Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Article name

The name "Star Wars" is hugely ambiguous and not what the film is neither the official name for the film nor what that film is most commonly called. I don't know how and why this film dropped it's subtitle and every other film I've come across on here hasn't but this is by far the worst film you could drop it for given the unparalleled amount of content out there under the Star Wars name. All common sense dictates this being moved to "Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope". Robo37 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robo37:, This has been brought up and denied so many times. See WP:SNOW. It's not going to happen. --bojo | talk | contribs 14:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
"NOOOOOOOOO!" - Darth Vader

Okay, this has been reverted multiple times but we need to make a call on it. I'm of course referring to the continuous linking and reverting of stolen plans. Now established editors keep reverting this and IPs and new editors keep adding it in. I don't believe it's a continuous campaign to add it, just natural editing. So why does it keep getting reverted?

  • wasn't the case when the movie was made, only a recent event and not directly appropriate
  • Easter egg link
  • Unnecessary information, not relevant to this film or needed to understand the article

So is it the consensus of the editors here that this shouldn't link to Rogue One? I think we need a formal consensus one way or another to prevent the continuous editing of this. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Rogue One is actually mentioned and linked in the intro paragraph, so it's already covered. There may be scope for additional discussion of how the film's narrative fits into the sequels and prequels later on in the article, but constantly linking the stolen plans that way doesn't really help the article. It would then follow that any vague reference to the events of the prequels should be wikilinked, and the article will be littered with confusing Easter egg links. I've added a hidden comment requesting editors not to add this link. Cnbrb (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Those Easter Egg links are a plague on Wikipedia. They are put by editors to feel clever but they do not help the reader at all. On many devices, you have to click to know where the link goes and it's usually not helpful anyway. Additionally, Wikipedia follows a real world perspective and this film predates Rogue One.Mezigue (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Should this article have a disambig headnote linking to Star Wars#Theatrical films?

I know there are no other individual films whose official release titles were Star Wars, but...

I told a coworker of mine (not a Star Wars fan) today that I was planning on seeing "Star Wars" after work and she knew what I was talking about, but if I said I was planning on seeing "Rogue One" she probably would have had no idea. And when the Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me trailer said "If you see one movie this year, see Star Wars", it was obviously referring to The Phantom Menace.

Depending on context the title of this article could refer to any of at least nine films that have thusfar been released, since all of them have almost certainly been casually called "Star Wars", and they are all films.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No objection - seems like a good idea. Maybe you'd like to propose wording here first, just so there's some agreement before the article gets edited. Cnbrb (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
How about This article is about the 1977 film. For other films whose titles are frequently shortened to "Star Wars", see Star Wars#Theatrical films.? Perhaps For other films in the same franchise whose.... Sorry, I'm really terrible at the disambig headers. Whenever I need one I can never figure out where they are wihhout trying to think of an article that probably already uses one and copying from there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You could get yourself tied in knots trying to be over-specific. Can I suggest:
This article is about the 1977 film. For other uses of Star Wars, see Star Wars (disambiguation)
That should cover all possibilities without getting into difficulties about how to word it. What do you think? Cnbrb (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I've seen similar notices on other articles, but I'm not a fan. The present title of this article is not going to be confused with the majority of entries on that list. How about For other films called Star Wars, see Star Wars (disambiguation)#Film.? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the term Star Wars doesn't only refer to films - it can also refer to the over-arching franchise (i.e. the Star Wars article), and anything that falls under that title, which is why I think it's best to point to the disambiguation page. Alternatively it could link to the the main Star Wars article:
This article is about the 1977 film. For other uses, see Star Wars
It's very simple and unlikely to get embroiled in an edit war about what should and should not be included. Cnbrb (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
When I said "the present title of this article", I meant "Star Wars (film)"; this can't refer to anything but films. The only reason I think this article needs a head is the existence of other films with the exact same (colloquial) title, and I can't imagine anyone edit-warring over whether or not to include a "#Theatrical films" in the note. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
To quote Han Solo, "I can imagine quite a bit".... But in any case you would have to link it to Star Wars#Theatrical films then. Or how about: This article is about the 1977 film. For other films with Star Wars in the title, see List of Star Wars films and television series. Might that be a good option? Cnbrb (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Makes more sense imho and sounds good. PS: I completed your signature, you had signed using one ~ too many ;-) Regards SoWhy 20:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. The 1977 film has lost its claim of PRIMARYTOPIC for "Star Wars". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is already disambiguated per WP:NAMB. It is the only Star Wars film that is referred to as "Star Wars" in reliable sources i.e. all the others are referred to by their episode numbers or subtitles. There is zero evidence that the current name is leading to confusion.The comment by SmokeyJoe does not make sense to me because the primary topic is at Star Wars, not here. If this article were at the primary name then obviously it would include a hatnote, and it does. Obviously it is not a big deal if there is a hatnote or not but if one is added it will probably be repeatedly removed by gnomes because it would be redundant. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Conversely, there is zero evidence it is not leading to confusion. :-) Cnbrb (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a logical fallacy. The burden of responsibility is on the person claiming that it is leading to confusion. DonQuixote (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Lighten up, this isn't a courtroom drama. Cnbrb (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
If someone had just gone ahead and added a hatnote I would not have removed it nor would I have initiated a discussion about it, but since a discussion exists I simply provided my interpretation of the guideline. Ultimately though it makes no difference to me personally whether or not there is a hatnote at the top of the article. I was just pointing out that given its redundancy it is likely to be an unstable feature. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll be quite happy if there is no hatnote, but my personal view is that, on balance, it's a good idea and useful to some readers. But I suspect that, as with all Star Wars-related articles, small, sensible ideas like this are usually more trouble than they're worth. :-) Cnbrb (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Space Opera?

Reading this entry tonight, I was wondering about the accuracy of the term "space opera" to describe the film series. The linked article"Lucas: Star Wars Is Not Sci-Fi", which attests that the series is not sci-fi but rather related to psychology and mythology (arguable though the psychology claim might be), as well as Lucas' ongoing friendship with and devout admiration for mythologist Joseph Campbell, lead me to wonder if a different term might be more appropriate. Lucas is insistent that it is set in the past, it exists in a different physics, and the storyline is more reminiscent of ballads and epic poems. Could it more rightly be called a "epic tale set in space"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danicapaprika (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 

 Agreed.Greg Holden 08 (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Star Wars (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Star Wars (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Relatively minor editing of plot section

It seems unlikely that a net addition of two lines amounts to actual plot bloat, which would in turn be grounds for edit-reversion. It should also be noted that the editing process involved the removal or reduction of redundant writing. As the edits were performed, the process was undertaken in a manner intended to better familiarize a reader that had limited or even no pre-existing knowledge of neither the movie nor the larger Star Wars franchise. Please consult http://my.jetscreenshot.com/2306/20171216-dxu3-236kb to better grasp nominal level of editing carried out.

TechNyanners (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Distributor

As I understand it, the distributor in a film article should be concerned with the distributor at the time of release. There's now a rather cumbersome footnote that seems to provide a potted history of 20th Century Fox and Disney. To my mind, this article should only be concerned with arrangements in 1977, not the history of corporate takeovers by Disney up to 2020. This information belongs in the 20th Century Fox article. I'm sorry I can't find anything in WP:MOSFILM to back this up, but to me it seems an unnecessary addition. Cnbrb (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on the {{infobox film}} guidelines for release dates and distributors, limiting it to the original release seems reasonable. And looking at similar infoboxes, {{Infobox album}} says, "Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified," and {{infobox book}} says that the "Publisher of primary publication (prefer 1st edition)". Trivialist (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep to original release. Films change owners and distributors all the time and the individual articles for those films aren't the place to tell that story. Canterbury Tail talk 02:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I also note that the 20CF/Disney rights and merger is actually explained in the introduction to the main Star Wars (franchise) article, which I think is completely fine, and covers the distributor state of affairs adequately. So I think it's safe to take it out of this film article and limit it as much as possible to 1977. Cnbrb (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Plot point reversion

While I appreciate that the addition of cruft/bloat is a frequent problem on this article, I would say that I disagree with this reversion. The addition of the six words "and betrayed and murdered Luke's father" are a rather major plot point, and to remove them seems rather unjustifiable. Cnbrb (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur. The fact that Luke believes what Ben tells him, that Vader murdered his father, is rather important to Luke's character and something he strongly believes right up to a rather important moment in Empire Strikes Back. It's not a throwaway line and non-notable point, it's quite pivotal. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that back in. In the spirit of WP:BLOAT I think we can allow 4 extra words to convey what is, as you say, a pivotal plot point. It really shouldn't have been removed from the summary. Cnbrb (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Leia is not the leader of the Rebel Alliance. Mon Mothma is.

Leia is not the leader of the Rebel Alliance. Mon Mothma is. Yes she's in the original movie: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mon_Mothma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.123.123 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as the first film is concerned, she is. The character of Mon Mothma didn’t exist. Canterbury Tail talk 22:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
This kind of in-universe information is fun, it's perfect for Wookieepedia - but the way Wikipedia works is from a real-world perspective - so the emphasis is on what was presented in 1977 to Earth-based cinema audiences, not in the backstory of films produced 40 years later. The character of Mon Mothma was first introduced to Earth audiences in 1983 in Return of the Jedi - even Wookiepedia states this. Sorry, but she has no place in this article, which is about a film that came out in 1977. Cnbrb (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
’’’Question’’’ Is Leia ever referred to as the leader of the Rebel Alliance in the film? I don’t think she is. Saying so in this article would be WP:ORJOJ Hutton 17:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
That, is a very good point. The closest reference is Vader's "You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor." So I agree with you. Canterbury Tail talk 18:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

All snarky comments aside, the article doesn't actually say that she's "the leader of the Alliance", just that she is a "rebel leader", which is essentially correct. The Alliance has a lot of leaders: military, political etc. It's not a position held by just one person. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh wait! It does actually say that in the Cast-section. Could we change it to match the Plot section? --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It also says at the end of the opening paragraph of the lead, "the Rebel Alliance, led by Princess Leia". You could argue that she is the leader in the film since everyone defers to her and follows her instructions in the rebellion, but that could be OR. However I'm sure we can find a reliable source for this. Canterbury Tail talk 21:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Could we maybe fix this with a simple addition of an indefinite article? Changing it to "a leader of the Rebel Alliance". I don't think anything Episode IV indicates that she's the sole leader of the rebels. They seemed pretty organised on Yavin even during her incarceration. Also, it's General Dodonna who's clearly leading the soldiers. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
A reasonable and simple solution. Go with that. Clearly Leia is in charge of her particular band on board the Tantive IV, but by the time the action moves to Yavin IV, there is clearly a bigger leadership. It's perhaps a small point, but interesting that it's been raised. Might as well strive for accuracy. Cnbrb (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Works and is accurate. Good suggestion. Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Naming the Tantive IV

I've put a note in requesting editors not to insert the name Tantive IV into the plot. The ship shown in the opening scene was not named in the original 1977 film, and was only ever referred to in spin-off material as the "Rebel blockade runner" (I believe the Tantive IV name was first added in 1981 in the radio drama). For this reason, we should not name the ship in this article. Wikipedia has a real-world perspective, and with this in mind, this article should be governed by the script of the film as released in 1977. Thanks, Cnbrb (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur. I don't even know if the Tantive IV name is even official canon or not. Radio plays are not canon. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it is now, but mainly, it's the point that it wasn't named such in 1977. Tantive IV has appeared in other spin-off material since 1981. Radio plays were once canon, but are no longer (much as I love them ).
On a related note, did you know that the desert planet is never named as Tatooine in the 1977 screenplay? It was named in contemporary spin-off/marketing material, but never named in the film! Cnbrb (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of MOS:REALWORLD though, I cannot find anything in that guideline that says the plot has to include only information from the original script. I see no problem for example to reword the sentence as but her ship (in later media revealed to be called Tantive IV) is captured by Imperial forces or similar. Since a real-world perspective guides us, we should not ignore later developments, especially when they had real-world impact. Regards SoWhy 12:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of is WP:UNDUE as it's not important information. Knowing that changes nothing about any understanding and is not a plot point. Canterbury Tail talk 12:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Correct. Popcornduff (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Well generally, you should ignore later developments - sequel/prequel plot twists, latter additional canon details etc are generally not part of an article about a 1977 film. The problem with adding "later revealed to be..." type of insertions is that with a franchise as large and complex as Star Wars, almost every sentence will merit a similar insertion referring to something revealed in a later film. This adds nothing to the article and only creates pointless plot bloat. In the plot section we should aim to present the story as experienced by the audience in 1977.
That said, there may be merit in referring to some later developments in other sections of the article (for example Sequels or Cultural Impact), but it's hazardous territory with Star Wars as it just leads to indiscriminate addition of fan cruft. Does it matter to the reader that the ship was called Tantive IV? Probably not. Does it matter to the reader that Vader is later revealed to be Luke's father? Maybe - but it's definitely not part of the 1977 plot. You can do all that stuff on Wookieepedia. Cnbrb (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
From WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
A plot summary is a summary of a primary source. Tantive IV can be mentioned in other sections (such as a section discussing spin-offs). DonQuixote (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Good points. Thank you. Cnbrb (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Title changes by CapLiber

@CapLiber, your edits are in error. Ever since 1981, this film has had the subtitle included and is just as well-known, if not more so, by that name. The theatrical title already has priority since it's both the article name and the first title given. In the cases of the sequels, they have always been named with the episode numbers. At any rate, you also ignored hidden comments explicitly stating not to change the titles, and made the changes without consensus. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the film titles have been established after months/years of discussion. The hidden comments <!-- inside pointy brackets like this --> have been put there to inform editors and guide them away from making contrary edits. If you ignore them, your edit will get reverted - so in the end you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. If you really want to change wording around film titles, you can at the very least open a discussion to test your ideas and to head off any conflict, but bear in mind WP:SNOW.
There are so many more important things to do on Wikipedia instead of constantly nit-picking over the titles of a few films. Cnbrb (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed move to Star Wars (1977 film)

Clearly not happening. Regards SoWhy 09:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

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

It's been proposed to split the List of Star Wars films and television series into two articles called Star Wars in film and Star Wars in television. It may be helpful to move this article to a more specific naming. The current article title could be confused with Star Wars in film more generally,and should be further disambiguated to avoid confusion. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. It's pretty clear that disambiguation names this article as a specific film. The proposed makes it sound like there's another film called simply Star Wars, i.e. a hypothetical "Star Wars (1999 film)". A hatnote pointing to the proposed Star Wars in film would do. And even then, moving this article before that article is created is a little too preemptive. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM. This article for Star Wars (film) is clearly a primary topic. Canterbury Tail talk 21:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. No. Just no. Cnbrb (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per TenTonParasol. There is no other film called "Star Wars" so the title satisfies WP:PRECISION. If readers actively seek out this article they are very unlikely to be seeking an article about another film. Also, I believe WP:PRIMARYFILM doesn't actually apply here because it has already been determined that the film is not the primary topic for the Star Wars page name (which is why it is disambiguated). It's a moot point currently, but if another film solely entitled Star Wars were to exist down the line then we would disambiguate this page as a matter of course. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per TenTonParasol. A hatnote would be an acceptable remedy, and this discussion shouldn't precede a possible split that has not yet occurred. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Categorisation

I started a discussion about discussion about categorisation here concerning this and the other saga film articles — comments welcome. Maybe a small point but probably worth a little discussion. Cnbrb (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Title

Wasn`t there a whole archived discussion in the past that ruled that the title should be Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope? Did the consensus change? If so when and why? I honestly thought this discussion was settled years ago. 62.45.158.228 (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There was indeed a whole archived discussion in the past - the consensus was that the film title should be the one used at release in 1977, Star Wars (same for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi). I'm sorry I can't point you to the actual discussion - perhaps someone with a longer memory can add a permalink to this talk page. Cnbrb (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The archives are linked at the very top of this page, with a search functionality. I recommend taking a look through. There's never been a consensus to call the article Episode IV as we should use what the film was initially released as, not what it was renamed to. Similar to the Infobox represents solely the initial release. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes indeed. The subject has been done to death, for example December 2015 and March 2015. Sorry, but the consensus was not to adopt the longer episodic names as they were retroactively added years after the original release. Cnbrb (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
While this page should not be moved, it makes sense to add ‘Star Wars’ to ‘Empire’ and ‘Jedi’, as that appears on the original posters and brings them in line with the sequel trilogy, e.g. Star Wars: The Force Awakens. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of the title date, I take the point that official Lucasfilm sources state that the film was retitled in 1981, and have now added a better citation and re-worded that sentence to reflect that. Some sources do place it at 1978, others do not. Cnbrb (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. As a SW fan for 20+ years, I've only heard of the one book placing it at 1978. I can see why there would be confusion with the many re-releases, but it would be damn near a miracle for them to have committed to the sequel being "Episode V" that long before starting to shoot in March 1979. Maybe we'll get more clarity as more details are unearthed. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry I got a bit confused with all the edits and profusion of citations, but I can see you do actually have a point. I think it's probably best not to state in the article that the sources are "erroneous", but rather leave the reader to reach their own conclusions. The fact that Lucasfilm says it was 1981 should be enough for the reader to infer it's correct. I'm sure I've read other sources that claim 78, but can't remember right now. Cnbrb (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
P.S. As a SW fan for over 40 years , I do remember the surprise at seeing "Episode V" scrolling onto the cinema screen at my first screening of Empire. From personal experience, I would say that the episodes numbers were added after that date. Cnbrb (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha well that should clarify it! The official sources only came to my awareness after linking others repeating what I thought was true. :) Agree to keep an open mind, since we're talking about the production of some of the greatest films ever, and some future clue might bring us closer to the objective truth. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

As a subsection

I made an attempted edit to make the Title info a subsection of Release/Later releases. Since the 'Marketing' and 'Release' topics have to do with chronologically earlier events, I thought it would help resolve some of the current flow issues (talking about the retitling before the marketing of the original release of the film). My change was reverted, so please speak up if you have strong feelings for or against this change. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally I prefer it as a standalone section but I can see the logic of incorporating it as a subsection of 'Release'. Mainly I think it is important that this information is included and is easy to find, as it is a significant development in the Saga and also helps to mitigate title-related edit wars. Cnbrb (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
In my revision, I linked "later retitled" in the first sentence to the 'Retitling' section, so it would arguably be more prominent. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes good idea. Cnbrb (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Another option would be to make the title section a sub-section of "Marketing". I can't say I am fan of this layout because it makes the section look too fragmented. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I do feel that the title of the film is concerned mainly with what's seen on-screen and is therefore more closely related to 'Release' than marketing. But yes, 'Subtitle' is not a good heading as it's too easily confused with Subtitle (captioning).Cnbrb (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

20th Century Fox

20th Century Fox should belong in the "Production Company" section along with Lucasfilm, and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures in the "Distributed By" section, in all six inboxes of the previous six Star Wars movies. And yes, this is open for discussion. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Fox should probably be in the "production company" field on this article because it was the production company behind the first film, but all the sequels have been produced solely by Lucasfilm as far as I am aware. Also, Disney shouldn't be listed as a distributor on the original films. Template:Infobox_film stipulates only the original distributor should be listed. Rights often change hands (as is the case here) and can often have many distributors once you factor in mergers, different countries and multiple formats. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Fox should always remain as a distributor for the original six films, but now that Disney+ actually is going to include them at launch, I'm no longer opposed to adding Disney as a distributor. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Check out all the distributors Star Wars has had: [1]. At best Disney is going to be a home video distributor, not even a theatrical distributor, and currently the article doesn't even credit CBS/Fox Video. There is no encyclopedic value in adding Disney to the infobox, which is supposed to only document the original theatrical release. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. This article is primarily concerned with the 1977 release. Disney played no part in 1997 - they were busy with other stuff. Cnbrb (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Again retitled: Star Wars: A New Hope

See link. --2A0A:A541:F8A:0:113:B90E:FDE7:F59B (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That has more to do with the streaming marketing, which I'm not sure merits a mention; certainly not in the lead. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh fabulous - that will create even more Wiki-confusion and probably set off another decade of edit wars! But yes, that's a marketing issue. Film articles are primarily driven by the film's details at cinematic release (i.e. 1977) - later retitling, special editions, etc etc are dealt with later in the article, but not in the intro. Cnbrb (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This isn't strictly limited to streaming marketing. This was a company-wide rebrand to bring all films in-line with the Sequel Trilogy, and the current official marketing for all of the Star Wars films is Star Wars: [Film Title]. This is how the films are referred to in mainstream media and by Lucasfilm directly. These names should be included alongside the episodic title in the "also known as" text of the lead/introduction. Playhouse76 (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe in a note at most; the variant has been in use since at least the 1995 VHS release; and in the case of Empire its theatrical poster always appeared that way. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
"Referring to things in mainstream media" is marketing. But marketing or not, the retitling of films has been discussed to death, and it has been decided to carry the title at theatrical release in article titles and intros - see the discussion links at the top of this talk page. Please bear in mind WP:SNOW. You are welcome add something about this later retitling into the title section (citing reliable sources of course) but please don't try to argue for adding it to the intro. It will only get reverted. Cnbrb (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

All the other Star Wars movies should move back to 20th Century Fox.

Now that 20th Century Fox is part of The Walt Disney Company, all the other five Star Wars movies (The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi) should move back to the original distributor. AdamDeanHall (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Not understanding your point. Your title says they should move, your text says you don't see any reason why they should move. Personally I don't think they should ever have been moved from the original distributor in the first place. Canterbury Tail talk 20:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2019

X=third-highest-grossing film in the world. Y=third-highest-grossing film in the world. Because it is 4th behind Titanic (1997), Avatar (2009) and Gone With The Wind (1939). 82.8.37.113 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Your "X" and "Y" are identical. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose using "episode title" to describe to the later part of "Star Wars: Episode * (A/The) * (of) *" title sequences

Proposal: that use of "episode title" is more appropriately used than "subtitle" as a description for text references such as: "A New Hope", "The Phantom Menace" and "The Rise of Skywalker".

Tomes may contain divisions related to books, stories may be divided into chapters while scripts may be divided into episodes or acts. Lucasfilm has opted for "episode" as a chosen terminology.

I also did a bit of googling and found that:
"title a new hope" AND "star wars" registered "About 13,700 results" while producing 19 pages of results while
"subtitle a new hope" AND "star wars" registered "About 2,850 results" while producing 9 pages of results

Similar searches could be done in relation to titles such as The Phantom Menace or "The Empire Strikes Back" but I'd predict that, in such cases, there'd even greater differences in results from searches respectively containing "title" and "subtitle"

I think that it's generally more workable to talk of "Star Wars' episode titles" in reference to "Star Wars' film titles" than to talk of "Star Wars' subtitles".
GregKaye 02:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Although your sentiment isn't lost on Star Wars fans, that may be a little unusual for the common reader. "Episode" is part of the (sub)title. Implying otherwise is for Wookieepedia and Journals of the Whills, but not here.
But I get that "subtitle" is also a confusing word; that has connotations with 'closed captioning'. But we can always link to Subtitle (titling) the first time we use the other meaning, as we do under §Theatrical re-releases.
The film isn't titled Episode IV – A New Hope. That's a subtitle. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The opening crawl presents us with an episode number and an episode title and it does this in exactly the same position where the film titles of the other nine films in the saga are presented. Reference to episode title is not an issue for Wookieepedia. It's not unusual. It's a straight forward reading of the text with use of less ambiguous wording.
I don't think that the hope reference of the film should be unnecessarily relegated as a subordinate issue and, in various ways, hidden from view. Other commonly used and very applicable wording is available. GregKaye 22:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Billy Dee Williams's Han solo audition

A persistent rumour abounds that in 1975, Billy Dee Williams auditioned for the role of Han Solo. Some sources repeat this claim (e.g. Empire Magazine), but according to the man himself the audition rumour is untrue. Williams is listed in the cast section as one of the casting possibles alongside Kurt Russel et al, but this should be removed. We could say that he claims not to have auditioned, but I'm not sure if it is even appropriate to mention an untrue rumour in a Wikipedia article? They usually get deleted. Cnbrb (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

agree with Cnbrb, delete. GregKaye 00:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Grimes, Caleb; Winship, George (2006). "Episode IV: A New Hope". Star Wars Jesus: A spiritual commentary on the reality of the Force. WinePress Publishing. ISBN 1579218849. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 November 2010‎ (UTC)

Credits for the Fan Edits surrounding the Original Star Wars Trilogy.

A point of interest that I believe deserves to be brought up in this article is the spike of fan-edits surrounding the Star Wars franchise; not only do fans try and re-imagine the movie in their own ways via digital distribution but also fan preservation efforts like Harmy's Despecialized Edition gaining international media coverage online.

Is there a way to mention this phenomenon on this article without implying or condoning copyright infringement? It's important to Star Wars' legacy on the internet and for the cause of film preservation. So how can these efforts be referenced without seeming like copyright infringement? Internet Informant (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The Despecialized Edition is already mentioned. I'm not familiar with any other fan edits, but feel free to provide sources on ones you feel are noteworthy. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Internet Informant: - I would caution against inserting lots of information about fan edits into this article - see WP:COATHOOK. The primary topic of this article is a film released in 1977; you could mention this spin-off genre briefly in the Legacy section, but it would sit better in the Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fan_films.
I suggest if this is a subject you'd like to research and write about, why not start a new article? e.g. Fan films based on Star Wars or List of Fan films based on Star Wars? Content could be based on Category:Fan films based on Star Wars, and you could build it up into a really interesting subject area. Could be a fun project for you. Simply discussing something neutrally in an article shouldn't pose any risk of copyright infringement at all. As long as you can include reliable sources that talk about the fan edits, and demonstrate that a particular fan edit is notable, that should be OK. I'm not sure if referencing the fan edit video itself on YouTube or whatever might be a copyright problem - need to check. Cnbrb (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"A New Hope", retronym or revealed name

From our view point "A New Hope" certainly acts as a retronym but I'd like to question whether that's what it actually/definitely is? I've written up some potentially parallel situations, added in some of the article text with my adaptations and am pinging peops previously involved in editing the Star Wars (film) article, wishing you entertainment and valuing your thought. ping: UpdateNerd TropicAces CLCStudent SpikeToronto Cubs Fan Yellowdesk Rp2006 Enjoyer of World Betty Logan Doctor-Foster Slasher405 Mythlike-Cell TheBuddy92 Crboyer

We've all known about Superman/Clark Kent and all that complicated stuff but then we found out that his name was/had been Kal-El. It wasn't that his name wasn't always Kal-El and it wasn't that people wouldn't continue to call him Clark, Superman, Mr Kent or just Kent and it isn't that people won't continue to produce stories about Superman but, at least so the story goes, his name is Kal-El.

We've all known of Thor, you know, the God/guy with the big hammer. It was all quite clear there until other Thors came along. A girl Thor even took over and, in the process, the original Thor became more widely described as Thor Odinson. Its not that the Odinson designation was not previously a reality but it became more important in comics with the advent of Thors a plenty.

We've all heard of Banksy. Perhaps his real name is Robin Gunningham but if he is and while he may always be best known as Banksy, Robin Gunningham won't be a retronym.

At a further extreme, when Europeans discovered America, we described the natives as Indians. in the Wild West and of Eskimos towards the Arctic North. Then we found out that the natives of America were quite distantly related to Indians while the Eskimos were better known as Inuits.

At present the film in the article is predominantly described as Star Wars but it's still possible to question whether A New Hope is a retronym or may just acts as one. Here's a relevant section of article text for comparison:

...The Empire Strikes Back, which was released in 1980... {but prior to this film's release}
Lucas had been reported as saying "Star Wars was the fourth story in the saga and was to have been called 'Star Wars, Episode Four: A New Hope'" but that he'd dropped the numbering system to avoid confusing audiences.[1][2] Kurtz later recounted they had toyed with the idea of calling it Episode III, IV, or V to get a “What the hell?” reaction from the audience while making the film as much like Flash Gordon as possible but said that Fox hated the idea.[3][a]

So we have Lucas saying that he had the episode title in mind before the 1977 release and Kurtz confiming that discussions were held regarding episode references. Kurnz says that Fox hated the idea and, perhaps for more than just this reason, Lucas dropped it. However, short of being able to using a Jedi mind probe or viewing "things you will see... the future, the past", we may never know the truth. On this basis, I think it best to say that Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope "acts as retronym".

Thoughts on this or on the topic above about titles or subtitles are welcome.

add:
As another thought, the title Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope was published as the title on a release of the script in 1979, a couple of years before the release of Empire.

So what if the next film was just called The Empire Strikes Back and not Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back? There was no necessary retronym as this new film was not called Star Wars. It was primarily called The Empire Strikes Back.

Lots of film trilogies are made up of films that simply have different names. See List of feature film series with three entries. Perhaps Lucas renamed the film as Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope because he wanted to. GregKaye 00:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The episode numbering was added when the film was re-released - i.e. after the original release. This is what a retronym is. Wikipedia articles follow a real-world perspective. Cnbrb (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This is untrue; Lucas edited his own film while it was still in theaters after it was confirmed he would film the sequel. Episode 4 was not on very first print but Episode 4 was shown in theater before Empire was released. Kav2001c (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)kav2001c
The Episode number was not in the original 1977 release - it was added later in the 1981 re-release, in order to tie in with the forthcoming release of Empire. "Episode IV" was retroactively added after the event to fit in with something newer - this precisely is what a retronym is. Please can we stop over-analysing the title? It's been done to death, and the article is correct. Cnbrb (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Lucas ALWAYS referred to the film as Episode 4. Fox were the ones who insisted on removing title for original release as they claimed it would confuse viewers. After his success Lucas re-added Episode 4 and next film was Episode 5. This is NOT a retronym; this is a dispute between director and studio. The Empire Strikes Back was released in 1980, so the edited title crawl had to be (at the very latest) in 1979 (you claim 1981 in another comment). Kav2001c (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)kav2001c
Please don't WP:SHOUT. If you have reliable sources to support this, then you can add it to the article. The article already carries a reference to Lucas's interview which is in 1980, three years after the release of 'Star Wars. There is also a statement by Gary Kurtz saying they toyed with the idea of calling it "Episode III, IV, or V", which makes Lucas's claim more uncertain. It's still a retroactive addition, whatever Lucas's supposed original intention. Cnbrb (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

A New Hope was added to the crawl in 1981, but for many more years home media releases and the general public still just called "Star Wars". "A New Hope" wasn't emphasized on the packaging until the 2004 DVDs, and that's when people gradually started saying "A New Hope" instead of "Star Wars" in real life.--98.235.178.140 (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM, Naming conventions, If the film title itself is in doubt... it can be resolved as follows:.. "The chief source of information for motion pictures and videorecordings is (in this order of preference): the item itself (e.g., the title frames)...". Every print in the initial run had the title frame "Star Wars". That seems pretty simple. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I can categorically confirm that “Episode IV: A New Hope” was the subtitle for this film when it was released in the UK on 27th December 1977, as I distinctly remember being confused by this when the titles rolled up the screen. It is therefore, absolutely not a “retronym”. Osymandiaz (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal anecdotes aren't considered reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Especially not from a user account newly created solely to post this meaningless comment. Give it up Osymandiaz, this article is not changing to fit your personal opinions. Cnbrb (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
”Be polite, and welcoming to new users”, “Assume good faith”, “Avoid personal attacks”. Failed on all points, well done(!). Unfortunately, I do not have the technology to present even my clearest memories as evidence, however I have checked and confirmed my experience with other original witnesses. For your information I have not requested any alterations, plus you might like to look up the definition of the words “meaningless” and “opinions”. I noticed a glaring error, and so I created an account to inform whomever might be interested. You are no longer ignorant of the facts and there is nothing more for me to say on the matter. You are welcome(!) Osymandiaz (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I apologise. We have frequent attempts to get reference to the title of this film to be changed and it gets quite wearing. This has been discussed a million times and in-line with WP:SNOW, please do not keep trying to get it changed. Your memory of seeing the title in 1977 is a false one - you are probably remembering the 1981 re-release. There was no episode title in 1977 - this is a matter of public historical record.
I am delighted that you have set up a new Wikipedia account and that you are going to make constructive continuations to articles on a variety of subjects across Wikipedia. Happy editing.Cnbrb (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "INTERVIEW: GEORGE LUCAS" (PDF). Banta Tracks. 8: 1–2. 1980. I cut that number down to nine because the other three were tangental to the saga. Star Wars was the fourth story in the saga and was to have been called "Star Wars, Episode Four: A New Hope." But I decided people wouldn't understand the numbering system so we dropped it. For Empire, though, we're putting back the number and will call it "Episode Five: The Empire Strikes Back". After the third film in this trilogy we'll go back and make the first trilogy, which deals tieh the young Ben Kenobi and the young Darth Vader.
  2. ^ Craig Miller, ed. (1980). "Interview: George Lucas" (PDF). Bantha Tracks (8). Universal City, CA: Lucasfilm, Ltd.: 1. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 23, 2013. Retrieved October 15, 2018. Star Wars was the fourth story in the saga and was to have been called "Star Wars, Episode Four: A New Hope." But I decided people wouldn't understand the numbering system so we dropped it.
  3. ^ Taylor, Chris (September 27, 2014). "'Star Wars' Producer Blasts 'Star Wars' Myths". Mashable.com. Archived from the original on October 15, 2018. Retrieved October 15, 2018. We were toying with the idea of calling it Episode III, IV, or V — something in the middle. Fox hated that idea. They said it'll really confuse the audience — and actually they were right. If you go to see a film, and it's been touted as this new science fiction film, and it says Episode III up there, you'd say, "What the hell?" We were a bit clouded by the fact that we wanted it to be as much like Flash Gordon as possible. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 331 (help)
  4. ^ Taylor 2015, Chapter 11.
  5. ^ Rinzler, J.W. (2008). The Making of Star Wars: The Definitive Story Behind the Original Film (Reprinted ed.). London: Ebury. p. 400. ISBN 9780091924997. Archived from the original on June 28, 2014. Retrieved April 22, 2016.
  6. ^ Bouzereau, Laurent (1997). Star Wars: the Annotated Screenplays (1st ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 3. ISBN 9780345409812.

Notes

  1. ^ Some of Lucas's early script drafts bear titles such as "The Adventures of the Starkiller (Episode One): The Star Wars" (1975) or "The Adventures of Luke Starkiller as Taken from the Journal of the Whills: Saga One: Star Wars" (1976).[4][5][6]

James Earl Jones

Hi, Perhaps this question has been asked before but would it be posssible to add James Earl Jones to the starring cast section. Many thanks. OneSixtyNine (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Only actors listed on the billing block on the poster are to be in the starring section on the infobox. James Earl Jones is not only not on the poster, but he was never credited as Darth Vader in the film's original release. See here for more on infobox guidelines. Crboyer (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

He is actually mentioned in the lead section and is listed in the cast section of the article; it's just that the infobox at the top has to follow the "official" list at the time of first release which (most unfortunately) did not credit Mr Jones. Cnbrb (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright.Fair enough. OneSixtyNine (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need that many redirect templates for this article?

I think that the 1st and 3rd templates are unnecessary, especially the 1st template, i think the readers already can already distinguish those articles and subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deim174 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Cyborg

I've removed the dubious Category:Cyborg film. This is not a film about a Cyborg or Cyborgs, see WP:CATDEF

Not only are cyborgs not mentioned in the film but meaning meaning of cyborg is debatable, at what point is an amputee with prosthetic limbs considered a cyborg anyway? Again though this is the article about a film, and even if did agree that one of the many characters in the film happened to be a cyborg that wouldn't make this a Cyborg film.

I'm fairly sure similar over-enthusiastic category additions have been removed before but a quick search of the Talk page archives didn't turn up anything, so even though I'd be surprised if anyone actually disagrees on this point I'm writing it out and putting an explanation here in case it comes up again. -- 109.77.205.42 (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As our article Cyborg states, popular examples of cyborgs include "Darth Vader, Lobot, and General Grievous from Star Wars". That being the case, Star Wars and other films in the franchise should in fact appear in a category containing films in which cyborgs make significant appearances. Many of the other films represented in the category are not, strictly speaking, about cyborgs but include such appearances. Per WP:BRD, I have reverted your bold edit, and now we can hear from other editors as to whether they agree with you that the category should be removed, or with me that it should stay. In the mean time, please do not remove the content until a consensus is established. General Ization Talk 02:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Without feeling the need to weigh in on whether or not Vader is a cyborg, I would agree with the IP's statement that a film is not a "cyborg film" solely on the basis of containing a character who is a cyborg. Over-application of these kinds of categories makes it harder for users to peruse them for films that actually significantly concern cyborgs as a concept. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This wasn't intended as a BOLD edit, it was a reaction to BOLD edits to other Star Wars articles (Empire [2] Episode 3 [3] by User:The_Editor_155) and an effort to keep the articles in the series consistent, starting here at the beginning. I didn't track down who added the category or when it was added. It would be best if all the articles in the series were consistent, whatever way the consensus is decided. (The way I interpret WP:CATDEF the category doesn't fit any of the Star Wars films, but I understand others might see it differently.)
It would be helpful if General Ization could clarify which films in the series he thinks should also include this this category. It would also be helpful to know if this has been discussed before (I did do a quick search of the archives of several star wars films and the Darth Vader article and didn't find anything that seemed relevant). -- 109.77.205.42 (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:Defining, "Cyborg film" is not a defining characteristic of Star Wars. Yes it contains a character who may be regarded as a cyborg, but the state of being a cyborg is not central to the concept of the film, unlike, say, Terminator. Nobody has ever referred to "the famous cyborg movie Star Wars". Cnbrb (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
And, arguably, it wasn't revealed that he was a cyborg until Return of the Jedi or even Revenge of the Sith. DonQuixote (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Cyborg films Cat-def = "Films that feature cyborgs." feature = a distinctive attribute or aspect of something. So, no, Star Wars is not a Cyborg film by Category definition, its not a distinctive attribute or aspect. Darth Vader could have just been a body builder in a funny suit for all it had to do with the plot. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Concur with all above, definitely not defining. Canterbury Tail talk 14:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus or are more opinions and more time needed? Is there agreement that the category doesn't apply to any of the films in the series? (Not even Episode 3, General Grievous.) -- 109.77.195.61 (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I think we have consensus. Star Wars features cyborgs but is not about cyborgs. It's not defining. It's not Cyborg Cop or Robocop. Canterbury Tail talk 15:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. In addition, even if the character of Darth Vader is a cyborg in the series as a whole, I don't believe it's ever mentioned or alluded to in this particular film, which makes the category even more inapt. NearNRiver (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Photo of a cinema at 1977 release?

Something I've long thought would add to this article is a photo of a cinema advertising the release of the film in 1977, preferably with a queue of people outside - something similar to this image or this image. The closest we have on Commons is this photo of a cinema billboard - although it dates from 1977, it's in the middle of a desert and doesn't really convey the sense of public mania at the time. The large queues of cinemagoers illustrates a significant part of the story of Star Wars, its unexpected immense success at the time of release. If anyone has a photo from this period that could be released under Creative Commons, it would really be a valuable addition to the article. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Star Wars is widely accepted as technically British

I feel that the Star Wars pages do not accurately describe the making of Star Wars. Star Wars was a British production, with mostly British actors, British technical talent, British studio etc. This needs to be better reflected in the Wiki, to fail to do so, in my opinion, goes against the essence of Wikipedia. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparky The Magic Piano (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The essence of Wikipedia is to cite and summarise reliable sources, so if you can cite some saying any of the above, then that would be a great start. DonQuixote (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't imagine sources will call it a "British production". George Lucas, 20th Century Fox, Industrial Light and Magic, and the three leading actors are American. Much of the film was shot in England with a British cast, and the film was also shot in Tunisia and Guatemala. There could be ways to improve the presentation of info, but indeed we follow the reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Films, like TV shows, are generally allocated their nationality by the nationality of the production company that makes them. Not actors, not where it was filmed, not the nationality of the director, but the nationality of the company that actually makes it. All reliable sources state it to be an American production. It was partially filmed in a British studio, but not by a British studio. It was also filmed in Tunisia and the United States. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Cyborg, again

It was decided in a query above that this is not a cyborg film. Yet the category is still present in the article. Why is this? Was it unilaterally added back? Or it was never removed to begin with? --206.62.162.123 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Really, no answer six months later? Talk about lack of courtesy. This wiki has really gone downhill. --206.62.163.103 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I've removed it per all the conversations and failing WP:CATDEFINE. Canterbury Tail talk 17:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_(film)/Archive_9&oldid=1137202762"