I think it's the other way around: the movie has come out, people are interested in the movie and the New Yorker is capitalising on this by writing about it.

Any "news" site is a non-human entity, a corporation, which is entirely, amorally incentivized by the pursuit of profit in service to the rules governing its existence. The writer was tasked with inventing some original content, at some target number of words, dealing with the particular subject matter that was likely contracted out to the New Yorker as part of the promotion blitz. It would have been edited for tone, length, style, grammar and spelling, and following any particular limitations or specifications directed by the ad agency or production company doing the content buys. Even if it wasn't purchased as part of the Dune promotional campaign, it is entirely brought about by that campaign in an attempt to exploit the current targets of attention.

This is the corporate soul sucking job of journalists in this era - nothing about it is spontaneous, authentic, or driven by an individual's genuine interest inspiring them to write something new. This article is the result of some guy's 9 to 5 with a deadline - he did a good job, within those constraints, but this is milquetoast SEO pap for the masses, tailored for clicks, targeted at vaguely relevant interest driving keywords with vaguely outrage adjacent topics.

I haven't finished TFA yet, but I had to double-check the date, since I recall reading an article that raised the same question as the subheadline when the first Villenueve Dune movie came out.

The book presented only a few phrases from within-universe languages. The movie includes non-trivial amounts of dialogue in those languages, which someone had to write. How they did so could be interesting, and an article about that isn't any more suspicious than one about the movie's vfx or any other aspect of the creative process.

Magazines publishing fluff pieces about new movies is something that has been going on since movies were invented.