Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 1

message: While the content and organization are now excellent for the most part, there is still a substantial amount of sloppy writing and stylistic inconsistencies and infelicities throughout the article. The second sentence of the second paragraph in the lead section is indicative: "After the Rebel Alliance, led by Princess Leia, steals the plans in the hope of finding a weakness, they are captured and forced aboard the Death Star." This is both subtly, though unquestionably, inaccurate (the "Rebel Alliance" is not "captured," Leia and part of her escort are) and obviously ungrammatical. As another example, we later have a paragraph that begins, egregiously: "1958 Kurosawa film The Hidden Fortress was a strong influence, many elements are included such as the two bickering peasants (who evolved into C-3PO and R2-D2), elements of the Obi-Wan/Luke relationship and the Darth Vader-like evil general wears a kamon, commonly called simply a 'mon', a Japanese family crest similar to the Imperial Crest." As a final example, chosen virtually at random, examine the first sentence of the "Reaction" section: "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope debuted in 37 theaters and broke 36 house records, and effectively become the very first blockbuster film." This is untrue (Star Wars was by no reasonable reckoning the "first blockbuster film"), awkwardly stated (what does it mean to be, not the "first" or even the "very first," but "effectively the very first"?), and misspelled ("become"?!). With some intensive, conscientious copyediting, the article will be a prime candidate for Good Article status.—DCGeist 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed good article

message: "It was released on 25 May, 1977, and was re-released, sometimes with significant changes, in 1979, 1981, 1982, 1997, 2000, and 2004"
'79, '81 and '82 were obviously normal unchanged re-releases (except for the addition of the 'Episode IV - A New Hope' legend). 1997 was the SEs. 2004 was the DVD release. So, where does 2000 come in? BillyH 00:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been several months since I asked this, so, unless anyone knows the answer, I'm going to remove the '2000' tomorrow. BillyH 12:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2000 version was just a VHS-reissue of the 97' SE's, except Lucasfilm had created covers to match the VHS releases of the prequels. Sadly, of course, now they refuse to complete the set they started and release the ep3 VHs, leaving an incomplete set, as far as VHS goes. The Wookieepedian 12:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. I've altered the text to clarify that the 2000 and 2004 ones weren't theatrical reissues. BillyH 12:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-releases 

message: I always had that doubt. When the original movie was released did it had the rollling credits: episode IV on the beggining?
:Though I don't remember whether it was shown in the original rolling credits, but I remember the first movie was known to be episode IV all along.  I remember I asked the question over two decades ago "Where are I, II and III?" Kowloonese 22:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
This is discussed at the top of the page. It was just called Star Wars when it was first released, no-one thought there would be a sequel. JW 13:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be included, unless there's something to cite, that proves Lucas based it on that.  This whole section of the article, is filled with unfounded rumors of inspiration.  Even, those that are based on Lucas comments, are loosely based.  The mere fact Lucas said he was inspired by a movie, doesn't mean he based a particular scene in his movie, on a particular scene in another movie.  Surely, anybody can think up "guy finds homestead destroyed" without watching "The Searchers".  I think a lot of movies had a comparable scene.  It's false to assume that just because somebody did something earlier, that it was the cause or inspiration.  --rob 00:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  naming 

message: Looking at the references/influences from other films, it would probably be worth including The Searchers on this list. The scene where Luke returns to the burning homestead is usually said to be a reference to it. Any thoughts?  JW 13:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be included, unless there's something to cite, that proves Lucas based it on that.  This whole section of the article, is filled with unfounded rumors of inspiration.  Even, those that are based on Lucas comments, are loosely based.  The mere fact Lucas said he was inspired by a movie, doesn't mean he based a particular scene in his movie, on a particular scene in another movie.  Surely, anybody can think up "guy finds homestead destroyed" without watching "The Searchers".  I think a lot of movies had a comparable scene.  It's false to assume that just because somebody did something earlier, that it was the cause or inspiration.  --rob 00:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Searchers

message: This section should mention if the errors persist in re-releases.  Surely, they were all fixed?  --rob 22:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  errors section 

message: I will buy the idea that The Dam Busters and/or 633 Squadron were influences on Star Wars but IMDB  does not list The Battle of Britain as an influence on Star Wars despite the fact it lists 22 other films that were.  The section also seems to contradict itself by saying the space battle scenes were based on US v Japan air battles in WW2.  Does anyone have sources for any of the statements in this section? 
BTW: I also think imperial officers uniforms are much more reminiscent of Japanese WW2 uniforms than German ones.  
--Shimbo 12:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and Inspirations: The Battle of Britain

message: Please note that when everyone is reverting you except yourself, there is a consensus, but it is against you. Keep this in mind. — Phil Welch 03:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. I was gonna say the same thing earlier, but then forgot about it.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either list only the main cast as seen first in the credits, or list the complete credits, otherwise, who is and isn't important to the story is, as I said before, an opinion. Is Wedge listed with the main cast before the "supporting roles" section? If so, list him. If not remove him. The Wookieepedian 05:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about uncredited roles like Ian McDiarmid in the ESB DVD? Wedge is a reasonably major character in the trilogy as a whole (even if his role isn't that big in any particular movie) so I think it's reasonable to list him. The fact is, Copperchair is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point or, to put it less charitably, throwing a tantrum because he and you were outnumbered for the full cast listing. — Phil Welch 06:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing he was doing it and not you, Adam; such disruption could have gotten you ArbCom'd. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have to play it safe. The Wookieepedian 14:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So, democracy is out because you don't agree with what we think is correct? Let me explain something - there is a supermajority against you. If you don't like not getting your way, you can try somewhere else, because no one is going to use "because we're right and they're wrong" as an argument to, for no reason, decide that you are right and we are wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, climb down from your soapbox. Democracy = order. Having things run by those who do things as they believe to be correct isn't order. The process that you treat as the incarnation of Satan is democracy, and thusly, we have order. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We need something that is based on the official credits. We have all agreed to not list the complete credits, that is out of the way. Since in ANH, the credits before the supporting cast are deemed "the main cast," we should list them and only them, becuase that is the only way to settle this based solely on the movie. A supermajority deciding who is and isn't important in star wars doesn't seem as relevant as who George Lucas and the ones actually creating the credits decided who were most important and should be listed first. The Wookieepedian 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If George Lucas made an account here and told us to not list Wedge, I'd tell him to go shove it. You see, Adam, there's a fun little process many articles go through - a democratic vote on various subjects. And as you have already noticed, there HAS been a democratic vote on the issue, and you lost. It's just that simple. No matter how hard you argue, you won't get your way. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So, you're agreeing that order is bad? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So, you've finally realized that the vote was legitimate, and that democracy is order? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The movie seems to better settle this debate than you guys are. The credits are listed in order. There is a main cast section. Hmmm... since you decided that the main cast section should be in the article, how about actually putting it in the order that section does like Copperchair suggests? It seems strange to me that a group of people on wikipedia can decide who is and isn't important better than the creators of the actual movie in question. The Wookieepedian 09:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To translate, you're saying that we should devoid ourselves of opinions and just say yes to any stupid idea you make. Let me explain something. You want it to be set up so no matter how many people wanted it one way, it could be made the other way just because you want it to be that way. That's what we like to call "being a whiny little brat". And what WE did is give you a fair fight and vote on it to see what Wikipedians want. You lose, and continue to force your opinion on others. That's what we like to call "being a sore loser". Are you making an effort to excel in both categories? Let me just explain that the universe doesn't revolve around you, you're no God, yadda yadda yadda. Copperchair, I suggest you cease vandalizing the articles, as there has been a clear and very obvious decision that makes your edits damaging to the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I make an effort to excel in both categories? By your definition, yes. The Wookieepedian 10:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Not my definition, everyone's. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Copperchair: 

message: It seems to me that all listed inspirations for the movie violates the POV policy. Each section is based mostly on interpretation and opinion. There are sections like this in the TPM nad main star wars page as well. The Wookieepedian 10:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part they're NPOV—it's an accurate statement of fact for the most part to say that critics have seen parallels between these movies, and that George Lucas used them as inspiration. — Phil Welch 17:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV on Inspirations. 

message: All 6 Star Wars film are protected from editing. This bickering is pointless. I find your lack of good faith disturbing. For the sake of unifying discussion, please try to settle the dispute on this talk page. Coffee 06:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's begin. Copperchair, are you willing to actually show up and be open to discussion this time? The Wookieepedian 06:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparantly the answer to that question is no. :( No constructive discussion is taking place, so I'm unprotecting the article. Please try to work together and reach a compromise rather than simply reverting each other's edits every day and hoping one of you gets tired. Coffee 12:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's to be expected, Coffee. Copperchair won't come over here to talk, he's the passive-aggressive type. Unprotecting won't help. I've tried to reason with him before, and he continues to revert without even a compromise. Well, hopefully the arbcom will take care of him soon. The Wookieepedian 13:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been lightly involved in the whole Copperchair issue on an off back in august. I must agree with Wookiepedian on this one. It seems to me that to Copperchair if something isn't his way, its the wrong way. These edit wars on the Star Wars articles are pointless. He doesn't care about what the consensus is, only his way. I hope also that arbcom will sort this out. LlamaMan 03:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected due to edit war 

message: Just wondering if it's really necessary to have at the beginning of the movie articles, the abbreviations for the movies (ANH, AOTC etc.) I'm not gonna revert or anything, just wondering if we really need to have it there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.233.116 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 November 2005  (UTC)
:Yeah, it's commonplace on articles to explain any abbreviations to things. And it's a very well known group of abbrevaiations The Wookieepedian 21:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to remove them from Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, meeting strong opposition, see Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Oh, and please sign your posts using four tildes: ~~~~. Thank you. Kusma 21:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations 

message: 142.163.22.189, the most recent change, has vandalised - changing "Luke" into "I" and some other replacements. Toby Douglass 22:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Required 

message: I've gone through and started some cleaning on the trivia section... some of that doesn't belong here - like the "famous" Westgate Theatre reference - that text was lifted verbatim from one fan's website, but a Google search brings up very little corroborating evidence or other citations... the Kenner info is wrong as well, as they were not the only licensee for Star Wars - there was also Factors, Del Rey, Marvel, and a few others... the citation makes it appear Kenner had toys out before Christmas, which they did not - hence the famous Early Bird Kit. Kenner did manage to get some puzzles out through its Parker Bros. brand in time for Christmas, but I'd hesitate to call them "toys", as most people think of the action figure line when they think of toys. Also, this section should really only be about the film itself - although I havent taken them out yet, the comments about Splinter of the Mind's Eye should probably only be on that specific page... I've also removed the comment about "The Tragedy of Darth Vader", since it's not only revisionist history from Lucas (there were NO official mentions of that until 2004, as far as I can tell), but it also relates more to Revenge of the Sith than Star Wars. TheRealFennShysa 20:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: When Obi-Wan gives Luke Anakin's lightsaber, at first it is blue, then it's green, then it's white, then it's blue again. This might be an intentional part of the film, or maybe George Lucas just messed up. User: Mil Falcon
:That was simply a mistake made in the transfer of the DVDs. It happened because of the rush they were under to complete them. The color is meant to be blue (like it was in Episode III), but didn't come out that way becuase they didn't catch this when color correcting the scenes. It was strange because in some places, they atte,mpted to fix the lightsaber colors (like the Obi-WanVader duel), at others, it remained the same as the original release (early scenes on the falcon), and once it even went green (one shot on the falcon). But, I'm sure they'll correct this for the 2007 "archival" editions. The Wookieepedian 22:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber colour 

message: The 501st is a fan creation, only given recognition by Lucasfilm in the Expanded Universe within the last few years. Not all stormtroopers are 501st, either - there's nothing official that places them in Episode IV, including the official site, which describes their only movie appearance as occuring in Revenge of the Sith. Even the EU section on the official site doesn't specifically place them on the opening assault in this film. Unless you can provide a published reference placing them in the film, we should keep the more generic description. I'm starting to see too much EU stuff creeping into the actual Star Wars film articles lately, and it concerns me... MikeWazowski 14:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We must go by the canon levels. For instance, the film never reveals the name of Luke's planet. But we knew it was Tatooine in 1977, as the film's screenplay, novelization, and other official sources named it for us. With the stormtroopers at the beginning, the film does not identify the name of the group, however, Star Wars: Battlefront II reveals that the group of troopers with Vader at the beginning are indeed the 501st. Therefore we are allowed to name them in the article. The Wookieepedian 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  501st 

message: I've deleted the prequel trilogy references since there is already an article entitled Star Wars prequel trilogy references to the original trilogy that totally devotes itself to this subject. The Filmaker 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prequel trilogy references 

message: Since this the very first broadcast of the Sci Fi Channel back in 1992, I think this would be rather very noteworthy to either articles should this be mentioned and detailed. DrWho42 04:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It wasn't the first time it'd ever been shown on television, nor the last. It's just another airing, as far as the film is concerned. MikeWazowski 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be very helpful for historical information concerning the channel article itself, seeing as it was the first thing they aired to celebrate its premiere. DrWho42 05:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a radio show from 1997 talking about the special editions as well as the SciFi Channel broadcast with Ray Cannella speaking therein. DrWho42 08:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This information belongs in the Sci Fi Channel article. The sentence is seen like this "star wars WAS THE SCI FI CHANNEL'S FIRST BROADCASTED PROGRAM" you'll see that the subject has more to do with the Sci Fi network than the film. The Filmaker 00:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sci Fi Channel first broadcast 

message: There's a factoid I've come across numerous times, but I'm not sure any of the sources are particularly reliable. If anyone could dig up a primary source, I imagine this'd be an amusing addition to the list. Supposedly, Carrie Fisher's breasts were taped down throughout episode IV because, "there are no bras in space". Silly, but plausible. I've definitely heard of stranger directorial peccadilloes, anyway. 85.64.246.205 02:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. Turns out it was also explicitly referenced by Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons, when he was buying some movie memorabilia from Martin Prince's mom. 85.64.246.205 14:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure about the bra comment, but I do recall it being said that her breasts were taped down to reduce  -- umm... -- jitter. I had thought it had more to do with any bra of the period being visible through her costume (which was, IIRC, rather tight... Pat Payne 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible item of trivia 

message: One particular scene I enjoy about the movie (besides the Battle of Yavin) is the scene where they are in the trash compactor (called "garbage masher" in the movie). They did a good job on this particular scene. Angie Y. 21:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A certain scene I enjoy.

message: There's a battle article called Attack on Tantive IV that basically summarizes the first ten minutes of the movie, as well as the backstory displayed in Battlefront II. Merge? — Deckiller 10:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack on Tantive IV?

message: Oh my god! Where do I start! :) The Filmaker 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is next

message: I need a show of hands, which posters should be used for the films in the original trilogy? On a film side I think that the original theatrical posters should be used. On a Star Wars side I feel that if putting up the Special Edition versions would flow better between the articles. It's also what Lucas would want I believe (flow between movies, this is his latest version of the posters) ;) The Filmaker 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The rule generally goes Original Theatrical, unless not available, or if there is a more famous piece of art promoting the film (see Gone With The Wind). The ANH poster is so iconic it would be a crime to alter it to the tepid SE version. If Lucas was really embracing those 97 posters, he wouldn't have put the original art on the actual DVD discs. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 09:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old ones look much better, and most of the article is on the old releases after all... Judgesurreal777 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poster problem

message: Good job getting the cast photo! :) I think though that having the trench run, which I think is the iconic visual moment from this movie, is probably better to have in the second part of the plot. Also, I think the first plot picture should be the binary star system of Lukes home planet. Just my thoughts Judgesurreal777 13:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with the trench thing, but I just can't find a great shot...yet. So don't go changing it, I'm on it. As for the first picture, it's the same as ESB, the boarding is a more significant plot point. Perhaps the Binary Sunset photo could go somewhere else. But there is not shot featuring both Luke and the suns, to my memory. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, a better trench run shot should be included :) Good thinking. Judgesurreal777 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a new image up, is it better? Because I've got another one in backup, one from Vader's cockpit, looking out at an X-Wing he's about to destroy ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 02:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you post this backup image of yours? The Wookieepedian 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now I'm liking the other photo more, so I've changed it back. However, I would prefer a photo of the trench run, so I'd like to see Thefourdotelipsis' backup. The Filmaker 04:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Any problems with that one, let me know, and I'll get a new one. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, it's shots like the one that's up there at the moment that make me want to slap around people who hate the SEs. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 09:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trench run

message: Just let me know when you want me to start copyediting. — Deckiller 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: :) Judgesurreal777 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Love the new image!