Talk:Star Wars live-action TV series

message: I don't think there should be a sic after the term Jedis because it is correct. Putting an apostrophe there would be incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.183.211 (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jedis [sic]

message: They should call it "Star Wars: The Dark Times" since that's what the time period is officially called.
::Officially by whom?80.41.111.52 (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Obi-Wan Kenobi Lol. Valcumine (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Off-handed comment doesn't make it official.
The Dark Times, eh? Say, not a bad subtitle. Don-Don (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cool name

message: In a section it says Lucas told the creators of 'Star Wars: Republic' to save Vos...then afterwards the paragraph disagrees...so which is correct? - Sigurd
:I removed the contradictory (and unreferenced) statement. Hotdoglives 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Did he or did he not 'save' the character?

message: This page will be a very much developing page over the next few years. Feel free to add any facts, rumors, or anything else you find out about this series. Also post any comments or suggestions you have for the development of this, or any of the other star wars spin-off films pages here. The Wookieepedian 06:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedia is not the place to put rumors. Only substantiated facts from official sources should be added to the article page, and these should have their sources cited.79.66.9.194 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think Mr Wookieepedian is refering to this talk page rather than the article. Cavie78 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's still not the place for rumours. Go to the fan forums for that kind of thing.80.41.111.52 (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feel free to add any information you find. 

message: Do you know of any rumors that the series might follow a character through Imperial recruitment and training?- B-101 16:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't heard these rumors, but I'll add them to the list. At this early stage, any rumors are good rumors, and fair game, with the way Lucas and crew change their minds! Adamwankenobi 21:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: B-101

message: Do not add rumors or speculation to this page without including a source. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Coffee 20:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the policy page Wikipedia:No original research. If the facts, opinions, or arguments you want to include have not been published already by a credible or reputable publication, you're engaged in original research. If you want to include these rumors, they should be backed up by a source to give them some credibility. If these are rumors started by 13 year-olds on message boards, then they do not belong on Wikipedia. Coffee 20:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see WP:NOT: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." If these rumors are found "all over the internet", provide just one credible source if you include them. Coffee 21:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please do not put baseless speculation in this article. Taken direcly fron WP:NOT: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Coffee 18:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating fact from fiction 

message: What is this about a post-Episode 6 TV series being filmed, with an aging Luke Skywalker? This show is confirmed as being in between Episodes 3 and 4. And production won't start for a while either. I think the TheForce.net article is total BS. I say it should be removed. --Hotdoglives 06:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the great thing about it. We can put it in the article saying that it is a fact that TF.N reported it, but not that the actual rumor is true. I feel that anything reported by TF.N is notable, isnce they are one of the most trustedfan sites out there. The Wookieepedian 06:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the rumor, as in the end, I was a little uncomfortable reporting something unofficial like that. I've now removed ALL non-official reports from the article. The Wookieepedian 10:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any truth to the TheForce.net rumor? 

message: According to the official Chronology, the alliance won several battle before a New Hope. But only small victories, not major ones. I think this entry should edited to show that.
:OK. But where is the source for this? The Wookieepedian 20:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the opening paragraph of Star Wars IV: A New Hope reads...
It is a period of civil war.
Rebel spaceships, striking
from a hidden base, have won
their first victory against
the evil Galactic Empire.
Now, we can interpret what "Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory..." means in several ways. First, this could be the first victory of Rebel spaceships - i.e., those officially belonging to the new "Rebel Alliance" which is a formal body distinct from any old rebellious spaceships previous to the official formation of the Alliance.  Or, another way to interpret it could be that the rebel ships WHICH WERE attacking from this hidden rebel base have won THEIR first victory. That would mean that Rebel ships had victories prior, but this is the first victory of the rebel ships stationed out of the new hidden base.  Or, of course, it could mean that a real "victory" would be something more than merely beating the ships or accomplishing missions, but something really substantial - like getting the plans to the Death Star. That's probably the best interpretation. --Daniel (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: One Victory

message: He mentions that Qui-Gon has returned from "the netherworld of the force" and can teach Obi-Wan in a form of communication Yoda will teach him.  This statement has no reference to the original trilogy, so it's possible we will see such training in the TV series.  06:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yoda is specifically talking about the ability to appear as a ghost after you die. This is not something Jedi normally did. Normally when a Jedi is killed they are made "One with the Force" and lose their individuality. But if they have trained themselves in this technique, then when they die, they disappear as Obi-Wan did, and can then appear as a ghost.  Somehow, over the years, Darth Vader must have learned these secrets as well, which is why Anakin can appear before Luke at the end of VI alongside Yoda and Obi-Wan.  This is why Obi-Wan said, "if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" and why he let himself be killed - so he could continue to assist Luke in ghost form. The fact that Qui-Gon had managed to retain some individual identity was foreshadowed in Episode II. When Anakin went nuts and killed the Tusken Raider (sand people) camp, Yoda felt a disturbance in the Force. If you listen carefully, you'll hear Qui-Gon's voice yelling, "Anakin!"--Daniel (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So if Qui-Gon is going to be a ghost, why is it he did not disappear when he died?  Also if you remember Vader didn't disappear when he died either.  He and Qui-Gon were both cremated, Only Yoda, Obi-Wan disappeared.--Subman758 (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You forget, Anakin/Vader is the most powerfull Jedi whose midichlorian levels is far more than Yoda. If any Jedi had the ability of retaining his individuality then it must be Anakin, also Anakin sacrificed himself to save Luke, Obi-Wan might have seen this as his conversion back to the light and helped his spirit.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I don't think Qui-Gon had fully perfected the practice. He had only just discovered it before dying, which is why he could only reach them through faint voices and meditation (and why he didn't vanish).--Daniel (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Yoda's comments to Obi-Wan at the end of Ep. III? 

message: In the main artical under the story section in the first paragraph the following sentence exists---
"In a recent interview, when asked about the show, McCallum replied, "Think about bounty hunter, that’s all I can tell you.""
I wonder who he means, did someone pull a Vader or Greivious style stunt here and bring Jango Fett back after episodeII or did McCallum  
mean Boba, or someone totally diffrent?
I think Boba's origin will further be delved into.
How about Kyle Katarn?
Katarn was never a bounty hunter. He was a mercenary for hire. - Dizrythmia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.183.103 (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From whats been said by McCallum, Lucas and co, it should feature the likes of Bossk and Dengar. They were minor characters in the original saga and thats who's stories are said to be told.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bounty Hunter? Hmmm,I wonder who he means? 

message: Any information will be apprecieated. Fergananim 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Has production started yet?

message: It says it is confirmed that Anthony Daniels has signed on to play C3PO once more.  However, I would like to point out the fact that the same site had once reported that Harrison Ford had been approached by Lucas to do another Star Wars movie.  I still don't believe that it is officialy confirmed.  You would think StarWars.com would be reporting this, but they have yet to say anything about it.  So I wonder if this should actually be said it is confirmed. Supergeeky1 04:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthony Daniels

message: I tried to add a couple for you, not much but I hope it helps! RobHoitt 00:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I reverted your edits. Other Wikipedia articles are not much good for references. As for the If Magazine reference, that information was already included within the article's other references. Hotdoglives 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: At the recent FanExpo in Toronto, he denied anything about playing Boba Fett. According to him, no one's ever approached him about this, and the reference towards this point in the article doesn't say anything about Daniel being asked by Lucas; it says very clearly that George is thinking about maybe including Boba Fett. Same with Tem. They'd both love to do it, but no one's said anything to them about it. Perhaps someone should think about not making inferences from a text, because that's a pretty damn big leap to make from George's comment.. Howa0082 18:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Logan 

message: Does anyone have a copy of the Toy Fair poster that is straight-on (not at an angle)? I think it would be suitable as a temporary image for the article until we get a more permanent poster or logo. Hotdoglives 04:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Photoshop. Any objections to the current revision? Hotdoglives 02:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teaser poster

message: Yeah, 400 episodes would be between 16 and 32 years of this show. Bad whoever. Very bad. *newspaper whack* Howa0082 05:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Episode Numbers? 

message: :Image:SW TV teaser.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SW TV teaser.jpg

message: Okay, it's a bit annoying - it seems EVERY OTHER PARAGRAPH says "Lucas mentioned that main characters may make cameo appearences" --98.193.61.220 (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Constantly Mentioned

message: Noticed in the opening paragraph that this is said to be an "expanded universe production"?! Would this not be considered canon and not EU as many of the original creative talent are returning - including creator Lucas, producer McCallum and actor Daniels... all are said to be involved according to this article. It seems to me that this falls within direct continuity of the 6 feature films and is a natural extension thereof. Much like the Star Trek TV & film series... live action motion picture content is considered canon, but other mediums, like comics, novels and video games are considered EU. Just curious. Codymr (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With Star Wars, the films, along with all non-contradicting Expanded Universe materials are canon. Even though Lucas may have heavy involvement with other Star Wars projects, he has said many times in the past that although the six theatrical films are his definitive vision for Star Wars, everything else (even things he has direct involvement with) is an expansion on that. The Wookieepedian (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this should be labeled as an "Expanded Universe production" because it suggests that we already know what will be featured in it. Lucas and McCallum have implied that it will feature bounty hunters, but if they are bounty hunters that featured in the films (such as Boba Fett), then it will not be "expanded universe" characters. EU characters are ones that have not appeared in the films, but appeared in comics and novels, etc. Nobody can say for sure what characters will feature in this series yet.79.66.43.166 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If our article on the EU is to be believed, this TV series is EU because it's not one of the 6 films. Whether it's canon or not is another issue, and whether the characters are also in the films is irrelevant. Staecker (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: So Bloodlines shouldn't be considered EU because it features Boba Fett? An EU production is one that is produced outside of the six films. That's what makes this EU. It may be higher on the canon scale than other EU, but it's still EU. The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but at the moment nobody knows for sure what is going to be in the TV series. Merely pointing to the Wiki article of the Star Wars EU does not constitute a precise definition. To me, EU is stuff that is not strictly canon (the original Marvel comics, Splinter Of The Minds Eye, etc) as they are things not directly created by Lucas himself, even though Lucasfilm may have accepted them to some extent. However, Lucas is directly involved in the TV series and so it will be as canon as the films (rule of thumb - if it comes from Lucas, it's canon). But this is something that people will always disagree on. It's like calling Deep Space Nine a Star Trek EU production. It's not EU - it's a spin-off. The live Star Wars TV series can certainly be labeled a "spin-off" of the Star Wars films, but to label it as EU is making an assumption about the series' content, and also what EU actually refers to. I'll tell you what though - if you can find a reliable source where Lucas himself calls this an "EU production", then by all means put it in the article. Otherwise, it's just guesswork and has no place there.79.66.119.207 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How Lucas labels things is largely irrelevant, considering his comments over the years. "Laserswords", anybody? The EU is considered as being any Star Wars media other than the movies. I think it's more important for YOU to find a source where Lucas says this is NOT an Expanded Universe thing, because so far, anything not the films is EU and that's our operating assumption here. Howa0082 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The key word there is "assumption", not fact. (And since when was this "our" operating assumption). Lucas is the creator of Star Wars and the legal rights holder to the franchise. As far as Star Wars goes, he is God and anything he creates is canon. So far, his creations are really limited to the six movies and anything outside of those six movies has been created by other people (albeit using his characters). That is "expanded universe". However the live TV series is also Lucas's creation, and therefore does not fall into the realm of "expanded universe" (any more than the prequel trilogy is EU) - it will be as canon as the films are because it's straight from Lucas himself. You cannot treat the TV series the same as you would the comics or non-film novels, because Lucas is directly involved in it. And the burden of proof would be on YOU to find a suitable citation, because I have never heard Lucas say this series would be EU. You or the people who wrote that are merely just assuming it based on your understanding of what the EU is. I haven't removed the wording from the article, but I've added a cite tag because the issue is contentious.79.66.119.207 (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It's Lucas's baby and if he creates it then it's strict canon and not EU. We only describe things outside of the films as EU because so far Lucas hasn't created anything outside of the films. The live TV series will be different to anything that has come before (even the two Ewok TV movies) because Lucas himself is creating it. It's not EU if it comes directly from him. And I agree the burden of proof is on the people who want to label this as an "EU production". Personally, I think the article would be better served if it is just labeled as a "spin-off from the Star Wars movies", which is far more precise AND easier for casual readers and non-fans to understand. All this "EU" business is such fanboy territory. Try to remember it's Wiki, guys...not a Star Wars fanpage.Kookoo Star (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: On the Official Star Wars website, they have "databanks" for each of the 6 films, another one for The Clone Wars (now an animated film and TV series itself), and one for the Expanded Universe (comics, books, etc made by other hands). This shows that just because something is not actually in the six films, it is not necessarily EU either. The Expanded Universe includes things like books and comics that are made by other hands (not Lucas) even though they were obviously given a licence to be made by Lucasfilm. When the new live-action TV series is produced, you can bet your bottom dollar there will be a separate databank for it because, like the animated Clone Wars series, it stands outside of the six films and the EU. Some people in this discussion thread seem to think that it has to fit into one or the other. It doesn't. And even though canonicity and EU aren't exactly the same thing, they are most certainly intertwined - and that's what makes it all the more contentious. Again, pointing to Wiki and Wookiepedia are not definitive sources as they are written and maintained by fans, not by Lucasfilm. (Incidentally, Lucas didn't write or co-write the Holiday Special, and has gone to great lengths to bury the vile abomination after it was first screened).79.66.74.200 (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Star Wars is Episodes 1-6. EU is everything else, no matter if Lucas creates it or not. And EU is also canon except for the infinity series and a select few things that contradict. If they categorize things on the website, that's likely just for convenience of navigation for things with a lot of content or draw, and for marketing/highlighting/organizational purposes. --Daniel (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Expanded Universe" ??? 

message: Really, people who would swap out Jango in favor of Boba in Tem's "List of Myriad Folk He's Played" need to admire a real Mandalorian. Obvious snarkiness aside, I don't recall him playing Stormtroopers. It's been a while since I watched the recent edition of SW, so maybe he does? Howa0082 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His voice replaced the stormtrooper voices in the 2004 DVD release. Staecker (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temuera 

message: Question: The Wiki page for Ewan McGregor states that he will apear in the live action SW series. Has this been confirmed? I have heard he "expressed interest" but that is a far cry from being cast. 99.230.245.128 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ewan McGregor 

message: I can recall VERY specifically back in the early 80s when a news crew uncovered strange constructs in the Arizona or New Mexico desert that looked like some sort of weird spacecraft, and they did enough research to find out that GL was filming there. The crew and GL both claimed that it was work being done on a "Horror movie with Sci-Fi elements". Not long after, we all knew what they'd built -- Skiff Barges.
George Lucas will *lie through his teeth* to hide what's coming next in any iteration of Star Wars-dom. Trust him not, for trust leads too wrongness, wrongness leads to foolishness, and foolishness leads to The Phantom Menace. Dodger (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Undeleted this. Don't do that crap again. This message is a relevant discussion topic about the article. I'm pointing out here that "Word of God" form George Lucas is NOT a reliable source of information as he has been consistently shown in the past to spread misinformation regarding the Star Wars franchise. He should NOT be taken at face value. Just because he says something on TV or in an interview does not mean it's true, and there's weight for the argument that it means it's NOT true, at least as regards things that are yet to be released/finished.Dodger (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevant discussion topics seek to improve the article. How are you suggesting to improve this Wikipedia article? Are you saying that references to Lucas's statements should be removed? In that case lots of the sourced content in the article currently would have to be deleted. Since you didn't make any attempt to remove info which was sourced to Lucas, I didn't think you were really serious about this. Are you? Staecker (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't believe a word GL says about this 

message: I believe that this http://philipbloom.net/2009/12/12/skywalker/ is part of the LucasFilms search for a cost effective way to make a starwars series.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.213.181.22 (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research in to production techniques. 

message: Given that it's been over five years since this series was announced, and nothing has happened; and that Lucas himself has doubted whether it's doable on the available budget; isn't it time we started to ask 'what do we do if it never happens'? Should we keep this article? Personally, I think the subject would still be notable as a failed project even if it never happens, simply because of all the coverage it's received (compare Superman Lives, for example), but others may disagree. Robofish (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this actually going to happen? What do we do if it doesn't? 

message: Lucas has the money to do this project, I'm sure that he could do it alone with the Verizon "Droid" money. This screams of failed project when it had so much promise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.166.174 (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This project is Dead. Lets move on. 

message: Since Lucas is selling the Star Wars franchise and so forth, we have yet another reason to realize that this is not going to happen? In fact if it ever were to happen, it will have nothing to do with whatever plans Lucas made back in 2005. Can we just merge this content back in the main article as something that "might have been" but never was? tahc chat 07:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Disney is likely to review everything they acquired. There are going to be numerous interviews about existing projects and go and no go's will come out. If it get shut down, then the article will reflect that. rrzzrr (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

text: But this is not an existing project. It is seven year old mushy idea than nobody ever wanted to "officialy" cancle. tahc chat 18:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With 50 scripts and substantial buzz, I am confident Disney and LucasArts will be pressed about this project in interviews. A discussion about merging this article is premature.--rrzzrr (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

text: The Article should not be merged. We can try to improve this article by adding more information. --RAT -.-   Poke it 22:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The fifty completed episodic scripts and one TV movie script, along with recent comments from Lucas and McCallum on the matter, are concrete evidence that the show has developed way beyond the idea stage, and is on indefinite hold until budget issues can be resolved. The Wookieepedian (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge into [[Star Wars]]