User talk:Cinemaniac/Archives/Star Wars

Vandalism

dude, you are nothing but an egotistical braniac Who can't find anything in his free time but edit things on wikipedia. Get a life... AEM - 70.254.11.156 (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I can take the criticism, but what you said is completely unfounded and goes against everything I've said. First of all, I try my best not to be egotistical and uncivil, as it is harmful not only to who I am speaking with but also harmful to myself. Secondly, your remark "can't find anything in his free time" makes no sense; if you'd read the template at the top of both of these pages, it says that I'm "busy in real life" and because of that busy schedule I "may not be very active on weekdays." I can, and will, take honest criticism, AEM, but only if it is grounded in reason. — Cinemaniac (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, com'on, Jessie. You KNOW your nothing but a geeky jerk! ... AEM - 70.254.11.156 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, now you're starting to act uncivil. A guideline that we try to follow here on Wikipedia (and in real life, hopefully) is politeness. And also, refrain from personal attacks. I expect the same respect from you that I give to others. Attacking others for no reason is degrading only to the attacker.

On a related note: How in the world did you know my name? — Cinemaniac (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, man. It's just that... well, I'm very blunt. and speak my mind a lot. Probably something I need to work on ... AEM - 70.254.11.156 (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it. Apology accepted. And welcome aboard, AEM!  :) It's funny, you're name reminds me of some—... Wait a minute! ...A-E-M... Hmmm. Oh my gosh! I think I KNOW who you are! — Cinemaniac (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: There's absolutely nothing wrong with speaking your mind; it's one of our basic rights guaranteed by The First Amendment, and on Wikipedia it's encouraged and even essential for growth. Remember, be bold; just don't attack users. :) — Cinemaniac 23:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold UP a minute.I fell inclined to say that AEM is not related or has anything to do with me since My original username was AEM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.47.73 (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you certainly like to speak your mind, don't you?

Hey, folks, I think I know who AEM is; the three initials affirm my doubts. AEM is actually a good real life friend of mine at my high school! Realizing this understandably comes as a shock at first—why would a friend vandalize my page—but it didn't really stun me. AEM tells me that he thinks of vandalism as a joke, and it's on this subject that we could not disagree more.

Out of curiosity, I skimmed AEM's last edits to the Princess Leia article. Seeing your long edit all the more affirms your identity. Let me tell you—and this is an honest criticism—AEM's writing can be some of the most brilliant, stylistically engaging, vivid, and quirky prose, and then dissolve into the most poorly-written, rambling, nonsensical, grotesque compositions imaginable. (See this old banter he and I delved into about a year ago for a good example of this.)

Then again, maybe not all of AEM's edits are misplaced. For example, to say that Jabba might have raped Leia during those awful scenes from Return of the Jedi is not a far-fetched idea at all, and it's even backed up by evidence. But please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a fanbase, so edits are best kept narrative-like but not overly discriptive. Even so, I can recall stumbling upon some webpage (at this site [1] undoubtedly) that actually confirmed that Leia did in fact sleep with Han Solo while she was wearing the golden metal slave outfit, the position they used at that time, and a few other suppotring details, but the dirty-novel-like descriptions in AEM's edit were mercifully absent. Moreover, I can make no sense of the final paragraph of his work:

"In a later midnight romp with her husband, Leia wore the golden bikini again. But this time, Han was so wrapped up in taking it off her, he accidentally tore the loincloth of her costume in two. Leia, enraged, kicked Han out of the house. Knowing that it was the only thing that made her look pretty, Leia realized she couldn't wear it any more without the bottoms, and so tearfully had the rest of it melted down and discarded. Leia was so upset she even threatened Han with divorce."

Do I need to point out how nonsensical that paragraph is? It's merely a piece of writing, with only the most tenuous link to reality. First of all, I can't back up the statement that Leia wore the costume again during such a private moment. I also can't find anything supporting that Han was the one that caused the bikini's destruction. Furthermore, saying Leia only looked beautiful in the outfit is not objective, and in her defence I offer these pictures [2] [3] [4] of her. The fourth thing I point out is that Leia could indeed continue wearing the outfit, if she wanted to, even with it somewhat torn, simply because Han's going to be the only one around when she's wearing it. In addition, I can find no source that supports her "melting down and discarding" the rest of the outfit; it simply reported that she had it destroyed, no doubt because it sickened her by what it reminded her of. Lastly, the final sentence strains credibility even more; I highly doubt such a strong couple as Solo and Organa would fight over something so petty as that.

But then again, I know AEM in real life, so maybe I should give him a break and just encourage him to make edits that are more constructive and less harmful. It's worked before (not too long ago, I convinced him not to blank the Casablanca and Citizen Kane articles). He's actually not a bad writer at all in the real world, and I see in his composition some potential. He'd be a great asset to the encyclopedia. . . if only I could encourage him to quit vandalizing.

Oh well, I'll report back here to tell you how it went. — Cinemaniac (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like my persuading worked! AEM informed me earlier today that he has decided to quit vandalizing, and that he will be devoting much of his free time at penning "the next Lord Of The Rings". Well, good luck with that! — Cinemaniac (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AEM informed me earlier that he made this edit to the "Future Studies" article. The edit looks very well-written and more constructive. Kudos to you, old pal! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Princess Leia

No problem about the fix, I'm a perfectionist! But one important thing I should note: the text in Princess Leia Organa which was copied from that IMDb trivia page needs to be rewritten, as it was lifted verbatim. Even though we know IMDb is user-written, this still constitutes copyright infringement. I didn't note it on the article talk page or anything because I didn't want the material to be deleted, but if someone else notices, it will be. — TAnthony^Talk 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You can put specific phrasing you wish to keep in quotation marks, but as the page isn't really an article itself, it's probably best to rewrite. — TAnthony^Talk 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! But don't worry, I'll do my best to rewrite write away…uh…right away. — Cinemaniac (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I just took I shot at re-editing it. See if it works... — Cinemaniac (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Over the last few weeks, I've taken steps towards adding citations and footnotes to the aforementioned article. However, almost all of these have been only for the two sections of the article I created . The whole article (along with many other Star Wars characters like Luke Skywalker and Han Solo) is unsourced, I notice. But I can only do so much, especially considering I don't know where a lot of the statements in Leia's article specifically come from. I'm currently researching the never-ending "Han shot first" debate, and will probably be of more help to Han Solo's Wikipedia page after my exams let up. Anyone else mind taking a crack at it? — Cinemaniac (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you, TAnthony, for cleaning up my edit to the Leia article and for improving the citations. I went ahead and added the Friends episode reference for you. Hopefully, this vigorous adding of references will spur others to add more in the other sections. — Cinemaniac (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Leia review

At one point, the Return of the Jedi section was almost pornographic in nature, going into way more detail than was in the movie or even existed outside of fandom. As long as it keeps true to the story, keeps true to the real history behind it, and brief enough with lots of sources, I really don't have a problem with the Bikini section. DarthGriz98 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

True. I've had to deal with such vandalism to the page in the not-so-long-ago past. Evula and I had to clean up all the soft-core erotic fanfic that IPs kept on inserting into the article. Obviously, this is still a problem as some horny fans have huge "Slave Leia" crushes. . . Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, mind you, it just doesn't belong here. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

citation templates

You can see some examples of them at BYU. Just look at pretty much any of the refs in the history section. Seeing examples should make it a bit easier to understand. Wrad (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK! I think I get it now. Thank you. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thanks, that was unexpected. And congratulations also in your work on the Leia article - when you started to put together the gold bikini section I had my doubts about its encyclopedic value. I am now forced to concede that it is a detailed and well-research improvement to the article and is possibly the best-explained and referenced pop culture section I've seen on Wikipedia. Compared to that, some minor vandalism reverts are as nothing. Euryalus (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd hoped by giving you a barnstar that you would feel a sense of encouragement.  :) Regarding the gold bikini section in the Leia article, it's interesting to think that that whole section came about just because of piqued curiosity! Knowing my question at that article's talk page concerning the outfit probably wouldn't be answered (at least, not immediately, anway) I decided to do some research myself. I'm glad to see that the section came about so well (and that it has basically satisfied/discouraged the IP fanboys!). Thanks again! ;) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Review request

Sorry about the delay in answering your message. I've been very busy for the past few months and have not been very active on Wikipedia. If I can find time I'll try and look at these articles, but I can't make any promises. Good luck with them. Dmoon1 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Hey Cinemaniac, many thanks for the barnstar - much appreciated. I'm afraid that IP has been splattering that image inappropriately across Star Wars-related articles for a couple of days. Hopefully they will grow tired eventually. Best, Gwernol 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why that IP editor can't understand that the pic is already being used appropriately further down the page in the right section. Having the same image occurring twice on the page is just unnecessary.

I'll admit, though, that the Leiabikini pic does look good as a desktop—... Ha! Just kidding! Personally, that costume has no particular effect on me; in fact, I think it's rather overrated. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the most skin any of Lucas' characters ever showed though, methinks. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Leia attractive? Sure. Does she look good in the costume? Of course. Fisher was twenty-six at the time, so it benefited her to let her hair down and show off her figure, as I'm sure the modest, butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her-mouth attitude of her character would eventually get tired. But is that metal bikini the real point of the sequence? Well, maybe. . . if you're Jabba the Hutt. . . IMO, however, the real shocker is that Leia was the one who managed to kill Jabba, not Luke or Chewie. She also improvised it skillfully, what with the chain and all (it brings to mind something from a 1970's gangster movie, although I can't remember which). That was the real shocker to me, when I first saw it, but most people just remember the bikini. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that Leia is every bit as resourceful as her brother and her father are/were. You're right, I had forgotten that she had used the chain to strangle Jabba, who was repulsive enough before he was choking to death. That took some strength, for sure, both physical and spiritual... which she had also demonstrated in the original Star Wars: she had a blaster-gun and knew how to use it. I don't think we ever saw her with a light-saber, but I bet she knew how to use that, too, or could have learned quickly. Hmmm... The scantily-clad Leia, wielding a light-saber... how's that for a mental picture? Oh, wait, we've seen that, or something like it. It was called Xena: The Warrior Princess. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, here's an image of Leia wielding a lightsaber, thanks to Wookiepedia; she may not be in a bikini, but she still looks youthful and the picture is satisfying enough. Leia, according to Star Wars literature, later became a Jedi Knight herself, thanks to her brother's training.

Y'know, this is an interesting discussion, as I hadn't known you were a Star Wars guy. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'm not really a Star Wars maven; if I was, I reckon I would have known about that poster. :) I'm old enough to recall seeing it when it first came out, and it was great stuff, but I didn't go back and watch it 50 times like a lot of guys did... and it has also left me thinking that everything else in the franchise was a rehash of the original (including, as it turns out, the original, once Lucas began tinkering with it). I've seen all 6 films, obviously. I have to wonder whether it would have been better if they had not tried to technologically out-do themselves with each new film. I think if you watched them in "episode order", the "later" films would seem primitive by comparison, despite Lucas' recent efforts to beef them up. If they had kept the special effects fairly comparable, instead of bombarding us with CGI effects (especially in Episode III) and not tried to out-do The Lord of the Rings, things might have worked out better. There is certainly a great story going on in Episode III, and it could have been done more straightforwardly or with less distraction. I concluded that to make it really work, if you've never seen any of them, you should start with "Episode IV", i.e. the original, and watch them in filmed order. That works for me, anyway. When they concluded part III, with the double-sunset and the quiet music from the original (which did have some quiet moments, something that's easy to forget), it brought a tear to my throat and a lump to my eye... or something like that. It was a little like going home again, to 1977, the Summer of Disco. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I saw Episodes I, II, and III when they first came out, but I have done little more than catch glimpses of them since. I much prefer the Episode IV, V, and VI, simply because those film's glisten with more "quality", and even though the SFX in those three films are more primitive compared to the others, it's not as distracting as the rather "phony" CGI in the more recent SW films. It's not that I didn't enjoy the recent entries, but the computer-generated imagery in the second and third episodes was so glaring it actually made me cringe at times. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's where Lucas went wrong: He betrayed his own principles. I recall in Episode VI where he had some terrific-looking effects, but he didn't dwell on them, they were just part of the story. He said at the time that you shouldn't spend too much time filming the effects, just because they cost a lot and you want to show them off. Unfortunately, that's exactly what he did in I, II and III. Too often, the screen practically screams, "Look at my special effects!" But all those little bits of business going on, all over the screen, are reduced to dots on TV. Not so with the original films. Even in VI, he was starting to get carried away. A couple of decades later, he just went nuts with it. I'm pleased to see that you've reached the same conclusions independently. I know some who don't necessarily agree. But I also know that some who had never seen the others were disappointed in III, because it's obviously a very "down" ending. It only makes sense if you've seen the other five before it, in filming order. Then it becomes more like a "cycle", and kind of makes sense. One other thing worth mentioning: A lot of people didn't like V when it came out, because of the unspoken "To be continued three years from now" at the end. But now we know what all happened after that. So when it was re-released to the theaters in the late 90s or so, I went to see it with a fresh eye, and said, "Wow, this is a great film." Previously I didn't understand why critics thought it was the best one of the six, with IV being a fairly close second. Now I know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LeiaStranglesJabba.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:LeiaStranglesJabba.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done The image was re-added to Princess Leia Organa. Have no idea why it was removed earlier, though. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LeiaJabbaBarge.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:LeiaJabbaBarge.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done See: Jabba the Hutt. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

File:PrincessLeia sTheme.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:PrincessLeia sTheme.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 08:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Resolved. Image has since been deleted. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)