Talk:Changes in Star Wars re-releases

message: I’ve noticed just recently that UpdateNerd tends to keep putting up negative comments and content regarding the Special Editions, and keeps limiting any attempts to balance the critiques and praises for the re-releases. A while ago I once created several citations indicating that the Emperor scene in Empire Strikes Back got a fairly positive reception from Screenrant, but it seems that for no reason my citation was reverted. I’m sorry but I’ve been away for a while because I recall that any edit I made that tried to balance the scales more seemed to have gotten reverted in favor of more negative comments and citations. For instance a source was just recently referenced for how A New Hope was already special and how it didn’t need Dewbacks in it, and another citation to parodies of certain changes from the Special Editions. I hope you all take my concerns into consideration, thanks. Mobfighter63 (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for including positive reception of the changes, it's just that most of feedback is negative. Positive reception of changes to the Emperor's hologram center around the actor change. Not aware of any praise of the dialogue changes. That's what's reflected on the article presently; if other viewpoints are missing please provide a reliable source. Thx, UpdateNerd (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok in that case thank you. Thanks for replying directly and addressing my issues that I thought were occurring on this page then. Mobfighter63 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intensely negative citations/references and removing or limiting positive ones 

message: Currently under "Release History" the opening quote attributed to George Lucas is:
"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians. ... Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. ... Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten. ... Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself."
It is being misused. It should include the full quote and not what uses his words to fit a narrative that doesn't fit his intentions with the Special Editions. He's a firm believer in the artist having the right to change their work but as it stands now the quote above doesn't reflect that. 
See below for the full quote for correct context:
My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.  I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. 
I’ve come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.  The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.  A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.  People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as “when life begins” or “when it should be appropriately terminated,” but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.  These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with “fresher faces,” or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor’s lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new “original” negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.  In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.  There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.  I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.  I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.  The public’s interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.  There are those who say American law is sufficient. That’s an outrage! It’s not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of “The Maltese Falcon?” Why are films cut up and butchered?  Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.  I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art–as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities.   or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians. ... Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. ... Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten. ... Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself. Joe12Hawk (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is from 1988, well before he decided to make Special Editions, so it's unclear how the excerpt is being misused as you argue. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I think all references to it should be removed. This is an article about the changes in the Star Wars re-releases, not an article on George Lucas's philosophy and beliefs on film editing and alteration. That is appropriate for the George Lucas article, this is about the films themselves and the actual changes. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Including the full quote is almost certainly contrary to the Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline. The text is copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Why do we need any of the quote? What is it adding to this article to have it or the discussion? This isn't an article on the moral implications of changing works or the philosophy of it, it's purely an article listing the changes made in various Star Wars releases. Canterbury Tail talk 19:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think because there's a lot of misconceptions surrounding the changes and that they date back further than 1997. I think if there's anything that can be done to help set the record straight that these things happened before the Special Editions release all the better, along with bringing clarity to George Lucas's views on the matter. It's constantly said he changed his mind on these things but actual quotes from him show this isn't the case at all. Joe12Hawk (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But is that the point of this article? I maintain it is not the purpose of this article to "set the record straight" on this topic, it's only about what the changes are. Canterbury Tail talk 23:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

text: There's no indication that he planned all along to make these changes. The only pre-1997 changes are a title change (which was allegedly the original intent) to reflect the number of sequels/prequels, as well as a minor addition to the epilogue of Empire before it was even widely released. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

text: You haven't provided any WP:RS on what the other side would be. You've just copied an excessively longer form of the quote and said you disagree with the well-sourced article, which fairly represents the mostly negative feedback to the bulk of the changes. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

text: can you  please read Help:Talk_pages#Indentation and WP:INDENT, your lack of proper indentation and threading is making the conversation difficult to follow. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Lucas Quote Misused 

message: Hey @UpdateNerd, I noticed you changed the Greedo and Jabba headers, but the new headers look the same as the old ones. Or is that just my computer? Wafflewombat (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, section headers look the same at a certain level, or eventually they would shrink past the body text. It looks a little different on mobile (unbolded). The nesting is still important because it can be seen in the Table of Contents. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it's awkward to have a topic sentence of once section mention the following sections? I was trying to correct that awkwardness with the "see below" line, but I agree that's not an ideal way to do it. With the headers looking the same on many devices, I think the problem still persists, but I haven't figured out a way to address it. Wafflewombat (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the problem. The parent section is for both summarizing subsections and discussing anything extraneous. If(?) there's a minor display issue, that's related to user interface and not the problem of editors. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the section headers Tatooine, Greedo and Jabba look the same, so it's not clear one is a parent header. Based on what you said about mobile vs. non-mobile devices, this is probably how it looks on all non-mobile devices, which is a massive number of users. I wouldn't call that a minor display issue. Wafflewombat (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headers 

message: Hey @UpdateNerd, I noticed you restored some content I removed. I apologize if my edit summaries were not clear, and I'm sorry if I deleted important information without seeking consensus. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing your thoughts on the endnote you restored, which reads: "Additionally, Stewart notes that though "the dewback model was rebuilt for the prequels ... the test model was left front-and-center in a classic film."
Could you explain why you feel this note is important? Wafflewombat (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It corroborates that the new editions were more of a springboard for the production of the new features being made and not intended as perfecting the original films. This is a supportive detail of some of the other commentary, so it's important enough to keep in the article. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. What I'm seeing as a larger question for this page is, where do we put criticism / praise / reactions to the changes? Right now some it is mentioned right after the changes themselves are listed, some of it is in footnotes, and some is in the Reception section. It's a bit all over the place. Should we put all the reactions in the Reception section? Wafflewombat (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnotes include some commentary on specific changes—usually just pointing out mistakes or inconsistencies. The Reception section is for more general feedback of the newer editions as a whole, as well as discussion of why the most controversial changes are the most scorned. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I've added to the note to make its relevance more clear. (I previously wasn't aware of any other examples since most of the shootouts in Wayne's good movies happen from afar.) In the few examples where Wayne shoots someone in a duel, he does not "let them have the first shot". That would not fit his mythological role as the grounded Western hero, who anticipates his opponent's move instead of being stupidly martyred (which is what would have happened to Han since Greedo was aiming at him the whole time). The note supports the prose's explanation that the change is a post-1977 invention, without any earlier record of planning. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. It would be great if we could find a secondary source that explains what you said, that Wayne doesn't let the other guy have the first shot (and would therefore refute Lucas's statement). Lucas also said that Han shooting first makes him a "cold-blooded killer" which is ludicrous, because as you pointed out, Greedo was prepared to shoot him. Only an idiot would wait around for someone to shoot them at point-blank range. If we could find a secondary source that discusses this, that would also be great. If I have time, I'll see if I can find these sources. Wafflewombat (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I altered the wording so it didn't seem like the authors were representing anyone's opinion other than their own. The first two sources are titled "10 Worst Crimes Against the Original Trilogy" and "15 Changes to the Original 'Star Wars' Trilogy That Still Make Us Crazy", followed by supporting sources that I believe offer criticism in no uncertain terms. Please explain if anything needs further clarification. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely better, thank you. I think ideally we should have a source that has surveyed many critics and states that those  changes are the most often criticized, but that's not something we have yet. Wafflewombat (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I went through the citations for that paragraph, and found that the Empire article did not call out the most offensive changes, it simply gave a rundown of all the changes. So I removed that citation. The Wired article also doesn't rank the most offensive changes, but rather criticizes almost all of the changes, so it's misleading to use it as a source for this claim. If we remove that citation, we end up with only two articles cited. That's not enough. If we want to tell readers what the most offensive changes are based on criticism from reputable sources, we need a lot more than two articles. Wafflewombat (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the rewording no longer says "most offensive". Please feel free to add sources if you feel it's necessary, but I think the paragraph sufficiently highlights which scenes are unanimously disliked when discussed (sometimes for different reasons), and rarely (if ever) defended. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dewbacks and more

message: I want to propose a re-structuring of this article. I think the sections "Relese history" and "Significant changes" should be merged into one section, which would make the article's structure resemble the structure of this article. Many people who visit the page are going to want to read about the changes themselves, and are going to skip past the "Release history" section. Right now it feels like two sections that belong together are split up for no reason. Wafflewombat (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason for this at all. The Release history contains technical information and provides an overview, which would get lost if "merged" into the changes themselves. Also many of the scenes were changed more than once, so there's no clear way of handling a merge. Short of seeing an amazing draft that convinces me otherwise, I'm firmly against the proposal. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the initial clean-up way back in 2017, and the page was originally structured to list the changes chronologically. My rationale for doing it this way, with a timeline of the release history and then the changes was both to retain contextualizing information of what versions and cuts were released over time in a clear manner (which is generally of interest to readers) and to keep individual changes or cumulative changes to particular scenes together. Structuring the article to be a chronological list of changes results in having to jump around the article to understand how a particular scene or element changed over time, which can be unwieldly for some elements that have been changed multiple times (like the Jabba changes). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, thanks for the comment. I'll retract my proposal :-) Wafflewombat (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging sections 

message: I actually just assumed this was a recent change, so I guess it never bothered me before. However, the title change occurred during the production of the first sequel, debuting with the 1981 rerelease. In other words, it's been known by the shorthand A New Hope ever since there were multiple Star Wars films. Seems preferable as a common name since this article deals with several films. If the title change actually occurred with the Special Edition, which is the beginning of the article's primary focus, then it would make sense to keep the "purity" of the title Star Wars. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but this article is titled and scoped as "Changes in Star Wars re-releases", and this is literally the original and biggest change. The special editions are not the focus of the article, they just represent the bulk of the changes is all. Since this has been stable for so long, and this is a literal change in scope for the article, I think it should remain as "Star Wars" and not "A New Hope". Canterbury Tail talk 01:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Tentatively, yes. The addition of a subtitle was certainly not the biggest change. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A New Hope title