel is made, then we can talk "Dune: Part One" and "Dune: Part Two" (ala Kill Bill) to avoid naming conflicts, assuming they don't otherwise subtitle the sequel something weird. --Masem (t) 18:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We should use It as a template because the film is split into two parts. The first film is called It (2017 film) and the second is called It Chapter Two. The 2017 It film does not call itself "It: Part One," so we should stick with what the film calls itself on-screen, namely: Dune: Part One. Therefore I think it is okay to omit the year here and simply call it "Dune: Part One." We should create another page for "Dune: Part Two" similar to "It Chapter Two" whenever it is greenlit. - Gorba (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The thing is though we'd still have to keep the year to distinguish it from the 1984 Lynch version and to some extent the 2000 version even though though it was a miniseries I think. With It (2017) it makes sense to include the year to help distinguish that film from I.T. (2016) and It! (1967), as well as the 1990 miniseries. Also it's not a guarantee that there will be a Dune: Part Two even though things are looking good (https://deadline.com/2021/10/dune-matrix-sopranos-sequels-hbo-max-theatrical-model-1234859504/). Are any big entertainment sources calling it Dune: Part One? It seems like Villeneuve tacked that subtitle into the opening credits to help get fans on his side and start a social media campaign if WB is wavering on a sequel. Kind of a "Just a reminder, this is only half the story, folks!" type thing. Incerto501 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, at this point, we can only speculation, and we'll have to see how it all shakes out. (Critics are noting the "Part One" subtitle but aren't considering that part of the title in bulk). But I definitely think right now, it would be far too premature to call this article "Dune: Part One", as "Dune" clearly meets WP:COMMONNAME, and we have to have disambiguation in place. --Masem (t) 00:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Although the title onscreen is Dune:Part One we should follow notablity rules which is that the film is commonly referred to as Dune so I don't think we should change it. If in the future it is referred to as part one in sources then the title change should be fine deity 12:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this although Dune 2 now has a release date[6] so I imagine "Dune Part One"/"Dune 1" will gradually become the common name for the film. Incerto501 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Title stylization?

Would it make sense to add a "stylized as ⊃⋃⋂⊂" (or possibly ⊃⋃⋂⪽?) at the beginning of the article along with the "titled onscreen as Dune: Part One" bit? I know it's a common practice on Wikipedia pages whose subjects use nonstandard capitalization, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate in this case. Just something I was thinking about after seeing a few folks online jokingly refer to the film as "DUNC". Lukebee (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not a stylization, that's just a font choice. --Masem (t) 19:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

I would like to include critics' complaints about the lack of Middle East and North African (MENA) representation in the film and its creative space, seeing as the original work and the film were directly inspired by MENA cultures. Here are the sources:

https://english.alaraby.co.uk/features/dune-escaping-realm-cinematic-arab-subversion

https://www.polygon.com/reviews/22733349/dune-review-denis-villeneuve-timothee-chalamet

https://slate.com/culture/2021/10/dune-2021-movie-vs-book-white-savior-islam.html Spiderswarz (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

See the section above, we are considering a section but there's a right way to approach it to acknowledge what changes were purposely made. Because of the sensitivity of this topic, it doesn't make sense to rush to include, as well as making sure we're using the best sources for it. --Masem (t) 01:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderswarz: Your suggestion is a good one, but the article won't be unprotected so you can edit it. Feel free to propose the section you want to add on this talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Lack of Arab representation in the cast

The plot of the books, and consequently the film, draws heavily on Arab and Islamic culture, to the point were almost all the non-English terms and names are in Arabic, as well as key mythology. Therefore it has been criticised that at there are no Arab actors in the film, even though the "Fremen" are basically Arabs in space. This issue has been covered in multiple sources[7][8][9][10][11], so should be notable enough to include here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

None of those seem like reliable or expert RSOPINION sources, outside of the SyFy Wire one. There may be more after the US release, but if this is all there is for now, this would not be appropriate to include per UNDUE. --Masem (t) 23:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That was just a sample (and I disagree, many of them would pass RS), there are many other reviews and articles that cover this in RS:[12][13][14] The point is this looks very much like an oversight in the article, and you don't have to look very hard to find reliable sources that cover it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at these sources: The Independent calls it "It’s a small, but noticeable chip in the paint when it comes to Dune" related to the lack of such casting. The Week and The Nerdist have literally one line on this, nowhere enough to bring that to the forefront. Also, its a bit odd to use the 2019 SyFy opinion piece about the unreleased film as the primary source for this. (Also, Medium is a outlet for anyone to publish their own opinion, so it is absolutely NOT a realiable source). So yes, at this point, this is a very minor point that is worth keeping an eye out for more sources to see if it surpasses UNDUE but if this is all we have, we'd be pushes a WP:RGW-type issue here with its inclusion. --Masem (t) 23:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a criticism brought up independently by multiple reviews, and while not necessarily covered in depth by said reviews, I don't see why that should even be necessary when the same issue is raised repeatedly. Anyhow, now the issue has been raised here for other editors to evaluate, and I'm sure it will become more conspicuous once the second film comes out. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I have yet to see this become a controversy, but if it does, it requires reliable sources to discuss it in the article. Trillfendi (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "controversy", it's a criticism raised in multiple reviews by such outlets as The Independent, The Week, Nerdist, Syfy, Medium.com, etc., which are all reliable sources. Again, more could easily be found, this is just what I found through a quick search. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Be bold and add it in yourself. Triosdeity (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Not without some sort of consensus. I can sense it would just lead to a pointless edit war, hence this discussion first. But I just want to make clear again, multiple reviews published by reliable outlets have made the same critique independently of each other, that alone would warrant inclusion already at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I support the addition either way. It's well within the Wikipedia guidelines, as long as you cite the reliable sources. Triosdeity (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There hasn't been enough controversy or media coverage to warrant adding such a section. As such, Editors should not add it to the article. - Gorba (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

To add, when I was doing some news searching and reading, I do think a section on lack of MENA rep is appropriate with more recent source, but I really think that before adding it, consider looking anything, ideally from Denis or scriptwriters, on how they were trying to shift the film away from some of the arabic aspects. (eg a big thing that I can't see a strong source for but all over weaker RSes and forums is the omission of "jihad", and in place using "crusade", with the speculation that in today's post-9/11 world, "jihad" would be a bad thing to focus on, but that's just part of trying to shift away from arabic influences and using MENA actors). There's something there, but haven't found a definitive source yet, but again, we just got the wide release so more may come soon. --Masem (t) 14:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Any discussion of this needs to be NPOV and also not be original research. Alaney2k (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that all of the Fremen actors are non-white. [15]. So clearly Villeneuve has changed the context. At some point I think there will be discussion of ethnicity in this and subsequent films. Alaney2k (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Here [16] for example is a good article to try to rationalize why Denis V. make the change, discussing in depth that Herbert did base Dune on Islamic principles but which today may have problems. This is the type of framing that would be good to have around "the film was criticized for lack of MENA casting", though still would be nice to have a statement from Denis or others on the film to explain exactly why rather than critical speculation. --Masem (t) 22:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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

And yet another piece [18] which also gets some of the screenwriter's comments why they veered way. (This is not only about casting but pulling away from Islamic/Arab terms). --Masem (t) 04:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes - *entirely* agree - seems the recent ref is a well detailed and considered presentation of the issue - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added a section on the lack of MENA casting as well as the white savior narrative using these more recent and better sources. --Masem (t) 13:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2021

The reception part references an article from slant Magazine challenging that dune is a white savior story. I don't know who in their right minds decided to put that article because of the lack of that writers understanding of dune and the subsequent novel dune messiah. But there exists literally a book which shows that Paul Atriedes is no messiah, no god. There are no saviors in dune there cannot be. This article and it's shallow take on dune's rich philosophical theme is abomination towards the source material and it's inclusion on the Wikipedia page is absolutely useless. Everyone who's read dune know it's not a white savior story or a savior story in any way. Period. 2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:6806:DEF3:6A55:A636 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There is sufficient criticism that Dune is a white savior story, and the fact that Villieneu actually addresses how he approached it (why it is a criticism of the white savior narrative) makes it relevant to this article. --Masem (t) 01:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Second time making an edit request. The Slant Magazine writers narrative and cherry picked inferences on original source material dune and dune messiah isn't enough to label the novels as white savior story. How can a story be called a savior story when there is really no savior in the end? The writer ends his take on dune by saying even though paul destroys what he builds we come out of it as a coming of age story. Which is his interpretation of dune and dune messiah. But the philosophical themes of dune messiah aren't that shallow. Countless other reviewers of the original dune and dune messiah have lauded frank herbert for making dune a cautionary tale about there being no saviors. So why does Wikipedia for the sake of being politically correct wants to include one persons interpretational opinions over thousands of reviews of dune messiah book that already exist out there who have stated the fact that dune can never be a savior story of any sort. It's the anti thesis of it. This absolutely mockery of herberts original work written by people who have no interest in understanding the deeper philosophical themes of the proposed "fictional" world. 2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:6806:DEF3:6A55:A636 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources and not the personal opinions of individual editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

21st Century Sensibility

The subject of adding female characters is a valid one, but calling it "21st Century Sensibility" definitely creates a bias. I don't entirely feel comfortable changing it yet, but I would recommend it be changed. -- Mentor397 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the wording a bit. "21st century" wasn't tied to anything quoted, just that in the 50+ years things have changed, and that's definitely a part addressed in the sources. -- Masem (t) 21:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I... don't want to seem like I'm arguing whether I think it should be changed - I don't, really, but rather, that I don't think Wikipedia should seem to have an opinion one way or another. We/they/it should report the facts, but refrain from judging, if that makes sense. It might not. I'm not explaining it very well -- Mentor397 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Just say "female characters"--96.246.161.214 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Spoilers? Right in the "Cast" section? Seriously??

It may be unbelievable to some, but, some people are actually encountering Dune for the first time ever via this 2021 movie.

Does there seriously need to be a spoiler right there in the CAST section which should be perfectly safe and spoiler free??

   Zendaya as Chani, a young Fremen woman and Paul's love interest. Daughter of Dr. Liet-Kynes.

I just saw the movie last night for the first time ever and despite not being able to make out about half the dialog, I'm quite sure this was not revealed, but is now spoiled simply because I wanted to know who one of the actors was and thought I could trust Wikipedia to not have SPOILERS around such simple information.

Polaris75 (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a movie review site, it explicitly does contain spoilers with no spoiler warnings. The movie actually contains several spoilers on the book, it is not at first clear that Liet and Kynes are the same person, and it certainly isn't clear until rather late in the novel that the Sadukar come from Salusa Secundus, but they just trot both things right out in the open like it's no big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Their parent/child relationship is in the book, and it may be in the next film, but it's not in this film, so including it in this article would be speculation. I agree it should be removed. Smyth (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree- I removed it. Staecker (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Now that I think about it, Chani mentions that her great aunt gave her a chrysknife. That may turn out to be what they go with. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Polaris75 you are right on several levels but you cannot even mention spoilers anymore because the guideline WP:SPOILER have been misinterpreted by some as an excuse for all kinds of bad behavior, poor writing, and including things in the wrong place, or in this case of including unsourced information in the cast section. (I don't think this fact about her parentage was even mentioned in the first book, it certainly wasn't in this film.)

Also it is terribly reductive to describe any character as a "love interest". It is not a good description of Chani because even though Paul is having visions of her, it describes his perspective not hers. -- 109.78.202.228 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I like the new wording. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a relief, nice of you to say so.[19] There's probably someone who will argue that it is original research to call her "mysterious" and someone else might still disagree with description of a twenty-five year old as a "young woman" and say it is subjective (in some cultures 25 would be old). I expect it will be mercilessly rewritten sooner or later but I can only hope it will be an improvement. So long as it is concise and relevant to this film and doesn't say silly things like "love interest" it should be fine. -- 109.78.202.157 (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

HCA Film Awards

Can someone add the HCA Film Awards nominations? Dune leads the ranking with ten nominations.--88.27.205.205 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The article was not locked you could have made the edit yourself but please make sure to use reliable sources and not WP:FANSITEs. Someone went ahead and added it.[20] -- 109.78.202.157 (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

White Savior Criticism

Not at all any personal opinions of a book reader but here’s an article that deconstructs the complete criticism of the argument that dune and dune messiah are white savior stories or savior stories in general. Cherry picking individual criticism for the new movie is not done as the issue has been raised several times since Herbert first released dune. There’s extensive rebuttal in the following article with enough sources, comments from Herbert, counter arguments etc. about dune, dune messiah not being white savior or a savior story in any way. The argument is much more complicated than that.

https://hdernity.medium.com/dunes-not-a-white-savior-narrative-but-it-s-complicated-53fbbec1b1dc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:4c3:bba0:70b8:e518:8c80:4a24 (talk) 02:47, 2 November, 2021 (UTC)

The nature of Dune (the novel) being a white savior novel has been discussed in reliable sources multitude of times, and we're not changing anything based on one Medium piece (which is not a reliable source). That said, the way I had included it presumed it was factually a white savior narrative which I have changed to be one claimed by some. But it is impossible to ignore this, it comes up easily enough in the criticism and Villeneu directly discussions how he approached this aspect in his film, so it absolutely belongs. --Masem (t) 03:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You didn’t even read the article did you? The article is not the source but it’s secondary sources which is FRANK HERBERT himself deconstructing this notion of his material being labelled white savior. So now for you random editors the writer of the goddamn novels is unreliable as well? Well enjoy your little agenda to mention useless critiques when literally the complete community of dune fans know dune can never be a white savior or a savior Story in anyway. “ A White Savior film is often based on some supposedly true story. Second, it features a nonwhite group or person who experiences conflict and struggle with others that is particularly dangerous or threatening to their life and livelihood. Third, a White person (the savior) enters the milieu and through their sacrifices, as a teacher, mentor, lawyer, military hero, aspiring writer, or wannabe Native American warrior, is able to physically save—or at least morally redeem—the person or community of folks of color, by the film's end.”

Now that is the textbook definition of a white savior story and it’s been refuted countless times that nothing of that sort happens in dune, dune messiah. ITS LITERALLY ITS CRITIQUE. How can you people be so uninformed about the source material before editing its Wikipedia page. Frank Herbert has become an unreliable source for his own story, god what has modern Wikipedia come to.

Also edit novel was “considered” as grammatically correct to “consider” if that’s all you gonna edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:70B8:E518:8C80:4A24 (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Please learn to indent your comments and sign them as per WP:TPG, or else that could be considered a form of disruptive editing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not knowing your ways 2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:70B8:E518:8C80:4A24 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Herbert may state he wasn't writing a white savior narrative, but it is still the case that today, Dune the novel as well as this film and Lynch's film are seen by some to be a white savior narrative, even taking into account what Herbert said (hence why important to phrase it not as a fact). The issue is coupled with the fact that most see the Fremen as inspired by Middle Eastern culture (and thus the lack of MENA casting), and in this film, that casting was replaced with African-American and other non-white actors, which appears to some critics to further the white savior concept. We are going by what RSes have said about this, not what passionate fans of the novels have concluded. --Masem (t) 05:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well then I don’t want to explain anything else here. Go by whatever credible or incredible sources you like to put even if the criticism is written by people who judge dune as just dune and not dune messiah included which clearly shows Paul’s descent to madness and in turn peril of the fremen. No one was saved, no one was redeemed and no one became a god. It’s sad that deep philosophical themes of frank Herbert have boiled down to this. Also the MENA issue and Herbert borrowing things from Islamic culture to base fremen is again a different argument. He technically based them on San people as well (people from Southern Africa, but I don’t see calls for southern African representing here? Technically tho jamis’ character was played by a native African, and you can only include as many in an international cast. People are telling frank Herbert who he based fremen on is just again idiotic as he stated it’s based on Bedouin, northern African and san from Southern Africa. And their religious themes on Buddhism and zen. The whole concept of MENA representation is written by people who don’t even know the fremen culture and their inspirations in the first place. The argument is put up just because of Arabic influenced names that’s all, so do more research which is there on Wikipedia itself not anywhere else before introducing sources who lack this critical information for their butthurt reviews), but regardless it is futile to have this conversation when one cannot understand the basic fact that you cannot call anything a savior story when nothing is saved in the end. So no matter how uninformed the reviews or these criticisms might be on source material and trying to really understand its philosophies, Wikipedia insures that their stupid and uninformed opinions are deemed to be highlighted against pure facts. Which I think is an absolute waste of space and Inturn results in more people drawing these uninformed conclusions without even finishing the second book. So yeah go in with their trusted sources.2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:BD88:4EDA:678E:6D5B (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The goal is to present opposing views with due weight and let the reader investigate for themselves. We, as editors, are not here to take sides and proclaim one view to be more correct than another. See WP:RGW. Now if it can be backed by reliable sources that one view is in the extreme minority compared to another, then we can adjust the coverage to reflect that, but we are strictly limited to what's being portrayed in the sources. Also keep in mind that the author's intention can be very different from the way the work was received. We should cover both, as any well-informed reader would want to be aware of the significant viewpoints, even when they contradict. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has read Dune Messiah here. And that’s the problem. “One view is extreme minority compared to another”, the answer and the most credible source is the second book itself. There’s no savior story in a white savior argument yet people want to weigh in on opinions? Go read your definition of “white savior story” then go read the complete second novel and tell me how does the book fulfill the white savior definition in first place. You don’t need any sources, opinions or interpretations to Logical arguments. No savior, no white savior Story. It’s as simple as that.2A02:908:4C3:BBA0:BD88:4EDA:678E:6D5B (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is a strict policy against original research, which includes interpretations and analysis of published material. That's not our role as editors on Wikipedia. As I linked to in my last post, which you should definitely read, we follow the sources. And the sources in this case are those that do the interpretations and analysis for us. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Trying to edit this article based on what one reads in Dune Messiah would be a problem. I wonder if someone has bothered to call Leto II a white saviour. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

He's more of a worm savior. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

SJWs have to ruin everything. Just enjoy the movie. Already trying to get it cancelled because too many white people liked it I see. Colliric (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Colliric, please note that Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for you to post your personal opinions per WP:FORUM. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure I apologize. I got too upset. Won't happen again. Colliric (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Plot summary

I watched this last night and the plot summary is not completely accurate.

I'm going to make a few changes and note them here.Aspenguy2 (talk)

Kynes, cornered by Sardaukar troops, lures a sandworm to devour them along with her. No, this isn't a true description. Kynes escapes down a different tunnel and is then found by 3 Sardauker assassins and knifed. She rolls down the dune, followed by the Sardaukar. Kynes then lures a sandworm to devour them all. Minor addition adding info about the carryall failing. Current plot summary is 657 words.Aspenguy2 (talk)

Who's speaking here. This is confusing? - Gorba (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Plot summaries need to stay concise, and there is no reason to describe things scene by scene. As soon as one starts nitpicking and inserting smaller details, that's when we get plot bloat. --Masem (t) 16:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

They need to stay concise and accurate. "They" didn't spot the sandworm, Leto did. Kynes merely confirmed it with binoculars. So, how does changing "They" to "Leto" make it less concise? It actually makes the summary more accurate. You can't get too much plot bloat because the plot summary is already approaching the 700 word max.Aspenguy2 (talk)

Also, Kynes wasn't "cornered". Cornered means "trapped" and in this context, someone had to corner her and that is not what the scene shows. The scene explicitly shows that Kynes thought she could escape until the Sardauker puts a sword through her back. So, the use of "cornered" is an inaccurate description of the scene. It's not nitpicking, it's using the right words to describe the scene.Aspenguy2 (talk)

How is this accurate? - "disguised" Sardaukar troops - How were they disguised? You can clearly see by the different armor that there are Harkonnen troops and Sardauker troops. How were they "disguised"?Aspenguy2 (talk)

It is REALLY annoying when people revert plot edits without discussing and justifying why my edits were incorrect. My edits to the plot made the plot summary more accurate which is the goal of any edits. I'm not adding any plot summary points, I'm correcting the plot summary. So instead of responding to my points, Masem simply reverted the edits because their opinion was it was "plot bloat". 03:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenguy2 (talk • contribs)

Year of setting

The first line of the plot summary says "in the year 10191". This is misleading, though admittedly because the title card itself is misleading; on screen it just says "Year 10191". Problem is, they don't use our calendar system: it's not the Anno Domini system, so it's not "10191 AD" but "10191 AG" - After Guild. The Appendix to the novel actually explains that it's closer to around 20,000 years in the future. By stating "in the year 10191" the article implies that it's "the year 10191 AD" when they never claim that. Maybe it needs a footnote?--96.246.161.214 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to just say something like "in the distant future" rather than providing a specific year, or else just remove it entirely and start with "Duke Leto". The exact year is not relevant to understanding the basic plot. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The date is only mentioned at the start and plays zero role throughout the whole movie. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 08:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

In that case I argue it should be cut, if only based on "concision" to keep the word count lower.--96.246.161.214 (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't make the assumption that movie and novels will have the same "universe". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it's in the same universe. But it's not illogical to think things like dates will be based on the novels. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Not illogical, but at this point OR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the year should be added back, as it informs the reader that the film is set in the far future (and not in the present day). I don't think In the year 10191 is misleading at all, as it follows the film's on-screen title card word for word and does not violate WP:OR. Still, I would be fine with In the distant future as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone removedrestored (I'm too tired, misread it) the year.[21] It not a plot detail I would consider essential but it does help set the scene in a concise way, so I get that some editors might want to add it back again. -- 109.78.205.154 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I somehow managed to misread that earlier diff, in any case User:Wallyfromdilbert has again removed the year from the plot section. It is difficult to argue against any delete when WP:FILMPLOT recommends brevity. -- 109.79.165.40 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert, would you be opposed to restoring the In the distant future line? I do believe this is relevant to the plot as it informs readers that this film is set in the far future rather than the present day. Some examples of film articles which state its far-future setting: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no issue with saying "in the far future", which implies significant human advancement. --Masem (t) 02:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus, no opposition from me. I think the "far future" suggestion by Masem is a good one as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added it in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how and when this happened, but it looks like someone added back the year? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022

Change $399,4 million to $399.4 million JackieDon (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dune_%282021_film%29&type=revision&diff=1070520791&oldid=1070507231 Cannolis (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Time to split the awards list?

The list of the various accolades this film has received has grown quite lengthy – it's currently over 150 awards by my count, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it grow a little more still. It's certainly on par with many of the lists seen in Category:Lists of accolades by film, and several films from this year have already split their awards lists, including The Power of the Dog, Belfast, and West Side Story. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes please. As a matter of readability I hate these tables and cannot wait to see it removed and a short bit of prose added instead, {{Table section needs prose}}. As a matter of Wikipedia policy I vaguely recall there is some recommended size it should be before a split happens but a split definitely will happen sooner or later, so either go ahead and just do it already or if you want to be cautious start a Draft first and wait a little longer for approval. -- 109.78.200.28 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo: from $400 to $691.5

The taking shown in Box Office Mojo has suddenly changed from $400 to $691.5. It is right?--88.27.205.207 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the box office results of previously unreported countries have been added.Bullenwächter (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Can someone confirm "with sources" that the collection is wrong? The latest editions of certain users take it for granted, but do not prove it with sources.--88.27.205.240 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it a coincidence that the total it suddenly jumped by is about what you'd get from multiplying the recorded international totals by 2? 2400:4150:7AE0:3F00:2C24:CF86:3E21:B8DB (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That is speculative. Anyway, if it was a bug, Box Office Mojo would have fixed it by now, and it's not. In addition, I have seen that several journalistic publications already consider the $691.5 to be valid and include it in their articles.--88.27.205.251 (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo upgrade: $400.1.--Xabier (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Named refs?

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

Whether or not an article uses the "list-style" reference (where all the references get ganged up with names like I think you mean) or remain inline is a style choice set by the first author of the article, per WP:CITEVAR. If there is consensus to swap to list-style from inline, that can be done, but it is definitely not a requirement set by the film project. --Masem (t) 12:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I assume you're thinking of Marvel/DC film articles. List-defined references have long been the standard on MCU articles, and this has since spread to some other comic book films because they're mostly edited by the same group of editors. But like Masem said, this by no means a requirement for film articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Critical reception summary in lead

We can speak on this in more depth on the article talk page if needed, but wanted to let you know I restored the previous phrasing in this edit. Ref #'s 116 and 117 are sources that estimate overall reception, and both focus on Villeneuve's adaptation and directorial style/execution. Based on those two sources alone, it should be enough to warrant this in the lead, but there's also source # 123 which explicitly states this as well. "Ambition" is a good phrase, but it doesn't encapsulate that its intended goals were achieved. You can be ambitious but fall well short, right? I also think it's important to note that these reviews are overwhelmingly focusing on the director and his take/spin on the novel, and the sources that do this secondary analysis for us (116 and 117) seem to agree. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward, though, I think we need better sources than 116 and 117. Those were based on early reviews when there were less than 40 accumulated on Rotten Tomatoes. Now that there are over 245 on RT, there have to be better options out there that have covered it in more depth by now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I appreciate your thoughtful message, and I have copied it here to the article's talk page so that other editors can be aware of the discussion as well. I don't think taking individual article reviews and looking only positive reviews is really the best way to determine the overall critical consensus. As stated in the critical reception section, Villeneuve's direction was polarizing, while the scope, ambition, and visuals appear to be generally praised by most reviewers, including those who had complaints about the film. Some critics took issue precisely with the overall execution (especially the pacing and storytelling) but still liked other characteristics about the film (especially how it looks), including The Times, Variety, and TheWrap reviews. This same criticism is also in the sources you mentioned that provide short bits of a few selected reviews. The major criticism seems to be towards Villeneuve's overall execution and finding that the ambition was not fulfilled. If the lead was changed to something about how positive reviews praised the overall execution, then that would be more accurate, but saying that the "overall execution under Villeneuve's direction" was generally praised seems to ignore precisely the criticism that the film has received. I don't think the criticism is significant enough to be included in the lead, but I also don't think the lead should present a certain aspect as generally praised when most criticism seems focused on it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that if we wait a "few days" (like a week from release) that we will find articles that capture the overall review sentiments that we can use without having to try to extract it ourselves. Dune is such an important work for many many reasons that there are going to be those looking critically at how critics took the work. And until we can have that or do a proper extraction ourselves, the lede should be vague and if any follow what at least RT is describing as the critical consensus. --Masem (t) 22:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sure quite a few editors here are glued to the various news feeds from Deadline, CinemaBlend, etc., and will probably spot them first, but I'll try to keep an eye out as well for new articles that crop up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60, if you think I'm misreading the sources or misinterpreting the phrase "overall execution under Villeneuve's direction", feel free to put that phrase back in as a placeholder. Fanaction2031 had also added it back, and it is expressed in the positive reviews. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with stating "ambition" for now for the reasons you mentioned. I would object, however, to beginning the statement with "The film received praise for..." as another editor tried recently. If we're listing both positive and negative criticism, sure that works, but that's not the case here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Update

The summary of the critical response in the lead has changed somewhat since the above discussion but the hidden warning comment urging discussion remains. So I'm going to be extra careful and explain my edits. An anonymous ipv6 editor changed the text to read "critical acclaim"[22] and although enjoyed the film and I would certainly like that WP:PUFF to be true it is not the case, the Metacritic score is not in the higher range to justify that wording, so I manually restored the previous "generally well received" wording.[23] -- 109.76.210.115 (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping a note. Surprised that change lasted this long. You did the right thing reverting that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted again.[24] I would not mind at all if editors want to start a new discussion and change the emphasis in light of the many awards the film has won and all the other praise the film has received since. For now though it still seems fair to restore the text (and that particular rephrase[25] was not ideal, as it could be read to imply that each element listed received critical acclaim). -- 109.76.141.172 (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

I decided there was no point keeping a comment warning not change the text without consensus when the text had already been substantially changed without consensus, so I removed the warning comment.[26] I could have reverted yet again but it seemed like a WP:GOODFAITH effort was being made to write a WP:FILMLEAD summary of the critical response, and on balance I thought it was better not to block and to try and move forward. The reviews for Dune were definitely positive (not mixed or negative) there was only a minor difference of opinion just after it was released about quite how positive they were. The film has since received a lot of praise and even Oscar wins but nonetheless it did not get the higher score on Metacritic that indicates "universal acclaim" so I think it is still important not to overstate the praise this film received and to continue to try to avoid WP:PUFF hyperbole in the lead section. Other editors might want to take a more strict interpretation of WP:FILMLEAD (so it doesn't become a laundry list claiming praise for every last aspect of the film) and generally keep checking that fans don't over-inflate the praise but IMO it looks okay at the moment. -- 109.78.206.47 (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Name/linking(?) inconsistency

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

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

New Section for Design?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links on production design:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split Dune: Part Two into its own article

Production officially began today (July 18) on the sequel. I think it's time to split this into its own article. Thanks! conman33 (. . .talk) 17:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

"Dune (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dune (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Dune (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2023

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: Consensus not to move. (non-admin closure) SilverLocust (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Dune (2021 film) → Dune: Part One – Per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION and the fact that "Dune: Part One" is named as such by the film itself and multiple news outlets.

Following the rename of Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio for precedent. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The film was not referred to as part 1 in any of the original release publicity or in the original theatrical release. It is only being called that now to differentiate it from the sequel.. but the version on HBO Max still just lists it simply as "Dune." Similar to how the original Star Wars is not listed as episode 4. Spanneraol (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Spanneraol.— TAnthony^Talk 00:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – This should be speedily closed. Unlike Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio, Dune: Part One is not the actual, official title of the film. Films with different titles displayed onscreen is not a rare occurance by any means, see for instance It (2017 film), Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery, Iron Man 3, Fast & Furious 6, Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, etc. Additionally, Dune is clearly the common name of the film, compared to Dune: Part One. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose currently per above. the situation may change when Part II is out or hits home video, and to see if WP:NATURAL takes over from there. --Masem (t) 00:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Even if this film is retroactively retitled Dune: Part One in the future, it should't result in an article title change. See Talk:Star Wars (film)#Requested move (January 2023) and Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 5#Requested move. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. RMs such as the ones at Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)/Archive 3#Requested move 24 August 2016 and Talk:John Wick/Archive 1#Requested move 2 May 2018 have generally held that "Part 1" or similar should generally not be used as a retronym if it isn't the common name. In this case, I agree that this movie is almost entirely known simply as "Dune". Nohomersryan (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Woefully ambiguous. Would help no reader and misserve many. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2023 (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.

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/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)

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.[28][29] 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)

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"[30] 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 [31] 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)