Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Criticisims

I'm suprised that this very comprehensive article has no section devoted to Star Wars Criticism. I'm sure most wikipedians (like myself) love Star Wars, but there are some substantial negatives that could be included in this article to create a more neutral POV. Excessive marketing/merchandizing and LucasFilm profit motivations (video game and action figure sales, numerous re-releases, ect), racial stereotypes and sexism, moral simplicity, and possible negative impacts on the movie industry are all reasonable criticisms that have been directed towards the films and expanded universe. Although some of these are addressed in individual articles I believe there should be a section for general critique in the main article. Any thoughts?

SimonSayz 19:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, as long as the criticisms are adequately sourced.CuriousCat 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Racial stereotypes and sexism" and "profit motivations" will likely lead you down a path toward POV. As for the latter, I'm confused by this need to paint Lucas as a money-grubber for trying to milk the cash cow. Not that it's right, wrong or in-between, but why is this so often pinned on Lucas while turning a blind eye to the rest of, well, anyone in the business world? At least Lucas has something to show for it: the expansion of his business (not personal) empire. The racial stereotypes have been put to bed a long time ago. A passing mention might be included, but I'm against anything that welcomes a host of Lucas-bashing onto this page. I'm no apologist, but he's a pretty broad target, and people tend to go overboard. PacificBoy 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

References

Are there any good references, books, etc, for the article? (Verifiably, etc) -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Any of the LucasArts-backed DK books, including the Inside the Worlds of books, the Visual Dictionaries, and the Incredible Cross Sections, not to mention all of the Essential Guides created for characters, droids, planets, weapons, ships, etc, etc, etc.... -- Riffsyphon1024 19:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • One requirement for FA status is to add the Reference Section with books that can be used to back up the article's information. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe sources for the themes, inspirations, and the Battlestar lawsuit, as they're the least "common knowledge". Stuff like "Lucas has control over Star Wars" is so well-known that it's almost unsourceable. Or, we could just put the novelizations of each movie as references, but that would kinda be a cop-out.-LtNOWIS
        • Stuff like "Lucas has control over Star Wars" is so well-known that it's almost unsourceable.
          Er...what? There are any number of articles about how much money Lucas has made because he retained the original merchandising and other rights. I'll see what I can find, but it shouldn't be hard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
          • "Star Wars: The Magic of Myth," the book that accompanied the Smithsonian exhibit, is an excellent source for what inspired Lucas from a mythological and social standpoint. PacificBoy 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cutting stuff

I have removed the "Main film locations" section. These locations are accessible through the individual film pages and not needed here. The article needs to get shorter, and removing lists like this one completely also prevents people from adding their favorite location. Similarly, I have cut the main characters quite a lot. I hope it won't grow too much again. Kusma (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Box office performance section

I have cut the Box office performance section and put it below. My reasoning is as follows:

  • The commentary is quite trivial, and obvious from the table iself.
  • The table is wrong and misleading, since
    • the budget only lists the original budget, not how much was spent on re-releases
    • the adjustment for inflation was made assuming all money was earned in the year of first release, which is not true because of the re-releases
    • Due to widely differing inflation and economic development in different parts of the world (think China in 1977 vs 2005), adjusting the worldwide gross for inflation tells us only how much money Lucas made, nothing about how many people watched the movie.

A table about this issue would have to be more detailed, and would then be confusing, so I just cut it as part of my recent cutting spree. Kusma (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The worldwide box office grosses of each trilogy parallel each other. The first episode of each trilogy generated the highest box office gross, while the middle episode of each trilogy generated the lowest box office gross (without adjustment for inflation). Although the films of the prequel trilogy had higher worldwide box office grosses than the films of the original trilogy, the reverse is true if the figures are properly adjusted for inflation.

No. Title Year Budget (and 2005 equivalent) Worldwide gross (and 2005 equivalent)
I The Phantom Menace 1999 $115,000,000 ($131,000,000) $922,379,000 ($1,052,000,000)
II Attack of the Clones 2002 $120,000,000 ($128,000,000) $648,200,000 ($692,000,000)
III Revenge of the Sith 2005 $113,000,000 ($113,000,000) $847,262,555 ($848,400,000)
IV A New Hope 1977 $11,000,000 ($36,000,000) $797,900,000 ($2,589,000,000)
V The Empire Strikes Back 1980 $18,000,000 ($46,000,000) $533,800,000 ($1,356,000,000)
VI Return of the Jedi 1983 $32,500,000 ($62,000,000) $572,700,000 ($1,094,000,000)

RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?

What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

i say one article... its too confusing having two... lol. you could just take the anakin article, then put it right before the vader article and merge them together into one 70.57.199.16 02:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)starwarsnerd

Well, seeing as how they are the SAME PERSON, I'd say do one article. MasterXiam 15:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-releases

How about moving this section in its entirety to List of changes in Star Wars re-releases and renaming that page to Changes in Star Wars re-releases or simply Star Wars re-releases? The main Star Wars page could only keep a short paragraph like

Main article: Changes in Star Wars re-releases
The original trilogy was re-released to cinema in 1997 as "Special Editions", including mostly cosmetic, but also controversal changes. Further changes that made the original trilogy more conforming to the prequel trilogy were made for the 2004 DVD editions.

Cutting this section would (I guess) get the page under the magic 32k limit (the Influences and Conception parts could still use some cutting, though). Kusma (討論) 03:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. The Wookieepedian 15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't the film released in 1977 actually called Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and just marketed as Star Wars? Later on, when the Special Edition was released, wasn't it just remarketed under its original correct title? This should be relected in the article. --9 June 2006 Champaign IL

No, and this has been discussed a number of times. The original release did not say "Episode IV" or "A New Hope"; that was added on re-release shortly before Empire came out. PurplePlatypus 07:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Midi-clorians vs. midi-chlorians (spelling discussion)

The current WP article on this topic is found at midi-clorians (sic) at the insistence of a user with an early edition of the novelization of The Phantom Menace where the word is supposedly spelled that way. Requesting input in the discussion over what is actually the canonical spelling. Thank you. Rcharman 21:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

im pretty sure its midi-chlorians, and what about commlink? or is it comlink? Starwarsnerd 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, fairly sure it's midi-chlorians, comlink is spelled with one m. --Jediarchives11 07:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Midi-chlorians is the correct spelling. If you try searching midi-clorians on the Wookiepedia, you won't get anything. --The One 14:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

New section

I think that there should be a new section on the general reception of the films. I think that information on the box office earnings needs to be merged into that section. The Wookieepedian 13:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What you've put in there now is redundant and unnecessary... and frankly kind of POV... if anything, this article needs to be PARED DOWN, not needlessly expanded... I'm going to revert it back until you can convince us it needs to be there... TheRealFennShysa 16:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I didn't expect what I added to stay in the form it was. I put it in there to be expanded, because the article as it is does not cover the general reaction to the series. I feel that it needs a section explaining the overall cultural impact. And I'm more of an editor, and not that great of a writer, so I was hoping someone else would do it. What do you suggest? The Wookieepedian 17:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
You should just be bold and start writing! If your writing is not that great, there will be others who will mercilessly edit it until it becomes good enough; after all, this is a wiki! About paring down vs. expanding: I think the length is OK now, just the balance between the lengths of different sections isn't all that great. Kusma (討論) 00:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Major characters

I have just deleted this section, because it seems to be unmanageable. It always grows because people add their favorite character or disagree who is indeed major. It also doesn't really seem to be needed in this overview article (the really major people are mentioned in the plot outline anyway). Kusma (討論) 00:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. The Wookieepedian 07:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Me too. --Dystopos 16:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Me too Astroview120mm 00:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Music

Changed classical music to romantic music in the intro and in a couple places in the Music section. If you would like to know why, listen to some Bach(classical period) then Wagner(romantic period) then Williams' original Star Wars music, and you will see which one doesn't belong. In this I wish to promote a more accurate definiton of "classical" and "romantic" music, instead of grouping together all orchestral music as "classical."

I am open to criticism though, so please respond. --Zaorish 04:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little peeved about the statement that the score for Star Wars brought Williams "international recognition." Jaws not only won the man his (second) Oscar, its theme music is arguably more well-known than that of Star Wars. PacificBoy 23:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:External links, I deleted a lot of the external links that, while related to Star Wars, were really of limited interest. If someone is unfamiliar with Star Wars and is looking it up in Wikipedia, they probably don't care about fanfiction, re-enactment by bunnies, or other minutiae. tregoweth 00:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

None of the links in this article focus on the things you listed. Notice I did not revert the film articles (with the exception of restoring the HoloNet link to AOTC), as THEY were the ones that contained all of the unneeded links. Those in this article, however, ARE relevant to the subject. The Wookieepedian 01:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

White Supremacy?

Were the imperials like this? You could tell that there's rarely any people of non Anglo-Saxon desent that serve the imperial military.Is this due to that racist humans from star Wars also hated non-white humans as well as hating aliens, or the lack of non-white humans.Answer please.Thanks.

This isn't a discussion board, but I will mention that a number of EU sources, particularly the original (d6, not d20) Star Wars RPG, make much of the Empire having various "racist" policies - strongly preferring humans to the sort of mix we see in Mos Eisley or to a lesser extent the Alliance in RotJ. A little later Timothy Zahn either took this ball and ran with it or independantly came up with the same idea, and it became a minor plot point in the Thrawn Trilogy. This is likely a metaphor for real-world racism. But actual real-world racism on the Empire's part? I doubt it very much; the clonetroopers and presumably later the stormtroopers were cloned from Jango Fett. Jango did not look white to me and the actor who plays him, Temuera Morrison, is part Māori. PurplePlatypus 07:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The predominantly white representation is on both the "rebel" and "imperial" side, the reason is? The films were shot primarily in England which has a very low population of ethnic groups other than "Anglo-Saxon" and as such very few Actors who are not white.

The Concept of the empire being "racist" is largly a fan creation, it is very minimumly seen in the films, there are only 5 NON humans seen serving with the rebels, as opposed to 3 serving the empire, and sporaticly menchioned in a few of the EU books.

Posters

Well, we can have it either way, both represents a uniform set of posters. We have the original theatrical posters, or the posters all done by the same artist. Either choice would be uniform. It's just that I feel that original releases should be represented. The Wookieepedian 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Like I said, a good idea could be to do a section on posters in general. I think that if they are being used to simply to show the posters, then uniformity is a good idea, ie using the Struzan posters that Lucas has now made the embodiment of the visual packaging of the films. Look, Han may have shot first in my world, but I know that as it stands, Greedo now shoots first. Just because the posters are the newer more stylized versions doesn't make them less signifigant or less descriptive. They are the face of the films as we know them today. AriGold 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. But I don't think Lucas really cares about the posters like he does the actual films. I don't think we should have a section on posters, as there are far too many. Maybe we should just take a vote, as either choices would work. The Wookieepedian 19:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't claim to know what goes on in his head, but playing Devil's advocate, if he didn't care, he wouldn't have changed them, no? AriGold 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, this issue was considered when I first put the images in the article. Everyone agreed that the DVD cover art best represents his modern view of the films, and the original theatrical posters represent well the original releases. So, we decided that the DVD covers would go at the bottom of each individual film article, while the theatrical posters would go in each film article infoboxe, and the main page would represent their original release. Not necessarily their original form, just their original release. The Wookieepedian 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I sincerely apologize if it was debated and agreed to earlier. I went through the discussion archives and did not see a discussion on the issue. I must have missed it. I'll look again. AriGold 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
          • It was discussed on the talk pages for ROTJ and ANH, IIRC. The Wookieepedian 19:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Ok. I looked again and saw that you added the box on 10/9/05 and it doesnt appear that anyone ever discussed changing them to the Struzan ones here. Only ANH discussions deal with which poster to use, bu they don't reference this page in the discussion. As it stands, I think it works best to have all 6 conforming posters together on this page specifically. How each movie treats the issue is a seperate issue I think. Thanks for being cool about this, a lot of people just flip out when a page they work hard on gets changed on them. AriGold 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

=

The Port is with you

Here's a weird fact. Just now watched Kind Hearts and Coronets, and between 53 and 54 minutes in, Alec Guinness, playing this time the somewhat demented rector of the church, after both had been drinking, says to Dennis Price, "My Lord, the Port is with you." I had to listen to this three times to get the wording right.

This is eerily close to Obi-Wan Kenobi's comment to Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, "Luke, the Force is with you." One wonders if it is not deliberate. Does it deserve mention in Kind Hearts and Coronets or the Star Wars or the Alec Guinness article? I don't know. Bill Jefferys 02:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Not having read the article, I have to say that it would fit best as a mention of a pop culture reference in Kind Hearts and Coronets, if anywhere at all. It's too trivial to belong in the Star Wars article, and it wasn't really a notable accomplishment of Guinness himself.

Oh yeah? Well. Anyways, are you sure it's meanin' a thing equal of the 'spritual entity' the Force is, or just some "the Port" as an object or a place of people or an organization? Coincidences happen ;)--OleMurder 16:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Posters

Someone find a better pic of the posters for the original trilogy. The Special Edition ones suck. Take pics of these ones.

Star Wars-[1] Empire-[2] Jedi- [3] 68.148.12.214 23:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We did have the original ones on the page. But, we decided that the SE posters gave the films box a more unified look and best represented how Lucas now views the films. See the section above. The Wookieepedian 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

what year is

star wars set in?

Pece Kocovski 11:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. The Wookieepedian 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
And how long is "a long time ago"? — Rickyrab | Talk 06:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The world may never know. :P The Wookieepedian 14:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hey, I started a Star Wars wikiproject proposal. Here is the proposal. Deckiller 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


--Metallifan 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

--BLACK DEATH 15:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

--Dr. Mahongany 16:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Deckiller/WikiProject Star Wars - I'll try to get it up and going officially tonight or tomorrow. Deckiller 23:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Re:Holocaust/Star Wars connection

Recently, some users have commented about whether stuff about Nazi Germany should be included in discussions of the Empire. My response - relax. Don't get so uptight about the comparison...

Himmler. Gothic Lolita. neener neener. Nuff said. And, besides, the Emperor DID commit genocide. Alderaan, remember? — Rickyrab | Talk 06:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • that wasn't genocide it wouldn't be genocide if Hitler started killing regular germans just for being communists I sont think at least i believe it only counts if you kill another culture or religion not just rebels.

"Star Wars: The Magic of Myth," the Smithsonian exhibit, makes much of the comparisons to, if not the Holocaust, then at least Nazism. The fascist soldiers are, after all, called stormtroopers. PacificBoy 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wookies

Is Bigfoot a Wookiee? Some campers heard Bigfoot one night going "GAAAAAA" and "UUUUUUUH". — Rickyrab | Talk 06:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

John Williams Credits

Updated the music section to give John Williams credit for some of his better known stuff than "South Park" and "Ghost Recon Six" both of which I have found no evidence to back up. There isn't even a game titled "Ghost Recon Six".

DarthChucks 21:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect "Ghost Recon Six" is a confused intermingling of the computer games "Ghost Recon" and "Rainbow Six", which were produced by the same programming team and are relatively similar in content and style. However, John Williams has nothing to do with either game; the music for both was done by Bill Brown. He's sometimes called "the John Williams of computer games", though. --JaceCady 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion

There Is Also A Religeon Based Off This Movie. Should That Be Mentioned?

Its A Legally Licensed Religion

http://www.jedichurch.com/5932/home/home.html

The 2004 DVD box picture on the main article

Apparently, the bottom corner of the picture on the Star Wars main article (click here) should say "Digitally Mastered" for the THX logo. The picture says "Digiforce mastered". I own the 2004 DVDs (widescreen by the way), and it doesn't say "Digiforce" but really "Digitally mastered".

I would have to agree that it should be added. Maybe in a Triva section or in a page of the like. But I never knew that before right now, and it's information like the ladder that makes me come to this site so often. 64.231.8.232 11:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Elisa Ardell (lledra)

Small suggestions

Nice article. But I think the fan-film section should be trimmed down, at least, the two notable films should be removed, I think there is way too much emphasis on the fanmade films in the article.

Also, the cultural influence section is far too short for something as huge as Star Wars. Don't know what you could write, but I was a little suprised by how short it was. I was looking through flickr and thought this could be useful, [4] in representing the popularity of Star Wars to an extent. The uploader tagged it with a commons license, so if that would look nice, someone might want to add it. Cheers. Cvene64 03:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, if we can get this to featured quality, it should be featured on May 25, 2007. The Wookieepedian 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats a pretty big if considering how the other Featured nominations went for Star Wars articles :-( Jedi6-(need help?) 22:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the anti-Star Wars/Star Trek wikipedians will jump at the chance to vote it down! :P The Wookieepedian 22:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Its more of there beings a sizable number of Wikipedians who believe that a fiction article needs to be 100% out of universe perspective. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the problem. An article about about a fictional subject can't be written to be 100% out of universe because... well... it's fictional. I mean what are you going to say? "Palpatine is the name given to a group of pixels on a theater screen/television playing a specific film/DVD. Due to the interpretation of light which bounces off of these pixels and enters the human eyes, the pixels appear to the human to be a man. These group of pixels represent a group of words (which is actually stylized ink/lead on a piece of paper or a screen) originally written by the completely real person George Lucas and performed by the real actor Ian McDiarmid,, that the human eye interprets as words, which they in turn read together, which produces a type of thought in the human brain that seems reallistic to the particular human..." The Wookieepedian 23:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so reductionist. It's possible to handle Star Wars articles (or any fictional articles, for that matter) from an out-of-universe perspective, by focusing on placing fictional elements in a real-world context. (Even if it never gets policy-fied, User:BrianSmithson/Writing about fiction is worth a read.) In this case, I don't see any section that falls into the trap of being too in-universe, unlike, say, Palpatine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I know. I was being sarcastic. :P The Wookieepedian 18:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Sadly sarcasm doesn't translate well into writing. Thats why I always add (sarcasm) to my messages. :P But this article does have the potential to be featured. Maybe I'll do that this summer....Jedi6-(need help?) 04:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I doubt there is any agenda that is out to get this article at the FAC - to be honest, the article just is not good enough. Something like Star Wars just really demands a much better article. Cvene64 12:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This article has too many lists at the end. In addition, he seems messy to me a little. There are many subsections under a few generic terms. And the language and the expression is still that one of a fan. We should a little copy the German Star Wars article, this one is very well and really beautifully jointed in my opinion. It is the advantage over the German side that we may use more pictures. Why isn't this used? One should insert pictures which have to do with the films less and more describe the genesis. I have in addition noticed that the plot is hardly mentioned. If I liked to ask about the topic as a newcomer, I must read ten pages till I know at all about what it is. Until there I have already read all concepts which nobody explained to me until there. What is the deathstar, what the Jedi and the republic? For an article which would like to include the complete topic I expect a proper text. A text which isn't instructed on links but can describe the topic high-handedly. In this regard the German article should be our example. Best wishes 172.173.184.203 13:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 re-releases

  • It is evident that since this article has a section that describes all the re-releases, that a DVD re-release of the original films is worthy of note. When this information has been added, it has been reverted with the explanation that this news belongs in the "A New Hope" article. I disagree and invite discussion here rather than continued reverting. --Dystopos 13:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, individual DVD releases should be noted on the List of changes in Star Wars re-releases page and/or the individual films articles. Listing every single release here (as the page once did) would go beyond just giving an overview as the intent of the article is. The Wookieepedian 13:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It is evidently considered by many of Wikipedia's editors to be a major release. In fact, it is the first DVD release of the films which are the primary subject of the article. I think you should reconsider your personal stand in light of Wikipedia's policy own ownership of articles. --Dystopos 15:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I am fully aware that no one has ownership of any article. I'm only looking out for it. I welcome the release of these films just as much as anyone else, but I've noticed that every time there is a new DVD release, a group of anons continue to add it to the page. The thing is, the originals have been released many times before in other formats. DVD is simply another format and will soon be overtaken by HD discs. Perhaps it is not my opinion that should be of concern, but the biased (purist/nostalgic) stance of the many who continually add this information to the article without looking at its actual importance. The Wookieepedian 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

part of the page dissapeared...

The sections after the feature films disappeared. Where'd it go?Ollie the Magic Skater 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looked like an editing mistake. I just reverted. — Larry V (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-templating for WikiProject Films

Hopefully no one will mind if I remove the tag "V0.5|class=GA|category=Socsci", as it seems to block the article's inclusion into the Wikifilm Project's GA category. --P-Chan 00:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because you removed it from the Version 0.5 log. Titoxd(?!?) 04:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I readded it because it's important, thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wookieepedia and usability

I note that the link to Wookieepedia is now via the corresponding template. Some would argue that this is less usable, but other find duplication irritating. It is a matter of judgement... Also: because the pattern is not simply using Template:wikia, new users who know about Wikia will not immediately recognize that the Star Wars Wikia and Wookipedia are the same. They will figure it out soon enough, but it is not obvious. -- 67.121.112.202 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

2007 Star Wars Saga Box Set

Does anyone else believe the rumours that Lucas is making even more changes to both trilogies for the upcoming Saga box set. I've heard rumours that he's filming new scenes for A New Hope portraying the Emperor dissolving the Senate and Bail Organa's last moments on Alderaan before the Death Star destroys. More A New Hope rumours include a scene with Darth Vader returning to Coruscant at the end to visit the Emperor and his duel with Obi-Wan more CGI. As for The Empire Striked Back will 've heard he will replace the Yoda puppet with a CGI Yoda to make him look more consistent and another revision of the scene between the Emperor and Darth Vader on the Executor. And also more Battle of Hoth scenes.

As for the Prequels? I'd say for Attack Of The Clones Lucas should re-insert the raid on the Droid Control Ship. For Revenge Of The Sith put back in the rebellion scenes (makes sense to see Mon Mothma in her early years and the birth of the resistence that opposes the Emperor on such a large scale in the original triology) and Yoda landing on Dagobah.

Those would all be awesome, but unfortunately I doubt they will happen. :( The Wookieepedian 14:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Not even Lucas would dare replace CGI Yoda, especcialy after claiming that he has such respect for Frank Oz's puppetry. He even tried to get it nominated for an Oscar, but, well, we all know the Academy's viewpoint on Lucas. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I can definitely see ROTS extended a lot. However, the whole point of CG Yoda was to make him closer to Oz's puppet: the replacement will be in TPM.

Expect anything and any changed:

"Lucas on B&W films "Classic films should not be altered from thier original format, adding color is altering the original art. Films should remain as they were originaly released so as to preserve thier artisit statement"

Clearly he changed his mind he may have changed his mind about a great many things.

Okay, this is not a Star Wars rumor mill/forum. I recommend that you find someplace else to hold this discussion. Please keep the talk page limited to discussion of the article and actual issues revolving around its editting and not some rumor someone heard from some site somewhere. -Thebdj (Also Sign your messages)

Why is this semi protected?

See title.Ollie the Magic Skater 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The saga is not over yet.

Why isn't the seventh film mentioned? "Star Wars Episode Zero: Balance of the Force" is already in the make with minor computer-FX job. Between Darth Plaguesis and young Kvi-Gong, you'll understand the dark and light sides of the force are not that strictly separated. You will learn why Anakin came to be. By the end you will know why making of ep7-9 is inevitable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs)

Yes please read the above link. It also sounds like a fan film or the comment at least sounds like a promotion of a fan film, which I wouldn't doubt. --Tenric 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Supershadow. He's a well known fraud amongst Star Wars fans. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Clone Wars and Knights of the Old Republic G-Canon?

I see Clone Wars and Knights being cited a lot by fans. I'm wondering if they are G-Canon, considering Lucas did involve himself lightly in the former. Wiki-newbie 12:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel/Dr. Who/Wha?

"Some people also consider that Darth Vader's appearance is similar to the Ice Warriors from long running SCI-FI series Doctor Who, this is due to the fact that the Ice Warriors share a similar dome shaped helmet and also the same voice patterns when they breathe. This is also coupled with the fact that the Ice Warriors were introduced into the show in 1967, the same time when Lucas was designing Star Wars"

Gotta say, I don't know where to begin dismantling this. 1) Any resemblance between Vader and the Ice Warriors is extremely tenuous at best; 2) Star Wars wasn't a glint in Lucas' eye in 1967; 3) Dr. Who wasn't shown in the US until the late 1970s; 4) Vader's appearance was primarily based on samurai helmet, fine-tuned at Lucas' suggestion by Ralph McQuarrie.

Finally, again, WHO ARE "SOME PEOPLE"???

I'm deleting it.

PacificBoy 23:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The original trilogy and the prequel trilogy are two different trilogies and I think they should be listed as such, instead of listing the movies in chronological order.

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode 7,8 and 9?

This is official, and not some rumor! George Lucas said it himself.

Take a look at this! Warning: This spoils the whole plot outline of the films!

http://www.supershadow.com/starwars/episode7/plot.html

http://www.supershadow.com/starwars/episode8/plot.html

http://www.supershadow.com/starwars/episode9/plot.html

I hope they make them... Aero Flame 12:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Very old fan-fiction I believe. Wiki-newbie 12:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup - that's been around the traps for ages. --Merbabu 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Such things have been rumoured for many years. It's not confirmed and is just fans specteculation. I will be glad if they were to make it, but it doesn't look like it. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Supershadow is a fake. When I first saw it I thought it was real too, but it's nothing but a lie. So please do not put it on the page.A7X 900 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek and Star Wars

star trek and star wars Whenever I look either Star trek or Star wars on the wekipedia,it labels Star trek as "science fiction" and Star Wars as "science fantesy". This is absoloutly absurd. Infact,wekipedia has got the two switched.

The elements used in Star Trek are pure fantesy such as time travel,a god-like being known as Q who has unlimited abilities,teleportation,weapons that can send planets milions of years into the past,seazing them from existence or weapons that can destroy matter(which directly goes against the laws of physics). Take anyone of these elements and each rules out the concept of Star Trek being science fiction.

Star Wars on the other hand has none of these elements. Infact,Star Wars carries none of the false elements used in Star Trek. In Star Wars they have used technology of which a few are available today and technical terms borrowed from real life technology such as "laser" or "proton" whereas in Star Trek,fictional words have been created to sound like real life words such as "phaser"(to replace laser). Some technology used in Star Wars is being used today such as robots,though not as sophisticated. Laser guns are used today to cut through metal(also used in Star Wars) but obviously unable to have rappid fire. Bacically most of the technology in Star Wars today is non-existent,but each still carries a sceintific theory behind it just as the theory of flight existed long before humans took to the skies.

Regarding the "force" which has been the main contribution into classyfying Star Wars as "science fantesy",people who have followed the Star Wars saga should know that this energy field is generated by by mediclaurians(a fictional term,but with explanation).

The organisms in the Star Wars universe possess these microscopic life-forms in their system that allow them to conduct the energy known as "the force". It basically reflects on scince inour world. For example,why are electric eels able to produce electricity around their body while sharks are not?The answer is their bodies are equipped with capacitors as oppossed to sharks.In the same way,the users of the force(both and Jedi and Sith)are contained with enough medichlorians to produce enough energy waves to push around heavy objects.

The simple reason it's been classified as "science fantesy" as oppossed to Star Trek is it lacks in scientific terms whereas Star Trek is filled with made-up scientific(or so-called "scientific terms"). Most of the technology used in Star Wars may not be available today or probably even centuries from now,but to say Star Trek is "more realistic" than Star Wars is pure ignorance. Nadirali 03:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek is about fictional science and has (or set) many of the sci-fi tropes, whereas Star Wars has fantasy tropes in a sci-fi setting. That said, this isn't a general purpose discussion board, but instead a place to discuss improving the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

improving articles?

If this is just about improving articles,then why are people just opening topics on Star Wars randomly? And how can Star Trek be considered scientific? Man in block has made the general statement without even explaining it.

Well, I look at it this way with the whole science vs fantasy thing (don't quote me on it): Science fiction has things that could possibly happen now or in the future but are fiction since they are not happening. Now with fantasy, those are things that are extremely unlikely or impossible to occur, like the force exsisting, it's more of a fantasy-like setting, I don't know if that confuses you more or not. As for people bringing up random SW topics, that happens no matter if it's supposed to or not. Darthgriz98 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ST is fantasy

I don't want to sound too agressive here,but people are ignoring the points I made aobut Star Trek being fantasy compared to SW. Read them before you answer. And as for posting random articles on the subject of Star Wars:if everyone can do it then so can I.

I appologize, re-reading through your arguments you do make a good point, as for the anyone can post random things, we really discourage that, people do it yes, but they shouldn't. And by the way, your topic wasn't a random SW thing like "SW rocks!", those are the random things we discourage on talk pages, things not related to the article. I can see that your's relates to the article. I also see we have conflicting views on fantasy and science, which is fine I was only voicing my opinion. Darthgriz98 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the warm words Darthgliz

my interesting discovery

Before I start,I apologise for being so naggy on the subject of Star Wars being more scientific than Star Trek,but I seem to have made an interesting connection between math and physics,although sceintists and mathamatitions know this already,it is new to me.

Back to the subject of reducing matter into vacume(or absoloutely nothing but empty space)with the help of anti-matter as theorized in Star Trek is a physical/mathamatical impossibility.

I will now prove my theory:

In Star Trek,matter is reduced to nothing by a phaser weapon armed with "anti-matter". In sceince,according to Einstien,matter can be transformed into energy,but if Im not mistaken,that's quite different from reducing matter to vacume.

This physical impossibility can be translated into the math formula: X is any random number you want to choose,wheather decimal or whole number.

X/0 = error. Try it on a calculator and substitute X by any number you desire.

Now coming to back that Star Trek theory of reducing matter to vacume using the "anti-matter" phaser weapon,we can apply the formula.

X is the number of the solid object(s). 0 is the "anti-matter" the phaser weapon is armed with because as we all know zero is nothing. You try to reduce the number of the solid object(s) using nothing into nothing and the formula shows it's a physical/mathamatical impossibility.

Correct me if Im wrong because Im not the best student in science or math. My basic point is numbers are there to reperesent anything from distance to solid objects.By dividing numbers(except in the use of 0),you can never get an answer of zero in division.Basically,keep braking down matter,and you find you can never reduce it to nothing. If anyone wants to make a comment please do so.Just do not accusse me of turning this Star Wars discussion into a science lecture as discussing the science of Star Wars is talking about a part of Star Wars itself.Nadirali 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Thanks(-ish). --EEMeltonIV 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Darth Vader German?

In Star Wars: Episode V; we learn that Darth Vader is Luke's father. Is it possible that the name Vader connects with the German word for father; Vater? The two are very similar, with Vater meaning father, and Darth Vader being Luke's father. Ponder that.

also Darth sounds like "dark". Read this [5]--Merbabu 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't this article (and it's related articles) have an infobox? I'm thinking something like found on.... well.... Star Trek, or even at Template:Christianity. Jhamez84 23:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A message to the filmaker

I am adressing the Film maker regarding the editing those articles on Star Wars.

You may like calling Star Wars science fantasy,but due to the reasons that Star Wars contains none of the fantasy elements that STar Trek does it would be invalid to do so. Your opinion is giving me the hint that you are a Trekkie.I have already argues with my fellow Star Wars fans and other Trekies about this topic(check the articles written above)

So it's been voted as "sceince fantasy" regarding the so-called "prequel trilogy".But that's a seperate trilogy all together.I am only speaking of the originals. First off,where did you get this word?I checked 3 online dictionaries for this word and found nothing.Did you make up this word by any chance? And second,your article states that it's a saga.Star Wars is more than just a saga.It's an entire universe,ocnsisted of the saga,spin-offs,novels comics etc.

If you have viwed any of the actual Star Wars movies on DVD,they are rated PG-13 for SCIENCE FICTION violence.

If Mr Lucas would like it to be known as "science fantasy",then his company should stop producing the technical journals,the technical encyclopedias or anything that tries to rationlize the technology of Star Wars.

Please understand that I have already discussed the realism of Star Wars as compared to star trek.Star Trek has been proven to be fantasy by engineer Micheal Wong as well as explained the science of Star Wars(visit his site http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_ST.html) ,whereas the technical commentries of STar Wars are written by Dr Curtis Auxtin who has a PHD in astrophysics.

Star Wars is SCIENCE FICTION

Thankyou.

this was a response

Listen,I did not re-start the topic again.Im done discussing the reality of Star Wars.I was messaged by this guy called the Filmmaker not to edit Star Wars as science fiction. He asked me to respond on the message board and here I am. I simply wrote that because I was told by the guy called "the Filmmaker" to post my arguements so here I am. I am not here to start a fight or anything.

Response to Nadirali

Alright, first I'd like to mention that I only just now found your arguments as I asked you to post them in the talk page of one of the film articles, however we can make due with this. I'd like to address your........ accusation? that I am a Trekkie. I am not, I have never even seen a full episode or film from the Star Trek universe. Lucas has also referred to it as "space fantasy", however he has been contesting the title of "science fiction" for much longer than he has allowed it. The general media has, yes, labeled the film as science fiction. Only because is easily mistaken for it because of it's space setting and use of technology beyond this world. This is why it has been nominated for awards and received ratings with titles featuring the words "science fiction" or "sci-fi". However, can you really contest that the award committee would invent a new category, such as "Best Science Fantasy Film" when only one such film was released that year? Star Wars is considered science fantasy because of it's use of fantasy mythologies established by Joseph Campbell is his book "Hero with a Thousand Faces", by taking themes that run across almost all great fantasy stories and putting them in a scientifically advanced setting. You can read more about it in the A New Hope article.

Responding with facts.

Alright,I will respond here with facts,that is placing my opinions aside to validate my arguemnts.

FACT-People who write articles on wekipedia write the articles on their perspective of things such as history or cetain issues.

FACT-Majority votes do not impact the belifs of all people(otherwise they would be "majority votes" would they?it would be all to nothing)Such as 1+1=2.If the majority of the world voted 1+1=5 it would not really be that way just because the majority sees it in that way.

FACT-wekipedia is a nuetral site and respects every person's perspective of an issue,whather majority or not.If it's not doing this then it's not neutral at all.

FACT-When you make a general statement and contradict yourself,people cannot prove which mesage you are trying to validate.Geroge Lucas has stated that Star Wars is between science fiction and fantasy,so why then publish all those technical journals,encyclopedias,novels in which the scince of Star Wars is explained?Trying to rationalise the technology in Star Wars(even the force through the "medichlorians")would be Lucas contradiciting himself?And while he does contradict himself,it remains undecided what his view on STar Wars is.

FACT-Star Wars movies on DVD are ranked PG-13 for SCIENCE FICTION violence.Check it yourself if you don't belive me.

Prove any one of these wrong and I'll shut my wekipedia account.

Thankyou

  • Alright let's see.

"FACT-People who write articles on wekipedia write the articles on their perspective of things such as history or cetain issues."

Wrong, otherwise all articles would be NPOV. Editors of Wikipedia attempt to present all perspectives and allow the reader to decide for themselves. Before you scream about us not including your opinion. Please read on.

"FACT-Majority votes do not impact the belifs of all people(otherwise they would be "majority votes" would they?it would all to nothing)Such as 1+1=2.If the majority of the world voted 1+1=5 it would not really be that way just because the majority sees it in that way.


Wikipedia is a democracy. You're fundamentally saying that the majority of people here are voting that 1+1=5 because the prequel articles have been voted through FA. And how do you know this? You sound to be more of pursuer of truthiness than the truth itself. On Wikipedia, truth is derived from consensus.

"FACT-wekipedia is a nuetral site and respects every person's perspective of an issue,whather majority or not.If it's not doing this then it's not neutral at all."

Yes and no. There is the factor notability. The information on Wikipedia is only allowed if it is from credible source, it is not a place for your "cool ideas". As of right now, all of your opinions are original research that is not eligible.

"FACT-Star Wars has not been proven to be a true story.Wheather it happend "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away" or not is unproven so there are no "facts" regarding Star Wars.Every man is free to hold their vision of the story such as the famous "Han shoots first" issue."

Yes, they are, but not every man's vision is notable enough to be written about on Wikipedia.

"FACT-When you make a general statement and contradict yourself,people cannot prove which mesage you are trying to validate.Geroge Lucas has stated that Star Wars is between science fiction and fantasy,so why then publish all those technical journals,encyclopedias,novels in which the scince of Star Wars is explained?Trying to rationalise the technology in Star Wars(even the force through the "medichlorians")would be Lucas contradiciting himself?And while he does contradict himself,it remains undecided what his view on STar Wars is."

His view on Star Wars, as he has stated in many interviews is that it is "science fantasy" or a variation that term, not science fiction. The technical journals and encyclopedias are merely another form of marketing that Lucas takes advantage (at rightfully so in my own POV). Again, this is your own original research and point of view that is not notable on it's own. If you find a source, such as newspaper article or a book dealing with issue itself, than it will become notable enough for Wikipedia. Better yet, write the book yourself.

"FACT-Star Wars movies on DVD are ranked PG-13 for SCIENCE FICTION violence.Check it yourself if you don't belive me."

I don't know what to tell you. This is probably the closest you've gotten to an actual argument for why the films should be considered science fiction. However, that is the MPAA's classification, not George Lucas'. I've never researched, but I believe that MPAA has set titles for these ratings and therefore they most likely classified it as science fiction violence because of it's setting in space and futuristic technology, not based on cinematic mythology. The Filmaker 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Look here,I don't portray myself to be a persuer of truth than truth itself. So just because it has a small mythology in it the whole trilogy gets dumped into the "science fantasy" box?It is star trek that has been propagated as "science fiction" because of the abuse of scientific theories by Trekkies.Check out Micheal Wong's site.http://66.39.46.41/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_ST.html He's a certified engineer and proves this propaganda about "Star Trek" being the future and helps in rationlizing the technology of Star Wars. Infact because in Star Trek,they make-up so much real sounding "science", it has been labelled as "Science fiction" in the popular media.When it contains pure magical elements portrayed to be real science.

"setting in space and futuristic technology"-(your quote) Careful with the words you use.That's what I mean when I say condradicting one's self. Your now indrectly saying that Star Wars is science fiction by using words such as "futerestic technology".As does Lucas when he rationalizes the technology of Star Wars in directors commentry on the DVDs as well as the books.

As for perspectives.Wekipedia does use words like "white superemicists" on people who do not view themselves as white supremicists at all or the history ofthe Muhajir population of Pakistan,when the writer sometimes has no idea what he/she is talking about.I have read articles on those and attempted to correct them.And yet-it's posted.This is what I mean that it's written on the writers perspective.Some of the sources themselves are opinions-mixed with un-proven facts.

I'll agree on one thing though:This is niether the time nor the place. I've got better things to do.

  • Okay, please stop creating a new section for every response you have. However, if you are done discussing the subject, that is fine as long as you do not change any Star Wars related articles again to reflect your personal view of it being science fiction.

As for me,my statements are based on FACTS that I clearly provided.

Since wekipedia is a neutral site we can place the classification of Star Wars as science fantasy/science fiction as disputed.

LET IT END THERE Since I think neither one of us is going to back down.

My apologies to the film maker.I have been expressing my view in a sort of a "jerky" attitude.I hope I have not hurt your feelings and didn't meant to sound so personal. You can go on editing the Star Wars article as I really don't care.You'll know it's science fiction,I'll know it,Dr Micheal Wong will know it. http://66.39.46.41/toc.html Dr Curtis Auxill will know it and so on....

I still contest that Star Wars is science fiction. It does feature a "little mythology" as you stated, it was in fact based off of mythology. This "science fantasy/science fiction (disputed)" will not work as discussions are not to be carried over into articles. As of right now, I believe that you should leave the articles alone until the dispute has been settled and give the original version the benefit of the doubt especially since it has been passed the FAC. The Filmaker 02:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No my friend,I still am sorry for being so harsh and as I stated it's against my nature to be so impolite when it is totally unecessary,but I still stand by my claim that Star Wars is science fiction.

I know the storyline is based mythology as stated in the documentry DVD but "because of it's setting in space and futuristic technology" as you said,infact makes it science fiction.

Simply by using terms as stated above,your indirectly saying Star Wars is science fiction.That contradict your first claim that it's science fantasy,which is not the same thing.

As for people writing articles on their own perspective,I also stand by that claim. As for "my cool ideas",it wasn't a very nice thing.If what I have said are "cool ideas",then you are also saying all those technical journals are "cool ideas",Dr Curtis Saxton's tehnical comentries on Star Wars are "cool ideas". http://theforce.net/swtc/

Michael WOng himself leads discussions on wekipedia on the realism of Star Trek and Star Wars. http://66.39.46.41/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_ST.html So much for his "cool ideas".

And "we wekipedians" is not appropriate .I am a PART of wekipedia as long I hold an account.I have read many articles and am not the only one to disagre with them.Why don't I give an example? The history of Pakistan,or it's or on the discrimination of it's muhajir population is biased and simply written on the author's perspective.Since I am from Pakistan,it would be a joke for you or the author who writes these incorrect articles to say that I know less about my country then the author(s). My main point is wekepdia does not contain facts on all issues.Really,autheor's here have been posting what they desire and people have a right to correct them.That's why i feel i have the right to challenge author's if articles are inaccurate. "Having heard how horrible a resource Wikipedia is for students, I decided to scope things" outhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EEMeltonIV

I have already stated my arguements to you,but you refuse to accept them.So it really has fallen to what you want to except as fact,even though you know it is.

Just keep in mind,there are no facts when an event(s) in a fictional story is disputed. Star Wars is an example.

  • Once again, please stop making a new section for every response you have.

"I know the storyline is based mythology as stated in the documentry DVD but "because of it's setting in space and futuristic technology" as you said,infact makes it science fiction."

So every film or story that is set in space with futuristic technology is automatically "science fiction"? It's generalizations like this that resulted in the media originally categorizing the film series as "science fiction" they've since corrected themselves.

"Simply by using terms as stated above,your indirectly saying Star Wars is science fiction.That contradict your first claim that it's science fantasy,which is not the same thing."

You are twisting my words to make it sound as though I believe Star Wars is science fiction. I will state this now as I have many times before, I don't believe that Star Wars is science fiction.

"As for people writing articles on their own perspective,I also stand by that claim."

Than you cannot comprehend how Wikipedia editors write.

"As for "my cool ideas",it wasn't a very nice thing.If what I have said are "cool ideas",then you are also saying all those technical journals are "cool ideas",Dr Curtis Saxton's tehnical comentries on Star Wars are "cool ideas". http://theforce.net/swtc/"

"Cool ideas" was just a link to a wikipedia policy under that name. The point was that your beliefs are original research that you developed yourself, on your own. The technical commentaries are not "cool ideas" because they have a source. I'm saying your use of these technical commentaries is original research. The idea that certain technologies in Star Wars could be possible has long been discussed, it seems the same with Star Trek. However this does not qualify either series to be considered science fiction. It is the story structure and mythology behind the film. Just because a film features a knife, does not mean the film is slasher film. Genre's are categorized by their storyline, not the content itself.

"Michael WOng himself leads discussions on wekipedia on the realism of Star Trek and Star Wars. http://66.39.46.41/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_ST.html So much for his "cool ideas"."

See above, I have no problem with the references that say that the realism of Star Wars has been discussed. I'm stating that your beliefs have been based on them, however they still your own personal beliefs and are therefore original research.

"And "we wekipedians" is not appropriate .I am a PART of wekipedia as long I hold an account.I have read many articles and am not the only one to disagre with them.Why don't I give an example? The history of Pakistan,or it's or on the discrimination of it's muhajir population is biased and simply written on the author's perspective.Since I am from Pakistan,it would be a joke for you or the author who writes these incorrect articles to say that I know less about my country then the author(s). My main point is wekepdia does not contain facts on all issues.Really,autheor's here have been posting what they desire and people have a right to correct them.That's why i feel i have the right to challenge author's if articles are inaccurate. "Having heard how horrible a resource Wikipedia is for students, I decided to scope things" outhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EEMeltonIV

Yes it's true that most of wikipedia is written by the editor's own perspective, and features no sources whatsoever. This is a problem, however these articles are symmetrical with the three featured articles and this fact of genre has been voted through all three times. I am unsure of when I ever referred to myself or others as "we wikipedians".

"I have already stated my arguements to you,but you refuse to accept them.So it really has fallen to what you want to except as fact,even though you know it is."

No, I contest your arguments. I do not have a problem with accepting your facts as the only facts you have shown me are some links to the fact that the realism and technology inside Star Wars has been discussed. However, your personal belief that Star Wars is science fiction has never been stated on the record by a specific source. I however could find many different sources that refer to Star Wars and "science fantasy" or variate on it.

WTF --Haizum 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
If you haven't got a productive comment or anything to say other than one abbreviation on the entire discussion. Please, move right along. The Filmaker 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No,Im done discussing however,if you wish to speak to me privately man to man on this,let me know and I'll give you my MSN adress.

I will not, as I do not have MSN messenger and I am not willing to install an entire messenger to speak to you about this matter. This will do fine. How is this not "man to man"? The Filmaker 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay that's fine we dont have to talk.Talking live would be talking man to man rather than leaving a bunch of messages that we end up sometimes misunderstanding each other.

Skimming this discussion (I haven't read all of it, but it appears that, at this point, you two are arguing the same points over and over), it seems that The Filmmaker is arguing that Star Wars should be classified as science fantasy based on Lucas' authorial intentionality, whereas Nadirali/74.98.240.170 asserts that there is evidence that other people view SW as science fiction. If a reliable source can be cited that explicitly argues (preferably not just labels, since it might tread too close to original research to say that the label was in contrast to science fantasy) that Star Wars (not Star Trek) is science fiction instead of science fantasy, then WP:NPOV requires that both views be presented. Where there is controversy, the author doesn't really have special privileges as to how to interpret what was made. Sure, we can say what was intended, and that's an important viewpoint, but it's not the only one, or possibly even the prevalent one. If the classification is disputed in reliable sources, then we should avoid unilaterally favoring one position over another, although a simplistic compromise like "science fiction / science fantasy" is very awkwardly worded in the context of other prose. — TKD::Talk 03:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
and where does the term Space Opera fit into all of this? ;-)--Merbabu 03:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you both need to stop putting out facts, take a deep breath, relax. Then, find proof, hard soild proof, that it is either science fiction or fantasy. Now that DOES NOT mean you think it's that way because of the technology, blah, blah, blah, or that's what George Lucas says. You need to find it, and cite it. This is how it works on the music artist pages and is what I suggested to the dispute on Taking Back Sunday and My Chemical Romance. You need to find some article may it be from a book or the internet proving that it is science fiction or fantasy. No more he said she said, the fans said, George Lucas said. And no more tangents either. Maybe if you two colaborated you could find the solultion? Just a suggestion. But it is painful to see this arguement every time I go to this talk page. Darthgriz98 03:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this page could be archived, and they could carry our their critical (cough) discussion somewhere else. it's annoying for the rest of us.--Merbabu 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars being "science fantasy",I have reason to belive that you simply made up the word(technically speaking,it is a "cool idea"),with the meaning pulled out of words from scientists,but twisted to suit your meaning for the made-up word.I looked it up on 3 different dictionaries and found no meaning for the word.Really if you observe the word it sounds like an oxymoron. Just by taking a theme from a story and classying the genre of the story based on the theme is misinformative.And please by saying Star Wars is a saga rather than a universe is strongly misinfomative.All those books,spin-offs,cartoons.What were they if not Star Wars? An example have you seen "the exorcism of emily rose".Well its about a girl who dies at the hands of a priest who belived she was possessed by evil spirits,while the lawyer who prosecuted him charged that she was ill.The theme of the film is a message to the audiance what they want to beleive.Proof of this can clearly be heard in the directors commentry on the DVD version of the film as well as in the interview in the special features section.So therfor its been classified as mystery-but thats not the end of it.It contains frightening,disturbing and violent scenes,therefor its classified as mytery/horror/thriller/drama and not just as mystery. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404032/

mythology is not always associated with fantasy.Just like the battle of troy is a mythology story,but not classified as fantasy.Harry potter is fantasy because it contains magic but its not mythology. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332452/

But I really dont care,I was just trying to inform you of the fact that Star Wars is science fiction/mythology.People dont really rely on wekipedia as they charge that articles are really written to suit the authors satisfaction and not written as matter-of-fact.

With this I close the discussion premaently.If you have a last message,leave it for me on this talk page. Thankyou -Nadirali

Thank goodness. --EEMeltonIV 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, stop creating new sections and disrupting this page. Take it somewhere else.--Merbabu 04:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

this article should be retitled Star Wars (series)

The first film's title is Star Wars. This is the title under which it came out, received massive popularity, was nominated for awards, and started the whole cult (and no, it doesn't matter what Lucas may have intended the title to be originally. the whole "episode" thing was more of a tongue in cheek homage before he actually got rich enough to put it into reality). When someone searches for Star Wars today, it is likely they probably mean the first one. It's only fanboys who call it "Episode IV: A New Hope". Wikipedia should redirect Star Wars to the page for "A New Hope", and the general material should be linked at the top of the page in a disambiguation.

Not that it matters- or that anything related to this topic does. 172.148.185.131 18:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
good point, many people, including wikiedians believe they are jedi, see Jedi census phenomenon
However with all that said this article I belive should not be retitled Star Wars (series). as it covers other star wars things. Like real life things not just things in the star wars world Leapster 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The first film is not "Star Wars." It was later retitled to "A new hope." --66.139.11.116 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the article should be retitled. When people search for "Star Wars", they are most likely searching for general information on it. If they need to go to the article about the movie, it's just one link away. I think you can reach the article without having to scroll down for the link. =] Jedi_feline | Talk 08:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion that has already taken place (multiple times) on the A New Hope talk page and has always ended with the articles' titles remaining the same. The Filmaker 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)\
I agree with User:The Filmaker. Besides, if someone did want to find A New Hope, they would probably type it, unless they are somewhat clueless that the title has changed. No, it is better to leave the article be. Danny Sepley 04:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

fremen is not jedi but tuskens

the femen of duna are not analogous to the jedi (they do not form some sort of knighthood) they are quite comparable to the tusken raiders, though —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.232.3 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

The Fremen become a religious order made up of a significant degree of mysticism and ritual whilst also exerting makor influence over the galaxy. Also Paul Muad'Dib is similar to a Jedi in his abilities and his prescience. Tuskens are disorganised animals, the Fremen are a highly civilised society. The links to the Jedi are far greater than those to the Tuskens and the most immportant link is Paul, and his abilities. (Sorry if the above is disorganised, I'm kind of tired and don't know how to sign this thing with date/time etc, sorry) Leto - 30.12.06


The Fremen are a people, not an order. Paul is not a Fremen. Tuskens wear technologically advanced equipment to save and preserve water; this is based on the stillsuits of the sand people in Dune.

If you want a Dune equivalent to the Jedi (ruling galaxy by mysticism etc.), it would be the Bene Gesserit

Citation in Parodies

According to the Wiki page on the movie "Hardware Wars" there is a 1999 interviw with George Lucas in which he states that it is his favorite parody. Obviously not a citation to cite to wiki. Could the author of the Hardware Wars article provide the proper citation, please?

I added the info about Carrie Fisher in an SNL skit as an Annette Funicello like bikini clad girl singing "The Obi Wan Kenobi" I have the VHS of the episode at home, do I need to ref the specific episode? 69.25.108.3 12:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

it would be nice Leapster 18:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

  • "Lucas has been criticized for allegedly deviating from his original conception of the universe that was introduced in the original 1977 film. It has been theorized by some that developments in the later films, including (but not limited to) the revelation of Darth Vader as the father of Luke Skywalker, the revelation of Princess Leia as Luke's sister, and the progression of Darth Vader from a powerful lackey serving under Grand Moff Tarkin to a much-feared military leader answerable only to the Emperor (as well as the overall Star Wars Saga's shift in focus from Luke to Vader as the main character) go completely against the history/characters/relationships that were established in the original 1977 film. The Star Wars prequel trilogy has also been accused of similar retroactive changes that were allegedly not part of Lucas' original concept for Star Wars."

and that is just a small part. I feel the over the past little bet this page has lost its NPOV for a more anti lucas feeling.Leapster 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

    • I disagree it states that "Lucas has been criticized for allegedly deviating from his original conception of the universe ..." that merely says that some people have criticized his shifts in his stories and does not attack Lucas it merely reports that Lucas has been attacked.Cylonhunter 04:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Innacuracy -Music Section-Weird Al's Song

As far as I know (according, i think, to other parts of wikipedia) Weird Al [i]didn't[/i] do the Yoda song, it just gets attributed to him. He did, however, do Star Wars - The Saga Begins, a parody of American Pie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.232.248.162 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

"Yoda" is track 5 on Weird Al's album Dare to be Stupid. There is no inaccuracy. PurplePlatypus 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

128.232.248.162, maybe the song you're thinking of is "Livin' La Vida Yoda" the parody of "Livin' La Vida Loca." I thought it was a Weird Al song but it's not, according to this site: http://free.house.cx/~eil/etc/notal.html Jedi_feline | Talk 08:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Before I begin my long-winded rant, to show I have credibility I will say I am a rabid Weird Al fan and own three of his albums, Bad Hair Day, Alapalooza, and Straight Outta Lynwood. Weird Al has been attributed thousands of Star Wars parodies, yet he has ONLY EVER WRITTEN TWO:

"Star Wars- The Saga Begins" From his album "Running With Scissors" (Need verification, I'm unsure if that's the right album)

"Yoda" From his album "Dare To Be Stupid"

I apologize for the redundancy, and repetitiveness (Oops, I did it again!), but I am very passionate about the misattribution of parodies to Weird Al. Praisejebus 01:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Debate is about the External Links site and whether the rules are being applied fairly. Debate arose when this web site was added to External Links: http://www.chefelf.com/starwars/ep1.php

User "A Man In Black" reverted my edit where I added "Chef Elf's Nitpickers Guide to Star Wars - A controversial but amusing analysis of the Star Wars movies." User "A Man In Black" gave no reason for removing this, and has not contributed to this article before. The Chef Elf site is well known in the Star Wars community. He gives a very thorough analysis of every Star Wars movie, point-by-point and it's become a bible of sorts. I think it's an important contribution that Wiki should link to. Since "A Man In Black" seems to be a hit-and-run reverter and gave no reason, I would like to reinstate that link. Toru-chan 09:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I will now unrevert the change. I will edit the label to make its significance clear. Toru-chan 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This site doesn't add anything particularly useful or interesting. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not Google/not a directory of all the sites related to a particular subject. --EEMeltonIV 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Am going to have to agree this isnt google the links that are there some questionable are there because they add to whats already said, they dont give "controversial but amusing analysis of the Star Wars movies". If you want to add that link add it to this site if its not already there http://dmoz.org/arts/movies/titles/s/star_wars_movies/. Leapster 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
A Man in Black is a Wikipedia administrator - hardly a hit-and-run reverter, and has, in fact, contributed to this article before - many times, all before Toru-chan created an account less than two weeks ago. Also, as long-time Star Wars fan, and as a staff member at TheForce.Net, I've never heard of the site in question. Futhermore, a google search on Chefelf +nitpicker only brings back 24 or so unique returns, so it's obviously not *that* controversial, given the low number of mentions. I'm going to side with A Man in Black on this one. TheRealFennShysa 15:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Try searching under its better known but more contentious name: "Reasons to Hate Star Wars" and you'll get 1,580 Google hits. Did you really look at that article, or simply disagree with it? Listen to yourselves. You're carrying on like a bunch of petty tin gods. I watched the movie back in 1977 the same you did TheRealFennShya, but you've basically declared yourself A Greater Authority(tm). As for your 'two weeks' jab, I'm not going to get into a peeing competition with you. I'll leave you to rule your little patch. EEMeltonIV: I understand the reasons you give, and note a similar 'comprehensive listing' entry was removed from the Links too. So long as the rules are consistently enforced, I'm cool with that. As for the rest of you: You're flaunting the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, and you need to Grow Up. Toru-chan 13:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Toru-chan "Reasons to Hate Star Wars" is that a link an encyclopedia should have?Leapster 14:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not, Leapster? Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and *not* take sides. Now that I look at it, you guys are hypocritical in enforcing the rules. You dismiss the ChefElf articles as neither amusing or significant, yet allow a two page "National Geographic News: So how believable is the Star Wars galaxy?" which says a lot less. You tell me Wiki isn't a directory a web sites, yet allow TheForce.Net to be listed there, ostensibly because it's "(one of) the oldest fan sites" (just where does it say *that* in the rules?), which TheRealFennShysa happens to proudly boast to me he's a Staff Member of. As for "A Man in Black" he reverted my contribution without explanation. I don't care if TheRealFennShya thinks he's a Wiki God, it's still poor form. So basically, you guys delete anything you disagree with or weren't personally involved in. You are applying the rules inconsistently, and favouring your own content over that of others. Toru-chan 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Not at all I dont think most of those linsk should be there. add a section and Reference this site. I dont think any links should be here other then the star wars main site. so calm down ok. am not attacking you or the whats on the site you want to link k?Leapster 14:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Leapster. I wasn't meaning to flame *you*. Site in question is this http://www.chefelf.com/starwars/ep1.php (he actually has analysis for every movie and the TV special) There seems to be a lot of subjectivity in what External Links sites are worthy of this web page and what aren't. The rules need to be applied fairly. Your suggestion may be a good compromise, because there's far too much subjectivity in choosing which of many fan sites to include (particularly by the fans that run the ones already listed :-). Toru-chan 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, when you do a Google search on "Reasons to Hate Star Wars", the actual returns you get is only 83 unique on 135. You can believe what you want, Toru-chan, but when you claim that something is well-known, don't get all up in a huff when people refute that claim. The difference between National Geographic, TFN, and the ChefElf site comes down to notability. The first two are clearly notable (it's friggin' National Geographic, and TFN is undoubtedly the largest fan site out there, working with Lucasfilm in many areas) while the ChefElf site is not, at this time. The rules have been applied quite consistently and fairly, regardless of whether you agree with that assessment or not. TheRealFennShysa 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
TheRealFennShysa, if you want to use that logic lets look at the "National Geographic News: So how believable is the Star Wars galaxy?" link. It has only 33 Google hits, and only *ten* unique hits. So using your (new) Google-unique-hits-rule, that shouldn't be listed either. You describe that it as "notable". It's a two-page fluff piece where they talk about things like "Why doesn't Obi-won sweat on the volcano planet?" ChefElf does this and a much more thorough job on this and the planetspheres. Who makes you the arbiter of what's notable and what isn't? Where in the Wiki rules does it say fluff-pieces in the mainstream media are linkworthy, but serious analysis by fans isn't? Same with your TheForce.net link. You tell me why an exception should be made for a web site *you* pronounced you're a Staff Member of, which, hate to break it to you, isn't as famous as you might like to think[1]. You're making up the rules as you go (your ever changing Google analysis shows that) to suit your own biases. ChefElf was on Entertainment Weekly by the way (or is there a rule that EW doesn't count? ;-)
You are sprouting your credentials like your opinion is worth more than anyone else's, including mine. This is Wikipedia. Your opinion counts no more or less than any other fan of the movies, or for that matter anyone who has seen the movies and wants to contribute to the article. Your cabal has effectively declared this web page to be your own, locked it and are wikisquatting. Wiki says "If you don't like having your work edited by others, you shouldn't write for Wiki". But this is exactly what you are stopping. This article is not your own personal fan page.
The value of the ChefElf articles is that they criticize without denigrating into Lucas Bashing. For that reason I considered them a worthwhile addition to this page, in the interests of impartiality. Wikipedia is supposed to tell both sides. You're making up rules as you to keep your stuff there, but exclude whatever you don't personally like. Rules should be applied fairly and consistently across all Wikipedia. Now if it's not suitable, that's one thing, but let's be consistent.
For these reasons I dispute the neutrality of this article. Wikipedia is supposed to impartial, fair, unbiased. I've been editing wiki anonymously for years. I've written whole articles. Disputes are usually solved fairly, with all parties agreeing the spirit of Wikipedia has been met. If someone thinks they're becoming too emotional, they step back and ask an impartial editor to make the change for them. I have never seen anything like I have on this page!
You say to me "The rules have been applied quite consistently and fairly, regardless of whether you agree with that assessment or not." I think that sums up why I think this page is biased. Toru-chan 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression, or seem to be trying to make the impression, that I was the one who was deleting your link. I never once did so - I did, however, point out the errors in your original post on this page about A Man in Black's status and edit history, while agreeing with his actions. Furthermore, there is no "cabal", and no one has declared ownership of the article, although people have tried, and failed, in the past. For your bluster about Wikipedia's neutrality and my supposed inconsistencies, believe what you will, but if there's one thing my edit history will show is that I have always been the one arguing for an unbiased presentation in articles - and your claims that I've "made up rules" to keep my own stuff on here is patently false.
I'm surprised by the Google returns on the National Geograhic article, but again, I was never the one who added it. It doesn't need to be there, and now isn't.
However, you yourself just said that If someone thinks they're becoming too emotional, they step back and ask an impartial editor to make the change for them - I think you should take your own advice. TheRealFennShysa 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I will take my own advice. I spoke to ChefElf and he said he's fine with it in the Lucas Bashing section. I hate Lucas Bashing, and I hate to lump it in with that, but so be it. My comments about the bias of this article and how external links are chosen stand (See above posts). I sure as hell wouldn't dare touch this article again. Toru-chan 05:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Expanded Universe

In the books section it says that Splinter of the Mind's Eye was "very nearly" the first book dealing with the expanded universe. This implies that something else was first. Can anyone clarify? Cris Varengo 20:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the first written, but wasn't released at this time. Later, after the novels made tons of sells, they re-introduced it. Barraki 16:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, I have a pretty clear memory (although I was pretty little) of seeing that book in a store before the 2nd movie even came out... Cris Varengo 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusing the 1997 special editions to the 2004 DVD editions

On the article of each movie of the original trilogy states that they were re-released on VHS,laserdisc and DVD.This is not true.The 1997 special editions never came to DVD.The 2004 DVD editions are different from the 1997 special editions because of many significant changes.I corrected the article,but I just wanted to let everyone understand the difference so the same mistake is not repeated again.Thanks.Nadirali نادرالی

  • I can see what you were talking about with Return of the Jedi, which you corrected. However, I'm afraid I'm not seeing what you're talking about with the other two articles. I think that you can be bold and change them yourself. If I disagree, I'll let you know. The Filmaker 17:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah I think that EMpire was already corrected by you.I'm not sure about episode four as I haven't checked it yet.--Nadirali نادرالی

i hope to see a new prequel trilogy box-set DVD in the market! in the mentime i believe there will be another 6 movie in one box-set HD-DVD/bluray disc.

Did they ever even come out with a six episode box set??? I've been waiting for ages, but never heard of one!!! Praisejebus 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

we need to question the new movies and the series New jedi order.

Joseph Campbell doubted as a significant inflence on Star Wars

As reported by [Salon] Joseph Cambell's ties to Star Wars are tenuous. If it were up to me I would remove the references to Campbell from this and related articles (such as the Darth Vader article). But people like the idea that Star Wars was intentionally modeled after Campbell's work so this is unlikely to happen... however you still might want to change the wording to acknowledge the disagreement. --Logomachist 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Campbell's works may have been the original inspiration for "the Force." The idea of the 'force' in the original three movies very much complies with the more legendary concepts of 氣, "qi" or "chi." I don't know if Lucas had any other source of information on Oriental mythologies. If anyone has more information about this, I think it would be very enlightening, although citations would be necessary for the Wikipedia article.

A Tai-Chi teacher of many many years ago claimed that his teacher's teacher (may have been Cheng Man-ch'ing) was a consultant for George Lucas and actually provided inspiration for the Yoda character. This seems unlikely, but... Mr. Lucas might have had some contact with actual Chinese Tai-Chi/Qi-Gong master(s), and may have incorporated some characteristics. Cuvtixo 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is one reference - there is an entire discussion in the POwer of Myth by Campbell. This is a quote from George himself. What more proof is needed?

Lucas discusses this at great length in the official biography of Joseph Campbell, Joseph Campbell: A Fire in the Mind by Stephen and Robin Larsen:

I [Lucas] came to the conclusion after 'American Graffiti' that what's valuable for me is to set standards, not to show people the world the way it is...around the period of this realization...it came to me that there really was no modern use of mythology...The Western was possibly the last generically American fairy tale, telling us about our values. And once the Western disappeared, nothing has ever taken its place. In literature we were going off into science fiction...so that's when I started doing more strenuous research on fairy tales, folklore, and mythology, and I started reading Joe's books. Before that I hadn't read any of Joe's books...It was very eerie because in reading 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces' I began to realize that my first draft of 'Star Wars' was following classic motifs...so I modified my next draft [of 'Star Wars'] according to what I'd been learning about classical motifs and made it a little bit more consistent...I went on to read 'The Masks of God' and many other books (Larsen and Larsen, 2002: 541). (Anonymous)

Joseph Campbell's influence was also discussed in the 2-hour Biography Channel episode on George Lucas, which was filmed and first aired in 2002 (before Attack of the Clones was finished), and which was recently re-aired in conjunction with the 30-year anniversary of Star Wars. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Side and "The Light Side" (?)

In The Empire Strikes Back, Luke asks Yoda "But how am I to know the good side from the bad?", referring the dual sides of the Force. I believe this is the only time, in any of the films, that the "good side" of the Force is referred to. The clear connotation by most characters who use the term "the Force" is that the term refers to the "good" side by default, unless specifically qualified as the Dark Side. Dh67 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the name of the "the Light Side"? The Dark Side has become such a significant part of Star Wars lore that it has become commonplace in pop culture. But what is the correct term for the opposite? I don't recall ever hearing that in any of the films, and my Star Wars canon knowledge is lacking - er, that is, non-existent. If anyone knows, please cite a reputable source, something that is accepted as part of the Star Wars canon. --Bentonia School 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Young Jedi Knights: Shadow Academy Barraki 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks, but I meant if someone could actually tell me the name of the "Light Side" as referred to in a reliable canon source. I'll take your word for it that Young Jedi Knights: Shadow Academy is a reliable source, but I'm most likely not going to buy it and read it. So, what does it cite the "Light Side" as? --Bentonia School 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant they do use the term "Light Side". Barraki 22:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks. --Bentonia School 05:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the "light side" is actually only referred to as "The Force." This is consistent since Jedi would likely believe that the "Dark Side" is a weaker, inferior counterpart of the legitimate, "Force," and the Good will always eventually defeat the evil dark side in the end. The conception of a "dark side" being equal to light, and therefore the need to call the counterpart "light," instead of just-"The Force," would likely be provenance of Sith. Actually my understanding comes from a very real debate in Christianity about Manichaeism. I believe George Lucas could have been influenced by those ideas, even if he were not aware of the history or scholarly work, although I am unaware of the backgrounds of other authors in the star wars 'verse. Cuvtixo 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Going just by the movies, there is no "light" or "good" side. There is just the Force, of which the so-called "Dark Side" is a subset, but it does not follow that the Force has two equal and opposite halves or anything of the sort. The only character who implies otherwise at any point in the films, as mentioned above, is Luke in Empire, at a point where it's clear he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. This is my preferred picture and the only one I believe is supportable from just the movies. But it's clear that much of the "lesser" cannon is written by people who disagree. This is made especially explicit in Knights of the Old Republic. I consider this a serious wrong turn for the Star Wars franchise, but it's what's out there. PurplePlatypus 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stamps

Don't know if it's mentioned, there are new Star Wars stamps being made. I saw the article on MSNBC.com: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17838341/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.31.45.49 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

succesfsul film???

We should change where it says in the beginning of this article that it is one of the most successful movie franchises of all time and say it is the most successful movie franchise of all time. 20 billion dolars. Lord of the rings nor Spiderman has made nearly that much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timsgotaim (talk • contribs) 04:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

They also haven't been around nearly as long. Give 'em more time. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me if you think that they will ever catch up. They are very big but haven't had nearly as much of a culture impact as the first trilogy. The rest of the trilogy just added to the bank.

Also note that "Episode IV: A New Hope" won 7 academy awards, which I believe no other science fiction film has achieved. (Please verify). Also, "The Empire Strikes Back" won 2 Academy Awards, and "ROTJ" with 1. What was the competition for the Awards with "Star Wars IV" and compared to the "LOTR Trilogy"? Was it about the same, or did one of them have more competition? For clarification purposes, I mean did the films have to compete with other films for the awards they received. Praisejebus 01:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm your father of profits!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270874,00.html

"And here's a little news: Lucas tells me he will make two more live-action films based in the "Star Wars" era. "But they won't have members of the Skywalker family as characters," he said. "They will be other people of that milieu." The two extra films will also be made for TV and probably be an hour long each. But, like "Clone Wars," Lucas doesn't know where on TV they will land. Hello, HBO and Showtime. It may be time to pony up." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

A Major Relationship Overlooked?

I think there is a rather large blindspot in the Star Wars story line that few people have discussed and is directly addressed in the dialog: Palpatine basically tells Anakin he is his father. I realize this is speculation, but I think it is pretty reasonable to ask what folks think of the theory. This may not be the place, but maybe someone can help me find a more appropriate place to move this short article?

The idea draws some intriguing parallels to the Vader vs. Luke plot; relates to the Greek mythology aspects of the Star Wars universe; and goes a long way towards explaining why Lucas would do something as controversial as including an Immaculate Conception in his script for Episode I. Read this scene closely to see what I mean:

REVENGE OF THE SITH: CORUSCANT-GALAXIES OPERA HOUSE-NIGHT

PALPATINE: (continuing) Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis "the wise"?
ANAKIN: No.
PALPATINE: I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create life ... He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying.
ANAKIN: He could actually save people from death?
PALPATINE: The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.
ANAKIN: What happened to him?
PALPATINE: He became so powerful . . . the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. (smiles) Plagueis never saw it coming. It's ironic he could save others from death, but not himself.
ANAKIN: Is it possible to learn this power?
PALPATINE: Not from a Jedi.

Kenmikemark 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is Palpatine telling Anakin that he is his father. Palpatine/Sidious/The Emperor doesn't actually keep Anakin alive - Anakin somehow manages to stay alive himself even though he's burned to a crisp. All that the Emperor does is recover him, clean him up and put him in the Darth Vader suit. To my knowledge, the official canon basically says that Anakin is an immaculate conception (his mother doesn't know how she became pregnant with him) - this is partially explained by his extremely high midi-chlorian count. (Could the Force have conceived him?) In any event, without more canonical evidence, drawing such a connection between Palpatine and Anakin is extremely tenuous at best. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been verified by Lucas himself and the Star Wars Timeline that Anakin was an immaculate conception, but in accordance with your theory, yes, it does sound as if Palpatine is hinting at that. Though would you not think that if anything Plagueis would be the father, as he did exist and was Palpatine's master? Praisejebus 01:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag

As the article seems to be undergoing revert war of sorts right now, perhaps we should discuss the issue here before making any more changes. Given the level of detail of the plot summary, I think that a spoiler tag is justified. I don't really see a good reason not to have one, other than aesthetics, perhaps.Chunky Rice 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What kind of content do you expect in a section that is called "Plot"? Kusma (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Something like the first couple sentences. A broad overview of what the series was about. More or less the same information you'd get from a blurb or a movie trailer. Not a blow by blow account like the one that we have.Chunky Rice 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Then what would be a better section title? Kusma (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. I think that the section title is appropriate, but that the content is excessive. Especially since each movie has it's own plot section. Regardless, that's not the issue at hand here. I wanted to try and establish a consensus on spoiler tags and all I'm saying is that if we are going to include plot information beyond a basic overview, a spoiler tag is appropriate.Chunky Rice 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case it seems the solution you'd find optimal would be to trim the detail, not to put up a spoiler flag. There are, after all, spoilers for the movie in other sections of the article -- those aren't being flagged. How about take a weed-whacker to the plot section and trim it to the essentials; save the extraneous detail for the individual episode articles (if anywhere at all). --EEMeltonIV 19:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that as a reasonable resolution. I'll let this discussion percolate for a while, but I'd be happy to knock the plot summary down to a reasonable size/content if there aren't significant objections.Chunky Rice 19:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I second the motion to condense the plot section. I will add that there is not a consensus on the need for spoiler warnings, merely a consensus on how to apply them should they be deemed appropriate. In my opinion, they detract from the purpose of an encyclopedia (although I wouldn't personally remove them without discussion) --Dystopos 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm divin' in.Chunky Rice 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Knocked it down to the intro paragraph which seemed to sum it up nicely. Looking at the rest of the article, though, there's a lot of rampant original research going on here. I'm going to try to remove the most egregious bits.Chunky Rice 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
May the force of others be with you. --Dystopos 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about a spoiler tag ... I mean like who hasn't seen the movie!!

dvd.starwars.com

You need the DVD to access it - does anyone know what's there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It runs along with the DVDs (any of the six Episodes) to provide the original scripts and some other special features I can't remember. --Addict 2006 14:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

This article has been listed at the good article review process for possible delisting of its good article status, due to WP:MOS issues, a lead that doesn't pass WP:LEAD, citation issues, fair use images without properly detailed fair use rationales, and instability. Please assume good faith and work to improve the article. -Malkinann 07:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the consensus reached at Good Article Review this article has been removed from the good article list. Please see the archived discussion for the results of the discussion and suggestions to improve the article up to good article standards so that it may be renominated. Once standards are met, feel free to renominate it at the candidates page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

princesses are not supernatural elements

Unlike witches and wizards, there are lots of actual princesses.

Clean-up issues

Does anyone think that we need the Feature Film:Television Rights section? I can't figure out in what way it's notable information.

Also, the Scripts section doesn't seem to be about the script at all. The section either needs a major re-write or at least a renaming.

Anybody agree? Disagree? Chunky Rice 21:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let this percolate over the weekend, but unless someone raises an objection, I'm going to cut the television rights section and seriously re-work the Scripts section. -Chunky Rice 21:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

i tend toward the stance of letting things stand unless there is a good reason to remove them. it's not particularly wise to try to predict why people come to wikipedia, or what information they are looking for. better than just getting rid of it because it is allegedly "non-notable", how would the article be improved by removing it? Whateley23 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be less of an indiscriminate collection of information and contain less POV and OR. It doesn't really matter what people come here looking for. People might come to Wikipedia to look for original research, but we shouldn't have it because it is expressly against Wikipedia policies.Chunky Rice 03:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

User IP address 66.51.146.251 is located in Farmington, Michigan at the Public Library. User's Contribution page shows multiple vandalization's. --Coldbourne 19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

not really much you can do about that, unless you have access to the library's abuse staff. Whateley23 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Leitmotifs in themes

Got rid of the ridiculous Wagner reference. It was quasi-relevant, not particularly helpful and had an air of simply being included to namedrop Wagner. If someone wants to add the reference back then please use a more apt example, like another filmmaker or film series at the very least. Cellscape 13:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition of future film tag/cites

Someone added or changed the film information to tack on three more films. I don't know of their existence or what have you, so I simply added cite requests for them and a future movie tag. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers. =) --koder 02:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this material as blatant speculation; there is zero evidence to suggest that these films would ever be made, and Lucas himself has stated several times that there would be no more feature films. The only future releases that have been mentioned are the two television series and two made-for-TV hour-long movies that are being considered (no dates have been set nor have the films even been confirmed as happening). -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I figured, but a quick google showed there was at least some sorta-remote-kinda-sorta-possibly-speculatory aspect to it, so I just figured I'd add the cite tags, the big 'ol warning, and then come back and yank it if it wasn't fixed without having to worry about good faith. Glad to know someone else was on top of it. I bow to your Star Wars wisdom. :) --koder 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:George lucas03.jpg

Image:George lucas03.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Plot" section unrelated opinion: I can't delete!

In the "Plot" section, right after it sums up Episodes I, II, and III, it says "Star Wars is very cool to get into." This is an opinion and completely unrelated to the section that it is found in, so I tried to delete it. The problem is, it doesn't show up on any of the Edit pages. If this problem is fixable, it needs to be fixed. CommonWikian 07:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, this was just a bit of vandalism, and was removed so quickly that between the time you saw it on the page and tried to find it in the edit page, it was already gone. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the new resolution at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, the Star Wars featured topic will be eligible for removal after 1 January 2008 if a satisfactory GA or FA level lead article (presumably Star Wars) is not found. See also Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates#Star Wars lead article. Thanks.--Pharos 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* I'll get to work... :) The Filmaker 04:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I will also get to work on this as well. I've been lately working on the Return of the Jedi article. :D Sjones23 21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

space opera is a more suitable word

Why not change the genre from 'sceince fantsy' to space opera.It's a more suitable word as far as I can see and as seen per the content of the films and descriptions from sources.

Also take a look at these.[6][7][8].

Can I please have an opinion on this? Thanks.-Vmrgrsergr 20:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

PS-the space opera defination also mentions romance-thats what we see in both trilogies with anikin and padme' in the first and princess liea and han solo in the second.I think this is just the right word for the genre.Thanks.-Vmrgrsergr 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose since space opera has been used a lot more frequently (in DVD featurettes and such), and there don't appear to be any objections, it should be changed. The Filmaker 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. -Chunky Rice 00:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes

This article has undergone some recent vandalism. If you read the second-to-last edit, you will notice that the first line contains something about "like to poop". Obviously, the article's first section was completely re-written by an amateur at that point, as I can spot at least a dozen mistakes that particular Wikipedian made. I'm not sure of the style of Wikipedia, but I don't really believe that credits should come before a bried introduction as to what Star Wars is all about. Besides, the image of Star Wars (svg as it may be) is gone, regardless of whether it was meant to be rasterized at low-res or not. I thought that image was essential to the article. Although I am helpless at Wikipedia formatting, I hope that someone will help either to revert or to rewrite the first section of the article. I don't dare to do it myself, in case someone gets mad. Danny Sepley 04:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please place new comments at the botom of the page. Also, edits can be undone, if you think the intro should be re-written, be bold! and do so! Someone else will be along to fix the formatting. WLU 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Lightsabers In So Called "Original Theatrical" Release

I wasn't alive when "Star Wars" came out, but I do know from my father who saw it back in 1977 when it came out(he was eleven at the time) and when i got my copy of the Unenhanced versions, I watched the Obi-Wan VS Vader scene and remember from the original trailer for Star Wars that I saw online that there was no color in the lightsabers, and the version I bought put the lightsabers in full color!It even looked like new!I asked my father if there was color in the lightsabers in the original version he saw in theaters back in 1977, and he said no. I also saw some other things that looked relatively new, which proves that they're not really "Original".



All Rights go to the 20 Century Fox Film Cooperation, Lucasfilm Ltd, And George Lucas.Vaderman426 17:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, first, this is original research. Second, I believe on the Empire of Dreams documentary they have the special effects team talk about cutting the original trailer, having Orson Welles narrating it, and how they allowed the audience to get a look at "some early lightsabers" thereby stating that the lightsabers with no color were only in the trailer. Also, I do own the original trilogy on VHS, which are the original versions of the films and they do contain colored lightsabers. Finally, your father isn't a particularly reliable source. The Filmaker 20:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Toy line

A search for "Star Wars Toys" redirects to this article, which makes ZERO mention of any of the toy lines. Either some mention needs to be made, or a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.78.11 (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge Star Wars opening crawl

Originally prodded with the summary "It's small enough that it could fit in the Star Wars series article and serve to improve that one rather than splitting them apart and making inferior articles." by User:A Link to the Past. No opinion myself. Will (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with Star Wars Galaxies

Star Wars Galaxies appears to have come under attack from vandals. it's hard to tell which edits are legitimate and which are vandalism. some help would be appreciated. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 00:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Losing sight of the subject

At the moment, the first mention of Leia is 1/3 of the way down in a parenthetical statement; and not one of the four or five mentions of Leia is a link to Princess Leia. And the first mention of Han Solo is 3/4 of the way down in the Parodies section! These are principal characters in the original trilogy and need to be mentioned much earlier, either in the Plot section or a new section specifically glossing the characters. --Tysto 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Article merging

After messing around on Microsoft Word a bit, I found that merging the Battlfront and KotOR pages into series articles, keeping only notable information, can be done with extreme ease. I'm already done with the Battlefront series and half way through the KotOR series, but I thought I'd give you all a heads up before going ahead and merging/redirecting. A week to discuss should be more than enough time for you guys to talk about whether this is a good idea or not.

As a little note, I'm grounded and can't get on the computer often, so asking me questions here would be pointless (unless you can wait until next Saturday for me to answer them). However, my parents, for one reason or another, let me check my email from time to time, so questions can be asked there. Still, like I said, I'm grounded, so a response might take about 24 or so hours. My email address can be found on my user page. That being said, see you again in a week! // DecaimientoPoético 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can't say a week's notice wasn't a fair warning. I've merged the Battlefront and KotOR articles, keeping all need-to-know information (except development info for the KotOR series). Any problems can be addressed on the respective series' talk page, and don't be afraid to personally add anything you feel might improve the article. // DecaimientoPoético 19:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait. You merged the KOTOR articles? If those aren't notable on their own, I don't know what is. There's an enormous amount of information on them - development, reception, etc. I would definitely restore them. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Same thing with the Battlefront articles. If something is receiving coverage from multiple sources, you see reviews from them, then it's notable. Heck, several of these games get Game of the Year (or nominations) awards from publications such as GameSpot, IGN, etc. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sephiroth, these games are more than notable to have their own articles. MaxSem 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If the various incarnations of Pacman are given separate articles, then KotOR and BF deserve far more than that. Sorry, but a merge tag for a week on a controvertial issue is not reasonable. --lincalinca 09:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone know about this?

First of all,I KOW my uncle is not a reliable sourcebut he seems to think lucas found a very old book,called star wars,which was so long it went hundreds of years before and after 1-v1.He describes the original author as alienated for having wrote the book in,I believe,the late 1600's.I dont necessarily believe this,but I just wanted to know if anyone had ver heard of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.12.81 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not how I understand it being. Lucas wrote Star Wars with mythology intertwined, drawing on references from hundreds, or even thousands of years old, as influences, but I've never heard that he directly ripped anybody off. By the same token, there's nothing new under the sun and it's possibly able to closely resemble something else, especially since it's quite a simple story, at its core (the original film, that is). --lincalinca 05:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but whatever is 1-v1?? Praisejebus 01:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No clue. --lincalinca 08:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think he means I-VI (Episodes one to six) And no, I have never heard of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega Archdoom (talk • contribs) 08:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is interesting. Could you go into more detail about this concept of yours, 74.227.12.81?--Padawan Animator (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Prefered Order?

Does anyone know what order Lucas thinks the hexology should be viewed (original or prequel first)? This could be significant info for parents or older siblings wanting to introduce the new generations to Star Wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In numerical (i.e. episodic) order, rather than chronological release order. Even though the others were made first, Lucas has stated that the first films were made first because that's what he had fully in his mind first, but according to the DVD commentary from Ep4, he had an idea of the background and what would happen after, but that was the most complete story, and the most interesting story to tell, being why the others weren't made till later. --lincalinca 03:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this contradict what the article claims in its script-writing section? That section indicates that Lucas is full of crap when he says he always had this backstory in mind. TheHYPO (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant Harry Potter reference

I've removed the text "though recently the Harry Potter franchise, with still two films left, surpassed Star Wars with earnings totaled at US$4.47billion." from the end of the summary text because it doesn't seem relevant to me. The sentence as it shows now states that the Star Wars franchise is "one of" the most successful franchises and IMHO it should be left at that.

I checked the discussion page first but didn't see it mentioned, so I went ahead and deleted it. If anybody has an issue with that, please bring it up here. STLocutus (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Added some Redirects

added Redirects at SWBF1 SWBF 1 These are common search terms hat mean Star Wars Battlefront 1.

star Wars Disambiguation

Added star Wars disambiguation link at the top, please tell me if there are any problems with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No I absolutely agree, any article which has a "(disambiguation)" page, it should be linked to from the hatnote. I just edited your edit to bring it into standard Wikipedia style. --Stormie 02:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Some other guy named EEMIV says it shouldn't be.... I added it to the "See Also" part. --Stealth500! 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed it from the "See also" at the bottom of the page since it's already at the top. Also removed the unnecessary links to two Star Wars games, since they're easily accessible via the "See also"s in the Games section. --EEMIV (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
EEMIV is right. Star Wars (disambiguation) shouldn't really be in the "See also" since it is prominent linked at the top of the page. And the Battlefront games shouldn't be there because Star Wars video games is there, if we listed every game individually the section would blow out to immense size. As that article says, "Star Wars has spawned over one hundred computer and video games"! --Stormie 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
All fixed now! No need for this anymore

--Stealth500! 03:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

revenue?

Article says box office revenue is 4.3 bil, while the infobox says gross revenue is 6.6 bil. What is the difference? the 6.6 should appear somewhere in the article (sourced) and be explained (perhaps right next to the 4.3) TheHYPO (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, it says Star Wars has made 6.6 billion dollars total, making it ONE of the most financially successful franchises of all time. What's number one? Jaws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.197.197 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Harry Potter is the top grossing series at this time. James Bond is another high grossing series. TheHYPO (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe James Bond but not Harry Potter, it's too new. Feral Mind (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

nope TheHYPO (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording

>>Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are the same person, in different states of mind

This note from the apperance table seems like a poor wording for wikipedia. There is no way to assess a characters "state of mind". The characters should either be combined into one row on the table, or a clearer wording should be used, but as they are the same character, and he appears as both vader and outside his suit in two of the films, they should simply be one row, one character.

Frankly, I think the whole table thing is stupid and pointless - who needs a table of apperances? To see a character's appearances, one can check the characters' pages. A better route, IMO would be a bolded linked-name with a brief description and perhaps mentioning which films the characters appear in. TheHYPO (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The whole table thing really is stupid and pointless. Happy editing,--Padawan Animator (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mass pruning

I have undertaken to clean up this article because it really needed it: this is a permanent link to the edit prior to my cleanup, for reference to what was deleted.

I think the main problem is that this article is billed on the topic of "Star Wars" as a media franchise, yet 80% of the article is a history of the films. Articles already exist for Star Wars original trilogy and Star Wars prequel trilogy. Those articles are the perfect place for information about the scripts (info about the scripts of each film should really be in the film's article, while info about each trilogy as a whole could go in those articles.)

  • I killed the infobox - I can see both sides on this and if people want it returned, I can accept that - but I think that since this article is about the franchise, infoboxes showing producers and writers and directors of the films themselves focuses the article on the films, and not the franchise.
  • Very little info was sourced, and a lot of it was original research or personal opinion
  • Stuff that was very film-specific I killed because I feel there is a better place for it if it can be sourced - eg: the television rights, or the re-release info.

I really WANT to kill the script info here because it's general broken down film by film (or at least between the two trilogies) - it should go in the films' articles, or in the trilogy articles, but it's all fairly well sourced so I didn't want to kill it outright - but I think it needs rewriting to be a little more neutral, better gramatically, and more concise.

Looking at those trilogy articles, I see they are in a terrible state. I think the best thing to be done would be to "merge" them both into another article called Star Wars films for all the info on all six films as a whole (as opposed to info about the films individually) - such as group DVD releases, etc. I see now that the trilogy articles are quite baron. They should not contain bare lists of characters and cast and locations as such (cast lists should be relegated to the individual films), and synopses as large as the ones in those articles should also be left for the individual films. I propose that the info that was previously on this article be (properly sourced) moved to an article like Star Wars films, and the trilogy articles be merged into that article (which could have a division for each of the two trilogies).

Then, this article can have a very short "Star Wars films" section, with a {{main}} template pointing to the main article, and this page being merely a coinduit to point readers to all the different facets of the Star Wars franchise, which is what this article purports to be TheHYPO (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception

I am not registered to edit the article, but would like to suggest changing this reference (and the stub it leads to) to "virgin birth". The confusion stems from a South Park episode and should not be encouraged by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.175.98 (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The wording has been removed completely but I think your assumption is wrong. There is indeed great confusion about the difference between the alleged immaculate conception of Mary and virgin birth of Jesus. However this almost definitely has little to do with South Park, the confusion existed long before South Park Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

There is a very large absence of pictures on this article. There are tons, why arent they on the page?--Royalmate1 (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. why don't you add some? I would do it myself but I have no clue how. Lets kick this pig! RC-0722 (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

TIME Collection

There is a collection of Star Wars related stories that the TIME Archives put together, and that could be placed in the External Links section. The Collection could provide context and more resources for those users who wish to expand their research. [9] --Kevindkeogh (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars' prodigious impact on pop culture

Why don't we talk about Star Wars' prodigious impact on pop culture in the opening paragraph?

I mean seriously. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado ([[User talk:|talk]]) 18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The line "and became a worldwide pop culture phenomenon" alludes to it. Obviously it only \ it, but that's the purpose of the lead. Were the lead to use the word "prodigious" or some such word, the article's neutrality would be compromised. I agree that it'd be better worded to indicate just how massive an immpact on pp culture it's had, rather than simply beig a phenomenon, as there have been many phenomena that would fit the description used here. --rm 'w avu 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

okay but how would "having a prodigious impact on pop culture" infringe on neutrality? Hell, "prodigious" actually belittles Star Wars' impact. I mean really, it's an unarguably, undisputable fact that Star Wars has had an immense, tremendous impact on popular culture. Some catch phrases have entered everyday language. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado ([[User talk:|talk]]) 04:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Artical

I think this artical should be re-nominated for good artical Poohman0 (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

FA Status Project

Talk:Star Wars/FA has more information, please post comments there. Stealth (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need a separate page? Why not keep it here, in one place, and keep it simple? --Merbabu (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Games (number of them)

I was thinking that 120 gaems was an awful lot..... I then checked the Wikipedia Page List of Star Wars video games and I counted 91.... Can someone verify this from an outside source? If not lets remove this comment... Stealth (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to 'dozens' to be less approximate since it's not worth it to research the exact number. Gary King (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

New Jedi Order

This sentence, from the Literature section is incorrect:

LucasBooks radically changed the face of the Star Wars universe with the introduction of the New Jedi Order series written by written by Jude Watson, which takes place some 20 years after Return of the Jedi and stars a host of new characters alongside series originals.

Jude Watson did not write any books in the NJO series. It was written by a group of authors: R.A. Salvatore, Michael A. Stackpole, James Luceno, Kathy Tyers, Troy Denning, Greg Keyes, Elaine Cunningham, Aaron Allston, Matthew Stover, Walter Jon Williams, Shane Dix, and Sean Williams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.22.118 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It merely states that the INTRODUCTION of the NJO was writted by Jude Watson. It does not claim that the said author wrote every NJO book. Bassplaya (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm doing this in bits: I'll check the images first, then look at the prose.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    See below.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    See below. Just a few changes.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Is Dick Cheney's Halloween 2007 costume really relevant?
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    You could talk more about the binary sunset, but I won't stop you.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Suggestions

Red is needed for me to pass the GA, green is suggested, but not vitally required.

  • "American Graffiti completed in 1973, and afterwards, Lucas set to work on making his space adventure movie." - fragmented. Merge into next sentence.
  • "on a farm, with his name now Luke rather than Annikin. Annikin, Luke's father became an active character in the story who was a wise Jedi knight." -> sentence runs for quite a bit. Try "on a farm as Luke. Annikin became Luke's father, a wise Jedi knight."
  • "though this was not designed or intended for filming; it was merely backstory. "The backstory wasn't meant to be a movie," Lucas has said." - chop the second line
  • Consider changing full names to last names after first mention
  • late November of 1977 -> "late November 1977".
  • April of 1978 -> same thing
  • fix altering spellings of "dark side", "darkside", "dark-side", and "Dark Side"
  • as he makes explicit -> past tense
  • "After getting a divorce in 1983 and losing much of his fortune" -> "After losing much of his fortune as a divorce settlement in 1983"}} - unless the two aren't linked.
  • Last paragraph of "prequel trilogy" - remove a bit of the blame from Lucas, like saying (beef this up) "Lucas often exaggerated claims about his work. Kaminski theorised that this was both a publicity and security measure."
  • "Space travel is also common, with many of the planets in the galaxy members of a Galactic Republic. The Galactic Republic later became the Galactic Empire." -> Space travel is common, with many planets in the galaxy members of a Galactic Republic, later the Galactic Empire.
  • "The attack is, in fact, merely a ploy by Naboo senator Palpatine, to overthrow and replace the Supreme Chancellor of the senate. Palpatine is actually the Sith Lord Darth Sidious, and is attempting to take over the galaxy." -> "The attack is a ploy by the Sith Lord Darth Sidious under the guise of Palpatine, a senator from Naboo, planned to overthrow the Supreme Chancellor of the Galactic Senate in his quest for galactic domination". (you could cut that further, to be honest)
  • "However, Skywalker soon succumbs to his anger" - remove "However".
  • "Also, Star Wars has had numerous radio adaptations." - remove "Also".
  • Italicise series names and book names in the "Literature" section
  • "The most notable of these are "Weird Al" Yankovic's" - ""Weird Al" Yankovic recorded two parodies:" (Yoda); and (Saga Begins).
  • As a matter of interest, there's a source somewhere were Yankovic says how accurate he was (even pronouncing 'Coruscant' correctly) with the latter recording despite not seeing a preview). You might want to include that. This is also good reading; I have an article at FAC and I've had to read over this to help with the prose. Might do well to read it and transfer the skills, because it looks like it could be FA with some more work. Sceptre (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
All of the above are done. Gary King (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Passing, though still not sure about the Dick Cheney costume ref. Sceptre (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Item removed as suggested, it is irrelevant and not needed, however a comment somewhere about the fact that many people (including Dick Cheyney) have dressed up as various characters could be good.... Stealth (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Tatooine

I don't think there should be a picture of Tatooine because Tatooine, as important as it is, isn't the MAIN plot. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

it is in a way..... Vader I believe essentially starts turning evil after he kills the animals/things guarding his mother. Stealth (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Alright. But did you put a pic of Tatooine animals on the list of minor starwars characters? Gregory E. Miller (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

There should NOT be a picture of Tatooine unless it is Free Use. Fair Use images are only allowed to be used when the understanding of the article would suffer without it. (So long as Tatooine is described a a "desert planet", I see no major added understanding a reader would get by seeing a picture. TheHYPO (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. But someone put an image of Tatooine on list of minor Star Wars characters page, and we all know that it doesn't belong there. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Merge proposal - Star Wars (film series)

I would like to suggest the star wars film series article be... basically deleted. Everything it contains is available elsewhere: the films are synopsized equally thoroughly in this article, and the reception/criticism of the films are better left for each film's article, and not one big article.

The list of planets and characters already have their own pages, and are fairly trivial lists that don't belong in the body of that kind of article. I'd also be open to suggestions on how the film article could be improved to actually contain different information from this article, and not just lists that don't belong in the body of an article. TheHYPO (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, I think what has been built here under the "feature films" could be moved to replace the "Film Series" article, and what is here could be reduced significantly. Thoughts? TheHYPO (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
While I think your latest suggestion has merit, I prefer the original idea of merging the Film Series article into this one. This seems to flow quite well as an overview of the entire universe, of which the films are the main element, so why not keep it intact and blow the other one away after salvaging whatever's useful from it (not a great deal)? However, I think best get a couple more opinions first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I second a merge-- Sonarpulse | Talk 20:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Section order?

I know it was semi-recently reordered, but I'd like to suggest that the article would be better ordered if the "setting" and then "feature films" section were moved up above the History; The FF section provides and overview to what the films actually ARE (both plot wise, and things like how many films there were, when they came out, the relationship between the OT and the prequel trilogy, etc.) Putting the History section first explains to the reader the history of a film series they don't know anything about. The history section describes in depth how some of the characters and plot element changed between script drafts, but the reader hasn't read the overview of film series which would explain to the reader the characers and plot BEFORE they read the history of how that plot came to be final. TheHYPO (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the story should come first to set the scene. Having History first presumes familiarity with the subject; after all, we put Plot before Production in individual film articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Annoying task

It's annoying, but does anyone want to give a hand converting the "Secret History" citations from the old (either v1 or v2, I'm not sure) page numbers to the proper page numbers in the current version 3? Most of the citations are no longer accurate. The ones I came across in my edits, I corrected and changed the reference to v3.0

You don't have to do them all, but if anyone has time to do a couple, it could probably get cleaned up fairly quickly. TheHYPO (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge aid

The only thing I haven't merged in the agree upon merge is the "critisism/reception" section. The section exists in history here

I believe that there is no real cohesion in this section that makes it about the series as a whole: it merely says "the first film was received [blah]. Empire was received [blah]. Critics hailed Jedi as [blah]." etc. Each movie is separately discussed. As such, anything there that is not already in each film's own article should be added to the films' article. Aid in checking that and carrying it out would be appreciated. TheHYPO (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception?

First off, this is not "Critical" reception. This is public internet voting. Critical reception generally indicates reception by CRITICS. Second, is a table of random internet fan polling sites something that is appropriate for the space it takes up? I'm undecided. I can see ups and downs to its existance. Thoughts? TheHYPO (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and agreed. I've removed it due to its lack of encyclopaedic value. --Ckatzchatspy 06:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Section definitely needs to be improved, but not necessarily deleted. Dp76764 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, FYI, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic aren't "public internet voting" sites: their scores are a statistical average of critical reviews from, yes, real critics! Now the Yahoo stuff, yeah, that's probably public voting. Dp76764 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's still a problem with using Rotten Tomatoes. These reviews include modern reviews, which tend to romanticize the original films and give higher marks after having the hindsight to see the films' lasting power. Reviews at the time of the release of the three original films tended to be less favorable than they are now. For example, Siskel & Ebert gave Star Wars a 'thumbs down' at the time, and revised later. However, I believe Rotten Tomatoes has put together a more accurate % that reflects reviews at the time of release for those films. That's the figure you should really be using.--Daniel (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Toys

I'm surprised that there isn't any section on the toys! Let's work together and make it. :) 142.166.200.246 (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ewok films "direct to video"?

Right now the two Ewok films are listed as "direct to video". However, I seem to recall these were made-for-television movies when they first came out.--Daniel (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed and rewritten - they were made for TV. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RPG GAME

Can anyone add information about the RPG game for star wars, as it is not mentioned 207.172.250.247 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reddevil

There is a link to an RPG topic, along with the many many other spin-off entertainment games, in the Star_Wars#Games section of the article. --EEMIV (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Next-gen or seventh-gen?

There have been a few edits flying around regarding this. While I hear your arguments, I read in the game/ campaign articles (one of the two) that the video game itself is seventh-generation, because it was made for the newest platforms and uses DMM, Euphoria .etc. I don’t know how true this is – but I’m sure you will agree, we can’t have one article using next-gen and another using seventh-gen; the articles must be consistent. Also, a phrase such as next-gen may apply now, but in a few years it won’t – so what are you going to call it then?
If the game turns out to belong to a different gen altogether, I’ll back down – but as it is, next-gen isn’t suitable, and all evidence suggests the game is seventh-gen. TheMoridian 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Evil Empire?

Is there any citation that says that Reagan's "Evil Empire" reference is actually a reference to Star Wars? Just because they use the same term doesn't mean that's what he was referring to. This seems to be smack of fanboys. Mrmcgibby (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

critical reception, again

It's very awkward to mention how much of a legacy Star Wars has and then show 60% ratings from Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes is not the definition of critical reception, and neither is Metacritic. It's also weird to only have ratings from two websites under the critical reception section, and nothing else. I think we should either expand the section, preferably adding some details and snippets from reviews of certain things that seem to be liked/disliked, or remove the section entirely. As it is, the critical reception section is far to narrow-minded for such a big franchise. — NovaDog — (contribs) 03:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I started the critical reception table because all articles about franchises and film series seem to have them. So I created the table and it's been throughout the last few months discussed. But I agree with you. I'll find more! Christianster45 01:27, 09 September 2008 (UTC)

Not originally called "A New Hope"?

The first film in the franchise was simply titled Star Wars, but later had the subtitle Episode IV: A New Hope added. . .

I tried verifying this on my own before challenging it, but have had no success. If the subtitle was not part of the original release, there should be a reliable source that can verify this somewhere. The only sources offered at present merely point to other articles here, which also fail to cite a proper source. If the claim isn't verified, it doesn't belong in a Good Article. --James26 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd point out that I've since found what probably amounts to credible verification (Amazon.com), but I'm uncertain as to whether or not that would be appropriate here, so I'm taking no action. --James26 (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Try the bonus disc (the original, unchanged theatrical version) of the Limited Edition DVD. --Cubs Fan (Talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the "reference" to Lucas' commentary track on the Episode IV point, since it's historically inaccurate. Lucas may claim otherwise now, but there is a wealth of evidence over thirty years to show that the Episode IV was never originally intended to be on the film, and certainly was NOT on the original release. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Clone Wars

If Star Wars: The Clone Wars is on the critical reception chart, then how come it's not on the box office chart. The new movie isn't part of the original trilogy nor part of the prequel trilogy, but it could because it takes place between II and III, but a trilogy means three and now there are four theatrical Star Wars taking place before the original trilogy. Either we leave on the critical reception table or take off or/and place on the box office chart. Because it is now a theaterical Star Wars movie. We must do something NOW so that this can remain a good article. Christianster45 01:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This movie is nothing else than expanded universe, as so many books, novels, comics or video games are expanded universe. There's nothing to be worried about, the saga is made of six movies and only six movies, and new theaterical movies coming from the expanded universe don't change that unique important point. 343KKT Kintaro (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.ericsink.com/articles/Boundaries.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars/Archive_2&oldid=1144482448"