Template talk:George Lucas

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, fine ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  It burns... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No double standards please. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Films

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, . hbdragon88 05:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks much better with this change. Thanks! --Mrwojo 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Electronic Labyrinth 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reformat 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 () and James Berardinelli (), 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A New Hope