Talk:Dune (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Article This article is a Article.
To-do list for Dune (film): edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • to keep it away from being fancruft
  • problem with the article is the distinct lack of sources to begin with, if anyone can find other sources (besides the ones listed) it would be much apreciated.
  • The grammar and prose should be looked upon: is it this an easy article to read?
Priority 1 (top)


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.


[edit] Headline text

Wait a sec...

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/n/Talk%7EDune_%28film%29_5ed8.html"