Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Too broad to be considered an "influence"

"Mifune is offered "twenty-five ryo now, twenty-five when you complete the mission." whereas Han Solo is offered "Two thousand now, plus fifteen when we reach Alderaan." There are tons of examples of tv shows and films in which a contract is carried out for a amount up front and the rest after the deed. I don't think that this could be considered an influence unless someone can link to a source that states that Lucas used this as an influence. 66.217.210.82 03:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A fitting tribute

I congratulate all wikipedians who made this featured article, and who made it appear on 25th of may. A great anniversary for star wars.

Pece Kocovski 03:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I could swear this article has been featured before. Articles can be featured multiple times? If so, they should get an additional star.--Surfaced 01:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It was probably one of the other Star Wars episode articles that you saw - at this point, all but Return of the Jedi have been featured. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Spoilers

I know this is a featured article, so I'm hesitant to change it without checking here first. Is there any good reason for there not to be a spoiler warning anywhere in the article? 72.75.35.36 01:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that you can safely say that Star Wars has become so entrenched in popular culture that the plot is generally known. Sir Elderberry 01:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Typically, Wikipedia is not censored, which includes warnings and such. It's generally accepted that spoiler warning are allowed, but by no means required. ~ UBeR 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've restored the spoiler warning per this BBC article, which uses one. Despite the strong bias of the average Wikipedian, the plot of Star Wars is not any way shape or form common knowledge, and many people will be watching it for the first time as a result of this anniversary.--Nydas(Talk) 10:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree there should be a spoiler warning. I have also tried to restore the spoiler warning in the article of Episode III but it was reverted several times. :( --11:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The BBC's policies should bear no weight on Wikipedia's. We are, after all, not the BBC. ~ UBeR 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, there should be a spoiler warning. What's the point of having the template it there's consensus on the talk page to include it and people revert it anyway? Marcus Taylor 20:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

'Citation needed' note next to the plot header unneccesary

The plot is part of the movie, and is not in need of a citation. The movie itself is the source and is inherently cited, and can remain physically uncited. I will be removing the notice, if the editor who placed it feels it should remain, please respond here.
Blaiseball 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but there do appear to be some under-cited sections such as "DVD release" and "Cast." ~ UBeR 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
And criticism, especially. ~ UBeR 03:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What criticism? I don't see a criticism section. You mean the "Reaction" section? It looks like everything is cited fine in there. Marcus Taylor 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There was a criticism section. Check the history. ~ UBeR 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate Tone?

I found it unusual that in the very first paragraph there was this sentence:

Among fans, the title is commonly abbreviated as "ANH. However, only geeks refer to the movie as this."[1]

Is this appropriate? I would typically think not, even quoted & references as it is.

Keithius 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, nevermind - someone fixed it already. Well done!

Keithius 04:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it was vandalism, it's pretty true though. I thought that was kind of weird when I read it -- like 90% of people who like the movies, I never heard of this. I think only die hard fans use that, to put it in the first paragraph is a little much. Marcus Taylor 04:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Marcus, never heard of the film being referred to as "ANH", definitely too geeky for the first paragraph. 193.63.62.252 10:54, 26 May 2007

  • Whoa, whoa, whoa. By my own personal experience, I constantly see fans on the internet abbreviating the subtitle. Just take a walk around the official Star Wars website's message board and see if you run into it then. But more than anything, it's cited and the removal of cited information should be given more than half a day to be debated. Especially if most of the other users are off debating whether the title should be changed or not. The Filmaker 14:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed these earlier, apologies for doing so without discussion. Can I put in a pitch to have these acronyms removed, or at least relegated to a trivia section lower down? My reasons are: 1. The citations for these entries are a fanboy site; hardly a reliable source. 2. Even if these acronyms are used by a niche group of fans, why does that warrant a mention at the start of each article? What some fans happen to call the films is a mere point of trivia, at best, isn't it? 3. If the article on Tony Blair said in the first paragraph that 'close friends call him Big Tone', (!) it would clearly be inappropriate, and mentioning these fanboy acronyms so early on has that same feel to it - which is a shame, given that the Star Wars material is generally so well crafted now.

193.63.62.252 14:50, 26 May 2007

Well, for starters the information would not be placed in a trivia section as trivia sections are to be avoided. 1. The website is not the best all around source. However there is nothing to discredit. Thus it is not necessarily an unreliable source. 2. I would not call them any niche group, but they were placed in the Lead because they are closely related to the title of the film. If you could fine a more appropriate place for them, I'd be happy to move them. 3. Actually the Theodore Roosevelt featured article does just that. In addition, "Big Tone" is rather immature compared to a simple acronym.
I'll do some research to see if there are any more reliable sources out there, and to see if this source is reliable enough to be kept. The Filmaker 15:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I take your comment re the Roosevelt article, but that article makes the point that the public DID refer to him as 'Teddy' whereas the public DON'T refer to these films by acronyms. The fact that the films are SOMETIMES abbreviated in this way by SOME fans on SOME internet sites is not sufficient grounds to state that the films are 'commonly' abbreviated in this way by fans. In any case, it just sounds rather too self-referential by the clearly 'die hard' fans who have put together the articles (and have generally done a very good job); too alienating of many who are long-standing fans but never use these terms; and too internet-focussed, given that it is on that medium that the abbreviations seem to be found. 193.63.62.252 15:25, 26 May 2007

Let's not pretend that anyone but hardcore fans or internet devotees refer to these movies by those abreviations, putting them in the opening paragraph is ridiculous. Marcus Taylor 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I resent that statement of it being "ridiculous" as not only are the fans a notable element of the Star Wars place in the culture of.... well, the world, but the placement of the acronyms at the top of the articles has been voted through FAC, um, how many times? Five. That's right. Five times. Including when this article was voted through in a perfect FAC (no opposition votes) So while it may have been a mistake to place them in the article it was not as ridiculous and huge of a mistake as you seem to be making it out to be.
Moving on, I was not trying to make or incite any comparison between the public versus the private (fans), I'm saying that the note over how Roosevelt was referred to in public and private was made. In these cases the situation is flipped, but the issue still is that the note was made over how the films were referred to in public and private. I personally believe that around 50% of the fans (give or take a few) refer to the films by their acronym. However, only on the internet, as pointed out. This is a reasonable amount to include as notable. However, after looking a bit into it, I don't feel that the source is reliable enough on it's own. So if I cannot find a reliable source by the end of tonight (it's 3:30pm, where I am now), then I will remove the information. The Filmaker 20:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, you just used faulty logic. Saying that something is right because it passed through FAC would mean everything in the article is right as it also passed through FAC (which is patently absurd). We might as well stop editing it. Unless people voted solely on including it in the opening para the FACs are irrlevant. It's common only to hardcore fans and is backed up a by a fan forum. Luckily for you the article is off the main page so other average fans like myself probably won't respond here. Marcus Taylor 07:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I am saying that the inclusion of the acronyms is not the huge mistake that you are making it out to be because the five times it was voted through the FACs, they were not brought in any comments or opposition votes. Thus, they did not stand out like a sore thumb the way you have made them out to. As for how common they are among hardcore vs. average fans, I'm done debating. The information can't be cited correctly, so the information was removed (my thanks to the unregistered user who did so). The Filmaker 14:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Forever Sorry

I realise that it has been shown in the history that I have been vandalising this article. I am very sorry - my account was momentarily hacked, and, reviewing my contributions, I have seen what this hacker (of whose identity I am not aware) has done, and I am sorry. Please forgive me. I hope it has caused no inconvienience. Thank you, Light Dark 08:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

The title of this article is incorrect. It should be Star Wars. Algabal 08:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

While Star Wars was the original title of the film upon its release, putting this article at Star Wars would not be prudent. —Gabbe 08:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely that this should be "Star Wars", as I said this page last November [1]. The current article at Star Wars should be renamed to "Star Wars Film Series" or something similar, in the vein of Back to the Future Trilogy, The Matrix (series), etc. To call this article anything other than the film's original release title smacks of recentism, not only because it was released under the title "Star Wars" but also because it was known as "Star Wars", both popularly and in the VHS & Laserdisc release series, for a full 22-odd years, until the 1999 marketing blitz for Episode 1. Spebudmak 15:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Note the somewhat lengthy discussion that ensued at Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope/Archive 2#The title of this article should be "Star Wars". For the record, I agree with James W. Spebudmak 15:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
And that discussion, like all of the discussions before ended with the title remaining. I will pull my last post on this discussion:
Yes, and according to WP:NAME, titles are to be chosen based on what the majority of English speakers would recognize. After Episode I, the majority of English speakers are familiar with the "Episode" titles. Titles are also chosen for "making linking to those articles easy and second nature." If you were to mention to someone on the street "Hey! I just saw Star Wars last night!" they would most likely reply "Oh yeah? Which one?" This would be a constant conflict issue among other articles. Finally, as a side note, it would upset the symmetry between the six film articles. The Filmaker 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The Filmaker 16:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your statement that there would be any confusion about someone who "saw Star Wars last night." There would be no confusion at all - even the most pedantic fanboy would assume it was ANH unless specified otherwise. I'm completely in agreement with user Spebudmak's comments above. Matt Deres 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That's the issue, the "pedantic fanboys" are among the only people that would immediately and definitively assume that the film was ANH. Here's what it comes down to, if I told you I saw Star Wars last night, a reasonable amount of people would ask "Which one?". However if I said that I saw Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope last night, there is no assumption going on, there is nothing unclear, and there is no reason to assume and/or ask questions. The Filmaker 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to this "also because it was known as "Star Wars", both popularly and in the VHS & Laserdisc release series, for a full 22-odd years, until the 1999 marketing blitz for Episode 1." The title is what the majority of english speakers would recognize now, not ten years ago. The Filmaker 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the people who say that the title should be Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. For one thing, it keeps things consistant with the other film articles. Also, as others have stated, the majority of modern fans refer to it as Episode IV. In regards to the above example of a person ramdomly saying "I watched Star Wars last night.", I would be among the people to ask "Which one." Another thing, the Episode IV: A New Hope was tagged on a year after the movie came out. Though this was not in the common fan's vernacular, it is what George Lucas referred to it as. The name should stay as it is. Another thing I would like to point out is that fans didn't even use episode numbers until Episode I came out. It was always Empire Strikes Back or Return of teh Jedi. That has also changed with the release of the prequel trilogy and fans are starting to call all six movies by number in addition to name. Emperor001 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. In response to what Filmaker says, it seems to me that if you went to someone on the street and said "I watched 'A New Hope' last night, they might say "Huh? What's that? Some arthouse foreign film?" The articles for the original trilogy should be titled "Star Wars", "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi". I'll point out that "Star Wars" is the name of the film that received a nomination for a Best Picture Oscar, and "Star Wars" is the name of the film that is preserved in the National Film Registry. Also note how Back to the Future and The Matrix both point to the first film in the series, not the series as a whole. Spebudmak 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I actually take issue with the idea that the "majority of English speakers" would use the current article's title when referring to the film. Personally, I would guess that the majority still call this film "Star Wars", in 2007, but I don't imagine that a public-opinion poll on this topic has ever been done. Also, I don't think that consistency among different article titles should be an important criterion (but I could be wrong about this -- is it written in any guidelines?). Spebudmak 21:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
it seems to me that if you went to someone on the street and said "I watched 'A New Hope' last night, they might say "Huh? What's that? Some arthouse foreign film?"
Which is why the article is not titled A New Hope instead we give the full title Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, which removes any confusion.
I have never ever heard anyone refer to that movie as "A New Hope". Most people do not know its "episode number" as it did not even have one when the movie came out. Also, the next movies were called The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of Jedi. The fact that Lucasfilm uses stupid naming is not an excuse for us to please Star Wars fans. Mstuomel (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll point out that "Star Wars" is the name of the film that received a nomination for a Best Picture Oscar
Of 1978, the episodic title had not been established yet.
Also note how Back to the Future and The Matrix both point to the first film in the series, not the series as a whole.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Every article is subjective, you seem to have completely ignored the issue of linking between articles. And yes, I'm aware that the policy page deals with the deletion of articles. But the philosophy still applies.
Also, I actually take issue with the idea that the "majority of English speakers" would use the current article's title when referring to the film. Personally, I would guess that the majority still call this film "Star Wars", in 2007, but I don't imagine that a public-opinion poll on this topic has ever been done.
There is none to my knowledge. But keep in mind that we're not discussing what the majority of people would call the film, but what the majority of english speaking readers would recognize per WP:NAME. The Filmaker 23:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll number these responses in order to avoid confusion with the indenting. 1. I agree, I know it's just a sub-title, but I'm just saying that "A New Hope" has not entered the public consciousness in the way the other five sub-titles have. 2. That's my point, it's a revisionist approach to name the article anything other than the film's title in 1977 in which millions of people saw it for the first time. I agree if most people knew only the new name, it would be different, but most people reading wikipedia were not born post-1999. 3. "Other stuff exists" is also a good reason not to be concerned about consistency in the names of the articles of the six films. 4. I wasn't making a distinction between "call" and "recognize". Spebudmak 00:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Maybe not as much, but the episode title itself has. 2. But most of them are familiar with the episodic title. 3. The consistency between the articles of the six films has always been a side note. 4. I know you weren't. I'm saying you need to. The line of WP:NAME refers to what the majority of english speakers would recognize, not call. They would recognize Star Wars, but they would also recognize Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. The Filmaker 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
No one except for Star Wars fans and 'geeks' would recognize Stars Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. 75.68.6.81 16:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that I highly doubt. Everyone is acquainted with the Episode 1-3 titles, so they've taken the time to get acquainted with Episode 4-6, which have been around even longer. The Filmaker 20:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
For most of that time, it wasn't called 'A New Hope', let alone 'Episode 4'. That's been tagged on as a retronym. I agree that the title should be simply Star Wars, with a disambig link to the series as a whole.--MartinUK 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
And how this refutes the previous statements, I'm not sure. It seems to completely ignore them. The Filmaker 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with someone adding their voice, in order to establish consensus. Also, I hate to beat horses but how do you know that "most of them are familiar with the episodic title"? "They would also recognize Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope", do you have a source for this? Remember, the movie has never had a theatrical release under this title (according to the cinema posters that is), and this title did not appear on a video boxcover until the 2004 DVD release, all of 3 years ago, which is 1/10th of the age of the film. Spebudmak 06:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to ask for me to provide a source, you should probably provide one yourself. It appears that you are trying to say that you don't believe that most are familiar with episodic title. In which case, I'll ask for your source. However, I don't think either of us can provide sources for either statements. The only thing we can do is to build a case as to why we believe that. I think, considering all six other films were released under the episodic title. And the especially since the prequel films were marketed under the episodic titles. That the general public is aware that the original Star Wars film is subtitled "A New Hope" or at least is "Episode IV" in the series. The Filmaker 22:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well obviously more people are familiar with the name "Star Wars" since it is contained within the current title. On another note, I just noticed that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), it says "For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be "Series name (film series)." So according to that, the article at Star Wars should be renamed to Star Wars (film series) (or perhaps just (series) if it is to be inclusive of action figures and novels and TV cartoon series and plastic lunchboxes and....) That naming convention says nothing about films which are rereleased under a new title, unfortunately. Spebudmak 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice work

This article sets a new standard for how articles on fiction should be written. Nice work to all involved! --Doradus 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Retitling

I only want to find out when the retitling from 'Star Wars' to 'IV' was made. Maybe it should be an easy to click subsection. --77.49.32.8 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To me it is just silly that all these Star Wars articles are given unauthentic names, because the studio and that nutcase Lucas decided they wanted to cream off a few hundred million from us the dumb public. They had moral authority to do that? Why are we accepting it like idiots????? Any historical sensitivities anyone? What are you gonna do when the studio decides it needs another few hundred easy million and pumps out another three prequels, move this article to Star Wars VII: A New Hope? Where will it stop? Medieval Fiona 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see the above discussion and please leave out your own personal opinion of Lucas and Lucasfilm. The Filmaker 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The statement doesn't make much sense since Star Wars V and VI have always been V and VI, and even IV has been IV for a very, very long time (1981) even if not always clearly branded as such. Nil Einne 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Never heard that before. The movie was released as Star Wars. It was the first movie, not the fourth, it was made in 1977, and not 1981 (can you give a source for this please). You can't rename a movie. I'm just so disappointed in our culture that we have accepted their authority to do this, disappointment compounded at the trashy nature of the prequels, which are being tied to the three original great movies (only one made by Lucas) through a fiction nomenclature. Like I said, what are we gonna do when the studio decides it needs another few hundred easy million and pumps out another three trashy prequels? Are we gonna move this article to Star Wars VII: A New Hope? Where will it stop? Movie studios can't change history, and wikipedia shouldn't help them. This issue just makes me temperamental; it says something very worrying about our society. And I'm sorry for my opinions about Lucas, but he's nearly ruined a great thing through his egotism, crappy movies and society's slavishness. The original three are the only three, period. Medieval Fiona 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope you realize that your propaganda over Lucas and "the studio" is not helping your argument. You are obviously letting your opinion over the ethics and morals of the filmmaker affect your judgment call over a Wikipedia decision. Namely over the fact that calling the film "Episode IV: A New Hope" connects them to three prequel films that you dislike. However, even that is incorrect as the film was renamed in subsequent re-releases and later releases on VHS and Laserdisc. The first appearance of the episodic title was with The Empire Strikes Back which was marketed simply by it's subtitle, however the film itself has always contained the episodic "Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" title. As you can see, the film was renamed long before the prequels were even announced. The Filmaker 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The form "Episode ##" was (to my knowledge) never used in any marketing items for the film, e.g. film posters, VHS boxcovers, etc., until the appearance of Episode I in 1999. I don't even think that the posters or videos for the 1997 Special Editions contained the phrase "Episode ##" on them. Spebudmak 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
True, the marketing items did not. However, the films themselves from their original releases (minus A New Hope) have stated there titles with the episodic title. This is factor to be taken into consideration according to WP:NAME. The Filmaker 23:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So by that argument, if we are to go by the on-screen titles rather than the common usage employed on film posters and video covers, then perhaps we should name this article "A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away: Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope: It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory....." :) I'm just trying to say that the commonly-used name should be the one used on Wikipedia, which we already agree on: we just don't agree on what the commonly-agreed name actually is. Spebudmak 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:NAME, you are correct the mostly commonly-used name should be used. However, it also states "while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." To have the Star Wars and A New Hope articles being one and the same, would create a constant conflict with linking and generally would cause the confusion I detailed above. The Filmaker 00:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

These borderline flamewars on the name make me quite certain the article could use an easy to click subsection about the retitling of the movie. --77.49.32.8 17:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The article already goes into detail over the film's retitling in the Release section, albeit not in a subsection. However, these discussions are over the title of the article, not the film's retitling itself. No one is debating that the film was retitled, we're debating over which title should be used for the article. The Filmaker 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Very bad idea to rename the article: As the article says, he meant it to be titled Episode IV A New Hope, and has been called a new hope ever since. Judgesurreal777 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would rather see this article at Star Wars (1977 film). The idea of using "episodes" was, at the time, more of a nod toward old film serials and had little or nothing to do with the plotline of the prequels. From the perspective of the film itself, the title "A New Hope" is mere trivia. Only from the perspective of the "universe" developed later has the title gained meaning. As a real-world encyclopedia, I would rather see Wikipedia place the film into a real-world context than into a Star Wars universe. --Dystopos 15:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
In the real-world context of 2007 the title is an episodic title. After the prequel films were released the episodic title became mainstream, also the episodic titles have been in somewhat of an existence since The Empire Strikes Back, finally on the official Star Wars website, the film is almost always referred to as A New Hope or by it's episodic title (excluding some articles talking about the original release of the film when it was known as simply Star Wars. The Filmaker 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I am aware of the counter-arguments. I am merely expressing my opinion. --Dystopos 16:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

spoilers?

Shouldn't there be spoiler warnings before the sections about the plot? Or does that only apply to books? Seldon1 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See our discussion above. ~ UBeR 16:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for setting this example of a high profile featured article without those ugly spoiler tags!!!--345Kai 23:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Midgets"

I have a comment about this line, from the Production section: Early in development, Luke Skywalker's character changed from a 60-year-old general to a member of a family of midgets... I may be pushing things here, but many people with dwarfism consider the term "midget" to be derogatory. (E.g., see this discussion between Roger Ebert and Danny Woodburn.) Is there any alternative word we could use in this section? Zagalejo 18:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Would it be reasonable to point out that John William's Imperial March theme resembles Gustav Holst's Mars, the Bringer of War (from The Planets suite)? — Loadmaster 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If it can be cited. Then yes. The Filmaker 23:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of mentions in the Star Wars music article, which should suffice. — Loadmaster 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
But it doesn't contain citations. Wikipedia articles can not be used as citations for other articles. The Filmaker 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant that the other article is sufficient to make the connections between William's and Holst's themes. No citation is necessary in this article, since they are explored more fully in the other article. — Loadmaster 23:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
A citation is needed whether it is explored in the other article, more fully or not. Any information that appears in a featured article must be cited. The Filmaker 23:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rinzler's book has good information on the development of the soundtrack design. Lucas was indeed using Holst's The Planets as placeholder music, and Williams heard that temporary track during his sessions with the director. Rinzler does not go so far as to discuss similarities between Holst's piece and the final theme. So we'd need a different authority to back up that observation. --Dystopos 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Allusions

I have some issues with this section in regards to the references of JRR Tolkien. The first one where it states "albeit in differing fashions, and Darth Vader resembles the Witch-king of Angmar in that both are the chief servants of a higher evil power and dress in black". Tolkien never described how the Witch King dressed in life. In (un-) death as Lord of the Nazgul, yes he was in black as all the Nazgul were. Shouldn't the reference to the Witch King be changed to nazgul? Also, the following section plays very loose withe the facts - where it says "Luke watches the duel of Obi-Wan and Vader from across a chasm as Frodo witnessed the duel between Gandalf and the Balrog"; both feature their respective blue and red mêlée weapons". The problem with this is first, Frodo was on the same side of the chasm as Gandalf and was just a few feet away. They had crossed the bridge and Gandalf broke it when the Balrog tried to cross. Second, Frodo didn't witness the dual, which took place after they fell. They fought as they climbed the endless stair to the top of the mountain and there is where Gandalf slew it. — User:Ashet 18:52 25 May, 2007 (EDT)

Hope

Is it not common among fans to refer to IV simply as "Hope"? A group I used to be in called the films Menace, Clones, Sith, Hope, Empire, and Jedi.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.103.163 (talk • contribs)

Casting

Shouldn't there be a mention in "Production" that Lucas held a joint audition with Brian De Palma (for Carrie)? James Morton (User) 16:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the "Cast" section. The Filmaker 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you guys sure are quick to revert edits

I realize this is a "Good Article", but the plot section is a mess! - could ya ease up on the trigger just a little with those reverts? I'm trying to help. (Annoyed) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's a featured article. ;) Which means it's been voted to be among the best on Wikipedia. I like to maintain the featured articles I've worked. But in this case, I just happened to be there. Which is why the revert was so quick. I found your revision of the plot section to add trivial details that were not needed to understand the overall plot. Which is the purpose of the plot section. If you could explain how the plot section is "a mess" then I'd be happy to reply. The Filmaker 20:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Mainly some grammatical issues, some character-development issues, and a bit of redundancy and run-on sentencing, mostly toward the beginning of the plot section. A little later, lemme try the edit again with less detail and see if it's more acceptable. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've never been great at prose. Which is why I had these articles copied by multiple users. The only mention you made in there was "some character-development" issues, which worries me (the trivial detail) again. Just keep in mind that the Plot section is for the most fundamental understanding of the plot, not necessarily the characters, and know that I will not revert your edits for any grammatical corrections you make. The Filmaker 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I tried it again, and finished it too (I wasn't done earlier). Less emphasis on character development and backstory, and more on overall plot elements. Overall, there's less detail in this version than what had been there before I started. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a thing in this helmet!

Since an ad-lib was mentioned for Empire, I figure it would be appropriate to mention an ad-lib in this article as well. In Empire, Han Solo's line "I know" (in response to Leia saying "I love you") was ad-libbed because the cast disagreed with the original response ("I love you too"). In New Hope, Luke's line "I can't see a thing in this helmet" while he, Han and Chewbacca are in the Death Star was also an ad-lib - it was really Hamill commenting to Ford about his costume. The ad-lib fit so perfectly that it was allowed to stay in the production. This has been a piece of outstanding Star Wars trivia for some time.

My question is: Should it go in the Production section like the similar ad-lib is in Empire? Should both ad-libs be excluded from their articles? What do you think? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I never heard that "I can't see a thing in this helmet!" was an adlib. However, I still find it to be trivial, Han's response to Leia is much more well-known and was an example of how Irvin Kershner worked with the actors. The Filmaker 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

MPAA rating in template

The MPAA rating doesn't show up on the template. Does anyone know why? - Throw 18:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about the ratings templates that have been placed in certain film articles, those have been removed per WP:NOT. However, if you're referring to the infobox, than it is because it is not yet possible to place MPAA ratings into infoboxes. The Filmaker 20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Years

I have repeatedly seen articles on Wikipedia saying that there were 19 years between Episodes III and IV. This is not true. In all of the novelizations and websites that I have read, all of them said that Luke was 20 years old during Episode IV. That means that there are 20 years between the two movies, not 19. Emperor001 21:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please cite "all of the novelizations and websites" that you have read. --EEMeltonIV 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
According to the official website at http://blogs.starwars.com/timeline/5 Revenge of the Sith (which features the birth of Luke Skywalker) takes place 19 years BBY (Before the Battle of Yavin) or 19 years before Episode IV. The Filmaker 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The novelization of Empire Strikes Back by Donald F. Glut. 1999 reprint of original 1980 novelization. It clearly states that Luke was "barely twenty-three" and that "only three years ago he was a wide-eyed farm boy on his home world of Tatooine." This means that there are 20 years, not 19. Also, the website is not fool-proof. It fails to mention certain details from EU (such as Palpatine's son). My dad also said that when Episode IV came out, he saw a poster that said Luke was 20. Emperor001 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

19 years is mentioned on the back of the 2005 DVD release. Alientraveller 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd consider the official site more foolproof than a novelization from 1980 (the reprint doesn't matter, I doubt they would have caught the mistake). Also, if it states "barely twenty-three" how old is that. Twenty-three and week, a month? When it was "only three years ago" was it exactly three years ago? Down to the minute? It's possible that Luke was 19 about to turn 20. Finally, my dad also believes that subtitle A New Hope appeared in the original release. However, citations prove otherwise. Hence your dad probably isn't the best citation. The Filmaker 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I can just see it now: <ref>[[User:Emperor001]]'s dad</ref> The Wookieepedian 23:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The 1976 novelization, Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker. (Del Rey paperback, 13th printing, August 1977) states that Luke was "twice the age of the ten-year-old vaporator" he was working on when he caught sight of the space battle overhead. That's hardly a definitive answer, but it's clear that at the time, he was "about 20". The plot of the prequels is hardly relevant to this film. --Dystopos 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again, another fan who just wants to completely disregard the prequels and act as though they never happened. Alright, according to Lucasfilm the prequel films are all encompassing canon. If you want disregard the prequels as sources, than you might as well disregard that source from Donald Glut's Empire Strikes Back. The good news is that the novelizations are also apart of G-canon so the argument cannot be made in terms of specific official canon. However, I would consider the films to be more absolute than the novelizations. The Filmaker 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
When the motion picture that is the subject of this article came out in 1977 there were no prequels. Contemporary sources are inconsistent about Luke's age (as were Lucas' drafts and casting priorities). The development of additional films does not change history. Wikipedia's purpose is to document real world events, not to assist in creating continuity within fictional universes. --Dystopos 04:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The film itself does not give the age of Luke or Leia. Therefore, perhaps we should leave the issue out of the article. The Wookieepedian 04:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, no, I don't really feel so. Adding the exact dating the lead's synopsis in every Star Wars article helps with the timeline. The subject of the article is the original Star Wars film that was released in 1977 and has since made history. Keep in mind that last statement, made history. Has in we're not just writing about Star Wars in 1977, but in 2007 as well. The development of additional films does change canon. A canon that has been stated by Lucasfilm to be in certain levels. See Star Wars canon. The films receive the highest level of canon and are absolute. This includes the prequels. And again, I find the citation from the official website and the DVD back cover to be more reputable source than two novelizations, one of which is a little fuzzy on his age. The Filmaker 13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The DVD cover does not state this. I just checked. Emperor001 (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The "Star Wars Universe" is a work of fiction which has been developed over many years. The production of this film took place with a different idea of the overarching timeline than the one that has later evolved. Wikipedia's responsibility, for this article, is the development and importance of the real-world film product. We have absolutely no responsibility to "help with the timeline" and articles about later works (including the special edition section of this article) can discuss how they have contributed to the evolution of canon. --Dystopos 14:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"The production of this film took place with a different idea of the overarching timeline than the one that has later evolved." Where's your citation for this statement? For all we know Lucas could of thought Luke was actually a girl the first film. To my extent of Star Wars knowledge (which is vast, I assure you) Lucas wrote the prequel films around the original trilogy. Thus very little, if anything, in the way of canon had changed. As of right now, the current overlording sources state that Luke's age is 19 as of A New Hope. The Filmaker 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, Luke is constantly referred to as a "boy" or "farm boy" and sometimes even as a teenager. Even though it's only a year, I'd find it much easier to refer to someone who is 19 as a boy than someone who is 20. 20 year olds are also, not teenagers. The Filmaker 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Look, there's no point in performing original research in order to narrow down Luke's age (If we were going to do that, we'd start asking about whether Tatooine revolved around its suns in 365 days and about the biology of humans in faraway galaxies a long time ago... pointless). When the film was made, Luke's age was not specified by any source other than the novelization. He is referred to as "a boy" whose application to "the academy" has been postponed, and he is portrayed by a 24-year-old actor. End of story. The successive drafts for the film's plot are all described in detail in Rinzler's recent book and the concept of the young hero changes greatly during development. The "different idea of the overarching timeline" that I refer to are Lucas' evolving and never-consistent notes regarding the timeline outside of the film's scope. At the time, he wasn't concerned with establishing consistency with any prequels, he was just trying to find the right hero. --Dystopos 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
As of this discussion, the novelization is the only source of Luke's age. I don't know, and you don't know whether there are any other sources out there for citation. I never said he was establishing consistency with the prequels. I'm saying it's the other way around, he established consistency with the original trilogy while writing the prequels. The fact is that according to what is canon, Luke is 19. The sources you provided stated that he was in the 19-20 range. Nothing definitive. The sources from the official website and the DVD cover however specifically state the age as 19. You are stating that we shouldn't help with the supposed evolution of continuity. However, the only definitive sources are the later sources after the prequels have been released. Thus the sources that we should trust are the only definitive sources available. The Filmaker 15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, Luke's age is definitively indefinite. If Lucas didn't have a specific age in mind when Star Wars was made, then he is not a specific age in the real-world context of this movie. If he later decided that Luke was exactly 19 years and 8 months or whatever when he came across R2, then lay out the story at Luke Skywalker. It's simply not relevant to this topic unless you're pretending that the Star Wars universe is real. --Dystopos 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoa. We're talking about when Lucas knew that the specific age of his character was 19. How is that pretending that the Star Wars universe is real? In the real-world context, the definitive answer has been decided upon as 19 years old. The Filmaker 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this, maybe the page should say about 19 or 20 years since with multiple conflicting sources, it is near impossible to say exactly 19 or 20. We could at least add the word about to the article which could leave the possibility open that Luke was 19 and almost 20. Emperor001 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's a published source that gives a precise age, we should include the information and cite the source. If there's a conflicting source -- but something just as specific, not some piece of ambiguity -- then add an appropriate transition such as "However," and then cite that one. Let readers make up their mind. But give the information we've got and can cite. --EEMeltonIV 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added the word about to the article. For all we know, it could be 19 1/2. This would seem logical since some people always round up and some always round down. For example, a week before my birthday, it's easier to say that I'm either the age I am currently or I'm the age I will be rather than saying "I'll be X next week" or "I'm a week away from turning X." Emperor001 16:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

SW Universe vs 1977 film

The discussion above is getting too focussed on one item of trivia when, in fact, there is a larger issue to discuss, namely, the extent to which the later-developed Star Wars Universe "canon" should guide Wikipedia's discussion of the plot and context of the 1977 film. In my opinion, the desire to create a coherent "universe" is distinguishable from the production of the film, which happened within its own real-world context. While later efforts have created a formidable body of work, these efforts are not the same as historiography or archeology which can shed light on real-life figures or events. They are later creative efforts which can only interpret previous work. The terms "canon" and "authorized" apply to the development of a larger body of fiction, not to the explication of historic events. To cite one example, Momaw Nadon does not appear in the 1977 film entitled Star Wars. A character with a head resembling a hammerhead shark does appear. Later work by Lucasfilm and its authorized partners have interpreted this appearance by giving him a fictional name and fictional background - but those developments are germane only to the later work, not to the 1977 film. --Dystopos 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your example of Momaw Nadon does not hold considering the name and the character was developed later in the Expanded Universe which is further down the pecking order of Star Wars canon. In this case, we are talking about this film which was later (or perhaps even back then) to have revealed to have took place nineteen years after Episode III another film in the Star Wars franchise which is on the same level as this film. The Filmaker 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
To repeat, the terms "canon" and "authorized" apply to the development of a body of fiction over time. They do not inform real-world history with respect to the Star Wars movies and other works. The "standing" of a work is immaterial, except from within that canon's context. We are outside of it and what is material is the real world context. --Dystopos 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Dystopos' point is a very good one, and runs at the heart of several discussions here lately (notably the recent debate over the title). Never mind whether this film is set 19 or 20 years after the formation of the Empire; a more important question could be why this info is so important that it should be placed right at the head of the second paragraph. It may matter for the in-universe canon and continuity with the other films, but not as far as this particular film (which is after all the first one made) is concerned. Some other relevant examples of terms currently in the article are the term "Battle of Yavin", which, as a fan more of the films than the other media, I had never heard before reading it on Wikipedia. "Dark Lord of the Sith" I don't think was mentioned in the film either (and was "Yavin IV"? I forget). Spebudmak 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'm done playing. I'm not going to fight over real-world context vs. continuity, especially if we are going to dissolve to such nitpicking phrases as "Battle of Yavin" and "Dark Lord of the Sith". The Filmaker 13:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just trying to cite some examples from the article, not suggesting that those particular phrases necessarily need to be scrapped, and also I don't see why that is more "nitpicking" than the 19 / 20 years (which by the way sounds extremely awkward in its current form: "about 19 years"? How about "about 20 years" since 20 is a round number?) Spebudmak 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I am perfectly fine with "about 20 years". The Filmaker 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Anybody think it would help to create a separate section in this article covering how the original film relates to the longer span of the "canon" SW universe and the expanded universe? --Dystopos 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

There are recent cases of vandalism (see WP:VANDAL). I have a question: where did all this vandalism come from? Greg Jones II 19:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_(film)/Archive_3&oldid=1137202745"