Talk:Dune: Part Two

Poster

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

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

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

I agree, I think these posters are intended to be the posters for Part I + Part II. I think it should be the earlier one GroyGmoney (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2025

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

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

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

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

Wiki Education assignment: Writing in Digital Environments

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 13 January 2026 and 1 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flowerydaze (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Flowerydaze (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits

Resolved

Hello!

Just wanted to convey my thoughts on a few of my edits that were reverted:

1. The segment in the lead "It is a sequel to Dune (2021), the second film in a two-part adaptation of Frank Herbert's 1965 science fiction novel Dune, and the second of a trilogy of films developed by Legendary Pictures" should have two instances of the word "is" for clarity and correct syntax. I propose this version, with additions in bold: "It is the sequel to Dune (2021), is the second film in a two-part adaptation of Frank Herbert's 1965 science fiction novel Dune, and is the second of a trilogy of films developed by Legendary Pictures." Otherwise, the beginning makes it sound like Dune (2021) is "the second film in a two-part adaptation".
2. The segment "Creative decisions exemplified the production's expanded scope and changes in visual presentation" is far too vague. Yes, when your second film is a bigger production, creative decisions will reflect the expanded scope, but why does that need to be pointed out, especially in the lead?
3. Why does Hans Zimmer need to be identified as German?

Would love to hear thoughts from DAP389. Thanks! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response! I reinstated your first and third edits but will contest your second point. Two gives appropriate weight to aspects of the production that are not usually mentioned directly in the lead of a film article, or at least, that was the intent. I don't believe this should exceed a generalized level of coverage; if readers want more info about the costumes or visual effects, for example, then they can read that in the body. dap 💅 04:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If you don't mind, could you please explain why the segments about the gaps in Walken's and Seydoux's careers are notable? I can see how this information would be relevant for their own pages, but what does it tell the reader about Dune: Part Two? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Mainly to give a less lopsided coverage of the actors, which skewed to (understandably) Butler, but that still suffices as "real world context" under MOS guidelines for film articles. dap 💅 23:08, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dune: Part Two/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DAP389 (talk · contribs) 07:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 10:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for WP:GABD, expect the initial remarks soon! Vestrian24Bio 10:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Comments

Dune: Part Two (as of this rev)

• Is Collider (refs 22 & 129) a reliable website..?

Its use is permissible for direct interviews. I've replaced 129 with a source from the Motion Picture Association, however.

• Is/Film (refs 66 & 112) a reliable website..?

Yep.

• Is Salon (ref 186) a reliable website..?

No consensus presently exists but the site does have editorial oversight. It is therefore probably context dependent. In this case, it should be fine under WP:RSOPINION rules since the information is cited as an opinion.

• "Dune: Part Three" should be de-italicized in the Sequel section hatnote.
• Use the native |l1= parameter for italicizing in hatnotes instead of piping...

Rectified both.

• Why genres aren't linked in the lead..?

Done.

• If 20% funding was provided by WB, wouldn't that make them a co-production company..?

Nope, they are still considered only a distributor despite their 20% financial stakes.

• In the casting section, it would be better to use contemporary images (taken in 2022/23)..

I'm afraid the available images from that period are poor. There is one of Butler from 2022 that's comparatively sharper in texture, but I don't find it ideal because it's a profile shot of his face rather than a front view like the 2025 pic.

• In the filming section,
  • Hungary doesn't have to be linked per GEOLINK.
  • Directly link Jordan instead of Jordan (country).

Revised both.

• In the VFX section, clarify whether "industrial tractors equip with large black screens" is "equipped with" or "equipment with"..

The former. Revised.

• MOS:FILMACCOLADES says "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. [...] that are mentioned only by the recipient and the awarding body" - per which San Diego Film Critics Society, the St. Louis Film Critics Association, and the Georgia Film Critics Association awards should be removed because they don't have articles about the awards and AwardsWatch refs don't make them noteworthy for inclusion..

Removed.

Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

@DAP389: that's all I got, ping me when you're done addressing these.. Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Source spot-check

• Initial check: pass. Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
• Proper check: This table lists 4 random passages from throughout the article (1.8% of 222 total passages).

  These passages contain 8 inline citations (2.3% of 347 in the article). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Production
To play Feyd-Rautha, he trained in knife-fighting and improved his physique with a four month-long fitness regimen.
35	d	vanityfair.com	web.archive.org
One of the soundstage sets was a cylindrical structure that reflected sunlight with a sand-colored chroma key surface.
76	a	Lapointe & Broos 2024, p. 160.
Release
In particular, TikTok clips showcasing red carpet fashions generated significant interest, according to one marketing study conducted by Vievo Media.
113		variety.com	web.archive.org
Notes
Attributed to multiple references:
157	e	thewrap.com	web.archive.org
158	c	uproxx.com	web.archive.org
165	b	rollingstone.com	web.archive.org
172	b	vanityfair.com	web.archive.org
180	b	nytimes.com	web.archive.org

@DAP389: could you transcribe the source text from "Lapointe & Broos 2024" for the above statement (ref 76a) into the Notes column. Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Screenshot from the ebook. dap 💅 04:09, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Source spot-check: pass. Vestrian24Bio 07:30, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Final review

• GPTZero is 100% confident, this is human-written. Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
• EARWIG shows 16.7% - violation unlikely. Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
• According to link-dispenser (permalink),
  • 2 refs need archive URLs.
  • 17 refs that might be down are marked as live.

  Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

• Plot summary word count: 647 words (should be between 400 to 700). Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
• Media usage:
  • File:Dune Part Two poster.jpeg - missing alt text.
  • File:DVilleneuveRFH121024 (12 of 23) (54061976489) (cropped).jpg - missing alt text.
  • File:Timothée Chalamet 2025 2 (cropped).jpg
  • File:Zendaya-byPhilipRomano.jpg
  • File:Austin Butler at the 2025 Cannes Film Festival 02.jpg
  • File:14 Tomba Brion - San Vito d'Altivole, Treviso, Italy - Carlo Scarpa-FPPL3035.jpg
  • File:28 Wadi Rum (62) (13250733154).jpg
  • File:Liwa Oasis.jpg
  • File:FeydRauthaInfrared.jpg - missing alt text.
  • File:Hans-Zimmer-profile.jpg - missing alt text.
  • File:Zendaya y Timotheé Chalamet en 2024 01.jpg - missing alt text.
  • File:Florence Pugh - The Wonder BFI London Film Festival Premiere, October 2022 (cropped).jpg - missing alt text.

  All files have proper copyright tags, captions and alt texts; except noted. Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio:, finished up to this point. dap 💅 04:09, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

All else good, passing for GA. Vestrian24Bio 07:31, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.