Template talk:George Lucas

Title

Perhaps the title of this template should say "Films directed by George Lucas" rather than "George Lucas' films". Because even though he didn't direct Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, I think most of us would still consider them "his" films. Coffee 04:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, fine ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It burns...

Can we please get a better color scheme on this template? Its pretty garish. It works more for the SW template simply because there's only a single instance of yellow on black. EVula 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The color scheme should be improved if the template is going to be used. I don't normally edit templates, but I'll change the colors if there are no objections. --Erik 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Films

Even though he did not direct ESB and ROTJ, its pretty weird that they are not on a George Lucas template. Cvene64 07:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you include Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, you would also have to include Howard the Duck! AnonMoos 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't. Lucas himself had nothing to do with the making of Howard. He only helped with the financing and got a Exec. Prod. credit for it. It can be argued that Empire and Jedi are George's films even though he didn't direct them. The same cannot be said of Howard.Rhindle The Red 12:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No double standards please. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 08:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what you mean by that. Lucas controlled every aspect of the production of 'Empire' and 'Jedi', even telling the director what to do in several instances. In this way, it can be argued (and has been many times) that they are Lucas' films, despite not having a director's credit. This is not the case with 'Howard', 'Willow', 'Tucker' or the Indiana Jones films. The point I was making is that 'Empire' and 'Jedi' are special cases, not subject to the same rules that apply to other films Lucas Executive Produced. If that is a "double standard", so be it. Rules were meant to be broken.Rhindle The Red 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Big template

This box is quite large. Any chance we could pare it down a bit? I was thinking about removing the short films and/or mentioning "Star Wars series" and "Indiana Jones series". Other thoughts? --Mrwojo 17:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to remove the years. --Mrwojo 20:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kill anything he hasn't directed, IMO. Most film director templates only cover what the said person has personally directed, not just productions or anything (otherwise, Steven Spielberg would be even bigger). Producer credits should be spun off into, say, {{George Lucas productions}}. hbdragon88 05:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks much better with this change. Thanks! --Mrwojo 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Electronic Labyrinth

After seeing a lot of discrepancy on Wikipedia and elsewhere as to the correct name of the film, I looked at the film itself. Technically the name of the film is Electronic Labyrinth and the "THX 1138 4EB" part is the subtitle. The corresponding page on the USC Moving Image Archive (whom I believe owns the film) lists the title as "Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB". So I've changed the article title, as well as the George Lucas film template. Alcarillo 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Reformat

I re-organized the template as a list of everything he has produced, as he has been much more prolific as a producer than as a director. The Wookieepedian (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A New Hope

Note this reversion - that's three, now. Can we discuss this instead of reverting back and forth? So far, it's just one user who thinks Episode IV should be listed as just "Star Wars". My contention is that that term now more commonly refers to the entire saga, or to the franchise, than to Episode IV alone. For clarity and for consistency with the other Star Wars films in the template, we should list it under its complete title. Powers ^T 18:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. I’m not even a big Star Wars fan, but the truth is that I had never even heard the title A New Hope until I came across this. I’d always referred to the film as Star Wars, and so has everyone I know. In fact, I wasn’t even aware of the episode structure until the prequels came out, and even then only vaguely. I discovered that The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi originally had those titles, so I’ve left them alone. But the original film was simply entitled Star Wars upon its initial release, as trailers, the Internet Movie Database, and even George Lucas admit. Hell, here’s a YouTube clip that shows the original crawl: [1]. The fact that the year of release appears next to the title more than clarifies that it refers to the original film. I’d also point out that Francis Ford Coppola’s template simply refers to The Godfather by that title, and not as The Godfather Part I, although people often refer to the first two films as simply being The Godfather. I don’t see any problem with referring to the original film simply as Star Wars as many other franchises do exactly that- from The Godfather to The Terminator to Alien to Predator. In truth, I was hoping to prompt this discussion and I will abide by whatever the majority votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.63.243 (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was the original title, but it's been "Episode IV - A New Hope" since 1981. That's thirty years. Powers ^T 02:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is the correct title. As pointed out it has been known and marketed by this title for 30 years now. I am sure that this has been discussed and WP:CONSENSUS reached - probably more than once - on various talk pages. My apologies for not having the time to link to those tonight. If you need to see those I am sure that other editors can direct you to them. MarnetteD | Talk 02:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It’s only been marketed as such since the release of the prequels, and even so, most people still simply refer to it by the original title. If anything the policy you cite encourages the use of simpler titles. Several reviews do refer to the film by the shorter title, including those by Roger Ebert ([2]) and James Berardinelli ([3]), and even the 1997 re-release trailer: ([www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRgsMKu8oNA]). I think I can safely say that Star Wars is the common name, and the guidelines even state that it’s better to use the common name rather than the long-winded “official” name.67.239.63.243 (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It has been marketed by the longer title since 1981 which goes back a long time before the prequels. Please don't use the term "most people" when you are referring to your own feelings about the subject. Has been stated before there is a current consensus to use the full title and that is how Wikipedia operates. MarnetteD | Talk 13:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Find me one source that markets it under the long title pre-Phantom Menace. As I showed, even the 1997 re-release trailers used the original title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.63.243 (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be my videotape set from 1990. MarnetteD | Talk 14:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First you need to establish why that should be a relevant metric. The title in this template should match the title of the article, and it should match the other films in the series. Powers ^T 11:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In essence, because I think the casual observer shouldn’t have to click on the link to discover what film you’re talking about. As I said, I wasn’t even aware of the specific title A New Hope until about a week or two ago, although thanks to the prequels, I was vaguely aware of the episode structure. To pull regs, WP:COMMONNAME specifically states: “Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.” I’ve shown several reviews by prominent critics where the film is simply referred to as Star Wars, as well as the 1997 re-release trailers. That said, if you wish to be pedantic, I propose a compromise that should hopefully satisfy everyone. List the long-winded title, but put Episode IV: A New Hope in parentheses, so that it reads Star Wars (Episode IV: A New Hope). I’ve seen several sources do that. Can we at least agree on that? 67.239.63.243 (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Other than you how would any casual observer be confused when all six films are in the template. You are certainly free to continue typing about this but the WP:CONSENSUS is to use the full title and I don't seem to have persuaded anyone to overturn that. MarnetteD | Talk 14:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Parentheses are not needed as they make no difference to the way the title looks. MarnetteD | Talk 14:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Followup: A cosmetic change like parentheses makes me worry about the same WP:POINT issues that I noted in my edit summaries. MarnetteD | Talk 14:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, any page move discussion should be held at Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Until a consensus is reached to change that title, it should remain as-is on this Template. Powers ^T 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I give up. Obviously, the Wikipedia rules are only applied when it serves a particular administrator’s bias, and twisted to make them the opposite of what they are when they don’t. I have more important things to do than waste my time on this. 67.239.63.243 (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the editors that have responded are an admin. Everyone who edits has a bias including you and twisting was popular back in the 50's and 60's. MarnetteD | Talk 15:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Browsed your posting history for about ten seconds, and JESUS! Do you do anything outside of editing Wikipedia? Eat, sleep, work? Hang out with friends, anything? 500 edits a week? I doubt I’ve made that many edits in five years!67.239.63.243 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I daresay that's a good thing, if ad hominem attacks are going to be in your repertoire. Please try to remember we all have the same goal here. Powers ^T 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

1-Person Consensus

A couple weeks ago, a user named Rob Sinden raised an issue on the WikiProjectFilm boards regarding exec producer credits. Here’s the link here: [4]. The results of the discussion were either inconclusive or negative. Either way, there was no clear agreement as to whether to adopt his proposal, and he was its only supporter. The other contributors were either ambivalent or negative. Yet he implemented it anyway despite a clear lack of consensus. He simply declared it w/o actually having achieved it. As I’m not a regular, I don’t keep up with the day-to-day activities of this article, but when I viewed it about three weeks ago, I thought the changes odd and reverted them. They were reverted back, but I didn’t notice as I’d moved onto other things until today. The main editors seem to be Sinden, who insists upon enforcing his 1-man consensus, and Marnette D, an administrator notorious for harrassing and stalking editors who disagree with her. Marnette has even gone so far as to single-handedly reverse consensus on Duel, as previously established in this talk page (personally, I agree that it shouldn’t be counted, but going with consensus here). Now I believe that the exec producer credits should be counted as Howard the Duck is as integral and important to Lucas’s legacy as Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. Granted, Howard probably is an embarrassment to him, but Wiki policy does not mean we simply pretend embarrassing things ever happen. If that were true, Nixon’s article would contain no mention of Watergate. I will not make any further edits to this page until a definitive consensus is reached. 67.234.68.198 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached not to include executive producer credits in navboxes. There's the link you mention above, this, the history of the page, and I know you've seen the comments on the Spielberg template. This is why we have filmography pages, not every minor role needs to go in here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You will also want to read the WP:NPA policies before commenting further. Your accusations are also full of mistakes. I am not an admin, I have no notoriety for the items you mention - oh and you have the gender wrong as well. Per the links Robsinden has provided a consensus currently exists. MarnetteD | Talk 19:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

“Yeah, i reverted that. Spielberg's role in film is notorious, so those film, those he's only an executive, had Spielberg's creative input. The infoboxes don't allow exec producers in as only the main producers can be included, these navboxes allow us to fill it with all of Spielberg's filmography, from directing to producing.” “Yeah, i reverted that. Spielberg's role in film is notorious, so those film, those he's only an executive, had Spielberg's creative input. The infoboxes don't allow exec producers in as only the main producers can be included, these navboxes allow us to fill it with all of Spielberg's filmography, from directing to producing.” ”Then what do we do with them? They are part of his career, and navboxes cover all career aspects, but since that doesn't apply anymore, what becomes of them?” Clear nay vote by RAP.

“To be fair, these navboxes are there to identify creative authorship. Actors can have creative input in films too, and we don't include a navbox for every actor whoever ad-libbed a line. The production designer probably had more creative input than Spielberg in the executive producer capacity. According to Robert Zemeckis, Spielberg didn't interfere at all on Back to the Future; a lot of the time—especially in the 80s—Spielberg would act as an executive producer for his friends just so they could get their movies made. It's important for Wikipedia to not get caught in the fame game; the issue is really the creative authorship of the film.” “Personally I think the Spielberg filmography is fine as it is, I wouldn't want to see data fragmented just for the sake of it. With the filmography, each column is sortable, so if you want his director credits it can be sorted that way, same with his producer credits, and if you want to view all his credits for a particular film they are all there on one row. In truth I think the editing decisions for filmographies are best left to the individual article editors; they are restricted to the article the filmography is on, it's not like like a template that is dumped across a load of articles.” Ambivalence by Betty Logan.

“Aren't navboxes meant to highlight important links related to their topic? If you're going to have something as bloated as Spielbergs navbox, you might as well just replace all of that with a link to his filmography.” Ambivalence from darkwarriorblake.

“Making the argument that executive producers do not provide creative input belies the fact that individual films have unique histories and stories. Making the statement Lucas doesn't have any producer roles?? that alone fails as a statement as he is renown for his involvement as an executive producer, including Red Tails which extended far beyond just being a money man, he actually took up the reins as a second unit director. FWiW, individual articles have to be treated in isolation and left to the authors/editors that have made thoughtful and relevant submissions.” “As a general statement, that might be true as executive producers usually are backroom people, but folks like Lucas as notorious "tinkerers" that just have to get `involved. His role in Red Tails was so complex as both creator, originally screenwriter and then personally financing the production that it stands out as a unique role, and again, I did not contribute the original note or infobox, but am confident that a reasonable "exception" can be made to retain a mention in the infobox for the casual reader.” “Infoboxes are there to give relevant information "at a glance" and even in [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_film , there is a clarifying statement/premise that "All parameters are optional".] The particular article already has an extensive background as to the role Lucas played, but that isn't the question. I feel that it is an issue of removing content where it matters, disregarding that the original contribution was a reasonable "exception" and follows WP:Bold, rather than a, dare I say it, "drive by" reversion.” “Not that an exception should be made for "who they are" but for "what they did" in individual films should lead to consideration of the actual contribution of an individual to the creative element of a film. How that appears should be relevant to the reader and the case that infoboxes are there for a "at the glance" type of information is one possible solution. Take a look at Red Tails now to see my out-of-the-box solution. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC). As to the assertion that "consensus was that no executive producers should be included" is not at all what was the jist of the arguments. In reading through the "strings", it is evident that many editors made the case for allowing individual and unique situations to be identified in the infobox when an executive producer made a substantial or significant contribution to the production.” “Even making a clarifying note to the reader is not acceptable? What became of AGF editing?” “Sorry, the outdents are an affectation that resulted from my involvement in "circle jerk" arguments. The issue, however, should not come down to an editwar which was precipitously being created. The reader actually does not have a full or complete picture of the role of George Lucas in Red Tails which may end up being a last effort of the ubiquitous filmmaker in the creative process. FWiW, the need for concise and "to-the-point" editing is the flag behind which I am fighting.” “This convoluted discourse has now devolved into an examination of the role of the executive producer, and I am now questioning the "consensus" that is being bandied about. Isn't a consensus derived when all parties to a solution agree to the decision, rather than one adherent taking/making a statement that consensus has been reached? Perhaps further elaboration and discussion is required?” Clear nay by Bzuk.

“People continue with this fiction that "Executive producer" is a completely different role to that of "Producer". Not all Executive Producers are stereotypical managers or lawyers or studio heads whose credit is questionable. As I explained at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 21#Executive Producers producer credits are not specific anymore at all. They have come to mean very different things on different films. It is now not at all unusual for the line producer to be given the title of Executive Producer, while the initiating producer takes the "Produced by" credit. But on other projects, including all Lucasfilm productions, the reverse happens, with the line producer taking the "Produced by" credit. So the two credits have become effectively interchangeable, with no precise definition. As an example from a less famous person, Robert L. Rosen was John Frankenheimer's line producer on six films. On the first, French Connection II, he got "Produced by" credit. On the second, Black Sunday in 1977, he got "Executive Producer" credit, even though he did the same job. (For what it's worth, I think he and others should have objected -- that switching the then-common meaning of the two titles was not a good thing.) The two credits became increasingly interchangeable on feature films ever since.

The infobox is supposed to accurately reflect who made the film. When if comes to the Producer category, the most important criterion is not a strict telling of who got the "Produced by" title, but who actually initiated the film and oversaw it - this guy is the effective principal producer, whatever title he actually got. He should be listed for the article to be accurate.

I agree with Bzuk that Infoboxes are there to give relevant information "at a glance", and that is why I believe instances like Lucas should be included.” “You came in and declared consensus was achieved - based on the false belief that there's a hard and inviolable difference between Producers and Executive Producers. I could show many examples of the same producer doing the same job, yet going back and forth on which of those credits he gets on films he worked on. For many producers today, the titles are interchangeable.” Clear nay by Gothicfilm.

While it’s semi-debatable in the case of Spielberg (not really, but whatever), consensus was clearly against you when it came to Lucas, and at least 2 other editors accused you of simply declaring consensus without reaching it. He only had executive producer credits on The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, but does that mean we just assume he had nothing to do with Star Wars in between 1977 and 1999? Hell, Walt Disney didn’t even receive executive producer credits. He just received presenter credits. Presumably, he creatively had nothing to do with Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, Bambi, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians, Mary Poppins, The Jungle Book, et al. 67.234.68.198 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As of now, I’m recusing myself from this discussion, and I’d advise RobSinden and MarnetteD to do so, as well. Let this be an objective debate about the worthiness of the changes rather than an ego-clash. I’m sure there’s a WP: something for what I’m suggesting, but I don’t quite know the terminilogy 67.234.68.198 (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually you do not have the right to demand what other editors do and you certainly can't cut editors out of a discussion especially when you have posted a wall of text that needs some examination. Next, consensus is not a vote. Next, in your cut and pasting you have cherrypicked different conversations that went took place on different pages at different times and, thus at a minimum, have lost their context. Some of the conversations also bounce back and forth between "Infoboxes" and "navboxes" which are two different things. The "votes" that you tallied by Gothicfilm and Bzuk are only about infoboxes. BettyLogan - for which you took two different statements that were responding to different comments and then spliced them together so that the context is lost, states that the "filmography" is fine and her last sentence "it's not like like a template that is dumped across a load of articles" which might indicate that she doesn't want it cluttered up, though you should ask her for clarification. Darkwarriorblake would seem to be stating that he does not want the navbox bloated which is hardly ambivalent, though again you should ask him to clarify the statement. In fact all of the editors that you mention should be informed of this conversation so that they can comment on how you have used their words. Your failure to indicate when and where these conversations took place is disingenuous at best and in no way can it be considered a consensus. MarnetteD | Talk 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

MarnetteD is quite correct. The IP is picking and choosing what (s)he likes and trying to cobble together their own consensus from bits and pieces and clearly twisting the different points of view to their own end. The heading is clearly directed personally at me, yet the IP will now have realised this is not a "1 person consensus", and what they have said about MarnetteD is clearly not acceptable, and possibly blockworthy. If the IP wants to continue making false accusations, I would suggest that they read up on WP:NPA. The accusations, and the obvious bad faith shown by editing various comments together call into question the integrity of the IP. Incidentally, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are included on this template, as Lucas wrote them, and I'm not sure what the hell the Walt Disney example refers to, as there's no template I can find that lists the man himself as exec producer in the navbox. I would also suggest that if the IP wishes to continue the discussion, it is centralised on one of the project pages for continuity's sake, as we're having the same conversation on two pages now, and the above makes reference to changes on the Spielberg template, confusing the situation further. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I stand by what I said in the section quoted above, and you guys have no valid argument to the points I made there. And I was talking about navboxes in my last posting on this. They are usually collapsed on the bottom of the page, so they're not like infoboxes. You declare consensus and continue to talk about how exec producers never have any creative role, that "Executive producer" is a completely different role to that of "Producer". This not based on any consistent facts, just your own beliefs. I have given examples that show how that is untrue, and I could give many more of the same producer doing the same job, yet going back and forth on which of those credits he gets on films he worked on. For many producers today, the titles are interchangeable. But you don't care. Exec producers are to be removed no matter what under your dictates, despite the fact that clearly not everyone agrees with what you're doing here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)