Talk:Dune: Part Two

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 , an IP editor (IP118) who did the multiple links in the section here , 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

There is no verifiable source supporting the use of psychotic either. I've made this change. --causa sui (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

"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." 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)

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)

@HiGuys69420: Edit permalink/1223809699 adds the word cunning to the plot section, with the comment ‎Writing: It's mentioned repeatedly in the book that Feyd is a cunning person. However, this is an article on the movie, not on the book, and there are significant differences between the two. Is the an RS for Feyd-Rautha being cunning in the movie? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Idk i'll just revert my own edit HiGuys69420 (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait but dude in the Plot of the movie it literally says that Feyd is "more cunning but psychotic" so I am right!!! HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you citing your own edit to Dune: Part Two#Plot as an RS? If not, what do you mean by "the Plot of the movie"? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No I did not make that edit. In the plot it says, "more cunning but psychotic" and I did NOT add that I swear to god HiGuys69420 (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm notifying editors who may he interested in participating in the discussion at Talk:Lady_Jessica#Proposed_infobox_image_change. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The poster used on this article is not the most frequently used poster I see for this movie, why was this specific poster used and could another be put in its place. 2.100.205.41 (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

and if anyone is wondering this is the poster, maybe not the exact one that would be used on wikipedia, but basically this one seems to appear way more than the one used officially in this article https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81ZMkn8HGBL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg 2.100.205.41 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

In the film, Irulan incorrectly describes Feyd-Rautha as "psychotic".

We define psychosis as a mental disorder where the subject struggles to differentiate between what is real and what is unreal. At no point in the film does he exhibit psychosis, according to our own definition.

Instead, he exhibits extreme psychopathy: according to our article, this is "a personality construct characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited and egocentric traits, masked by superficial charm and the outward appearance of apparent normalcy."

Therefore, I've updated the Plot section to describe Feyd-Rautha as "psychopathic" rather than "psychotic". --causa sui (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This movie differs a lot compared to the book (like with Chani leaving at the end instead of staying with Paul, Paul being the one who kills the Baron, and Alia not being born). Should we list the key differences? HiGuys69420 (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

To do this without publishing original research we would have to rely on secondary sources that have compared the two. Aside from that, I'm unaware if there are guidelines for media articles that touch on whether such belongs here or not, but that might be worth looking into. --causa sui (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

If there is reliable coverage of significant book differences, particularly if there is input from the filmmaker's on that, it is wholly appropriate to include. — Masem (t) 16:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The article definitely needs a book vs. movie section and there are quite a lot of quality sources who have written on this (e.g. The Guardian). The differences are both structural (e.g. characters doing different things), but also subtle (e.g. the de-Islamification of the Fremen). It would be a great addition to the article if done properly. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --causa sui (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@ChasePlowman2014: Please stop edit warring and instead discuss your edit here before reverts. Happily888 (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Happily888: ChasePlowman2014's initial edit was correct. MOS:OXFORD permits articles to either use, or not use, a serial comma, but only mandates consistency. In the case of this article, the serial comma is used throughout. Not only that, but a serial comma is actually used earlier in the very sentence you and ChasePlowman2014 both edit warred over. Quote: "[…]Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling, and Javier Bardem reprise their […]". For this reason, I will be adding the serial comma back in. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 21:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Happily888: Please take your own advice and stop edit warring over this. Jasca has explained why the initial edit was correct. Prematurely archiving this discussion and then making the contested edit (cloaked in a partial revert of another editor’s unrelated addition) a few days later is not constructive.--Trystan (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace the official poster with this poster, which will need to be updated as a wikipedia file, this is the most commonly used dune part two poster

https://preview.redd.it/something-i-noticed-in-the-official-dune-movie-posters-v0-xnaop52pwymc1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6376dea6ca9e1a7e0717afe8e9b92cd2097a8c12 78.150.95.227 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - Besides the black smudge mark going across defacing the poster you've linked, the sun poster is preferred per the top conversation on this talk page. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 22:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

silly me, i should have seen that, but i do wonder why no one responded to the other one that someone posted here, i understand now 78.150.95.227 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)