Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith/Archive 1

message: "The explanation of why Jar Jar Binks is present in Episodes I & II but not included in IV-VI. "
Yousa theenkin he gonna die?
Sorry, had to be done.
Jar Jar is heard in Episode VI DVD during the celebration over Naboo. There is no need for an explanation as to why he's not in the "sequels", as more than likely he was serving in the Imperial Senate which of course we see no member of that. --guest
--cuiusquemodi 02:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Fate of Jar Jar

message: Are there going to be scenes from the Star Wars classic trilogy because there were scenes from Star Wars A New Hope in the Revenge of the Sith trailer where Obi-Wan is talking to Luke about the prequel trilogy. If so, then i'll add it to the main article. - John-1107
Yes, I heard a very strong rumour that the final scene of ROTS is actually the scene that started it all: the boarding party smashing through the blast doors of the Tantive IV, with Vader in tow.  This is likely to be true, as Wedge Antilles is in the cast and even has an action figure for Episode III.
** Wow, you two are way way in the dark. NO, the final scene is the construction of the Death Star. And the Antilles character is NOT Wedge....it is Captain Antilles, the captain of the alderaan cruiser. Wow!<<Coburn_Pharr>> 04:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Classic trilogy scenes in Episode III

message: Are back.  Can't see how to revert it, so could someone who does know do it please?  Daveryan 18:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophobic C3PO Edits 

message: Almost all the Star Wars articles contain Revenge of the Sith spoilers, they are really annoying. Can't we wait the Ep3 spoilers until at least May 19? It's just... annoying
:Well, the books on Episode III were released a few weeks ago, so it seems that many die hard fans here want to post stuff about them. Zzyzx11 | Talk 07:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem with the spoilers, don't read them- that's why we have the spoiler warnings. M412k 01:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the spoiler system on Wiki is broken and needs to be improved.  I need to take this to the village pump. Samboy 02:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Go look at Star Wars III's certificates for yourselves! --Ryanasaurus0077 00:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certificates 

message: The current dot-point-esque summary is almost un-readable. Surely there's a star wars fan or 500 here who can write a more readable take on the movie that that? Anyone? Psychobabble 04:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made that summary a few months ago. :/ Feel free to change it as you wish... TheCoffee 23:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot Summary

message: It seems someone is constnatly editing the correct Australian Rating of M to the incorrect PG. Their reason for this is that IMDB says so. However, IMDB is incorrect. Check any Australian Cinema site and you will see it as M. Such as Villiage Cinemas. Aas an Australian myself, I can bet my life that it is M.
It was debated for a short period of time, but the outcome was that it was too violent to be PG (even though the marketing such as toys etc is aimed at children).
Please do not change it anymore, and I will try to get IMDB to change it to M. Thanks. Shazza 11:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to the correct http://www.villagecinemas.com.au/  web page in an edit summary. Samboy 02:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian Rating

message: The ratings list seems to be getting longer and longer, much like the cast list did a while back.  Can somebody more experienced than me colomnize it so that it looks better?  I tried, but showed that even by trying to cut and paste what I thought was the formatting in the cast list, I wasn't able to pull it off.  Thanks.  Donovan Ravenhull 12:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to Colomnize the Ratings List

message: I have temporarily edited out the comments made by Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, and A.O. Scott that are listed on the "Critical reaction" section until specific references and sources have been cited. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reaction 

message: Hi.  I had to wait until I had seen the movie before actually daring to read this article.  And I was right, it pretty much gives away the entire thing.  My point here is: is there an actual need to tell the entire plot of the movie in the article?  That's not a "plot summary", that's the entire movie plot!  Having spoilers is normal, I'm not saying this should be abolished, but I do feel it's way over the top to have the article go through the entire movie as it does right now.  This is an encyclopedia, not a movie digest.  I was about to add a cleanup tag to the article, but I thought that, since it was certain to stir polemics, I'd bring it up here first.  What I propose is that we make the "plot summary" an actual summary, restricting it to the essentials of the plot: there's a war, Palpatine is Darth Sidious (what a surprise...), Anakin turns evil (duh!), the Empire wins in the end, the Jedi are wiped and Padmé dies giving birth to you-know-who.  I would also suggest that we fill the space that would be vacated (since the narration of the plot is more than 50% of the article as it is now) with technical info (for instance, those spectacular special effects) and some other intel (we must be mindful of NPOV, but did anybody else feel that those lightsaber fights were not so well choreographed??).  Regards, Redux 19:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Redux, while I too remained wary of looking up the wiki for the third installment of the star wars prequels, I also believe that the fact it details the entire film is an asset to the overall completeness and usefulness of the article.  I know several people (myself included) who engage in regular star wars debates and write critical essays and i have to say that it is terribly inconvenient to have watch the entire movie over again to prove a point, and being able to look up the specifics of said fictional event on wiki is much more favorable.  I suggest you write a summary as you say and insert it above the current plot synopsis. As for the technical aspects, I believe that would fit more under an article about ILM and Skywalker sound.
Also, I am disinclined to agree with you pertaining to the choreography of the light saber duels, I thought they where well thought out and wonderfully preformed.Iorek 18:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Humm, but if we are to keep the complete description of the movie plot (I can see your point...), I'd have to suggest a change in the article structure.  As I have said, what's in there in not a "summary", or even a "synopsis", but rather the entire movie plot.  So I was thinking we could change the subheader to "Plot", and then first insert an actual summary (as you suggested it, I could write it myself) as a sub-subheader, followed by another sub-subheader, which would contain the present text, but which should read "Plot Layout", or "Complete Plot", to let the reader know that in there will be the complete story of the movie, and if he/she wants to get just a summary, he/she should refer to the previous subcategory.</br>About the technical stuff, I disagree.  I believe that what would go in a ILM or Skywalker Sound article would be stuff on the the technology itself that happened to have been used in the movie (how it was developed, how it works in general, etc.), but the specific things that were done in ROTS should definately go in this article.  Regards, Redux 14:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much plot 

message: When the children were born and the mask was placed on the body, I had the greatest cry I ever had in watching film. I say this as a male. What has our world come to? :-(  -Amit
:I experienced the moment of the mask installation as a very strong one, too, maybe the most grim and memorable in the whole movie. I believe the sadness of it is not particularly related to our times, though... Conf 15:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scene of the "births" 

message: A number of the so called "Inconsitencies / Unresolved Issues" are at best irrelevent, and at worst pure nonsense with no evidence, so I removed most of the worst ones, which in fact was about 2/3 of them, Ill go into detail:
In Episode IV, Leia says she barely remembers her mother, but in Episode III, it is revealed her mother died soon after childbirth, so how could Leia remember her mother at all? Perhaps the power of the Force gives her this ability to recall her mother?
-This is perfectly acceptable, and offers at least a suggestion.
"If Leia is strong in the power of the Force like Luke, why does Vader not sense this when he is near her on Cloud City?"
Strong in the force is not just inherited, it is built up in a jedi through training, and through enthusiasm, as well as knowledge of the force.  Leia goes the way of her mother, Padmé, in politics more than the mystic arts, so the reason why she may not seem so powerful is that she does not yet have a knowledge of the force, and is not yet well-trained in it, as Luke was.  It is quite simple that Vader was monomaniacally focused on Luke because Luke was the more enthusiastic and believing in the force, thus making his presence known.
-no relevance to Revenge of the sith specifically
"When Luke and Leia are taken from Padmé, why is Luke taken to live with family and allowed to keep the name Skywalker? Wouldn't that make him relatively conspicuous, especially given the fame his father is gaining throughtout the galaxy?"
-I edited this one to include the possible explanation many fans have suggested.
"Why is pre-natal health care so poor that even a Senator such as Padmé is not aware that she is carrying twins until the moment of her delivery?"
-Not exactly made clear in the film, but Padme choose not to know, as shown in he novel, it doesnt take a genius to figure that out.
"Why does Padmé become so passive in Episode III compared to her active leadership style in Episode I and II?"
I'll leave this, but I think her pregnancy could be offered as an explanation, however I really dont know anything about pregnancy.
"If Jedi are aligned with the forces of good, why does Obiwan leave Anakin to (presumably) die a 
horrible death?"
Because "I will not kill Anakin...He is like my brother ... I cannot do it."  this is more of a plot point than an "incosistency," so doesnt belong here.
"Since the Extended Universe reveals additional Jedi survive the purge besides Obiwan and Yoda, why do none of them appear in any of the original movies?"
Thats so irrelevent its stupid, nothing to do with the film.
"Why is the technology of the future (the original movies) seemingly less advanced that the prequels (clearly the realities of movie technology have created this discrepency). Lucas has gone some way to explaining this by adding additional footage into the original movies and by explaining that much of the action in the original movies occurs on more remote planets. Still, how remote can a planet be when hyperspace allows a traveler to journey there in hours?"
What technology is seemingly less advanced?  Unless some proof besides "its not as shiny" is offered  this point doesnt really belong here.
"Near the end of Episode III, a rebel commander orders C3PO's memory to be wiped, which explains why he does not seem to remember much when he appears in Episode IV. However, R2D2 is not mentioned in the command. Was his memory wiped as well?"
That was the whole point of that, R2's mind isnt wiped, he knows everything, Ill edit this to be an unresolved issue.
"R2D2 has the ability to jump out of spaceships in Episode III, but in the original movies he is far less mobile, needing help to get out. Similarly, it seems he would have had occassion in the original movies to repeat his Episode III performance with the grease that tripped up the enemy 
robots."
He doesnt jump out, Anakin presses a button and he is launched out, something that couldnt be done with an X wing because it would have broken him.
"What is the advantage of growing a clone army when they are seemingly no more effective than the robots they replace?"
The clones are clearly far more effective than the droid army.
"Why does lightsaber fighting get less active in the original movies?"
An incositency, but which everyone knows the answer to, so theres not much need for it here.
"In the whole prequel trilogy Anakin never wore the Jedi robes he appears wearing as a ghost in the new ending of the DVD of Episode VI from Star Wars Trilogy, unlike Obi-Wan and Yoda, who appear wearing the robes they had on when they died. Anakin, following Lucas’s explanation for him being young in this new ending, that he “died” when he turned to the Dark Side, should have appeared using the outfit he had on in Episode III."
Complaining about the "clothes" a ghost wears?  Doesnt belong here anyway, should be in the rotj article if anywhere.
"In Episode IV, why do both Han Solo and an Imperial commander speak of the Force as if it is an unproved religion or a long-dead devotion, when the events of the Jedi purge are only history by about 18 years, when the Emporer himself is a practicioner of the Force, and when the Extended Universe reveals that many Jedi are still alive as well?"
Once again the EU has no relevance, and that would be a combination of Imperial propoganda and the fact that 99.999% of people in the galaxy will never have met a Jedi.
I can understand people have complaints and dislikes, but I hardly see how such nitpicking belongs in an already overlong article.  I imagine there are other more important and more reasonable subjects that could be viewed as unresolved issues (lack of explanation for Qui Gon and thos force ghost issue possibly) that could be added in the place of those removed.  Qu_klaani
:OK, here's another one: how come it apparently takes 18 or so years to complete the fist Death Star, and only 5 or 6 at most to (almost) complete the second?
::Having worked in fabrication jobs/shops I can tell you that making a second or third etc. of anything is generally faster than the manufacture of the original.  One table structure that was built by the company that I worked for took ~6 months to make originally.  Along the way changes were made and the drawings updated to reflect those changes.  The second table took ~2-3 months.  The third and final, even less.  It's a common enough thing that I didn't question it when I saw the movies.  Dismas 15:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the plans for the 2nd Death Star did change significantly.  It was much larger than the orgiinal.  Still, I agree with Dismas that it is easy to think of explanations for why version 1 would have taken longer (budget reasons, worker strike, solar flare interference, etc).  Johntex 16:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inconsistencies / Unresolved Issues" 

message: The sentence is not just echoing Bush, it is originally a fascist motto (Italian: O con noi o contro di noi), created in 1925 by Curzio Suckert in an article in which Benito Mussolini was attacked for not being determined enough to pursue the "fascist revolution". In those times, Mussolini had had to arrest some fascists who had committed some political crimes (remember, the fascist regime was not yet solid in 1925), and Suckert was a fascist extremist who wanted more tolerance for political violence. 
I would have added this myself, but there is an edit war on something else. I'll keep this here as a reminder. --Orzetto 11:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "With me or against me" 

message: Wasn't he in the background of a Senate scene in The Phantom Menace, also?Kuralyov 03:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. TheCoffee 12:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The only cameo Lucas had in EP3 was a voice synthesis, where he recorded his cough during the filming and gave it to General Grievous. --Cioxx 15:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucas' cameo role

message: ===Ratings===
Is the list of ratings for each country really necessary? Most film entries don't have such a list, because it's unreliastic to include a ratings for every country, we should stick to US ratings or internation ratings (if there are any) because most ratings are similar. Can we delete the list since it clutters up the page and only confuses the reader? Switcher  (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people contributed to that section. I think it may well stay as long as, say, the movie is screened in cinemas? It can't really confuse anyone anyhow, and it's not a lot of code. Conf 19:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that the ratings list should stay. Wikimedia tries very hard to not be tied to a specific language or nation, and things like this ratings list are concrete evidence of that effort. In fact, I think that this should be encoded as a general policy. --Cgranade 07:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
===Future paring down=== 
While there is very high interest in this movie right now (including by me), this is going to fade away over the next year.  It seems to me that when that time comes, this article could be edited down to less than half its size.  The only question then would be when, which in my opinion would be about 3 months after the DVD release.   Thoughts?  Flames?  Death threats? Donovan Ravenhull 11:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Plans 

message: While there is very high interest in this movie right now (including by me), this is going to fade away over the next year.  It seems to me that when that time comes, this article could be edited down to less than half its size.  The only question then would be when, which in my opinion would be about 3 months after the DVD release.   Thoughts?  Flames?  Death threats? Donovan Ravenhull 11:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Future paring down

message: I'm removing that out of context line. Chilean democracy was indeed destroyed by Pinochet and his band of thugs. Messhermit 02:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jedi = Pinochet ? 

message: I've cut the following sentence fragment out of the end of the article:
"The election of Pope Benedict XVI had also been a very popular subject at the time of the movie release and the new(..)" my ellipsis
Looks like someone forgot to finish a thought when they published it. I don't object in any way, I'm just removing the sentence fragment; feel free to fix it and put it back in. Fernando Rizo 01:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal Election Reference 

message: What this about a 3D release? I mean the movie uses 3D effects already. -- User:Psi edit
:there is a different version: digital 3D edition, which is only available in the cinemas which hv suitable equipment. Episode IV - VI will re-release in digital 3D in a few years. Darth Kevinmhk 10:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D release? 

message: I think this section should be shortened to only relevent similarities that aren't just coincidences or things that are necessary for the story to work. In particular, these should definately be removed:
*Anakin and Obi-Wan fly their fighter craft through tight obstacles in an enemy ship, similar to Episodes I, IV and VI.
*Anakin and Obi-Wan are sent on a daring rescue mission against an enemy fortress but all is not as it appears (Episode IV). 
*The planet name Utapau was Lucas's original name for Tatooine. 
*Anakin's arm is cut off by Obi-Wan. Also, in III, Mace Windu and Count Dooku both get one or both hands cut off. A character has an arm or a portion of an arm cut off in each of Episodes II, IV, V and VI. (come on, is there any star wars movie where someone's arm doesn't get cut off?))
*During the rescue of Palpatine Anakin dangles perilously over a seemingly endless chasm, foreshadowing the death of Palpatine in Episode VI. (Anakin hanging in an elevator shaft foreshadows Palpatine's death 3 movies later?)
*The attack of the droid starfighters is similar to the scene in Return of the Jedi when hundreds of TIE squadrons attack the Rebel fleet. 
And maybe these should also be removed:
*After fighting and defeating Anakin, Obi-Wan picks up Anakin's lightsaber before leaving. This lightsaber is later given to Luke in Episode IV, "Your father's lightsaber". (or at least, remove the last comment)
*When Obi-Wan and Yoda return to the Jedi Temple and discover the corpses of their fellow Jedi, closer inspection of the bodies reveals that not all of them were killed by Clone stormtroopers, that a lightsaber was used as well, implicating one of the Jedi as a betrayer. Obi-Wan decides to look at the security holograms despite Yoda's warning that he will find it painful, and he is dumbstruck to find Anakin led the massacre. This is paralleled in Episode IV when Luke, Obi-Wan and the droids come upon the ruins of the Jawas' sandcrawler and find all of them slaughtered. Luke at first suspects the Sandpeople, but Obi-Wan's closer inspection shows that Imperial stormtroopers were actually responsible. Luke realizes what this means and races home, despite Obi-Wan's warning that he might not like what he finds ... the family farm sacked, and the charred bodies of his aunt and uncle. (this ones too long, so if its not removed, it should atleast be shortened)
*Obi-Wan and Anakin duel in front of a window with a striking resemblance to the window seen behind Luke and Vader in their duel on Cloud City (Episode V). (I'm not sure about this one, but I don't remember this window from either movie) (It's similar, because that window is red that it makes the room enclosed, like the one in Empire Strike Back.)
*When Obi-Wan makes his rendezvous with the Tantive IV, the ship he is flying is swallowed up by the Tantive IV's underbelly. This echoes the ultimate fate of the Tantive IV itself (Episode IV)
Please let me know what you think. Sahriar 00:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirroring from other films 

message: I've added this page to the list of the lamest edit wars ever. It's in the "Miscellaneous lameness" section. Borisblue 11:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:LAME]]

message: Whe Obi-wan jumps in the middle of the droid army in Utapau, he says "Hello there" to Grievous. This is the first line Obi-wan says in Episode IV, to R2, after he scares the sand people. Daniduc 03:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mirroring from other Star Wars films

message: I thought of one more thing to add to the section that has the parallels to post 9/11 stuff: every time I see the Invisible Hand reenter and breakup into Coruscant's atmosphere, I can't help but thinking that it is very close to footage of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Is this something that should be added? --Ctachme 05:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's original research. — Phil Welch 05:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I originally created the summary around April, when everybody was clamoring for details about the plot. Admittedly, it's too long for an encyclopedia article. It's currently at about 2500 words, I'll try to trim it down to 500 to 1000 words. Coffee 17:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallel to the shuttle disaster? 

message: The plot summary currently isn't a summary; it's 44 paragraphs long.  I think that real summary should be created and integrated into the lead section of the article.  The 'plot summary' section should probably be left as is, but retitled 'plot'.  
(I'd do it myself, but I sense there is some hypersensitivity concerning this article.)
ike9898 15:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, I originally created the summary around April, when everybody was clamoring for details about the plot. Admittedly, it's too long for an encyclopedia article. It's currently at about 2500 words, I'll try to trim it down to 500 to 1000 words. Coffee 17:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: Are there any official quotes where Lucas says there will absolutely never ever be an Episode 7, 8 and 9? 
Skeeter08865 21:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See Sequel trilogy (Star Wars). The Wookieepedian 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode VII

message: I've noticed that there is some dispute as to whether "original trilogy" is a noun (thus indicating it should be typed in lowercase) or a proper noun (thus indicating it should be capitalized). Is there any consensus as to how the term should be used? I personally feel it is not a proper noun, but I'm not sure if that's a majority or minority opinion. At any rate, we should try to be consistent across pages. – Mipadi 20:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
:Absolutely NOT a proper noun. I'm going to go through the other five movies' pages here in a minute and fix any references I find there as well.—chris.lawson (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Trilogy vs. original trilogy 

message: * For the record, User:Qaz has expressed support for the abridged cast list.  I moved that down here because I wanted the above refactoring to remain a summary of arguments instead of a vote. — Phil Welch 21:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support abridged cast listing

message: * I (Adamwankenobi) support that the most complete list available be created on the page. What I mean is, I don't want it just copied and pasted from IMDB.com OR to be shortened. I want the list to include all known actors who has a part in the movie. This is what we have done, by giving an officially given list, then added on to the list with any information we could confirm elsewhere. We have given credit to actors such as who played Luke and Leia in Ep3, or the fact that Ian McDirmis Plays the Emperor in the revised 2004 version of Empire. Adamwankenobi 21:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a content dispute, not vandalism. --Phroziac (talk) 01:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Phroziac's right. It's a true statement that Copperchair often writes deceptive edit summaries. I wasn't attacking you for the sake of attacking you, I was explaining the context of your edit summary. If you don't want to be accused of writing deceptive edit summaries, cease writing deceptive edit summaries. — Phil Welch 01:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support full cast listing

message: With an apparent vote of 6 to 2, or 75% assent, the clear consensus is to leave the cast listing in its abridged form. Those in disagreement are always free to re-open this discussion again, but it will be a waste of time unless they can get a couple more people on their side. — Phil Welch 03:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I feel like we should give it some more time for discussion. When I opened up discussion in the talk page, I hadn't meant for it to be declared over and done with by a single person after an arbitrary amount of time decided upon solely by that single person. – Mipadi 05:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Not generally, but if there's an obvious consensus there's nothing wrong with saying so. I wasn't declaring the discussion over by any means—I don't have that authority—I was simply stating the obvious, namely that there was a clear consensus. Since right now the supermajority has risen to 80% (which is 10% more than has been required, historically, to make significant policy changes). — Phil Welch 01:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The issue is settled

message: It seems pretty much settled that we'll use an abridged cast list. I think I have a good idea for a guideline as to who's "major" enough to be included... In each of the films major acting and production credits (just before the main crawl of closing credits), a bunch of cast members are named as "starring" or "co-starring". For all of the films', this is just about 13-15 people. We could use that as a guideline to hopefully lessen future debate. Coffee 12:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as long as we list such uncredited actors as Ian McDiarmid in Empire as The Emperor in the DVD version. Adamwankenobi 13:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify... I meant all the acting credits that come before "scrolling" closing credits. In A New Hope for instance, aside from the main "starring" credits (Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing, and Alec Guinness), it includes co-stars Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew, David Prowse, Jack Purvis, Eddie Byrne, and James Earl Jones. Coffee 19:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There's no consensus here, and I agree with Link that Wedge should be added. — Phil Welch 01:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at no point was there any form of consensus on who shouldn't be added. You took "include these characters" as "only include these characters". - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So, what you're saying is that because Coffee didn't list Wedge, the articles can't use it? There is NOT a consensus as you said. It's two to three if you even want to count Adamwankenobi, and along with that, assume that Coffee doesn't think Wedge belongs. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for deciding who's in

message: In the "political comparisons" section, the last five paragraphs following paragraphs (about military coup, Colin Powell, Knights Templar, Pope Sidious, and The Invisible Hand) are unsourced, and appear to violate the no original research rule. If they can't be backed up by sources that prove they're notable for inclusion, they should be deleted. Coffee 09:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the enire "Cinematic and literary allusions" section seems to be unsorced original research. Saying that the film alludes or references certain things is subjective, and absolutely needs to be backed up by a credible source. That section also says that Lucas edited scenes in The Godfather... I doubt that's true. Coffee 07:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No original research 

message: Not to start something, but, by the removal of the complete official credits, this entire argument was started. Who is and is not important in the story is a subjective stand. We could restore the original complete credits to the page. Thoughts? Comments? The Wookieepedian 02:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop dragging this out, Adam. People voted on the issue already, it's over. The majority doesn't want a full cast list, and using the "it won't cause a dispute over who should be in" isn't a viable argument. Disputes like this happen everywhere, and it's hardly a dispute; it's more of a few fanboys hanging onto their ideal article style with dear life. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter to me whether Wedge is in or out. I just noticed that Copperchair keeps removing the credit for Wedge, and had a suggestion to settle this dispute. The Wookieepedian 02:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion was to nullify the past consensus because you and a couple other fanboys don't like how it came out? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I became involved in the cast list discussion long before you did, Copperchair. Just because we tend to edit some of the same articles doesn't mean I'm following you. In any case, taking a suggestion from one person and pretending that it's a consensus is…well, it certainly fits into your previous patterns of behavior. — Phil Welch 16:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It would help if YOU tried following consensus. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It is what these Wikipedians have been constantly reverting to. ie, the consensus is towards the opposite of what you want. Now that I've made it apparent, will you give up your little crusade? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The  ANH credits argument

message: That's really odd that it won't be released on VHS. Anyone know why? -- Wikipedian2005 05:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim Ward explained that the market is really moving away from VHS, and it wouldn't sell well. Plus, many stores noted that they were ending up with way too many extra VHS copies becuase no one was buying them. Also, Lucas is dead-set on making Digital media the only type of media on which films are prented. The Wookieepedian 07:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no VHS release?

message: I'm haven't edited anything and don't plan to. I just want to ask about the title. Why is it that way? At the official site (and many other websites), the colon goes before Episode III (i.e. Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith). --Dara 03:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always wondered the same thing. I've always thought it should technically be "Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith." Though it looks better as it is. The Wookieepedian 04:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On rottentomatoes.com it's Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. This image on starwars.com also calls it Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith. But on IMDB it's Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith. Coffee 05:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, that image places the colon after "Star Wars" as Dara noted, not after "Episode III". Did you mean to link a different image?--chris.lawson 05:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, my mistake. :"> My eyes see what they want to... Coffee 06:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title 

message: Could the fight scene between Palpatine and Yoda represent the Reichstag fire, as it destroys the Senate chamber? In the DVD commentary, they say it is suppose to represent the destruction of democracy, but I thought that it could also represent the fire.- JustPhil 21:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but heed NOR. — Phil Welch 21:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political comparisons

message: OK, I thought I would explain here before I go and add it to the page. Basically, in the theatrical version (which leaked out), there is a wipe from the shot of Obi-Wan and Threepio in the cockpit of Padme's ship leaving Mustafar to Anakin's mechanical hand grasping at the volcanic soil. The DVD has a straight cut instead. I have heard this from several sources, including MillenniumFalcon.com. The ones who have compared the DVD to the leaked theatrical cut say they have seen this difference. The Wookieepedian 10:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There WAS one slight change... 

message: Are they really references or just some one pointing similarities. One example: "Obi-Wan says the traditional "I have a bad feeling about this!" just before Anakin enters the hangar of General Grievous' battlecruiser.". The bad feeling quote is in every movie and it's not a "reference", just a catch line. I believe all of them are people(or perhaps just one person) pointing out whatever similarity he/she/they could find. It should be removed.
:Most of them are. But some, like the one you pointed out, go too far. The Wookieepedian 17:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References to the OT

message: Whilst I was on RC patrol I reverted an edit by User:86.131.135.156 as vandalism, which in hindsight it clearly was not. I don't know if the statement about the piracy is true or not, so I won't revert back to it now. But either way, my apologies for calling it vandalism. - Akamad 12:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I believe what User:86.131.135.156 inserted into the article had some truth to it. I'll add a mention of it back into the page. The Wookieepedian 19:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Apologies 

message: Unlike the "Story Of Star Wars" disc that was packaged with ROTS, the "Star Wait" DVD that was offered at Target could only be purchased separately, so it's not a "bonus disc". The only relation to ROTS is that it was released the same day as the DVD. It is an not an official Lucasfilm product. I also wonder if the "Story Of Star Wars" section should be moved to it's own seperate page. Packratshow 14:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, both discs "Star Wait" and "The Story of Star Wars" were additional; costs to the regular DVD, so neither could be considered "bonus" in the sense that you get it for free with your purchase. But since both were released with the ROTS DVD, and each was exclusive to a store, they both can technically be called "bonus discs." Now, I don't think "The Story of Star Wars" disc should be moved to its own page, simply because, as C-3PO says "There's not much to tell." It would end up being merged with the ROTS article again, likely, anyway. So, I'm going to revert. The Wookieepedian 15:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why Star Wait is in the ROTS article other than it is Star Wars related and was released the same day as the DVD. The same could be said for The Story Of Star Wars since it has no ROTS footage, but at least it is an official product physically attached and only obtainable by purchasing the ROTS DVD. One did not have to buy ROTS to be able to buy Star Wait. There were other official Lucasfilm premiums only available with the purchase of the ROTS disc at various stores such as coins, patches, and lithographs, why not include those? Packratshow 18:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are not as notable as DVD's are. And there are too many individual bonuses. The Wookieepedian 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonus Disc 

message: Just because Spielberg played around with a few animatics does not warrant the credit of co-director. A co-director is a specific title for two directors or more directors who collaborate for the majority of the filmmaking process, i.e. the Wachowski Brothers or the Coen brothers. Spielberg came in and threw out some ideas for day or two when it came to the animatics or, by what the featurettes on the DVD imply, he simply told Lucas his ideas who then relayed them back to the conceptual artists. If as you (Wookieepedian) that the fact that he directed anything makes him a co-director, then Bryan Singer and Frank Darabont are both co-directors or King Kong along with Peter Jackson. Both directed a shot or two of the movie. So they're co-directors? No. Same goes for Gore Verbinski directing the last week of shooting for The Time Machine (2002) after Simon Wells fell ill. He is not the co-director but he did direct yes. At the very least Spielberg should have an "(uncredited)" title next to his credit in the same way the Kevin Costner has a uncredited directing credit on the Waterworld page. The point being that the title "co-director" is not a casual title or nickname. It is a specific title reserved for directors who officially collaborate together throughout most if not all of the filmmaking process. Spielberg was not involved nearly long enough to be considered a "co-director". The_Filmaker 7 December 2005
:Very well. I will insert "uncredited" next to Spielberg"s name. The Wookieepedian 07:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "uncredited" implies he did enough work to deserve a credit. Listing him in the first place implies he did enough work to deserve a credit. He didn't. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 07:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think Spielberg's contribution to the film is not nearly significant enough to warrant putting him in the infobox, even with "uncredited" beside his name. All he did, according to the article, was some tinkering with the animatics of an action sequence. If anything, I'd call that editing, not directing. A mention of it in the "production" or "trivia" section should be sufficient. Coffee 07:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spielberg's Direction

message: OK, if Star wars is a fa than wikipedia is sooooooo nerdy.
Richardkselby 02:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia

message: The article states that "Palpatine's lightsaber was the only one never seen in contact with a purple lightsaber. It was also the only one to come in contact with Mace Windu's lightsaber". As Mace Windu has a purple lightsaber this is contradictory. I will change it to the only lightsaber seen in contact with a purple lightsaber, but there may a better way of putting this. Any ideas? Wheatleya 20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purple Lightsaber

message: This seems to just reiterate a few things mentioned above in the article and bring forward nothing new. Maybe it should be removed? Wheatleya 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Firsts

message: To the Wookipedian, my image was better than the one now in use. The current one looks like Obi and Vader are doing some kind of dance. The other one actually showed them locked in mortal combat.--Codenamecuckoo 10:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the one I have up there makes the scene look more epic. :D The Wookieepedian 11:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I've seen several different versions of the titles for the film series, IMDB example "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith", I took the time to find the different articles on the Star Wars official website that announce each title in full, the official site refers to the films as "Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith" note the placement of the dots. Personally, I think the IMDB usuage is best since it clarifys each point, i.e. This movie is a Star Wars movie. It's Episode III. The title of the episode is Revenge of the Sith. But my main point here is that I do not believe that the current title is correct. The Filmaker 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title differences

message: Uh.. just a suggestions.. maybe it should be changed to RoTS? ROTS is a bit negative ;-) Dan 18:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "ROTS"

message: Someone put this in:
Meanwhile, General Grievous goes into hiding in an apple pie and gets burned by the filling so goes to Utapau, where he makes contact with Darth Sidious who tells Grievous to relocate the the pie to the Mustafar system so he can torch it. As Sidious tells Grievous about that the war is nearing its end, he too claims that the pie's death was a necessary loss, and that Sidious himself will soon have a new pie, "one far tastier and made with a cherry filling."
Amusing, yes, but let's keep that out of the main article. I have removed it, but there may be additional vandalism in here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCoffee (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Vandalism Alert"

message: Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.
I know this talk page is supposed to be for discussing the article, not the movie, but still I'm asking this question. Why did Dooku kidnap Palpatine/Sidious, his own Sith master? Did he not know Palpatine was Sidious? That seems hard to believe. Was it a plot they hatched together to trap Obi-Wan and Anakin? If so, I assume Dooku understood the point of the trap was to kill the two Jedi, but what was Palpatine's real motivation? To have Anakin kill Dooku? To let Anakin and Dooku duel to see which of them was really worthy of being his apprentice? I guess that seems most likely, but the movie doesn't make it clear at all. Anything about this in the Expanded Universe? Angr (talk • contribs) 10:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grievous kidnapped Palpatine, not Dooku (though he was probably ordered to do so at Dooku's urging, who was in turn being instructed by Sidious). The entire purpose was to (a) garner further support in the Senate ("aww, he got kidnapped... he obviously needs more powers!") and to draw in the Jedi, both to test Anakin versus Dooku, but to also appeal to Anakin's ego (he defeats Dooku, a legendary swordsman, and still isn't a Jedi Master). EVula 14:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. They definitely could have made more out of that in the movie. But Dooku did know that Sidious was Palpatine, didn't he? Because when Palpatine told Anakin to kill Dooku, Dooku didn't react with the astonishment one would expect from someone who realized his own master had just betrayed him. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm 99% sure that Dooku did know that Palpatine is Sidious, though I just realized that I don't have any evidence to support it. As for why Dooku didn't react more... well, it's the Sith way. It's just what they do, and have for centuries. There was actually very little reason for him to act surprised. Plus, he may have thought (or hoped) that it was just a ploy, thinking that Anakin wasn't as close to the Dark Side as he was; bad call, Dooku. :) EVula 14:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My explanation is OR, but I figured it was obvious. As established by The Clone Wars TV series, Grievous operates under the orders of Count Dooku. The apparent plan was to allow Grievous to kidnap Palpatine in order to garner sympathy from the Senate and draw out Obi-Wan and Anakin. Anakin namely. At his point it would appear that Dooku was working with/for General Grievous. Dooku's orders were most likely to kill both Jedi, which in turn completes the first objective: Gain sympathy for Palpatine. If Obi-Wan dies, then a well respected Jedi Master of the Council has been killed, meaning that Palpatine was right and he requires more powers to keep something such as this from happening again. It should be noted that as they are leaving Palpatine is quick to leave Obi-Wan to die. If Anakin died, it would be equally if not more upsetting to the Republic because of his supposed Chosen One status. Resulting in more powers to Palpatine. The Filmaker 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However if you're wondering the behind the scenes idea, i.e. what Palpatine was really planning. Not only was he looking for more power, but he was laying the seeds for his new apperentice. He knew that Anakin could now best Dooku in a lightsaber battle, he had said in a transmission that Dooku's death was "neccesary". The Filmaker 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot question 

message: I know there are also parallels to the Roman and British empires but Palpatine IS Adolf Hitler. The Republic is the Weimar Republic the "...first Galactic Empire" is the Third Reich the Jedi are the SA and the clone/stormtroopers are the SS. Order 66 is the Night of the Long Knives. Windu's attempt to take Palaptine down could be the Reichstag Fire but Palpatine's declaration is clearly the Enabling Act Or at least thats what I see.
LCpl 1628,18 April 2006
:In reference to Hitler being Palpatine: was Adolph Hitler secretly commanding the Allied troops? No. I think that this is a major point with Palpatine, and if you're going to draw a direct comparison, it should match.
:Also, if you're going to draw parallels, the Reighstag Fire is (in my opinion) akin to the beginning of the Clone Wars, not Windu attempting to arrest Palpatine. EVula 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't actually aware of the specifics of the pact, but I still think its different. Hitler merely back-stabbed the Russians. Palpatine didn't betray the Trade Federation; he completely controlled them, and used his control over them to establish himself as leader of the Republic (and grossly increase the powers that his office had). He specifically controlled both groups to eliminate a third group (the Jedi), then disbanded the lesser of the two remaining organizations and emerged as the supreme power. Hitler... not so much with the playing of sides. EVula 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Germany Parallels 

message: Sorry for reverting your edits. But I've been reorganizing the sections in according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. I think it looks best the way it is. The Filmaker 22:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important to present the production background of a film before it's plot, story elements, etc. are presented. The Manual of Style seems to be more of a suggestion, as far as the order of sections goes. As long as the suggested sections are covered in the article, I don't think order matters as much. The Blade Runner article is the perfect example of how I think a film article should be organized. The Wookieepedian 23:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Format 

message: *Merge I think The Duel is a sub-par article that holds zero weight outside of the film that it happened in. If anything, that should be a disambig page, since "the duel" could have multiple uses outside of this one movie (ie: mention "the duel" in Raiders of the Lost Ark and people will probably think of Indy vs. the swordsman, ending with an anti-climactic gunshot). Plus, is there any substantial evidence of the final fight being called "The Duel"? EVula 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Duel" merge 

message: Can anyone find any articles or sources for this section? I'm aware that a lot of this well established as being true, such as the Order 66 sequence and the Godfather parallels. And Anakin making a pact with the devil (Palpatine). But I've only been able to find a few message boards that discuss, no link to an news article of some kind. We definetly need these sources if the article would ever be able to get to FA status. The Filmaker 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cinematic and literary allusions references

message: I'm thinking we should discuss how the new cast list (with descriptions) should be formatted. I'm thinking that we should try to keep it relatively spoiler free. Mostly for the fact that the only reason you would most likely need descriptions is if you haven't seen the film or read the synopsis. We should probably keep the descriptions down to what we know about the characters within the first thirty minutes of the Episode III. This does however present a problem with James Earl Jones credit (which I think we should keep), I'm going to revert it back to simply "voice of suited Darth Vader" since if someone should stumble upon the credit, having not read or seen the other films, then they would have no idea what it means. The Filmaker 18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the new cast list

message: Currently we're putting the sections in the sequence of, more or less, the way the featured article on Blade Runner is setup. Namely, I don't like putting the plot first, because the infobox extends into it and pushes the opening photo down to a weird place,  pushing the text into all different directions. If I/we can solve that. Then I'd be fine with putting the plot at the top. The Filmaker 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Format Deux

message: I've just about gotten rid of the trivia section and for anyone who is passing by, please do not try to create it again. Trivia sections are pretty much the death of featured articles. I've deleted a lot of stuff I didn't want to. But in the end it comes down to "What of this is useful?" not so much what is interesting, I've tried to save as much I can, but some of it just isn't worth keeping. The Filmaker 05:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles looking really good, keep it up, you could have a very strong contender for FA soon, and amaze the people at Wikiproject Star Wars LOL :) Judgesurreal777 05:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It looks like it could become a FA soon. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then where do we find Star Wars (or, indeed, any trivia) trivia?  There is a place in Americana for "little known facts" whether attached to articles regarding the subject or in seperate articles.12.107.188.130 21:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The Filmaker 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that (and sorry I didn't sign-in before).  I did not see trivia presented as something Wikipedia is not.  I ask, not out of a desire to annoy but I am thinking of championing a GA status for a movie (Still Crazy  and was going to solicit your help and expertise) and I want to make sure that I know what goes and what stays and, indeed, what I'm doing in the first place.  So the argument goes against trivia?  Even when presented as a simple fact?Padillah 11:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could give you my long argument. However, I'm pressed for time at the moment. So I'm sorry, but I'll have to just through some other policy pages at you. WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV. The Filmaker 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section deleted

message: Do we even have to put a caption down? I mean it is quite obviously the poster for the film, no caption is needed. The IMDB ratings have recently been "outlawed", I personally see no reason for these. Anyone agree? The Filmaker 16:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the IMDb rating shouldn't be used, but other than that I don't really care if there is a caption or not. It is indeed pretty obvious that it's the movie poster. --16:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the caption

message: Featured article at long last!.......... I am NEVER doing that again! :) :P The Filmaker 06:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great article, reads well with lots of good information.  Congrats. -- Ari 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HOORAY!

message: Today(5/19) is the first anniversary of ROTS.
Dudtz5/19/06 3:29 PM EST
*And the seventh anniversary of TPM, might I add! The Wookieepedian 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Anniversary 

message: His role in this movie wou;d've been performed by Skandar Keynes if it had been included in RoTS. --Ryanasaurus0077 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Han Solo 

message: Taken from the article- "Unlike any other films directed by Lucas, Revenge of the Sith was released on DVD without any noticeable alterations from the film's original theatrical cut." There was one major difference I noticed in the theatrical version of the film and the DVD version. The endings were not the same! It is surprising that no one has caught this yet, but as I remember, the theatrical version of the film ended with Vader staring off into space, his head moving from right to left, and then the credits rolling. However, the DVD ended with Kenobi delivering Luke to his Aunt and Uncle on Tattoine, then the Aunt and Uncle looking into the desert sun. Once again, it is surprising that no one noticed this. ::—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamecheater2009 (talk • contribs) 
*Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Not only do I personally remember the film ending with the twin suns portrait, but there are several bootleg communities (people who own camcorder tapings of the theatrical cut) who have studied the differences between the theatrical cut and the DVD version who have reported there being no differences except for the wipe being replaced by the cut. So frankly, I think that the reason no one else has noticed.... is because it never really happened. The Filmaker 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Theatrical Ending Compared to the DVD Ending 

message: I think that the cast section is really well formatted, but I just think that the description of each person should be about the actor themselves at the time of the film, rather than the character. If we wanted to know about the character, well, that's in the plot summary, and on their respective page. I just think it should be more like Casablanca (film or Richard III (1955 film) ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast Section 

message: I have no skill myself in Wikipedia formatting, but the external links section of this article really looks pretty thrown together.  If anybody knows more than I do how to fix this, that'd be awesome -MBlume 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links section 

message: It's sourced- so I didn't remove it, rather commented here- but the reference to Orpheus is so unbelievably flimsy that I just can't see why it's in there.
We'll start with the fact that Eurydice is already dead, whereas Padme is alive at the start of their journeys- Orpheus' a literal journey into the underworld, Anakin's a more metaphorical one down the path to the "Dark side".
After a difficult journey- the journies here can't be compared, since Orpheus' journey starts with a set goal (Bring is wife back to life), whereas Anakin's journey doesn't really start until he speaks to Palpatine- they both do reach an agreement with a nasty, powerful figure. There's a similarity there, I'll admit.
Except, the similarity ends there. Orpheus can't bring himself to keep looking ahead, and eventually looks back on his wife's shade, who vanishes. He doesn't have the strength of will to walk out of the underworld not knowing whether she's following.
Anakin? Well, he just keeps on going down the dark path (Or whatever you'd call it), does some nasty things, and ends up thinking he killed his wife, thus being consumed.
Orpheus is eventually killed after wandering around singing of his lost love, and dies with her name on his lips. Anakin? Well, there's no similarity with what happens to Anakin there, is there? Except maybe that he's hugely remorseful that he killed his wife, when he actually didn't, and she dies after giving birth.
I've tried to keep it brief, but even though it's source, it's an utterly ludicrous comparisson. There's just no parrallel between the two stories.
If he really must be compared to a Greek character, well, just off the top of my head Achilles might be more appropriate (Immensely skilled warrior who's consumed by his anger), possibly Ajax-the-greater (Goes mad and starts killing goats-that-he-thinks-are-people when things don't go his way, somewhat similar to Anakin's rampages). 
Well, those arn't any better than the Orpheus comparrison, I guess. But, even though it is sourced, I just don't think that comparrison works at all.
(Oh, and great article. I'm not a huge fan of the films, but it's a really good article, kudos to the editors who put it together) Barnas 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that completely; I was coming to this page to note much the same problem.  The comparison just doesn't hold up, and I'm not sure that a single critic having mentioned it makes it worth including in the article.  --71.10.173.77 20:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed this, because after a day, it still grates on me that it's in there. In my humble opinion, based on having studied the story of Orpehus in Virgil's Georgics and seen the film, there simply isn't a comparrison, and one person having written a paragraph saying that there is doesn't mean it should be in the article.
If anyone disgarees, feel free to put it back in. I've said my piece. Barnas 15:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orpheus? 

message: I've changed "Obi-Wan slices off both of his legs and his left arm in one swift cut" to "Obi-Wan slices off both of his legs and his left arm in two swift cuts" in the plot synopsis. If you watch the scene in slow motion you can see that Obi-Wan takes two seperate swings, a first for the arm and a second for the two legs. It looks very convincing even in slow motion.Evilrodhull 12:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Swift Cuts 

message: When Anakin drew his lightsaber to kill the Jedi children, I started to go into shock. Lost circulation to my hands and feet. If the scene had not shifted, I would have had to be rushed to the hospital in an ambulance. Was this just me, or did other people have a similar reaction? 66.99.0.162 16:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Massacre of the Innocents

message: Regarding the text about the the game featuring "cut scenes from the movie" as well as new scenes; is "cut scenes" meant to mean scenes which had been cut from the movie but feaure in the game, or is it meant to mean "cut-scenes" (sections of video shown between gameplay) which are taken from (and feature in) the released film? Twilo 17:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Videogame

message: Can we do something about the missing bracket at the right end of that link at the end of the Intro?  Nightscream 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: It seems to me that the section titled "Synopsis" is a little excessive. It basically tells the entire story without detail as opposed to highlighting the key plot points that give the major concflict and introduce some characters. Should this be changed?
Some changes I would suggest are to, as mentioned, limit detail to the key plot points, possibly ones that influence the rest of the saga, and keep spoilers to a minimum.
Also, it seems that the Synopsis sections for the other Star Wars movie pages have the same quality of dragging on with every plot development. Those pages should be considered for revision as well. The Editor 21:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous Synopsis 

message: Once i saw a T-shirt that said "Come to the dark side.  Small print'We Have Cookies' "
         Ciao,
          Adolph172
:Good for you. Now what the hell does this have to do with ROTS? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-shirt 

message: There is a lot of info here. See the box office section, for exemple. I cleared "only" one banal line and it was reverted. Cleared again, because the hughe small data not follows the usual wiki scheme.  Kim FOR sure 02:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the fact that the film was the third-fastest to reach that sales level is irrelevant. A source foundi t worth mentioning. — TKD::Talk 06:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much irrelevant data 

message: While the comment (Two Jedi Fighters in the middle of starships) is true in the movie, the image depicts two ARC-170 starfighters...
Sources :
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/ARC-170_starfighter
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Eta-2_Actis-class_light_interceptor
(Paercebal, 22:36, 7 October 2006, GMT+1)
*This a bit tough, the Jedi Fighters are in the photo, they're just smaller and harder to see. I'm changing it to ARC-170 starfighters unless someone objects to it. The Filmaker 22:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong image comment for the Battle of Coruscant 

message: "Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader duel on Mustafar." Wouldn't it be more correct to say Anakin as he had not yet fully undergone the transformation yet at this point? I'm sure given the die-hard fans here, this has already been discussed and there is some technical reason to list him as Darth Vader. Most fans recognize Vader as the chsracter in the dark space suit however (by fans, I don't mean die hard fans. I mean the majority of the population who has seen the series). Quadzilla99 14:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he has already been given the title of Darth Vader before the fight on Mustafar so it is quite correct to call him this in my opinion. Ben W Bell talk 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The transformation of Skywalker into Vader has nothing to do with the black suit; the transformation itself was when Sidious christened him Vader. So, the caption is right, though I will agree that most fans think of the black suited figure when they think "Darth Vader" (it just happens to not matter in this case). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic caption

message: I have added a weasel words tag to the reaction section. I suggest looking at The Spider-Man movie articles to see how a reaction section should be done (although with hopefully less critic's sources). This is in response to all of The Star Wars movie articles, which seem to be trolled by the same users.
The fact is, if you read all of the articles from A New Hope to Revenge of The Sith, you can see a number of individual Star Wars Fans have made sure that anyone reading the article will read that The Original Trilogy is superior to the Prequel Trilogy, and that nobody liked The Phantom Menace.
:Actually, I myself was the prime editor of these articles when bringing them up to featured status. And I actually liked the prequel trilogy. This goes the same for majority of the prolific editors of these articles, I believe. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly every single good article on Wikipedia features some sort of Reception or Reaction section. The reaction of the public, especially with media related articles is extremely important. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: From what I am told now, IMDB is only a credible source when sourcing IMDB related information. A high number of people use IMDB as their film outlet, more so than any other film database. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is devoted to reliable sources. IMDB is only one you have cited so far as an unreliable source, however you are mistaken as it is citing IMDB related information. Also, that is not the definition of weasel words. Please read, WP:AWT. Because of that, I am going to remove the tags. If you still wish for the tags to be readded, please state why in the talk page and I will readd them myself. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't care if you don't care. Wikipedia is not here to please you and you alone. If you can explain exactly why the reception of...... well...... anything is irrelevant to a subject, than you might have a case. Despite what you may think of Wikipedia, just because you say something is irrelevant, doesn't make it true. I'm unsure of why you even want the information removed. At times you seem to want it removed for inaccuracy and other times it's because you think it is irrelevant. However, the citations are from notable media outlets. Hence it is not inaccurate. And you would be hard pressed to find anyone on Wikipedia that would agree with you that the reception to a film is irrelevant. The Filmaker 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Movie guy, please do not be disruptive, and putting tags like POV on actively maintained Featured articles without any warning or discussion could be considered disruptive. Lets talk things out, and follow article guidelines. Judgesurreal777 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If the removal continues to happen once again, I will report this conduct to the Wikipedia administrators. Greg Jones II 13:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am really getting sick and tired of Movieguy999's actions to the three prequel articles. This is a problem that needs to be fixed. Featured articles must be stabled. Greg Jones II 14:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am so close to leaving this place. Greg Jones II 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I will ask an advice from a Wikipedia administrator, and I will rely on what the administrator says, not by what Movieguy999 says. Greg Jones II 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Now, I am getting really upset about the repeated removal of the information for what Movieguy999 says. We need to ask someone to stop this issue as soon as possible. Greg Jones II 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My problems with this article

message: Regarding this section of the article:  "This release is notable because, due to marketing issues, it was the first Star Wars film never to be released on VHS in the United States."  I think that this can be eliminated.  First of all, this doesn't really make the release notable.  Most films released at the same time were not released on VHS.  Also, the fact that it WAS released on VHS in other countries makes it even less notable.  It also does not have anything to do with the "DVD" release, but rather the "home video" release. Mcgonigle 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Release 

message: Hmph, is there some reason for NOT including a short explanation about Yoda's attempts to stop Palpatine? Not to sound whiny about it but I've tried incl it at least once & it keeps being taken out. This is an important part of the plot, it explains why Yoda went into exile & the future of the Jedi order. I know this isn't Wookiepedia but it should be in here. Also, anywhere in the discussion of the article where this was debated previously? Oh yeah, almost forgot: WHINE! WHINE! WHINE! Tommyt 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remain civil in discussion, the reason why the explanation of Yoda's attempts on Palpatine is not included is because the plot section is a summary of the plot of the film, not the plot of Yoda or Palpatine or the entire saga. This film alone. And while it does take up a large amount of the runtime, it is not essential to understand the plot coherently. The Filmaker 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoda & Palpatine 

message: "Grauman's Chinese Theatre, a traditional venue for the Star Wars films, did not show it. However, a line of people stood there for more than a month hoping to convince someone to change this. Most of them took advantage of an offer to see the film at a nearby cinema, ArcLight Cinemas (formerly the "Cinerama Dome")."
is this notable? why is it in parenthesis? these sentences are not very well written.--Keerllston 11:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nitpick!

message: Given the name of the heading, and the previous discussion of it in the article, is there a good reason to include the following from the first paragraph of the section:
Perhaps the most media coverage was given to a particular exchange between Anakin and Ob-Wan, which led to the aforementioned controversy: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," Anakin declares, to which Obi-Wan responds, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." In the novelization, Mace Windu says that the new laws decrease liberty in the name of security, but he doesn't feel safer. Despite Lucas' insistence to the contrary, The Seattle Times concluded, "Without naming Bush or the Patriot Act, it's all unmistakable no matter what your own politics may be."[39]
Seems like these allusions are neither cinematic nor literary, but rather political.  (Which is pointed out in the the sentence I did not quote, because it otherwise seems like a good introduction to the section.Quine (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to 'Cinematic and Literary Allusions'?? 

message: For less familiar readers, the plot could be confusing. We've got Palpatine and Darth Sidieous being used interchangalbe; Anakein and Darth Vader aswell. I'm gonna try and make it clearer. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot confusions

message: Why were almost all the images removed?  I understand that fir use prevents Wikiedia from going overboard, but a FA should have more than a single screenshot, correct?  Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I personally find that the sub-section of "Deleted roles" is not very fitting under the section of "Reaction". The materals in "Deleted roles" have little relations to the reaction of viewers/fans/general public. I suggest moving "Deleted roles" to "Cast" or "Production". It will be more fitting in those two sections because, well, that section is about roles of certain casts being deleted, and that the deletion of scenes/roles is decided and carried out during production. Oidia (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Deleted roles" section 

message: There's no misquote. Go read the interview -- his quote was copied and pasted word for word. Ask yourself: How does one "know" something? I haven't seen a single direct, eyewitness account from anyone involved in the film's production that confirms Jones' involvement. Have you? Secondhand "reporting" and blogging and forums are rife with unverified rumors and, more significantly, assumptions
As for IMDb, Wikipedia: Reliable sources - Are wikis reliable sources  specifies that wikis are not allowed as reference sources. IMDb falls under that definition as it has solely user-generated content, and, as noted elsewhere at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, IMDb does not "have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence."
Newsday is a major newspaper with a direct quote from Jones. There's no justification for removing a reliable, direct citation with IMDb rumors. Where did IMDb get that information? IT IS UNSOURCED.--24.215.162.198 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody seems to have missed the fact that most of the IMDb footnotes in this article refer to stories from the Studio Briefing and WENN sections of IMDb, which are provided by third-party news agencies, not IMDb itself. Green451 (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding IMDb and Newsday "misquote"

message: Look-alike#film - The 2005 film Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith features actor Wayne Pygram, who, in the film, looks remarkably like Peter Cushing. Through stock footage, the film's producers wanted Cushing to reprise his role of Grand Moff Tarkin from Star Wars. However, the footage was deemed unusable.  Thanks, Marasama (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something not mentioned in this page? 

message: Perhaps we should point out, Palpatine was letting Windu get the upper hand in their fight, in order to get Anakin to defend him & wound Windu. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windu -vs- Palpatine 

message: It wasn't just release in the USA on May 19. I'm pretty sure it was worldwide. It was release on May 19th in Ireland and the UK anyway Kanjo Kotr (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: Apparently, someone hates this movie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.196.146 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirects for discussion: Comments are appreciated. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 10:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "do not want" redirects here. 

message: for example we need to mention it was filmed in 1080p Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: we need to mention format

message: The plot section is far too long at over 4,700 words, where WP:FILMPLOT says that it should be between 400 and 700 words.  This is completely inappropriate, and the film article should not achieve Good Article status without addressing this at the very least. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section far too long 

message: Didn't the Dark Knight beat this film recently? Might wanna change a few things, assuming it did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.81.222 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxoffice sales