Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 1

Failed good article
While the content and organization are now excellent for the most part, there is still a substantial amount of sloppy writing and stylistic inconsistencies and infelicities throughout the article. The second sentence of the second paragraph in the lead section is indicative: "After the Rebel Alliance, led by Princess Leia, steals the plans in the hope of finding a weakness, they are captured and forced aboard the Death Star." This is both subtly, though unquestionably, inaccurate (the "Rebel Alliance" is not "captured," Leia and part of her escort are) and obviously ungrammatical. As another example, we later have a paragraph that begins, egregiously: "1958 Kurosawa film The Hidden Fortress was a strong influence, many elements are included such as the two bickering peasants (who evolved into C-3PO and R2-D2), elements of the Obi-Wan/Luke relationship and the Darth Vader-like evil general wears a kamon, commonly called simply a 'mon', a Japanese family crest similar to the Imperial Crest." As a final example, chosen virtually at random, examine the first sentence of the "Reaction" section: "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope debuted in 37 theaters and broke 36 house records, and effectively become the very first blockbuster film." This is untrue (Star Wars was by no reasonable reckoning the "first blockbuster film"), awkwardly stated (what does it mean to be, not the "first" or even the "very first," but "effectively the very first"?), and misspelled ("become"?!). With some intensive, conscientious copyediting, the article will be a prime candidate for Good Article status.—DCGeist 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I find your failure to be a bit too selective. Even now after the prose has been altered to fix the problems you've brought up, I think that can look at the article can consider it a good article not only in name but by qualifications. The prose is decent but not great (for now) and the rest of the article is through and well-referenced for the most part. The Filmaker 19:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbered
I thought it was renamed and numbered when the second movie was released, 1980 not when the second trilogy, 1998?


 * It was renamed in its first re-release in 1978, prior to Empire, but after it was perfectly clear that a sequel would get made -- User:GWO


 * I recall that in the Christmas 1977 Star Wars print, as I saw it when released in New Zealand, the yellow introductory text that immediately followed the title was simply headed Episode IV. In the remastered print released in 1998, on the 20th anniversary, the title was Episode IV: A New Hope.  George Lucas originally had 9 stories in the series, which he had originally conceived as a TV series.  This was documented in the book released at the same time as the film. - kiwiinapanic 11:18 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * I have removed reference to the film being designated Episode IV in 1978 before the first sequel came out. as I believe that this designation was there from the start, or if it was added it was prior to 1978 and part of the world wide release. Can anyone else remember that far back and recall what was in the first minute of the first US release in 1977?  One must be careful not to rewrite history - kiwiinapanic 11:43 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * The text crawl in the 1978 UK release of Star Wars did not include any reference to Episode IV or A New Hope. I believe the opening was only altered in 1980 - 1, before, during or just after the release of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.


 * The title design for ESB confused a lot of people who expected a big EMPIRE STRIKES BACK logo and saw a big STAR WARS logo instead. Lee M (still haven't got around to putting up a personal page at the time of writing


 * On the Jedi Council page of the Official Star Wars site this fact is discussed and finally cleared. I've changed the page accordingly. Laz 11:56 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * On a related subject, I seem to recall that C-3PO's original line was "Did you hear that? They're shutting the main drive down!" and was only later changed to "Did you hear that? They're shutting the main reactor down!" Can anyone confirm? -- Lee M who now has a user page fwiw


 * I don't know as that line was officially changed - doesn't ring any bells but I seem to have mislayed my annotated screenplays book. The ITV version in the '80s had a lot of strange things... It had the close/open blast doors thing that made it to the Special Edition, and stuff like that, and other lines were subtly different. So it's quite possible that that had the line you refer to.


 * Various different prints get slightly different things in them and this seems more true with SW than anything else. I don't really know why it happens though. I guess they're just being economical with the film or something... using cast offs... -Nommo


 * I do know they varied the sound mix between different versions - I believe the 70mm stereo version added more echo in the shaft that Luke and Leia have to swing across, for instance. --Lee M

Yavin = forest moon?
Could someone confirm that Yavin was supposed to be a "forest moon"? I am aware that Endor is a forest moon, but have never heard the same about Yavin. This might be an error. --Yath 06:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The term "forest moon" only refers to forest moon of Endor. It is not a galactic standard term. The moon in A New Hope is called Yavin 4.


 * The fourth moon of Yavin is a "forest moon" in that it is a moon which is covered by forest. That doesn't mean it needs to be called that, though. I guess the part that you're talking about isn't even in the article anymore, because I don't see it.

British Empire
is it just me or do almost all of the officers of the Empire have British accents? -- Xmnemonic
 * Yes, this is apparently a common practice from old biblical epic films, giving the evil empire (generally roman) british accents and making the good guys(jews, christians, etc.) american, in the foreign dubs of the trilogy they are changed so that the Rebels have accents of the target country, and the Imperial officers sound like they'r from some country with which there's a historical animosity. Being British, and used to hearing american and english voices on screen, I never noticed this until I read it on some trivia site. Boffy b 07:32, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)


 * This sounds unbelievably unlikely. Does anyone have actual evidence? Let's face it, you can't get much more British-sounding that Alec Guiness. Or Ewan McGregor for that matter. And I don't think Darth Vader sounds particularly British. DJ Clayworth 22:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * While Boffy b is overstating the case a little, as DJ points out, there is some evidence to support at least part of his point.


 * During the commentary for TESB the director, Irvin Kershner, states that he did want the voices of the Imperial troops to be British, and the rebels American. He goes on to state that he had to dub some British actors to achieve this goal. Oddly he says it over a scene where we see the actor Bruce Boa, whose voice is clearly not dubbed. He is one of a group of American actors who have spent most of their careers in the U.K. (others that spring to mind include Don Fellows and Shane Rimmer). One of his best remembered roles is as Mr Hamilton, the American guest at Fawlty Towers who demands a Waldorf Salad.
 * In ANH Lucas does not state whether this was his intention also, but, some of the pilots of Red and Gold Squads voices are dubbed by American speakers. Jeremy Sinden's (Gold 2) and Graham Ashley's (Gold 5) are. I have always questioned whether Garrick Hagon's (Biggs) is. He had played Ky in the Doctor Who story The Mutants in 1972 and his voice is fairly distinctive. In 1978 he would be cast as another American in the British bio-series Lillie. In neither of these performances does his voice sound like the one in ANH, yet the voice heard does still sound a bit like him so I leave that one open.
 * I don't even want to get into the debate about what they do with Den(n)is Lawson as Wedge. But I will say this, his wonderful Scottish brogue only seems to appear, albeit mutedly, when they remove the extra N from his first name in the credits. If any Wikipedia member ever interviews him and gets an answer to this PLEASE post it here as I would be interested to know.
 * The one place where the Brit/Yank voice theory falls apart is when we come to Malcolm Tierney's performance. In ANH he plays the uncredited role of the head guard (now called Lt Shann Childsen) of the prison area where Leia is being held. Mr Tierney has a richly deep and gravelly voice. It is so clearly NOT him speaking when Han and Luke enter with Chewy that it always brings me up short when I see this scene.


 * This last example leads me to my point (finally) that it may be as much of the big Hollywood studio decision to play to the lowest common denominator as it is the Empire/Rebel distinction, that brought about this decision on accents. They thought, and still occasionally think, that Americans will tune out voices speaking in accents other than their own (unfortunately, in some cases this is true). No better example of this exists than the film Mad Max where we didn't get to hear the original Australian actors voices until the special edition DVD release just a couple of years ago. I know this is rather long winded, but it may be of use to some.MarnetteD | Talk 19:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Britain
Is that supposed to be a quote? If not, I suggest we remove the reference to the comparison between the Empire and Britain. The accents are a moot point and merely coincidence.--Will2k 15:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * See my above answer. Also, to help get across his vision for the dogfights to the effects people, Lucas spliced together a lot of WWII footage by way of an animatic.Boffy b 07:32, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Bartok?
I've been searching for references to Bartok being the composer of the Jawa theme, and have been unable to find any (outside of websites sourcing this Wikipedia article directly). Is this merely apocryphal, or am I missing something? - Yossarian 08:21, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cast
Just curious if someone can answer a question I've had about the articles for the SW movies on the Wikipedia. Why isn't the cast listed for any of the movies except for a scant few of them in the info boxes? Dismas

Overview problems
Some blame it for accelerating a trend towards special-effects-driven movies targeted at teenagers. Others claim that the trend is a natural consequence of economic and technological forces in the film industry.

These claims really ought to have quotes to back them up.

This movie has gained the strange distinction of being the oldest movie with digital effects in the history of cinema:

This statement is just plain wrong. Adding digital effects to an old film does not retractively make it the first of its kind. The version of Star Wars with digital effects is only 8 years old. That's hardly the oldest film with digital effects.

Re-releases
"It was released on 25 May, 1977, and was re-released, sometimes with significant changes, in 1979, 1981, 1982, 1997, 2000, and 2004"

'79, '81 and '82 were obviously normal unchanged re-releases (except for the addition of the 'Episode IV - A New Hope' legend). 1997 was the SEs. 2004 was the DVD release. So, where does 2000 come in? BillyH 00:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been several months since I asked this, so, unless anyone knows the answer, I'm going to remove the '2000' tomorrow. BillyH 12:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The 2000 version was just a VHS-reissue of the 97' SE's, except Lucasfilm had created covers to match the VHS releases of the prequels. Sadly, of course, now they refuse to complete the set they started and release the ep3 VHs, leaving an incomplete set, as far as VHS goes. The Wookieepedian 12:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I've altered the text to clarify that the 2000 and 2004 ones weren't theatrical reissues. BillyH 12:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

naming
I always had that doubt. When the original movie was released did it had the rollling credits: episode IV on the beggining?


 * Though I don't remember whether it was shown in the original rolling credits, but I remember the first movie was known to be episode IV all along. I remember I asked the question over two decades ago "Where are I, II and III?" Kowloonese 22:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is discussed at the top of the page. It was just called Star Wars when it was first released, no-one thought there would be a sequel. JW 13:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one except Lucas... --Baylink 22:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And, FWIW, I would swear on a stack of bibles that the first-run print I first saw at the Charles Street 6 Cinemas in Boston (in 6-track sound, BTW, belieing the comment in the lede) had it, specifically because I remember saying "Episode *4*? WTF?" Well, ok, I was thinking "hell"; I was only 13, but ... --Baylink 22:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

According to official sources, Star Wars: A New Hope first beared the Episode IV banner during its rerelease on April 10, 1981.

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

Cleanup Work
I have noticed that there is a clear difference in presentation and order between the Episodes IV and VI articles, and the articles of the other films. I, myself think that all six should have the information contained in their articles, organized in the same way. Although Episode Iv was a landmark movie, the sections on its inspiration, i feel need to be moved to the trivia section. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Also, I feel that the image for Episodes IV-Vi should be restored to their original theatrical posters.


 * I see the reason for adding the old poster, by why remove the new one from the top? It lends consistency across all six articles, which was your intended purpose of edits.  --rob 22:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would indeed give consistency to all articles. But, the theatrical posters, as you understand, represent their original release and are consistant in that they are all the original theatrical posters from each movie. I like your point, though. Perhaps we could put both images near the tops of each star wars film artcile, the theatrical poster and the DVD cover. We could put a caption as to what each is. What do you think?
 * I think having two posters is ok, but it would be a mistake to put two big ones up top. Even the current version, is better than that.  I suggest the "new" poster is part of the "identification" of the film, and needs to be with the "info" box (on top).  The "original" poster, is really a historical extra piece of information, for serious fans really interested in getting details.  The fans, will happily scroll down to see the "old" historical poster.  But, anyhow, it's hard for me to form an opinion on something, without seeing it.  --rob 23:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK. I'm a huge fan myself, and I think this would probably please die-hard fans, while giving a consistant look to all the film articles.


 * The screenshots must be from the 2004 DVD release of the film, not the original or 1997 theatrical releases. The screenshot with the caption "Luke is instructed by Obi-Wan Kenobi", is from the 1997 theatrical release. --Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 06:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are becuase thoise are the best quality versions of the films, and George's newest version as well. The Wookieepedian 06:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The 2004 DVD release of the original Star Wars trilogy also fits in with the prequel trilogy. Most of the 2004 DVD changes have to do with the prequel trilogy. Therefore, it is the canonical version of the trilogy.  The plot summary is based upon the 1997 theatrical release.  Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 05:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

To Copperchair:
Please note that when everyone is reverting you except yourself, there is a consensus, but it is against you. Keep this in mind. — Phil Welch 03:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


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

I agree with The Wookieepedian about the main cast and the "supporting roles". This is about order, not about who people think is important and who's not. We need an objective parameter, not a subjective one. Copperchair 07:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So, democracy is out because you don't agree with what we think is correct? Let me explain something - there is a supermajority against you. If you don't like not getting your way, you can try somewhere else, because no one is going to use "because we're right and they're wrong" as an argument to, for no reason, decide that you are right and we are wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Its not about right and wrong, it is about ORDER! Copperchair 08:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, climb down from your soapbox. Democracy = order. Having things run by those who do things as they believe to be correct isn't order. The process that you treat as the incarnation of Satan is democracy, and thusly, we have order. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We need something that is based on the official credits. We have all agreed to not list the complete credits, that is out of the way. Since in ANH, the credits before the supporting cast are deemed "the main cast," we should list them and only them, becuase that is the only way to settle this based solely on the movie. A supermajority deciding who is and isn't important in star wars doesn't seem as relevant as who George Lucas and the ones actually creating the credits decided who were most important and should be listed first. The Wookieepedian 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If George Lucas made an account here and told us to not list Wedge, I'd tell him to go shove it. You see, Adam, there's a fun little process many articles go through - a democratic vote on various subjects. And as you have already noticed, there HAS been a democratic vote on the issue, and you lost. It's just that simple. No matter how hard you argue, you won't get your way. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, I agree with The Wookieepedian. Copperchair 05:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So, you're agreeing that order is bad? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I am saying exactly the contrary. Copperchair 12:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So, you've finally realized that the vote was legitimate, and that democracy is order? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the credits in the order they appear in the movies is order. Copperchair 08:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The movie seems to better settle this debate than you guys are. The credits are listed in order. There is a main cast section. Hmmm... since you decided that the main cast section should be in the article, how about actually putting it in the order that section does like Copperchair suggests? It seems strange to me that a group of people on wikipedia can decide who is and isn't important better than the creators of the actual movie in question. The Wookieepedian 09:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To translate, you're saying that we should devoid ourselves of opinions and just say yes to any stupid idea you make. Let me explain something. You want it to be set up so no matter how many people wanted it one way, it could be made the other way just because you want it to be that way. That's what we like to call "being a whiny little brat". And what WE did is give you a fair fight and vote on it to see what Wikipedians want. You lose, and continue to force your opinion on others. That's what we like to call "being a sore loser". Are you making an effort to excel in both categories? Let me just explain that the universe doesn't revolve around you, you're no God, yadda yadda yadda. Copperchair, I suggest you cease vandalizing the articles, as there has been a clear and very obvious decision that makes your edits damaging to the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Do I make an effort to excel in both categories? By your definition, yes. The Wookieepedian 10:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not my definition, everyone's. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

POV on Inspirations.
It seems to me that all listed inspirations for the movie violates the POV policy. Each section is based mostly on interpretation and opinion. There are sections like this in the TPM nad main star wars page as well. The Wookieepedian 10:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For the most part they're NPOV—it's an accurate statement of fact for the most part to say that critics have seen parallels between these movies, and that George Lucas used them as inspiration. — Phil Welch 17:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Intro
I and two other people added the original title to the intro, and were reverted a total of 4 times now. So I guess it's time to take it to the talk. Here's my position: To cut it short, the original title needs to be in the intro, and the abbreviation should be moved to the "Trivia" section. Zocky 19:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Its obvious that a film's original title belong in the intro, especially if the film was a huge success under that title, like Star Wars was. To anyone over 33 or 34 that practically is the name of that movie.
 * 2) No one but people hanging out on Star War fandom sites associates the abbreviation ANH with "A New Hope", and a very small percentage of the film's fans (i.e. people who have seen and liked it) has ever used or seen the abbreviation. It's pure trivia.


 * As you probably know, the title "Star Wars" was implemented by the studios out of fear that the audience would be confused by the "Episode IV" title, which was what Lucas originally intended it to be. "Star Wars" is not its true title. I tell you what. We can remove both title notes. People need to know that this is Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. The studio title of "Star Wars" can be left in the "overview" section as it is, and the "ANH" abbreviation can be moved down to trivia. Fair compromise if you ask me. The Wookieepedian 19:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that we have an agreement on the point that abreviations are trivia and should be moved there. However, since we're not haggling, but trying to establish what names the intro should contain i.e. by which names the movie is identified, I can not accede the other point. In fact, according to at least IMDB, the title of the film is "Star Wars" and it is only also known as "A New Hope", while the New York Times biography of George Lucas repeatedly calls the movie "Star Wars" without ever mentioning "A New Hope" . As I see it, sources suggest that "Star Wars" is the name that this movie is best known under, which according to Wikipedia's naming conventions means that the name should be mentioned in the first sentence, and possibly even used in the body of the article as the name of the movie. Zocky 20:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Those sources call it that because of its original studio-forced title. As you know, people tend to resist change. The name of the movie is Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Regardless of the fact that someone may call it something else, that is not its title. If we want to be technical about it, it was only known as that until 1981, when the opening crawl was officially changed. The original title has been clearly noted in the overview section, as I said. Mentioning the "Star Wars" title in the opening will only further encourage people to call it an incorrect tile. It's like with Episode V. Although many people may know of it and call it "The Empire Strikes Back," its official title has always been Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Later on in the article, we note that many call it the incorrect title, due to initial marketing strategies. As an encyclopedia, we educate people, not continue using and teaching them the incorrect terminology. The Wookieepedian 21:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just chiming in with my support for the original title in the intro. The film is widely known as "Star Wars", and we should indicate the obvious reasons very early in the article. As for the concern that we "encourage people to call it an incorrect tile", I note that the movie poster gracing the article doesn't say "Episode IV: A New Hope" anywhere on it. Staecker 21:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is because it is the original theatrical poster. What do you expect? This film is the fourth part of a six part series. Promoting the title "Star Wars" is promoting a prototype title. It is no longer called that. We must accept that and move on. Why on earth anyone would choose to call it such an all-encompassing title is beyond me. Take for example Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings. What if I chose to call it The Lord of the Rings? Is that a logical title? No. How about The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the witch and the wordrobe. There are people referring to it as The Chronicles of Narnia, when that's not even its title. Does that widely-used title make sense? No. How about we call Dr. No "James Bond," and call the rest of the Bond films by their individual tiles? I don't think so.


 * I say again: The name of this film is, and always will be Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, just as its predecessor is and always will be called Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. The Wookieepedian 22:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That reasoning is way beyond the scope of Wikipedia. We're here to describe things as they exist, not to come up with ways to improve them. Zocky 22:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What? Check the opening crawl of the film... and the DVD cover... and the official Star Wars site. Those are just about the best sources in existence. The Wookieepedian 22:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that "A New Hope" isn't one of the names of the movie. That's an easily demonstrated fact. We're only claiming that "Star Wars" is one of the names of the film; in fact, it's the original title of the movie as it was released and it's the most commonly used one. Try to imagine this on another article, like Myanmar. That country is obviously now called Myanmar, but since Burma is the traditional and arguably still the most common name, we provide it right at the beginning of the article. We do the same for Burkina Faso, sulfur, Sankt Petersburg, etc. There's no reason not to do it here. Zocky 22:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that just because some wish to call it by a certain name, that does not mean it is notable. Lucas, the artist, intends it to be Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Now THAT is notable. The Wookieepedian 22:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is getting to be a rather long-winding debate about a minor editorial issue. Neither of your arguments ("that's its only proper name", "we should educate our readers by not showing them common name for things in intros", "Lucas wants it to be called that") is strong enough to warrant deviating from common usage and Wikipedia conventions.
 * Four users so far expressed their preference for the original title being included in the intro, and only you have objected. I will go return that information into the article. Please let somebody else remove it this time if they find it redundant. Zocky 00:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Count me as #5. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dammit! A fellow fan against me now. We're doomed! ;) The Wookieepedian 05:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There'll be no escape for the Wookiepedian this time! --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Another time perhaps... Traditional names should never be specifically used to discuss something in any case, if it already has a proper and well-defined name. Encylopedias aren't collections of colloquial. It is similar to if Wikipedia policy allowed the use of slang language in articles. The Wookieepedian 02:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me just chime in and say that I strongly agree that it should be mentioned in the intro that the movie was originally titled simply "Star Wars". Coffee 18:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I can agree with the current formatting. As long as "Star Wars" is not in bold, I'll accept it. The Wookieepedian 21:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Question - The is something about "posters in the cockpit of the Tantive" in the errors section... when do we see the cockpit? This might need to be removed.

"Han shot first" is relevant to what?

Lightsaber colour
When Obi-Wan gives Luke Anakin's lightsaber, at first it is blue, then it's green, then it's white, then it's blue again. This might be an intentional part of the film, or maybe George Lucas just messed up. User: Mil Falcon


 * That was simply a mistake made in the transfer of the DVDs. It happened because of the rush they were under to complete them. The color is meant to be blue (like it was in Episode III), but didn't come out that way becuase they didn't catch this when color correcting the scenes. It was strange because in some places, they atte,mpted to fix the lightsaber colors (like the Obi-WanVader duel), at others, it remained the same as the original release (early scenes on the falcon), and once it even went green (one shot on the falcon). But, I'm sure they'll correct this for the 2007 "archival" editions. The Wookieepedian 22:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Backstory
I've dropped the backstory section, as it was nothing but EU material that, while it may be considered canonical by some fans, is not referenced in the film at all. This is an article on THE FILM, not EU material, most of which would not be of interest to the common viewer, and for those who ARE interested, those items have their own articles. --TheRealFennShysa 23:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank Goodness, Fenn, these were my thoughts exactly. Cheers to you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.80.22.143 (talk • contribs)


 * As I said in the ROTJ talk page, I feel it is useful background information for anyone, and plan to restore the section with references as anon requested. The Wookieepedian 00:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you keep the EU where it belongs? This is an article about THE MOVIE, and you want it to start with a paragraph about things that happened in Video Games? That's an extremely poor editorial choice. But then Wookiepedia is very poorly edited, so your screename explains it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.80.22.143 (talk • contribs)


 * Excuse me? Events in the novels, comics, and video games are considered canonical by Lucasfilm Ltd., and thus, part of the story. This is not Star Trek. And why don't you actually LOOK at Wookieepedia before you go making blanket statements like that. That site has only been in operation for a year, and you can not expect it, nor ANYTHING, to be perfect. That would be like me finding random vandalism on this wiki and stating that this wiki is poorly edited. --The Wookieepedian 00:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "Licensed" and "Cannon" (just as there is between "good" and "poor" editorial judgement) and I would sure like to see some evidence of your claim about Lucasfilm blessing everything. In any case - someday when Lucas or his heirs make Episode VII, and invalidate all that Post-ROTJ material, you will understand the distinction. And by the way - The Star Trek Wiki is far superior to Wookieepedia, because it is 1) Well Written 2) Extensively Linked and Referenced, with "EU" Material clearly marked. and 3) Pointless arguments like this with self-proclaimed know-it-all moderators like you do not occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.80.22.143 (talk • contribs)


 * Please see the Star Wars Canon article. Only Infinities crap or inconsistent material are non-canon. I might as well point you to No Personal Attacks, too. If Wookieepedia is so crappy, why does it receive such nice reviews and honors such as being a featured Wikicity? --maru  (talk)  contribs 01:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - Here is what the Article says:

In July of 2001, George Lucas gave his opinion on the matter of what is canon in Star Wars during an interview with Cinescape Magazine.

"There are two worlds here," explained Lucas. "There’s my world, which is the movies, and there’s this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe – the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don’t intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don’t get too involved in the parallel universe." Further, in an August 2005 interview in Starlog Magazine, Lucas had the following to say:

STARLOG: "The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse. Do you ever find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the novels, comics, and other offshoots?" LUCAS: "I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions."


 * Uhuh. And the copyright holding company, which by Wikipedia definitions, defines canon, says this:


 * "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelizations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history &mdash; with many off-shoots, variations and tangents &mdash; like any other well-developed mythology."
 * --maru  (talk)  contribs 02:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read that, and may I point out, this is only talking about the various adaptations of the films (Screenplays/radio dramas/novelizations) explicitly, and merely says "the rest are written by other writers", so you can take that as either vague dismissal or confirmation as you like. But when it comes down to it, these are lawyers words, not Lucas's, and when talking about overall continuity in a licensing arrangement, it's not hard to surmise what is meant is that they ensure the next Post-ROTJ book does not contradict the last one. Anyway - I'll take George's word for it, and I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank about the EU stuff, and he will causually disregard it all someday with EP VII. :D


 * Gotta go with Wookieepedian here. I've watched and used (and written) many Wookieepedian articles since almost its inception, and they've gotten very good, very good indeed. Even on non-fictional aspects they are usually better than Wikipedia's articles.
 * Incidentally, FennShysa, how are viewers supposed to see "those items"' articles if they are not mentioned/linked? --maru  (talk)  contribs 01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * DO NOT add this material back into the article. It is not necessary information to watch the film, it DID NOT EXIST prior to the film's creation, and it was NEVER part part of the film. If you must add info, add links to the various pieces you want to reference in a "See Also" section - but non-film material has NO PLACE in a section about the actual STORY presented in the film. TheRealFennShysa 01:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Add me to the camp that thinks we should keep the Expanded Universe stuff out of the main articles for the actual films themselves, especially in the case of the original trilogy. All that EU stuff was retconned to fit existing stories, and didn't exist before or enter into the creation of the films. It's not fancruft, since it was licensed material, but it's definitely not part of the films themselves, and shouldn't be incorporated into the story section as if it were. MikeWazowski 03:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fenn pointed out earlier that some readers may not be interested in the EU. That is irrelevant. If we catered to "uninterested" people, this would not be an encyclopedia. My point is, if someone isn't interested in that section, then they can simply skip over it as they may another section they are uninterested in. For some, they may find the EU interesting. For others, they may become interested in its content. And for others, they may not care and wish to skip over it. This whole canon debate is pointless. We are not going by what any individual considers canon. We are going by what Lucas Licensing considers canon. The Wookieepedian 10:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, here's your answer, direct from Lucasfilm: "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelizations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers." Or this one, also from Lucasfilm: "When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves — and only the films." The EU material had no bearing on the creation of the actual film istelf - it was extrapolated later from events and references in the film, but was NOT part of the film itself. An encyclopedic article on the film itself would be careless and remiss in including later material written by other authors as factual information as presented in the film. TheRealFennShysa 15:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. As you say "it was extrapolated later from events and references in the film." That's pretty much my argument for its inclusion. It is considered the official backstory, and is notable for that reason. The Wookieepedian 15:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If that's your argument, then your argument is flawed, as you are contrdicting yourself. It was NOT considered official backstory when the film was made, and these days, it's "official until George changes his mind." But you're trying to present it as FACT from the film - it's not. It did not exist when the film was made, and has no bearing on the film. Put it in a "see also" section if you have to, but it has no place in the main article itself. Absolutely none. TheRealFennShysa 15:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Deal. The Wookieepedian 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

501st
The 501st is a fan creation, only given recognition by Lucasfilm in the Expanded Universe within the last few years. Not all stormtroopers are 501st, either - there's nothing official that places them in Episode IV, including the official site, which describes their only movie appearance as occuring in Revenge of the Sith. Even the EU section on the official site doesn't specifically place them on the opening assault in this film. Unless you can provide a published reference placing them in the film, we should keep the more generic description. I'm starting to see too much EU stuff creeping into the actual Star Wars film articles lately, and it concerns me... MikeWazowski 14:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We must go by the canon levels. For instance, the film never reveals the name of Luke's planet. But we knew it was Tatooine in 1977, as the film's screenplay, novelization, and other official sources named it for us. With the stormtroopers at the beginning, the film does not identify the name of the group, however, Star Wars: Battlefront II reveals that the group of troopers with Vader at the beginning are indeed the 501st. Therefore we are allowed to name them in the article. The Wookieepedian 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Sci Fi Channel first broadcast
Since this the very first broadcast of the Sci Fi Channel back in 1992, I think this would be rather very noteworthy to either articles should this be mentioned and detailed. DrWho42 04:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? It wasn't the first time it'd ever been shown on television, nor the last. It's just another airing, as far as the film is concerned. MikeWazowski 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be very helpful for historical information concerning the channel article itself, seeing as it was the first thing they aired to celebrate its premiere. DrWho42 05:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a radio show from 1997 talking about the special editions as well as the SciFi Channel broadcast with Ray Cannella speaking therein. DrWho42 08:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This information belongs in the Sci Fi Channel article. The sentence is seen like this "star wars WAS THE SCI FI CHANNEL'S FIRST BROADCASTED PROGRAM" you'll see that the subject has more to do with the Sci Fi network than the film. The Filmaker 00:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

reactions to the corpses
im just abit curius about how people reacted to the fried remains outside homestead

This is next
Oh my god! Where do I start! :) The Filmaker 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not in the worst of shapes, but you've got quite a bit of work ahead. I'm holding out for when you get to Empire, give me a buzz when you do, because you guys have done a sterling job on the prequels, and Empire is my #1 film of all time! ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be more than willing to help copyedit it once you guys manage to get a good version together. &mdash; Deckill e r 05:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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


 * The old ones look much better, and most of the article is on the old releases after all... Judgesurreal777 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Yah, here it is: ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any problems with that one, let me know, and I'll get a new one. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, it's shots like the one that's up there at the moment that make me want to slap around people who hate the SEs. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 09:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit
Just let me know when you want me to start copyediting. &mdash; Deckill e r 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Bold text

Love the new image!

 * ) Judgesurreal777 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)