Talk:Dune (1984 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Command the Sky

This is because there is nothing mystical about Paul's powers; he is the product of genetic breeding and training, and could not possibly command the sky to rain on Dune.

My impression at the end of the film was that Paul folds space (an acknowledged ability) from Caladan (where water exists plentifully) and deposits it (as rain) on Arrakis.

The script suggests that Paul is utilizing the Voice in some way to induce the rain. Since the Voice is much differently conceived in the movie than the book, it's hard to evaluate. It is not well-communicated in the film.24.33.28.52 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Kwisatz Haderach

Isn't he? Granted, Paul denies being the Kwisatz Haderach, but later he admits to it. ("I am the Kwisatz Haderach." "Once you denied to me that you were the Kwisatz Haderach." "I can deny nothing any more.") Also, he does (to me) seem to meet the glossary definition, which would seem to be authoritative, regardless of what he claims in the dialogue.

Strictly speaking, I suppose, Paul is *a* Kwisatz Haderach. As is his son, Leto.

---

it looks like this is an comparison of the movie and the tv-series and not an article about the movie.

Elvis 15:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poor article...

This is a very poor article, in my opinion, on the film. It's less about the factual details of the film (if at all), and more a biased, totally opinionated assessment of the film as an interpretation of the novel, when the sentence "Some have criticized the film as not being wholly accurate to or in the spirit of the novel." would suffice. It seriously needs working on by someone knowledgable about the details behind the film's making and needs to have almost the entirety of the "Review" removed or placed under a different heading as criticism of the film. Just my two cents.

I agree with the above assessment of this article. There are frequent weasel statements used to viciously attack benign creative liberties David Lynch took with the story. The author dismisses the cult following casually, attributing their enjoyment to an appreciation of camp (ironic when you see the ludicrously effete uniforms of the Sardaukar in the series), or as people who think of it as a "dark" Star Wars. Being a Lynch fan, I am not without bias of my own, but as a Dune fan, I can tell you there are strengths in this movie the series is without. David Lynch is able to show the wild and shocking ferocity behind the exquisite and elegant decorum of civilization in a way the series did not. What stunned and disappointed me about the series was how conventional, how prosaic its tone was by comparison. I would dare to say that the appearance of the guild navigator (who is NOT explicitly named Edric) is inconsequential, and the addition of such things as "heart plugs" actually enhance the atmosphere. I'll admit that the rain at the end, black stillsuits attracting the ghastly heat of day, and the use of "weirding modules" to cover for a lack of good martial arts choreography are lame, but they're hardly worth having a fit about. The attack on the film's special effects struck me as truly pathetic and petty. Also, the casting of Sting as Feyd-Rautha doesn't bother me even a little, as Hollywood routinely does worse, with people who are supposedly full-time "actors." --24.118.77.253 19:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent comments by these people. What are we talking about in this article...the movie? It doesn't look like it. There is too much comparison these days (and on Wikipedia especially) between different artistic pieces of the same work (i.e. books and films). You can't strictly compare them, and not being a huge sci-fi fan, I felt intimidated by the article as it seemed to be only for those well read in the Dune universe. This article should be moved to some sort of page like, "Comparisons of Dune works" (and also seriously changed to make it more neutral) and an expert on film should write the page to explain what this movie did for the history of motion pictures, with special attention on its influence of the sci-fi genre.

---

Took the liberty to do some larger edits on the page, to make it more neutral. The part about fan-complaints was tempting to remove completely, but left it in, and did some rephrasings. I'm no Dune expert, though, so I may have gone too far? fortunately we have the revision history ;) --WaterDweller 17:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you went quite far enough, actually, though it's better. The fact that fans of the movie were upset IS significant when discussing it, but there should really be sources cited which show, for example, surveys of fans who watched the movie, surveys of people who watched the film, perhaps the results of test audiences. Concrete data is important, especially (and ironically) when you deal with opinions. You should state WHO hated it, and why. I want to point out that Frank Herbert and his son saw it, and their reactions to it are QUITE educational, and perhaps surprising. In "Dreamer of Dune," I believe David Lynch is thought by Frank to be the victim of both editors and critics who jumped on the Dune-bashing bandwagon, as well as overhype. It should also be noted that FRANK HERBERT HIMSELF had a lot to do with the movie's production. Let the fans chew on that for a while before they whine about how unfaithful the movie was to the book. --24.118.77.253 02:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this article can be considered poor anymore, although it still needs quite a bit of work. Comme le Lapin 08:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Page is improving

• I just removed some of the more rubbishy material from the 'adaptation' section to make it more neutral and simply factual.
• One reccomendation would be to create a new article: Dune (TV) or Dune (mini-series) so that the material about the mini-series can be moved there without filling this article with comparisons. The Singing Badger 01:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is better than earlier versions, although I think some mention of the sheer difficulty of watching the movie should be mentioned. I watched the movie before reading the book, then watched the movie again after reading it, and still couldn't understand it. I won't add anything myself: personally I agree with Maxim's opinion: "There isn't enough farmland on earth to grow enough weed to make us understand this movie" Stratton 04:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Hello, i rewrote many of the adjetives in the page, for startes to state that Dune is an "enormous cult favorite" is a shameless adjetive, not even the Blade Runner page, a movie that could have that adjetive, has it. I changed it to "cult favorite" and "cult status" respectively. As for the page, added a line by Roger Ebert, i think its important, as it sums up the consensus of the movie at the time it was released. Hope it doesnt get erased by some fan-boy out there. Still, made it very clear that indeed, the movie has achieved cult status, and that it is needed to read the novel before watching the movie.

Page is improving? I think so too...I've made some improvements to this article, and plan to make more, as time allows. Comme le Lapin 08:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1975 version

can someone cite a source for the 1975 plans? Equinoxe

here http://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/jodorowsky.asp , and Jodorowsky is still bitter about it.

Mattcolville 21:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in a citation for this statement; "Frank Herbert saw both versions. He liked the longer one a great deal and disowned the shorter one." Based on the article he wrote in Eye, he was critical of the final version, but defended it and Lynch.

I'm also not aware of any plans to involve Pink Floyd in the production, though I know they were fans of the books. If citations for these statements can't be supplied, I think they should be considered speculation.

Headline text

Wait a sec...

Extended Edition - European Version

I am not completely sure which of the versions mentioned in the article is included into the European DVD. The version is 177 minutes long, and is credited to Alan Smithee (not Allen Smithee, the most commonly used version of this pseudonym is Alan Smithee, see [[1]]). Maybe the "approx. 190 minutes" is wrong in the article? Because no mention of the Channel 2 Version being credited to Alan Smithee is made in the article. I possess a copy of the European version, so I could search for any detail in the film in order to decide which of the two extended versions it really is. CharlesDexterWard 12:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Things that should be looked in

Hello, ive been expanding most of this article, I included the lenghty pre-production process part, most of the box office and reception parts and most importantly re-wrotte most of the POV that this article had. Yet theres still much to do, this article much like the movie is a "real mess", its unstructured and theres very little info about what the movie is about, plus several other bits and pieces of important info are missing. But perhaps the worst part is that since english is not my native tongue, there might be a lot of typos and mispells. If anyone has anything to add, please do. Without erasing that wich took me a lot of job to writte and find out.

I beefed up the Pre-Production/Adaptation section with more info on the Jodorowsky version and even Herbert's stab at writing the screenplay. Count Ringworm 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Departures"

I've just made a couple of edits in the "Box office" and "Departures" sections to balance the anti-Lynch tone. Where it said that "fans of the book" were disappointed with the movie, I changed it to "some fans." The Lynch-haters often like to talk as if they speak for all fans of the novel, but they don't. I also deleted the bit about the special effects "leaving a lot to be desired." Some people think the effects are cheesy, but others don't (and I'm one of them). I've also noticed that a lot of the people who are most critical of the effects are those who already hate the movie on other grounds.

In the Departures section I dropped the word "numerous" from the opening sentence. I don't agree that the film makes "numerous" departures from the novel, and whoever wrote it is obviously promoting the view that the Lynch film is unfaithful.

I revised the recent edit about the weirding modules. In the movie, they are described as using sound. I don't think there's enough basis for saying that they are "psychosonic" weapons using "vocally personified thoughts."

I deleted the recent additions about the Sardaukar pressure suits. As far as I know, the costumes the Sardaukar are wearing are simply a design Lynch thought would look fearsome. I've never before heard of a theory that they are pressure suits and that the Sardaukar are being killed simply by having their faceplates broken.

I also deleted the paragraph about Feyd. It's been there forever, but it needs to go, even though it's been toned down from the original. Yes, he has a small role in the film, but many abridgements had to be made to cram the novel into two hours, and other characters were also trimmed or dropped altogether. And I find the bit about the knife fight ridiculous. The novel has a knife fight. The movie has a knife fight. Yet one of the Lynch-bashers still manages to argue that Lynch has been unfaithful to Herbert again, by claiming that the fight wasn't "climactic" enough. Please!--Groggy Dice 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you are biased towards Lynch, i suggest that you shouldnt edit anything anymore, i still dont understand why this article must be pro-lynch, if Lynch is pretty much attached to the name Dune even more than Herbert did. Dune is controversial, in that aspect. Theres nothing that makes an article weaker than a fan addition, cos they are usually justifications, and im just always amazed that they feel they have to place them right next to what anyone had sayd.

A couple of points. First off, I am not a fan of David Lynch in general, just Dune. The only other Lynch work I've seen is Blue Velvet, which cured me of any desire to see any more of his movies. However, I see Dune as a good-faith adaptation that tries to pack as much of the novel into two hours as possible, and captures part of the book's essence.

Second, while I do hold strong opinions on this subject, I'm doing my best to hold them in check and adhere to NPOV. I am not trying to turn this into a pro-Lynch article, I am trying to balance it. Although it is not as anti-Lynch as it was originally, a critical tone still predominates. The fact that you apparently never felt the need to chide any of the anti-Lynch editors suggests that you are, consciously or not, biased against Lynch.

As for Lynch being associated with Dune "even more than Herbert," in fact Frank Herbert was extensively involved in the film's production and spoke out in support of Lynch, something many of those posing as defenders of Herbert's vision against Lynchian distortions gnore.

You also don't cite any specific issue you have with my edit, just stating I "shouldnt edit anything anymore" if I'm in favor of Lynch. Of course, people who are prejudiced against Lynch haven't let that prevent them from editing. If you have an actual problem with my changes, rather than just a general sense that Lynch fans "shouldnt edit" this article, get into the specifics. --Groggy Dice 09:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

well thats the point, theres hardly any real edit, looking now through most of the edit i realise that you erased one or two things but didnt really added anything new to it (unless you added the Harlan Ellison thing in it). while some are understandable, i dont consider that the "numerous departures from the book" issue or the "feyd/paul fight" iussue to be candidates for deletion. There are so many departures from the original novel, for starters it completely loses the original philosophical point of the novel, wich was that Heros eventually do more harm than they do good, in the movie the message is pretty much the story of star wars-like hero that defeats all evil in the end. Thats a mayor departure from the novel, other departures are also how Paul visions of vast armies that fight on his behalf in the future are replaced by rather obvious symbolisms (the hand and the water for example, the ring is also another symbolism used on the movie, wich Lynch re-used for Twin Peaks). Theres also a big god-undertone to it (christian God it seems), wich i dont recall being present in the book as so obvious as it is on this movie. So for starters, the first departure is an intelectual one (also what the hell happened to the oil/spice undertone?, it was nowhere to be seen in the movie). Other departures are of course the navigators and the role that the guild plays on the movie, the weirding guns, minimalization of characters to basic cartoons, superficialities such as the heart plugs, the Fremen not being as important as the water of life thingie, etc.

But the greatest departure i think, its the whole Feyd/Paul fight, wich at the end of the book came not as just a fight that had to happend in the end (in the movie it has barely any importance that both even fight). In that particular fight, both Paul and Feyd realise that they are both the same, they were both manufactured by the Bene Gesserit all along (as it is explained that if they both die, generations of genetical breeding would be lost). Its a crucial momment on the novel that, that like many things on the movie, got minimized.

About the special effects, it was the frickin 80s!, im surprised that you didnt understand that, in the 80s the number of sci-fi movies released per year was perhaps bigger than in any other time in history, mainly for the groundbreaking (back then) special effects of Star Wars. The mentality was pretty much "how good will those special effects will be?". Things havent changed much since then, but if you need quoting on this, read on Ebert's review from it, in wich he states that the special effects look awfully bad for a 40 million dollars movie.

Nowhere in that part it sayd that Lynch was responsible for all of that. See, even you think that Dune is more related to Lynch than to Herbert (as i recall, you erased all that to tackle an anti-lynch POV)

Edits?

Are the following;

1. One of the Emperor's generals has a metal nose, and the Bene Gesserit witch has metal teeth.
2. The mentats have enormous eyebrows, an aesthetic detail that is not explained.
3. The Bene Gesserit women are all bald; there is nothing in the books to suggest that this is how they looked.

Departures or just not mentioned in the books? There is a difference Alastairward 09:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with what I think you're asserting; these aren't really "departures," they're just the kind of aesthetic choices we expect in any adaptation. I consider a departure to be a significant change in plot or character that somehow alters the original intentions of the novel, is truly notable or at least has significant impact. Like, the rain falling on Arrakis or even the Weirding Modules. I don't think the fact that Sting is blond really counts! TAnthony 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not an auteur movie

When editing this page, I think it is important to remember that unlike other films "by" David Lynch, this was not an auteur movie where he made nearly every decision himself. The "Lynch vs. Herbert" debate does a poor job of representing how much collaboration and evolution was really involved here. This is not meant as criticism of any particular bits, but as a general suggestion to stay away from flat statements of "Lynch changed ____" unless it is specifically known that the change in question was not incidental or producer-mandated.24.33.28.52 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ever since the mess that the production of Apocalipse Now was, no director is handed out a 40 million proyect with complete directorial freedom, its sorta obvious there for todays standards. But despite that, directors continue to have the last saying in everything. Lynch did made those changes himself, he recieved a certain amount of preassure from the DeLaurentiis to do so, but it was he who had the last saying in all of this, he personally did the infamous re-cut and has refused year after year to come back to the editing room to make his own version of Dune, no matter the support that fans have gaved to the movie.

Inconsistencies and additions

• Whats up with all the Harlan Ellison additions?, not only its badly written ("...Universal got very nervous" states one line) but lacks sources and seems to be overly long when it could be perfectly shorter than that. To top that, Ellison's review seems to be there just to justify Dune for bombing critically and commercially, out of all reviews, theres a focus just on the one review that was not harsh with the movie (on rottentomatoes there are positive reviews, but mainly from fanbased sites and dvd-reviewers, just very few from real critics or from that time).

if you look closer, the Ellison additions are sourced quite clearly -- from his book Harlan Ellison's Watching. Count Ringworm 13:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the first bits of Ellison but not the expansions. The Ellison article is not -entirely- a review, but does contain much commentary and fact-digging about the "poisoning of the well" which he speculates on. However, there were very few contemporary positive reviews which spoke positively of the movie; they will naturally stand out. This one happens to be widely available in a book, thus making it available for easier reference.24.33.28.52 23:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree that the article now dwells too much on what Harlan Ellison had to say. I don't know if it's true that critics at the time roundly panned the movie - the only review I remember reading around that time was a mixed but friendly review in Newsweek - but if that's the case, it's clearly out of whack for the article to give more space to a single positive reviewer than to an overwhelming consensus. In fact, no matter what the general critical reaction was, it's excessive to give so much attention to one voice. --Groggy Dice 04:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you find another "voice" which delves into the history of revocation of critical screenings of Dune? While there is too much of the Ellison stuff on the page now, his article is the only one which mentions the actual JERKING AROUND of critics by Universal. It's a unique article concerned with the circumstances of the situation, not just a "positive review." The article is analagous to the book "Battle for Brazil" by Jack Matthews (which is also about Universal showing cowardice with an SF movie in the 80's), although of course it is shorter.24.33.28.52 08:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The movie recieved bad reviews regardless of the "jerking around" of the critics, although theres the common perception that critics usually give bad reviews to movies when they were dennied screening, that is not necesarelly cannon. In War of the Worlds (Spielberg's one) critics were denied a screening, yet the movie had overall positive reviews, while The DaVinci Code was unniversally panned, yet kindly reviewed by Ebert who found it to be entertainning. Thus that the critics were "jerked around" seems to be mainly a trivial fact, how could something like that directly affect a review?. Many critics reviewed Dune having Lynch in mind rather than anything else (stating that it was not an "easy film to review"), and seems that only Harlan Ellison had the Jerking Around in mind when writting his review. Within the Studio system theres always the subject of movies that undergo butchery in the editing room, largely because of the budget of certain movies, this is not necesarelly just from Universal, but just any studio. So the question here is: how did the "Jerking Around" affected critics to begin with? (what sort of critics are these?), and even so, if it truly affected critics, wheres the source for that?. Although it should be mentioned, im not sure how important it truly is.

Ellison's point is that the prevailing mood from the studio before it was even released before critics even got a chance to see it was that is was gonna be a stinker and then they cancelled all of these advanced press screenings which ticked off critics and helped foster a negative reaction to the film in advance.Count Ringworm 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But you dont know that, its just speculation that it had anything to do with the bad criticism. Under the standards of wikipedia, it must be removed. You may have one source, but its just an opinnion all in all, there is no way to really tell if this "ticked off" critics into writting bad reviews of the movie.

I disagree. I still think it has merit and worthy of note. It is not necessarily merely Ellison's opinion but a first hand account of someone who was there at the time and witnessed the kind of reaction the film was getting from his fellow critics before it was even screened. Maybe it is not worth mentioning in such detail but certainly deserves a mention nonetheless. Count Ringworm 13:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Its an assumption without any real evidence to back it up except what Ellison believes (one critic is not necesarelly "right" just because he is contemporary to the events, if so, then Bill O'reilly's punditry would be widely accepted as cannonical). Plus, while looking up for Ellison info, i found 2 things: the first one was that he's more into sci-fi that from movies in general, from wich we might find a slight bias, and that Ellison has a fame for being overly angsty in his reviews. The second thing i found, was that you didnt wrote absolutely anything in here and copy paste your entire addition from this other page right here [2]. Wich means youve broken 2 of the most sacred rules of wikipedia: POV and copyright. The Ellison part has to go, for one reasson or the other (refering to annon user:166.70.26.204, who was the one who copy pasted the entire section).

• Was the movie really 5 hours long?, that seems exagerated, at most ive read that the original version was 3 and half hours long or almost 4 hours, but not even close to 4 hours, im not sure if theres a bootleg copy of Dune out there. But aparently, the portion of Dune that was Cut was aproximately around an hour or a little more than an hour.
• Were design and preparations really used for the Alien movie?, where did that came from?, Jodorowsky stated that Alien looked a lot like the designs that were used in Dune, nothing else. David Lynch decided not to use any of the preparations of Jodorowsky for Dune, specially the Baron's Chair, as it looked an awful lot like the one in Alien.
• Also, that the article is longer doesnt necesarelly mean its better, i dont get the addition of Lynch talking about the first time he heard of Dune, im not really sure how is that of any importance. I can understand the Ridley Scott part, mainly because it describes really well what went on with Dune and to certain degree the Harlan Ellison part.

Some last sayings and some probably good additions

Ever since i started up`dating this article (probably some 7 months ago) i have been reading tons of articles about Dune in the internet (some where pretty hard to find) and found out several interesting facts, most of them wich i already have added, such as:

• There was no 4-6 hour version of Dune, ever, there was a rough cut that went for 5 hours, parts of it were screened to both Herbert as well as the crew in mexico, but no "movie" was made from it. The only real version was the 137 minutes. Wich means two things, 1, the film was not "re-cut" by the studio, Lynch never got to make his 3 hour version of the movie to begin with, and 2, the whole thing was just largely a rumour, even Raffaella De Laurenttis explains this in the new DVD.
• The grossings of Dune in its first weekend were around 6 million, the producers expected to make around 200 million dollars just like the 35 million production: The Return of The Jedi (wich grossed in that time around that sum of money), this is the main reasson why it is considered a commercial failure (The Return of the Jedi was also released a year before Dune, thus critics compared the special effects of both movies, needless to say, Return of the Jedi made Dune look like Flash Gordon in the special effects department).
• Some additions and sections that should be placed, mainly in consideration of the cult status of Dune, such as: Themes, although i have YET found any study about Dune's symbolisms (just a few lines here and there), i have seen that some of the symbolisms (such as the ring or the navigator) are present in other Lynch movies (such as Twin Peaks or Mullholland Dr., or even Eraserhead), other symbolisms are of a religious tone, such as the hand for example. Considering that there are virtually no real sources (without sources there is no section), it might take some time though.
• Thanks to everyone who contributes with this article, specially correcting the horrendous grammar, to be honest english is plain not my native language.

Awards?

My memory tells me that Dune won some award in Europe, I think a script award. But that was for the imaginary extended European release. Any fact here? --Wfaxon 08:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cant find it yet. The movie aparently won a Saturn award for best cosutumes, was nominated for 3 more saturns, 1 hugo and 1 oscar.

Alicia Witt's age?

I may just be missing something here, but it says that Alcia Witt was 4 years old when she did the film in '84. on Alicia Witt's page ot also says she was born in '75. That would make her 8 or 9 in '84... Does anyone know how this is?--Syd Heresy 12:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Alicia Witt was born 21 August 1975. Dune was released 14 December 1984. She was eight years old when she performed her scenes for the film, and nine years old when the film was released. Comme le Lapin 07:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Budget

Ive had some problems finding the overall budget of Dune, if well its vox populi that it was around the 40 million dollars, that was the budget for the film, minus the cost of advertising. In an interview from that time, David Lynch says that the movie's total expense was around 75 million. Anyone who can confirm otherwize?

Peer Review

How can one manage to get a peer review of this article?, what is it that is missing or what can be improved?--Kessingler 06:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To find out about peer review, go to WP:PR. I would say, however, that this article is not in good shape and is not ready for a peer review. --Groggy Dice 17:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Then what is missing?

Influence

I've removed the following from the article, as I would argue that the Fatboy Slim song is actually referencing the book and not the film, unless someone can find a source that states otherwise (by the way, this song reference is already listed in the Dune in popular culture article):

• The Fatboy Slim song "Weapon of Choice" references the movie Dune numerous times, referencing the Bene Gesserit voice ("Don't be shy by the tone of my voice. Check out my new weapon of choice") and the worms ("Walk without rhythm, and it won't attract the worm"). TAnthony 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Its true, as it is it must go, not that it should be deleted, but rewritten in prose rather than just a list.--Kessingler 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, i see someone already did... hehe... yeah, ive been meanning to do that for some time, much like many other of the sections, but sadly didnt had the time. I was thinking something more in the lines of specify that the movie indeed it was influential, but to David Lynch more than anyone else, in a quick run through his career after Dune we can find several topics, characters, symbolisms or similar visuals to those present in Dune, i mean after all the man did worked on the movie for 3.5 years, read all the Dune Novels, worked in 6 different scripts before shooting, etc, etc. I think that a propper influence section could be completed with that, looking for the right sources for that on the other hand is what makes the whole thing difficult to write though.--Kessingler 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As there's already an article titled Dune in popular culture, I recommend merging the "Influence" section into that article. In its current state, it's not particularly relevant to this article. Comme le Lapin 08:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Book and Movie both had a different share of influence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.236.42.157 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I think the section is OK as is at this point because it only references influences specific to the film. Well, except for the Fatboy Slim song, which may be inspired by the book rather than the film (obviously, Paul said the line in the book before Kyle said it in the film). TAnthony 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As I believe the film-specific stuff should stay here, I've put two links to this section in the Dune in popular culture article (one in lead pgh, one in See also) for ease of navigation and to (hopefully) prevent the film-specific items from being duplicated there. TAnthony 17:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Riddick

I've removed the following new material comparing Chronicles of Riddick with Dune; as true as it may be, it's original research. If someone can find a Riddick review or other analysis that covers this issue, perhaps some material may be reintroduced. TAnthony 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetics in 2004's The Chronicles of Riddick are clearly influenced by Dune, in particular the costumes for the Necromonger's, their political/militarty intrigue and power structures. There are many further elements of Dune contained within The Chronicles of Riddick such as the way in which the Lord Marshall can move so fast in terms of his single combat as well as his weaknesses. References to ancient Earth based culture's such as "New Mecca" are also reminiscent of Dune. Generally many of the advances made by the production values of Dune are reflected in Chronicles of Riddick, if not down right derivative., not least when making comparisons between the messianic characters of Paul and Riddick.

someone should make a quick note that German techno band Dune was also named after Dune and that some of their music was inspired by Dune's soundtrack. They also have a song Spice, which contains some famous phrases from the book/film. Also, there could be a link to Dune: Spice Opera - analytik 80.78.146.66 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review.

I am going to start a peer review for Dune; it is detailed, informative and contains all the potential of one. There are some moderate suggestions; but its an excellently writen article. Angel2001 08:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Super. Kessingler 13:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dune: great film?

Or GREATEST film? --NEMT 23:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

AH!, now i get it, Stephen Colbert... hehe yeah, that was pretty funny, but you cant use the discussion page like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.57.71 (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the greater films no doubt.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It may have got terrible reviews but it's one of my favourite films. 77.99.98.37 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cast credits

Is it just me, or does anyone else agree that what all the actors did after this film is usually not notable in the context of this article? Like, the fact that Kyle McLachlan is on Desperate Housewives?! I continually remove these kind of additions, but with their persistent re-additions, I thought I'd ask. — TAnthony^Talk 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat; in the case of Patrick Steward becoming captain Jean-Luc Piccard or Alica Witt starring on "Cybill" some 10 years after Dune there could be some editing. After all, some actors need no further introduction. Kyle McLachlan starring in 2 more David Lynch features however is worth mention. The removal of adjectives from the cast section is also welcomed (to which i was about to say something until i saw that they were removed, cast section looks pretty good now).Kessingler (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Departures

Regarding this edit, if you are saying that the film "departs significantly" from the novel, you need to back it up. I don't know that Weirding Modules and rain on Arrakis are more significant than the type of changes that would be made in any adaptation of a novel, but you at least need to make an attempt in the article. And keep in mind, anything that looks like an opinion needs a source that somebody reliable said it first.— TAnthony^Talk 18:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Songs in popular culture

Blind Guardian: Traveler in Time. 81.182.237.230 (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Poster

The image on the poster is striking. Does anyone know who took it, or if it is just a stock image that has been manipulated to put in a pair of moons? It seems to have been recycled several times since then (there was a second, modified poster, with more action), and I could have sworn that the first release of the 1997 Jimi Hendrix album First Rays of the New Rising Sun had an uncredited lift of it, although I could be mistaken. Still, it would be nice to know who designed and art directed it. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Production of Dune

This statement: "The music would be composed by Peter Gabriel". - See Alejandro Jodorowsky. Is completely different from this one: "The music would be composed by Magma, Henry Cow and Karlheinz Stockhausen or Pink Floyd". Which one is correct ?
Krenakarore (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This piece written by Jodorowsky (referenced in this article but not adequately, I hafta get around to that) states that Pink Floyd ultimately was intended to do nearly all the music.— TAnthony^Talk 00:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Navigators - book vs. movie

I was wondering if the spice-mutated navigators should be mentioned as a difference between the book and the movie, as the former never mentions something like this, it merely hints at the secrecy of the spacing guild. 86.101.216.102 (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Mutated in what sense?

'"You won't. Not even their agents ever see a Guildsman. The Guild's as jealous of its privacy as it is of its monopoly. Don't do anything to endanger our shipping privileges, Paul." "Do you think they hide because they've mutated and don't look . . . human anymore?"'

"Scytale looked at the Guild envoy. Edric swam in a container of orange gas only a few paces away. His container sat in the center of the transparent dome which the Bene Gesserit had built for this meeting. The Guildsman was an elongated figure, vaguely humanoid with finned feet and hugely fanned membranous hands -- a fish in a strange sea. His tank's vents emitted a pale orange cloud rich with the smell of the geriatric spice, melange."

--Gwern (contribs) 07:21 3 August 2010 (GMT)

Script published and/or leaked?

Has Lynch's script ever been published or leaked to the public? If so, it should be mentioned in the article. -- 77.7.171.213 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There are copies out there, how is that notable?— TAnthony^Talk 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

American and English reception

The US and British critics were (as always) too primitive to perceive the great art of David Lynch. Although his characters in Dune show little humour, they are still human even in years 10 000 plus. A film totally underrated by the critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metron-Ohm (talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Extended (Alan Smithee) Version on Blu Ray, 8/28/2011?

I've seen a few oddball movie sales sites that have the extended in BR for sale, but mention a pre-sale for release on 8/28/2011. Is there confirmation of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.137.85 (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia / AIDS?

why is the criticism that Dune is homophobic or AIDS-themed mentioned in the opening chapter? This unfairly and falsely gives the reader the impression that this viewpoint is widely accepted regarding this film, when in fact it seems to be derived from just a selection of reviews centering on these beliefs (which are mentioned under the Critical Reception section). I have certainly never considered any homophobic or AIDS themes related to Dune until today when I read this Wikipedia article. While I accept it is a valid reading of the film (one I do not share) it is not factual material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.172.7 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This Wikipedian agrees, I also never considered it until I read this. I am gay and I like this movie (as a cult film). MrEvers (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember recall any of the characters being gay, but the homosexual aspects of the article seem to hinge on quotes. Therefore they would stand on their own as things that happened surrounding the film. Notable things as Wikipedia hooligans would say--184.63.132.236 (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this is no longer in the lead, and the coverage in the Critical reception area is appropriately sourced.— TAnthony^Talk 14:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

To add along this vein, why is the film scholar Robin Wood not identified as 'Gay film scholar Robin Wood'? From his own article he self-identified as a gay film critic, and his wiki article implies that his criticisms of film (at least after 1978) were seen through this prism. In the same paragraph, Dennis Altman is idenified as 'Gay writer...' It would seem that if a critic has taken it upon himself to criticize films in a certain manner, and lo and behold he criticizes this film Dune in that manner (anti-gay), that it would be good to ensure the readers of the wiki article knew that fact. Dperry4930 (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Jodorowsky Dune, what is the relation other than it tying up film rights?

The article as written strongly suggests to me that there is no relation between the uncompleted "Dune" initiated by Jodorowsky and the Laurentis/Lych film that is the subject here. If there is can the article make this clear? And if there is none, then can the article have one sentence explaining the timeline of the rights to make Dune into a movie including a link to an article about the uncompleted film? As is this other/non Dune has whole sections devoted to it that don't concern the subject matter. Or did Lynch buy/inherit the screenplay from the other production? If so the article does not make that clear or clear enough! This setup is just weird. There is going to be a lot more Dune movies down the road. It's inconceivable that there won't be--184.63.132.236 (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This section of the article predates the Jodorowsky's Dune article, so it seems we had this info but didn't yet have a place to put it. I for one think this larger paragraph is better suited to the Dune (novel) article (under Adaptations) and this article should have, as you suggest, a shorter bit mentioning the project.— TAnthony^Talk 14:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record I wasn't referring to Jodorowsky's Dune, but the aborted production itself. Although I think I did end up here after reading about that new doc on that day, and I should've mentioned it for completeness. I don't do heavy editing, but I think moving the Jodorowsky bits to the novels page sounds like the right idea. I would've suggested that if I'd thought of it. I was thinking more along the lines of giving the aborted film its own page. No rush, just felt like a good idea to raise this question where someone would see it one day.--184.63.132.236 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

promised messiah by causing rain to fall on Arrakis

Reading this talk page it appears that some major sections detailing the differences between the novel and this movie must have been gutted over the years. Often the largest complaint (which is also attributed to F. Herbert at the end of the article) is the end of the film, where Paul brings rain to Arrakis. I wonder if the end of the plot section couldn't elaborate on this slightly without calling it "OR"? I am not sure. But it seems like the obvious (and there for not OR) interpretation of this scene is Paul is able to open up a wormhole between wet Caladan and dry Arrakis bringing just enough of Caladan's water to the atmosphere of Arrakis. In other words he is himself able to do what the "navigators" do. I wonder if just between two commas this could be fit in in a few words. The only other interpretation is Paul steals the water from the Fremen's underground reserves, or the Fremen had been planning to do this with the reserves all the time... that seems not in spirit with the changes made by the film, including its different method of deep space travel (wormhole like travel is not in the books. Wormholes were kind of in rage at the time)--184.63.132.236 (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added "The entire film builds to show that Paul accomplishes this seeming miracle by opening a wormhole between his watery home world Caladan and Arrakis, as easily as the Spacing Guild's navigators earlier delivered House Atreides safely to Arrakis." to the end of the plot. It's normal for articles to step out of the plot in the final paragraphs. My only reservation is I've always thought that the concept of "folding space" was unique to this film. It isn't part of the novel, but if you read every website with information about Dune you come away with idea that it is. My personal understanding of this film is the space folding is something that the navigators do themselves, because it's a visual effect that can stand in for the ability to see into the future that dominates the novel so, which does not easily translate to the screen. My reading of Dune is "FTL" travel is simply that, faster-than-light. It's the guildsman job to be sure there is not a pebble in the way as that will end the flight disastrously. That's all. But it's been years since I last read the novel so, I'll just leave it at that--184.63.132.236 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I went and restyled it like so: " The entire film builds to show that Paul produces this seeming miracle by opening a wormhole to his watery home world Caladan linking it to Arrakis (just as the Spacing Guild navigators did—albeit across outer space.)". I think the parenthetical text helps to make it stand out as explanatory. I personally like to communicate to the reader that Paul is not godlike, he is merely navigator like, after his journey into inner space. Only much more handsome--184.63.132.236 (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The plot section gives what's actually seen in the film. Your added last paragraph is interpretation - WP:NOR, so it's been reverted. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well I tried. I was going to get this section out of the way, but might as well not remove it in case anyone gets the same idea. I don't think this is OR as whole plots would have to be described in purely visual terms to not be subjected to interpretation, but such is the information poor fate of Wikipedia until the revolution --184.63.132.236 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A plot section cannot give the reader more than the film gave the viewer. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia hooligans take a lot for granted here. For instance the article currently says that Paul makes it rain at the end of the film, as a demonstration of his powers. But that's just as much "WP:NOR". If we want to play this game it should say, "suddenly it begins raining on Arakkis, seeing this Alia declares Paul the Fremen Messiah. Similarly the bit about "folding space", pure assumption, the best we can say is the guildsmen facilitated House Atreides transport to Arrakis. If we descend all the way down this rabbit whole we are just deleting obvious information, rendering Wikipedia as only a baseline of proof that yes indeed some things do exist according to Wikipedians, but Wikipedia itself doesn't have too much information on the subject unless a famous outlet has made a definitive statement. It's all very reductive and I don't think this stranglehold on information is going to exist indefinitely--184.63.132.236 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, but there's a big difference between basic, common sense interpretation when we're summarizing plot and your theory of a wormhole from Caladan.— TAnthony^Talk 16:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Except it's not a theory. It's the only explanation. That and the movie is structured every step of the way to explain the ending. (begins on Caladan with scenes of abundant water. Contrast to Arrakis. Navigators "fold" space with aid of spice. That's the source of their magic-like ability. Paul goes on vision quest unlocking the power of the spice. Therefore he's super navigator. Therefore Paul folds space. Travels without moving. Therefore Paul delivers water to Arrakis (not by freight) where we've established that it doesn't rain. I'm not arguing for its inclusion, just that this is as obvious as anything in the film. I'm more just expressing concern for Wikipedia. I think if someone could figure out a way to deep browse Wikipedia's history, all of the deletions would turn up an order of magnitude of more information, most of it commonsensical, but not "noteworthy"--184.63.132.236 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: I want to add. The main reason I felt like this closing paragraph would help is the casual reader will think Lynch is a ham handed fool after reading the end of the plot synopsis. But he's not, and Dune is probably only one of a handful of adventure films set in space that are really very good, in the Star Wars zone. Also at the bottom of the article Herbert is quoted as saying Paul is not a god. So I want to temper this, to show this is not the thrust of the film, but just an over generalization, as I'm sure Herbert knew full well. The film just didn't have the time or scope to be able to explore that aspect of the novel(s) but it succeeds quite well on its own.--184.63.132.236 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Where did the term “messiah” come from in relation to this film? Is it ever used in the dialog, voice-over, or narration? I know there are mentions of the Kwisatz Haderach, of a “super being”, of The Voice From The Outer World — and, yes, there's that second novel. But is it an authentic term from this film? The term “Messiah” is so very heavily loaded with (our own) cultural baggage that, if neither the film nor the original novel explicitly use that term, I would suggest that we ourselves do not introduce it into the article.  Unician ∇  10:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The novel does use the word, as in "Of course, the prophecy left certain latitude as to whether the Mother Goddess would bring the Messiah with her or produce Him on the scene." I don't know if the film uses the word messiah, but the dynamic is clear.— TAnthony^Talk 16:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Messiah is the subtitle of the second book. It's a reference to the Fremen prophecy of a Messiah, not a literal representative of a god or anything. Indeed the entire thesis of the books is this messiah thinking is a bad idea. That and superman genre posturing. --184.63.132.236 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Homophobia

In this edit, criticism of the film was removed, citing undue weight concerns. I'm not quite seeing that. We've got two notable people who have raised the same criticism, which makes me wonder why it would be undue. If it were just some blogger, yeah, sure. Furthermore, a Google search reveals further coverage in reliable sources: [3], [4], [5]. Sure, it seems to be a minority viewpoint, but that can be represented in the article. I think it would take more than claims of grandstanding to remove this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The first guy claims this is the MOST OBSCENELY HOMOPHOBIC FILM EVER (so he can see into the future?). Oh come on, that is just foot stamping exaggeration, and I'd say the Baron is actually about the only memorable character in the film. It's not even clear the scene is homosexual, unless I saw some edited version-that is to my eye the David Bowie lookalike victim was androgynous. The second guy attempts to equate the Baron's amusingly disgusting sores with AIDS. Does that really stand up in 2015? I suppose of the two the second might have some historical interest, but the first one is just a silly comment that deserves no oxygen. Also those are pretty lightweight additional refs. Greglocock (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you disagree with the opinions expressed. That's not really a good reason to remove content from Wikipedia. Their criticism doesn't have to hold up, it just has to be published in a reliable source. WP:UNDUE says that weight should be given to each opinion according to its preponderance in reliable sources, and this brief paragraph doesn't violate that. The reviews from Variety and Time are probably twice as long. One of these days, I'll probably get around to streamlining some of the excessive quotations here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the opinion should not be in the article because is silly, and also logically impossible since he can't see into the future. I also think it is wrong, admittedly, I'd have thought there were many more offensive films, both before and since (let's start with the USA remake of Cage aux Follles, pass the sickbag). Still, not a big issue to me, I don't particularly like the film as a film, I don't particularly care about gender politics, and I'm inclined not to waste any more of my time on it. Cheers Greglocock (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that these criticisms are stupid/inflammatory, and they have been discussed in the past on this talk page. I would have removed them myself except both the critics are notable individuals. I personally think both critics are kind of creating the homophobic connotation themselves. Anyway, I have always wanted to see more positive criticism in this section (I know it exists) and in particular something that might mitigate the hostility of these two opinions.— TAnthony^Talk 23:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find other positive reviews. Best place to search would be science fiction magazines, such as SFX, Starburst, Starlog, etc. Just from a simple Google query, I found this article that looks like relevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Dune (soundtrack)

Article would make more sense as part of the larger topic of its parent film. Izno (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it's been eight months, and nobody has replied. I'll say that if the tracklist got merged in here, it would probably just get removed per MOS:FILM. I guess you could merge in the lead, which is sourced. I don't see a problem with that, and I suppose I'd support that. I don't have very strong feelings about it, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  I'm kind of torn on this issue, because while I'm hesitant to clutter this article with the sort of ungainly contents of the soundtrack article, I don't think that, per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, the album really deserves a stand-alone article. Not that there aren't already a number of unimportant albums with their own articles which don't really meet the notability guidelines for albums ... — TAnthony^Talk 01:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  Regarding track lists, I have no objection to removal of such if/when it's merged to this page. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose the merge. FamblyCat94 (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  @FamblyCat94: Do you have a reason based on policy/guideline? --Izno (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I think it has enough and as much information as a good percentage of album/soundtrack articles, as well as at least two notable supporting sources. I think the film page could do with a section on the soundtrack, though, with a link to the main soundtrack article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Also oppose the merge as it would make the film article too bulky, making it slow loading for poor broadband and mobiles. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Soundtrack merge

No need. Can we remove tag? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Please review the above discussion. Do you have an opinion? --Izno (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Would tend to agree with opponents above. Merging this into the film is unweildy and no benefit. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dune (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140725010823/http://www.chihuahuanfrontier.com/state/news/65-samalayuca.html to http://www.chihuahuanfrontier.com/state/news/65-samalayuca.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is it not 10,191?

I don't get why you are reverting this, when it states clearly in the film that it is the year 10,191?

The only reason I can fathom is that you are assuming that it is not the Gregorian calendar? But why would you assume that? We should take things as stated - the film (or rather Irulan) says:

The beginning is a very delicate time. Know then, that it is the year ten-thousand one ninety-one. The known universe is ruled by the Padishah Emperor Shaddam the fourth - my father.

In fact, even if it is not the Gregorian calendar, but some esoteric new date format - the year is still stated as being 10,191. So we should report this.

There is precedent - other films that use a date report it:

• Back to the Future Part II - October 21st 2015
• Blade Runner - 2019
• Doom (film) - 2046
• Logan's Run (film) - 2274
• The Time Machine (1960 film) - 802,701
• Total Recall (1990 film) - 2084

In fact, a quick glance at List of films set in the future shows many entries - including Dune. None of the other films specifically state that they are using the Gregorian calendar. (Although I grant that in The Time Ships a significant section is given over to a tirade by The Traveller over the archaic and clumsy method for describing the Gregorian passage of time - hours, days, years etc.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I have been somewhat vague, I'm fully familiar with the film and assumed you'd understand what I was talking about. Here's the thing. We know from the source novel that the date is 10,191 AG, or "After Guild". From a storyline perspective, the creation of the Spacing Guild takes place a couple of decades after the Butlerian Jihad, which is like 11,000 from our current time. So for the film's time period, we are talking about a Gregorian 23,000 AD give or take. This has been discussed in the past and there was actually an elaborate footnote somewhere that explained what I have explained, but I believe the specific date was removed from here and/or the novel article basically as an in-universe factoid that actually misrepresents the time period to the casual reader. Dune (franchise)#Plot arc covers the date spans with citations to the novels without relying on in-universe dates. I also understand that the film is an adaptation, with accepted differences, and if it doesn't designate AD or AG then perhaps it doesn't matter exactly how many millennia from now it's supposed to take place or what readers/viewing audiences understand of it. So we can certainly discuss this, but hopefully you now see the potential confusion.— TAnthony^Talk 14:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly important to list the specific year in any event. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Right, yes I do see your point, and it may be valid for the book - but not the film. I still maintain that by leaving out the date we're creating more confusion for the casual reader - the date (in the film) is not specified to be AD/AG/Tibetan I accept that (but neither is it in any of the other examples listed, with the Time Ships excepted) - but the film is unambiguously identified as taking place in 10,191 - in the very first sentence of the film. There is nothing in the film to suggest that it is not the 10,191 we expect.

As you say - there are many differences between novel and film (let's not consider the rainstorm at the end of the film - Yikes,) - the film simplifies many aspects of the book - so I don't think it's appropriate to use the novel as a source for the film.

I also disagree with NRP - when a specific date is shown in a film, it should be used. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I don't entirely disagree with you, I'm hoping we can attract more editors to the discussion.— TAnthony^Talk 15:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dune (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517163719/http://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/timeline.asp to http://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/timeline.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429101454/http://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/jodorowsky.asp to http://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/jodorowsky.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)