Talk:Dune: Part Two

Poster

I switched the poster from this one to this one because the floating heads version uses "only in cinemas", which suggests it is an international poster. There does not appear to be a variant with "theaters", and official socials use the one with the sun as their banners. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Would be better to have a poster that features the entire ensemble cast, like part one: File:Dune (2021 film).jpg. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

But it's an international poster. All the major ticketing/theater sites (Fandango, AMC, Regal, Cinemark, Atom) are using the "sun" poster. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Speculative "Themes" section

All the sources predate even part one of the movie, yet are used to say that islamic themes of the novels are missing in Dune Part Two. While the movie has opted for using English rather than Arabic terms for things such as Holy War (which was explicitly called Jihad in the novels), that and the anti-imperialistic themes are all there in the movie. The section as it stands now is extremely speculative written by someone who hasn't seen the movie far before it was even in production. It might be valuable at a later date when there are actually sources discussing the actual content of the film as it was released, but as it stands right now it seems quite pointless. Fisk0 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention of the influence of the Algerian war upon Frank Herbert's writings of the book version is pointless? And Villeneuve's take on Frank Herbert's use of the themes associated with the Alegrian war is pointless? The reliable source given for that edit seems to speak differently about the importance of this. HenryRoan (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the Themes section. Lack of notability and relevance to the film given the sources are from years before the film came out (in cases, decades) and then Synth rebutting them with an article from Cosmopolitan. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

John315: It looks like a reliable source with a reliable author. The Themes section looks useful as originally added and could someone assist to restore it? HenryRoan (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I just did. Have a nice day. John315 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@John315 I have re-removed the section. "and given the Arabphobia/Islamophobia rampant these days (and other) days, it may not send the best message, to destroy the Themes section, rather than amending it, say" is not a valid reason for reintroduction of a section. The use of several sources written decades before the film was release are clearly not commenting on the adaption, so can't be used to describe the themes of the film. A single opinion piece in Cosmopolitan is not enough to justify the section. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The Cosmo article is primarily a critique on casting, so could perhaps be summarized in a sentence under that section. A reliably sourced, non-OR section on themes will have to wait for sources to warrant it.--Trystan (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually I am in agreement with John315 about restoring the section and I will support him in this. Rambling Rambler's argument appears to be against a reliable source, and Cosmopolitan UK is a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Since it is a reliable source and since its author shows knowledge of both the original book and the new 2024 film, then the section should be restored according to Wikipedia policy. The Themes section should be restored as done by John315 who reverted the Bold section deletion edit by Rambling Rambler until consensus is established on this Talk page. HenryRoan (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@HenryRoan that's not how wikipedia works. WP:ONUS clearly states as such, with it being the party that wants to include material having to find consensus for inclusion.

A source being reliable is not enough to justify the existence of a section, nor is having multiple reliable sources and then seemingly synthing them together to create an original, unsupported argument. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Your appear to be edit warring against BRD. You made a bold edit to delete a section from the article and John315 reverted you, in order to initiate discussion of the talk page to reach consensus. You appear to wish to force your edits into the article even though 2 editors have told you that they do not agree with you. Please follow Wikipedia BRD rules until consensus is reached. If you have reliable sources which contravenes the use of the reliable source used in this section, then show it to us. You appear to have none. Otherwise, the existing reliable source from Cosmopolitan UK should be restored as a reliable source. Wikipedia policy for reliable sources should be followed here and the section should be restored. HenryRoan (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That's the other way around. Adding a new section is the WP:BOLD edit, removing it is the reversion, after which comes the discussion with the section removed until a consensus is formed. —El Millo (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@HenryRoan That's not how wikipedia works. As @Facu-el Millo points out, the "bold" change was the adding of an unsuitable Themes section, not the removal of it. Verifiability itself is not the be and end all for inclusion, as per WP:ONUS, and consensus is not simply "who has the most votes" (which in this case would be 3 against so you'd be wrong even if it was).

You quite frankly seem to be the one who's edit-warring of late. I see you've attempted to report an individual to the edit-warring noticeboard despite the fact it was you yourself who breached WP:3RR on the 2nd of March, so I suggest rather than continuing this attempt to force consensus you take the advice of others here and accept that there isn't consensus for a section on Themes when only one reliable source has been evidenced. If substantial discussion around the themes (which will likely happen) comes out in reliable sources as time goes on it can be reconsidered for inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

My edit was made to support John315 on this, which you appear to be serially reverting. If you are deleting the section due to your concerns with "Arabphobia/Islamophobia" then I think that is against Wikipedia policy. The Cosmopolitan UK reliable source, written by a Muslim, remains a reliable source even though your appear to dislike it. If you have a reliable source which contravenes that article, then add it here for all the editors to review. You appear to have none. The section deletion should be restored in agreement with Wikipedia policy for use of reliable sources and in agreement with User:John315. HenryRoan (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@HenryRoan I did not state I had concerns with "Arabphobia/Islamophobia", I stated that inclusion on the grounds of completely unrelated societal issues is not a valid justification on Wikipedia. If you continue to use this tone here (and in your canvassing) that I'm opposing this for an accused bias against Muslims I will very quickly (and happily) take this to Admin to deal with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not mind a "Themes" section in general, but I think there need to be a good number of similar reliable sources about that. Regarding the "Themes" section, we have two problems. The beginning of that section uses reliable sources that predate this film, so it is original research to take such sources and apply them here. Secondly, while I find the Cosmopolitan article appropriate as a generally reliable source, nearly 200 words are written, which is WP:UNDUE focus on what that person has to say. If we had a mix of reliable sources discussing the film's influences, a sentence or two from the Cosmopolitan source would be appropriate. And if there is going to be more critique than general recognition of themes, a "Social commentary" section may be more appropriate, to summarize commentary from people who aren't film critics and any responses to such commentary. A quick look does not show anything as substantial as the Cosmopolitan article at this time. More could be forthcoming. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly this. There's no time limit here so I think we can wait for several sources that discuss the film's themes to come out rather than creating a section with one source and then several sources that only discuss the book that are seemingly used as padding. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't find the sources to be used as padding. It's just not what we as editors can do for a topic. Like for a historical film, we can't open a history book and start pointing out all the inconsistencies ourselves. We need to use sources that directly compare film to history, not do the comparison ourselves. Same thing here. Let's say we do get sources. We can combine them here, and we can also refer readers to Dune (franchise) § Middle-Eastern and Islamic influences as a "further reading" opportunity, apart from how this film handles it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

By padding that's sort of what I mean. It's adding sources that were written long before the film and are specifically about the book before then using a new source about the film to make it seem they're all related to the film. It's definitely not valid under Wikipedia policy though, that's for sure. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is chosen because the author shows knowledge of both the current film and the 1960s book upon which this film is based. Since it is a reliable source from a knowledgeable writer then it should be added to the article to express the concerns expressed by this reliable source. If more reliable sources appear in the future then I have no difficulty about anyone wanting to add them. This reliable source uses information about the sources of the new film which discuss its themes in a knowledgeable manner. Deleting a reliable source appears to be incorrect here. I am supporting John315's assessment about retaining this reliable source and expanding it when new sources become available. Section deletion appears to be the wrong approach when Wikipedia asks its editors to respect reliable sources. The short Themes section should be restored in agreement with John315. HenryRoan (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Just because you and one other person may feel one source is enough to warrant inclusion doesn't overrule the broad consensus that's already been reflected here that there's not enough reliable coverage discussing the themes of the film specifically to warrant an entire section. Wikipedia works by consensus, and consensus right now is against inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

As I stated, the problem is WP:UNDUE weight. A single critique of a specific nature of the film does not warrant nearly 200 words, especially compared to film critics having only 15-20 words each by comparison. Furthermore, as a critique, it's not even material that belongs in a "Themes" section but a "Social commentary" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Erik: The section and the reliable source it uses describe the comparison of the major theme of Frank Herbert’s ‘Dune’ as covering Near Eastern and Muslim themes, and to compare it directly to Villeneuve’s adaptation of that book into the recent Dune 2 film using reliable sources. I have given 4 sources to document that this theme was of primary importance to Frank Herbert, and I have presented a reliable source from March 2024 which compares Villeneuve’s thematic adaptation of this theme directly to Frank Herbert’s use of this same theme. Wikipedia readers of the Dune 2 article should know that this was a primary theme for Frank Herbert, and that a reliable source has taken the position that Villeneuve falls short of representing this important theme from Frank Herbert’s book. Also, if this short Themes section is dropped then readers of the article will be clueless that Frank Herbert used the Algerian war as a significant thematic source for his book which Villeneuve uses for making Dune 2. Before you debate about consigning this reliable source and short Themes section to the archive bin, it is worth noting that 3 editors believe it is worth keeping; John315 here [8], an IP editor (IP118) who did the multiple links in the section here [9], and myself who together support it. HenryRoan (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

As it's already been said, this isn't even the correct placement for this information. This isn't about themes, this is Social commentary, because it's criticizing a lack of representation, not actually discussing the themes the film is about. Regardless, it's still WP:UNDUE to have a whole section about a single person's opinion. If and when there's more, it can all be included in such a section, but until then it should not, again because it's not due weight. —El Millo (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Adding second source for critique of Muslim and Arab themes being downplayed by Villeneuve in Dune 2. Expanding original Themes section for second source, new section looks like this:

Themes

Commentary on prominent themes in Dune 2 has been compared to those in the original novel Dune by Herbert which had emphasized the importance of Islamic and Near Eastern themes, according to multiple sources. Furvah Shah, writing for Cosmopolitan UK, cited the thematic downplaying of these main themes for Herbert's book in the film version of Dune 2, noting by contrast that: "Dune: Part Two erases its Middle Eastern, North African and Muslim influences". Speaking to the thematic issues about the Middle East already known to Herbert, Furvah Shah summarizes the viewpoint concerning the absence of prominent Muslim influences in Dune 2, stating: "From the use of beads and prostration in prayers by the Fremen, to the almost-Arabic language, phrases pulled from religious texts and the wearing of veils, it felt like Dune takes a heavy amount of inspiration from Islam, Middle Eastern and North African cultures yet simultaneously erases us (Muslims) from screen. The Dune films are based on the best-selling books by Frank Herbert, an author said to have been heavily inspired by the Middle East, North African and Islam. His 1965 novel was seen as a challenge to imperialism following the Algerian war of independence, with his editors even asking the author to tone down the 'Muslim flavour' of his book. Now, the latest adaptation, directed by Denis Villeneuve, seems to do just that." In support of Shah's viewpoint concerning the downplaying by Villeneuve of Muslim and Arab themes in Dune 2, Hannah Flint writing for The New Arab magazine criticized the lack of Arab representation in Villeneuve's casting and the "cosplay" of using Western actors to emulate Muslim roles and mannerisms stating: "The casting of Swiss-Tunisian actress Souheila Yacoub is a win for Arab representation in a film that restricts actors of MENA (Middle Eastern and North African) heritage to background players... A nonsensical joke about Stilgar's accent coming from 'the South' is a reminder that Bardem is cosplaying as a Bedouin Arab."

Extra sources supports restoring this section with reliable sources.

References

HenryRoan (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Your "new reliable source" is a review about the film (where mention of the themes is limited) where you've blatantly removed an entire paragraph to present two lines as being connected, there is no mention that Flint support Shah's viewpoint (that's something you've inserted), you're still overly referring to texts that have nothing to do with the film (and notably without quotes or page numbers so may not even refer to Dune in their body), and showing massive WP:UNDUE by quoting entire paragraphs to bulk it out.

This is still not enough to create an entire section about themes. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

And I'll repeat that nothing of it is for a Themes section, it would be for Social commentary or Criticism. —El Millo (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Does it have to be that way? Islamophobia or Arabphobia could be considered "themes", couldn't they? Alternately, under the "Themes" heading, could there be various subheadings, such as, "Religious fanaticism", "Islamophobia", "Colonialism", "Gender relations", "Imperialism", etc.? John315 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"Themes" is what the film is about, and the film is not about islamophobia and arabphobia. All those others you've listed are themes, but the information you currently want to add is not. —El Millo (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm. A film could be about something, without trying to be; e.g., an old racist film may not be intentionally a "film about racism", but there may be strong themes of racism in the film, even if none of the characters says, "Hey! I'm being a racist!" John315 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think you're making the point there that you think you're making but are instead showing why the Themes section you're envisioning isn't actually a section on themes in the film but rather just critical reception of the film. The Cosmopolitan article is not commenting on themes of Arab identity. It's effectively criticising the film for, in the view of the author, using Arab/Islamic culture as set dressing. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A racist film and a film about racism are not the same, you could even say they are opposites. See the Social commentary section of Blade Runner 2049: it start with criticisms and develops into a discussion with those that defend the film and even the director himself. See also the Themes of Blade Runner and how it is about what the film actually depicts, not what the film is failing to depict or ignoring, as the Cosmopolitan piece says the film does. I don't know why you insist on including this info in a section titled "Themes" when the very inclusion of the info itself is still in question. —El Millo (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. If you would prefer that the section be named something besides "Themes", maybe, then. Then again, you said above that "Religious fanaticism", "Colonialism", "Gender relations", "Imperialism" could all be considered themes. John315 (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You still seem to be incapable of listening to what people are saying. We're saying that any potential section about the discussion of themes in the film needs to be about themes actually in the film. What you are instead arguing/demanding is a special section just for the inclusion of criticism of the film itself for how it uses Arab/Islamic culture, which at most belongs in the critical reception section which can be seen in the article for the first film. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"You still seem to be incapable of listening to what people are saying." is not very nicely put - regardless of whether it's true or not. Anyway, even if Dune 1 had everything in the critical reception section, that doesn't have to be the way for Dune 2. See, e.g., the "Gone with the Wind" Wikipedia article, which has "Critical response" but also, separately, an "Analysis and controversies" section, which has subsections about various race and gender issues, not unlike what Henry Roan or others might think helpful to understand Dune 2.

So I'm not sure an "Analysis and controversies" section, by whatever name (it doesn't have to be "Themes", true), would be bad for Dune 2, since there is plenty of controversy, and it need not all be shoved into the "Critical response" section, especially since "Gone with the Wind" didn't do that. John315 (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Gone With The Wind was released in 1939 and has two dozen sources for that section. You can not seriously be trying to suggest Dune Part Two has anything close to that level of critical film analysis and cultural discussion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

When did I say that a 2024 film "has anything close to that level of critical film analysis and cultural discussion"? I didn't. Again, "Analysis and controversies" could work, if people don't want "Themes". Or maybe something else -- we'll see. John315 (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You directly chose Gone With The Wind as an example to compare Dune Part Two against. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Not calling it identical though... Again, I hope we find some "compromise solution", partially so that we can stop spending time on this huge thread. John315 (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I really don't know why you are against using "Social commentary" as a section title, and there doesn't seem to be plenty of controversy, at least not enough for a section of its own. —El Millo (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I may be o.k. with "Social commentary", although I don't know if everyone else is. "Analysis and controversies" could be o.k. too, as in the "Gone w/the Wind" article. John315 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like El Millo and John315 might be closer than I first thought. I and going to add the history element now, from The Washington Post, from when this theme was looked at in the first DV Dune film from 2021. At that time, comments on Frank Herbert's strong Islamification of these related themes in his book were compared to the theme in DV to de-Islamify Herbert's emphasized book themes in his film version. In his article for The Washington Post, Haris Durrani [10] wrote an essay titled "The novel Dune has deep Islamic Influences. The film erases them", where he stated: "Herbert’s editors initially asked him to tone down the 'Muslim flavor' of his book. The latest adaptation, directed by Denis Villeneuve, does just that... Rather than building and improving upon the novel’s audacious — and yes, Orientalist — engagement with these cultures and experiences, Villeneuve waters down the novel’s specificity... the filmmakers actively subdued most elements of Islam, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The new movie treats religion, ecology, capitalism and colonialism as broad abstractions, stripped of particularity." Both Shah and Flint (the previously quoted reliable sources) are continuing with the history of this long commentary on Villeneuve's theme to de-Islamify Frank Herbert's original book as it is used as the original source for Dune 2. We have not heard from Erik since a day or two ago. The section on themes has another source here from The Washington Post which appears to support its inclusion in the Wikipedia article for Dune 2. HenryRoan (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you definitely cannot add something from 2021 about the first film as if it was talking about this film. That's even more that original research, it straight up distorting a source. As Masem said below, the film came out a week ago, not enough times has passed for there to be enough content for a Themes section. Please give WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research a read. —El Millo (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It is the 2 authors of the 2024 reliable sources which are using the same themes as were introduced at the time of Dune One in 2021. Since the 2024 reliable sources are using the same viewpoint then it is useful to mention it. You can read WP:RS for this. HenryRoan (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If you'll just use it to say that this other author expressed similar thoughts about the first film, comparing similar reactions to both films, then I guess it's fine, but it doesn't add much, as it can't be used to say anything about Part Two. —El Millo (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's still a critical reception section item though, which also has two lines about depictions of Arab/Islamic culture. That however has a number of sources reflecting viewpoints, not simply two so even for that there's still a lack of detailed material. Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We have not heard from Erik since a day or two ago.

Someone not commenting doesn't equal a change of view or make their opposition to what you're demanding any less valid. Instead of ignoring every other voice here or only listening to what you want to hear, you maybe take not of the fact there is no consensus for this, every editor bar one so far who has been involved or now joined this discussion has repeatedly told you there's not enough material for a "themes" section and much of what you're claiming discusses themes is simply critical reception. Maybe instead of acting like you're here to right great wrongs you accept that there's no possibility for consensus backing what you're demanding before a substantial increase in coverage. Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What if, say, things went into the "Critical response" section for now, and maybe in a month or so, people can consider whether things there can transfer to another, new section, whether named "Themes" or something else?

Maybe there's a solution, whether the one above or another one, that everyone can be reasonably happy with. Just saying. John315 (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

For a film that has only been out in wide release for a week, it really is far too early to have a themes section. It might be better to wait a month or so when more voices (from RSes) can speak up and better inform such a section. --Masem (t) 03:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The history of this themes commentary seems to go back three years to when Dune One came out. I just linked the 2021 Washington Post article above. HenryRoan (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Themes of the novel do not apply to the film, period. We know Denis V. did changes from the novel to fit the screen, and the themes should reflect that, in addition to sources that comments simultaneously on the themes common or not common to both the film and novel. And themes of the first film should be kept there. — Masem (t) 05:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The GA article for Gone With the Wind mentioned by John315 above does make a big deal about the adaptation of themes from the novel by Margaret Mitchell, as well as the Wikipedia article for the film Lolita (1962 film) which has an entire section about the adaptation of the themes from Nabakov's book into Kubrick's film version. Its not clear that DV should not be held to this same standard. Even the Academy Awards recognize the differences between films derived from books, and films which are not derived from books as a significant distinction in filmmaking. DV has made no secret that he is adapting Frank Herbert's book, and several reliable sources presented here are stating that DVs adaptation of Frank Herbert's Dune novel appears to make sigficant use of the theme of de-Islamifying Frank Herbert's novel. If John315 is presenting a preferable option for presenting these 2024 reliable sources and the themes they document it makes sense to discuss it for inclusion in the Wikipedia article. HenryRoan (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

As previously said to John315, Gone With the Wind is close to a century old at this point and is thoroughly sourced to justify such inclusion on Wikipedia. You're here arguing for an entire section based off on WP:UNDUE quotation of two sources. For Dune (2021) the inclusion of such critical commentary on MENA casting and use of Arab/Islamic culture (which is not thematic analysis) is a short paragraph made up of four sources in the critical reception section and is still substantially shorter than what you were trying to force in from one source.

Nobody has once argued that if the sources were there, this film couldn't have the same inclusion, what you repeatedly refuse to listen to is the overwhelming chorus telling you there aren't enough sources at present to justify it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ask Rambler points out, with only a week + of critical reviews out, it is impossible to see what the big picture is going to be to talk overall themes, how it relates or omits from the book, etc. Anything included now is in danger of being DUE after time passes, as well as possible OR. Give it a month, and then we can start seeing the picture and knowing how a themes section can come together. That still may change over time (eg after home media release so repeated viewings become possible), but at least having completed a month of theatrical runs, we can start making strong summary cases. — Masem (t) 01:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with above editors that the section should not be included right now for lack of sources. I would also point out that the proposed text for such a section that is above is far too long and over relies on long quotes. A themes/commentary/anaylsis section will inevitably be in the article and I don't doubt that as 2024 goes on more reliable sources will present more in-depth analysis for the article – particularly a section like 'differences from the novel'.Yeoutie (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is listing over 350 reviews of the film already collected; the comments above that it is necessary to wait months or years to collect responses like for Gone with the Wind in the 1930s no longer applies in the digital age in the same way as it did in the 1930s. In the case of Dune One, no editors have stepped up to do a themes section in its Wikipedia article after three years; it does not look promising that waiting three years is productive when there are already over 350 reviews available for Dune Two. Writing a Themes section for Dune Two is not dependent upon someone writing a themes section for Dune One which is three years old. The well written Themes section in the Dune book article makes fairly plain what the outline for a Themes section for Dune Two should look like, not 100% the same for what Dune Two could look like, but the outline generally works. For example, the first section of the book themes in Dune (book) covers Near Eastern influences important to Frank Herbert which would need to be adjusted to the de-Islamism approach of DV according to reliable sources already presented above. The Dune book article indicates that the top three topics for a themes section ought to be (1) Near Eastern themes, (2) Environmentalism and ecology themes, and (3) Declining empires themes. The reliable sources version for Dune Two started last week to open the Themes section for Dune Two had 3 supporters and 4 opposes.

John315 has suggested the option of moving these reliable sources to the reception section as a shortened paragraph within the reviews subsection as is done in Dune One at this time. If someone can put it together and post it here then John315 might be able to respond. HenryRoan (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. Critical reviews does not equal thematic discussion and analysis. You have still failed to show any substantial relevant sources for Dune Part Two to support such a section. All but one other editor taking part in this discussion have told you they don't agree with this section being added.

Either demonstrate some relevant new evidence or drop it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying "please drop it" might have been nice. ...Is HenryRoan saying that he can put his stuff in the crit response area, but *not* as a separate subsection? I.e., just as normal commentary like everything else in that section? Would that be a problem, then?? Because it wouldn't be a new section. And HenryRoan is willing to shorten things, it looks like. John315 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If there's similar level of sourcing as for Dune Part One, sure. It just needs to be more than a single lone individual or two, otherwise it's still WP:UNDUE as a fringe viewpoint. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Third reliable source

Adding a third reliable source for the section. The third one is from U.S. Catholic magazine:

Themes

Commentary on prominent themes in Dune 2 has been compared to those in the original novel Dune by Herbert which had emphasized the importance of Islamic and Near Eastern themes, according to multiple sources. Furvah Shah, writing for Cosmopolitan UK, cited the thematic downplaying of these main themes for Herbert's book in the film version of Dune 2, noting by contrast that: "Dune: Part Two erases its Middle Eastern, North African and Muslim influences". Speaking to the thematic issues about the Middle East already known to Herbert, Furvah Shah summarizes the viewpoint concerning the absence of prominent Muslim influences in Dune 2, stating: "From the use of beads and prostration in prayers by the Fremen, to the almost-Arabic language, phrases pulled from religious texts and the wearing of veils, it felt like Dune takes a heavy amount of inspiration from Islam, Middle Eastern and North African cultures yet simultaneously erases us (Muslims) from screen. The Dune films are based on the best-selling books by Frank Herbert, an author said to have been heavily inspired by the Middle East, North African and Islam. His 1965 novel was seen as a challenge to imperialism following the Algerian war of independence, with his editors even asking the author to tone down the 'Muslim flavour' of his book. Now, the latest adaptation, directed by Denis Villeneuve, seems to do just that." In support of Shah's viewpoint concerning the downplaying by Villeneuve of Muslim and Arab themes in Dune 2, Hannah Flint writing for The New Arab magazine criticized the lack of Arab representation in Villeneuve's casting and the "cosplay" of using Western actors to emulate Muslim roles and mannerisms stating: "The casting of Swiss-Tunisian actress Souheila Yacoub is a win for Arab representation in a film that restricts actors of MENA (Middle Eastern and North African) heritage to background players... A nonsensical joke about Stilgar's accent coming from 'the South' is a reminder that Bardem is cosplaying as a Bedouin Arab." Steven Greydanus further confirms Shah and Flint's commentary on Villeneuve's theme of de-Islamifying Frank Herbert's book used for Dune 2 stating: "Villeneuve and Spaihts develop and strengthen some of their source material’s attractive moral and spiritual features, such as Herbert’s more feminist sensibilities... while the less overtly Islamic Fremen (who, for example, don’t use the word jihad) dilute Herbert’s Islamophilia.

Three reliable sources supports restoring this section to the article.

References

HenryRoan (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, it is FAR too early, and this is reliant on too much pre-release material to be usable at this point. Come back in about three-four weeks when you can use sources all post-release to develop a themes section. --Masem (t) 14:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources are available then they should be used. You appear to want to suggest that 3 years is needed like on your edits on Dune One before a Themes section can be added. That seems far too long a time period when there are over 350 reliable source already collected in the case of Dune Two on Rotten Tomatoes. If the reliable sources are there they should be used. HenryRoan (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Still leans heavily on WP:SYNTH, still not about themes, still way too much weight on each source. If you aren't going to meaningfully respond to criticisms, you aren't going to gain consensus for any changes to the article. There is no SYNTH-compliant reason to include any sources that pre-date the film; they obviously aren't about the film, and you can't rely on them to advance a new argument. A WP:DUE addition to the article at this point might be a single sentence to the critical reception section, along the lines of "Furvah Shah, writing for Cosmopolitan UK, criticized the lack of Middle Eastern or North African lead actors, given that the Fremen are heavily inspired by those cultures."--Trystan (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no Synth here, since the edit only follows the 3 reliable sources from 2024. If you don't like the background directly to Frank Herbert's books, then the edit can be written based upon DV's position about the theme of de-Islamism which is fully documented in the Dune One article if your prefer. HenryRoan (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Dune (2021 film) covers the issue in its Critical response section, summarizing a variety of sources in a single paragraph, with individual sources getting a sentence each. Which is what I just proposed.--Trystan (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your proposal looks very close to what El Millo is presenting below. I plan to respond to El Millo below since he seems fairly close to what John315 proposed yesterday. The thread for him is below. HenryRoan (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You didn't "find" a new source, you've copied one already in the critical reception section. You're still just SYNTHing arguments out of unrelated pieces. Still overly quoting.

Drop it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your appear to be wrong. Read the reliable sources. Another editor is making a note of your lack of civility. You should read WP:Civility. HenryRoan (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't "appear to be wrong", it's quite literally in the critical reception section. Also, the user who made implications that people opposed to the section are Islamophobic can't claim any high-ground on "civility". Frankly your endless WP:IDHT just makes it more and more likely someone will get tired of your behaviour and approach admins for punitive measures. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Reading what you added about this third source, it doesn't confirm what the other ones are saying, but contradicts it. The third source considers Herbert to be islamophobic and argues that the de-islamification of the Fremen is an improvement over the source material, a positive and not a negative. This, properly written and actually acknowledging the constrasting viewpoints, could fit perfectly in a future Social commentary section, as has been suggested many times. You could start actually forming such a section in your sandbox, with input from others in order to get it ready for inclusion when there's enough info in a few weeks or a month. —El Millo (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That looks like it is close to what Trystan has suggested above. It is also close to what John315 suggested yesterday. If you and Trystan can pull the sentences together that you like then it looks like John315 could join in. The technical reading that you present which states that the third source indicates an increase in DV for feminist themes and a decrease in the (de-)Islamic themes by DV is largely correct. If you and Trystan can place your version of the sources and sentences which you feel work would work, and state where you prefer to place them, then it looks like John315 could join in. HenryRoan (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact both Trystan and Millo have both told you 'you're misrepresenting sources and breaching policy' and you instead have gone "great, thanks for agreeing to write my section for me" is astounding.

DROP IT. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your appear to be wrong. Read the reliable sources. Another editor is making a note of your lack of civility. You should read WP:Civility. HenryRoan (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Please understand the position that is in opposition to you. Its simply too early with far too few sources to know we should write a themes section. You should keep those sources close, but once there's sufficient discussion in other RSes to know how we can correctly craft a section, trying to push for one now is just not appropriate, and continuing to push for that may have to be dealt with per WP:TE. Masem (t) 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Have put into the "Critical response" section some of the sources HenryRoan cites. This could be the seed of a future "Themes" section, or a similar section with a different name, in a month, say.

People can discuss it here, or elsewhere, or edit it as they reasonably see fit. It may help get us off this very long thread, finally. John315 (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Box office break even point and profit

Can the box-office break even point be mentioned under "box-office" so that the reader is aware how much the film needs to earn in order to break even please. Pathaan2024 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Director should be before the production company

The most important information for readers should be first, which is who the director is. Not the production company. Ekom2 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. —El Millo (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image has an RfC

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Deviations from novel

Have any critics written about the plot divergence between the novel and the movie? Some, like the way Muad Dib threatened to destroy spice production, seem minor, but the depiction of Chani at the end was vastly different from the novel's

"I swear to you now ... that you'll need no title. That woman over there will be my wife and you but a concubine because this is a political thing and we must weld peace out of this moment, enlist the Great Houses of the Landsraad. We must obey the forms. Yet that princess shall have no more of me than my name. No child of mine nor touch nor softness of glance, nor instant of desire."

and

"Think on it, Chani: that princess will have the name, yet she'll live as less than a concubine—never to know a moment of tenderness from the man to whom she's bound. While we, Chani, we who carry the name of concubine—history will call us wives."

In fact, I don't see how they can still do Dune Messiah, given the breach between Chani and Paul. If enough critics have written about plot differences, I believe that a section in the artical would be appropriate. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact you're asking for this section despite presenting no sources sort of answers your own question doesn't it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Also WP:NOTAFORUM. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: your second reply was almost hostile. Chatul's post was undoubtedly intended as a suggestion to improve the article, and accusing him of misusing this talkpage as a forum, was not nice. Debresser (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Chatul's post was undoubtedly intended as a suggestion to improve the article, and accusing him of misusing this talkpage as a forum, was not nice

@Debresser the vast majority of the post (outside the first and last lines) is claimed differences they saw between book and film, posting quotes from the book, and then giving their personal opinion on a potential third film being possible. I don't think linking them to the policy as a reminder of what these talk pages are for when their contribution is mostly discussing the article's subject (rather than the article itself) can be described as "almost hostile". Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how The fact you're asking for this section despite presenting no sources sort of answers your own question doesn't it.The fact you're asking for this section despite presenting no sources sort of answers your own question doesn't it. can possibly be seen as constructive, given that it attributes to me something that I didn't write. The only thing that my post answers is whether I am familiar with all of the reviewers, and that answer is "No, I am not.", hence asking for feedback from those who are familiar with them. I asked about source, *NOT* about a new section; my only mention of a new section was explicitly contingent on what was in available sources. The two quotes and the following comment were to illustrate why I believe that plot difference to be more important than some others.

I'm not asking about the plot differences, but rather about RS discussions of them. If there are none, or if there aren't enogh, that would settle the question. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The two quotes and the following comment were to illustrate why I believe that plot difference to be more important than some others.

That right there though is you discussing the article subject (and the original book) itself, and not about the article. If your comments started and ended with the first sentence that would've been fine, but going on to discuss major plot differences with quote blocks and why you think they inhibit a direct adaption of a second novel is very much discussing your view of plot differences. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: You arguments are bogus. By in any case, this discussion is not leading anywhere, for lack of sources, so let's WALK AWAY FROM THE WP:DEADHORSE. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: Raising WP:NOTAFORUM was valid, however the tone used in your initial and subsequent replies was unnecessarily confrontational. Per WP:AFG, it was not wrong to assume that @Chatul was raising the point out of genuine interest to improve the article. As the last few replies have pointed out, however, there are insufficient sources to go through with the proposed edits; I'll be closing the discussion as such. ‍ Masterofthebrick ^{‍ talk} 02:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What is this controlling behavior to "close" this discussion of a completely valid subtopic? Per MOS:FILMDIFF, it's completely possible to cover this subtopic, and just searching dune part two differences shows all these sources:

• DUNE: PART TWO’S BIGGEST DIFFERENCES FROM THE BOOK
• How Dune: Part Two Differs From the Book
• Dune 2 Is Noticeably Different From the Book
• 12 Biggest Dune 2 Book Changes From Denis Villeneuve's Sequel
• Dune: Part 2 Is a Perfect Adaptation Because of One Key Difference
• One Of Denis Villeneuve’s Biggest ‘Dune Part 2’ Changes Is Better Than The Book
• How Does ‘Dune: Part Two’ Differ From the Book?
• How is 'Dune: Part Two' different from the book?
• Dune: Part Two's Biggest Changes From Frank's Herbert Novel
• 10 Dune Part Two changes from Frank Herbert's original novel
• Dune 2: How does the movie sequel differ from the book?
• Dune Two Little
• All the Ways ‘Dune: Part Two’ Deviates From Frank Herbert’s Sci-Fi Novel
• Everything Dune 2 Changes From the Original Novel

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024

Please remove use of 'psychotic' to describe a character, while this is used in the film, 'psychotic' and 'psychosis' is a medical term that is frequently misused. Jozin18 (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: could you provide an example of a replacement wording/phrase (eg. in WP:EDITXY format), as a suitable adjective is needed there to provide context. Please note as well that I do not intend to change mention of Villeneuve referring to the character as 'psychopathic' (eg. in Dune: Part Two § Writing) as this is in Villeneuve's words. Irltoad (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

to the person who added scott free productions to the production company list

ridley scott nor anyone else from the company worked on the film so please don't add scott free again Toshibafansandmore (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

We Need to Dune 3? 109.247.136.212 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

????????????? Toshibafansandmore (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm growing weary of randoms changing this every time one turns around

"directed and co–produced by Denis Villeneuve. This is how every film on Wikipedia works, at least every one that has openers like this when more that one producer produces the film. Can someone do something to help negate this? ReddlSKye (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you want someone to stop this from being changed back again? You just need to revert it with a justification in the edit summary, and if they insist, take it to the talk page, as you've already done here. —El Millo (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It's cutting up the director's name on desktop, so first line has Denis and second line is Villeneuve. The lead should be easy to read, it also doesn't exclude others and other more developed articles on films have "produced by" as well, even though they have other producers. See Oppenheimer (film), Asteroid City, 1917 (2019 film), The French Dispatch, Isle of Dogs, and so on.

Because other films can use either or and as well other sources, it is a wash and it's probably best to use what improves usability of the article which is the director's name on the first line. Ekom2 (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether the link falls onto two lines is, I believe, more to do with the resolution at which you are viewing the webpage (it being optimised for your monitor). That said, adding a non-breaking space into the link would force it onto a single line. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 12:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If "co-produced" is added back in I could add MOS:NBSP but it makes it unnecessarily longer and on the second line for common resolutions. Seems unnecessary if so many other films say "produced by". Ekom2 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We are not going to add any non-breaking spaces just so Villeneuve's name isn't cut off on your computer. The page width varies across every device depending on the size of your screen, your display scaling size, your webpage zoom level, what skin you're using, what scripts you've installed, etc. There are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of combinations that produce different results; some of them may cut off Villeneuve's name, others may not. We don't tailor to anyone in particular, and especially not for aesthetic reasons. (I will say that if you're using Vector 2022, this issue is exacerbated because the WMF refused to set full width as the default, which is why I always recommend editors switch back to Vector 2010 or turn on full width.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that requires a film article's opening sentence to be worded a specific way. There are policies and guidelines that indicate how an opening sentence in general should be written, and I don't believe any of them support mentioning producer credits in such a sentence. Not to mention that Villeneuve is one of five producers. It would be more appropriate to just mention him as the director and to also mention in that opening sentence that it is a sequel to the 2021 film with both being based on the 1965 novel. These three elements are the most noteworthy context for this film, based on reliable sources covering this film, and other less noteworthy details can be covered in the following sentences. See WP:FILM1STSENTENCE for how an opening sentence can vary by film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue in using either "co-produced" or just "produced" in the opening sentence. How it is displayed is dependent on one's own computer resolution, and it is not up to Wikipedia to change in reaction to that, but rather the other way around. Stating "co-produced" is more accurate as Villeneuve is not the sole producer of this film. This is yet another discussion complaining about a minor text detail. If we ought to, as Erik pointed out given there are five producers in total, then we may just remove the "producer" credit mention entirely from the lead as it is more notable that he is the director. There is nothing stating we ought to include a producer mention in the lead, anyway, so it may be best to nuke it here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Villeneuve was heavily involved in production deciding how the money should be spent. I can't find the source. It should be in. Ekom2 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

"... as big and as epic as this film is, there were many times where it almost felt like you were on the set of an independent film. He’s also a producer on this film and he’s very very smart about where to spend money." [11] Ekom2 (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

And? I'm not discounting that. His producer role is noted in the infobox, too. I don't think it should be removed from the lead just to satisfy the concerns of one lone editor, and I would consider a removal as a last resort. I just pointed out how nothing permits or restricts how these producer credits are incorporated in the lead, and I think this one should stay as either "co-producer" or "producer". Both work just fine and convey the relevant information to our readers upfront. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Erik's reasoning; there is no reason to include producer credits in the lead sentence, and especially no reason to include one producer to the exclusion of the other four.--Trystan (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

In most film-article instances that I can see, where the director of the film also fills another role (e.g. writer, producer), the secondary role is also mentioned in the lead sentence. It is my belief that the sentence is perfectly fine as is; there is no need to add the "co-" affix to the production credit in the lead sentence since we are not mentioning the other producers (unlike the writer credit). -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 22:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Reception/Box office numbers

For what it's worth, just as an aside for the WP reader to know...the box office numbers (as of 4/27/2024) are a bit skewed. The source, Nash Information Services, does not include figures for Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Estonia, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Lithuania, Norway, South Africa, the Ukraine or Venezuela. Common sense would lead one to safely assume figures would exceed $800 million (at least) once these countries are included. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)