Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 4

Congratulations people of the past!
I come from the future!, and I would like to congratulate you past dwellers on your meticulous record keeping regarding this pinnacle of human creative achievement. Thanks to your extensive detailing of this meaningful yet entertaining laser fight, we here in the future were able to use this information, and much more like it, to create a utopia of continuous entertainment for our citizens. Due to your foresight and understanding of the world, you were able to forgo work on unimportant, primitive ideas and events of the past and instead contribute to something that will surely benefit mankind for centuries to come. I dare not think of what would have become of our glorious future fun dome had you whittled your meagre lives away with other more frivolous endeavors.

You have our deepest thanks, inferior past humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.122.3 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No screenshots?
This is ridiculous. A high profile film article without a single screenshot? I imagine that some fair use hounds came and just removed them all. Surely a couple can be used though.--SeizureDog (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's some crappy pic of the underground farm, where's the ICONIC images like the Star Destroyer flying overhead or Luke turning on the lightsabre for the first time??

Are you serious? Lucas would sue. He's a paranoid millionaire, not a philanthropist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of Categories Removed
A bunch of categories were removed by an anon IP editor. Anyone know if that removal was appropriate? Dp76764 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Triumph Of The Will Reference
I would like the following text to be included in the article, in the 'Cinematic and literary allusions' section...

"One of the most controversial sources in Star Wars is the infamous Nazi propaganda movie 'Triumph of the Will', by Leni Reifenstahl, which glamorizes Hitler's triumphant arrival at the 1934 Nuremburg Rallies. It is the primary source for the final scene in which Hans, Luke and Chewbacca walk through a hall of assembled rebel soldiers to receive their medals, there is a striking, undeniable similarity to Hitler’s arrival at the Nuremberg Stadium in Triumph of The Will. However, there is no reason to suppose Lucas was attempting to promote Nazi ideology, it would seem he merely replicated a very powerful image from what is widely regarded as a brilliant, if very misguided, film."

This is not a hysterical claim, it is verifiable and deserves to be included. Triumph of The Will, while it was a Nazi Propaganda film, was a massively influential and brilliant piece of cinematography and there is no doubt that Lucas took the imagery of the Nurenberg film and copied it almost completely. There is a Wiki page on 'Triumph of The Will', take a look and you will see the Star Wars/Triumph of the Will reference confirmed there. There are loads of other comfirmations of the link. It is a verifiable fact and therefore is appropriate.

Please respond because i feel this is a perfectly valid and provable fact which I wish to see included in this article and it already has been repeatedly removed, (I don't know by who). Go to link below to check photos showing similarity

http://alum.hampshire.edu/~jbfF95/swtotw.htm

Thanks Kenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.8.161.226 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The confusing thing is, Kenny, that this was in the article, along with a side by side image of triumph of the will back when this article as featured, and I do not know why both were removed. You need to copyedit the text you added, that last sentence has no references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What I see here are two pictures of orderly crowds in large spaces. Yes there is some similarity, but it is a huge stretch to connect the two up in an encyclopedia without reliable sources, which I don't think I see here, to back up what is likely to be a highly controversial claim. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

LOTR + Star Wars???
If this is supposed to be a 'brilliant' rated article then the highly tenuous claim that LOTR influenced Star Wars (SW) should be taken down. If I wished I could drum up equally convincing arguments about SW was influenced by The Bible or SW and The Roman Empire, but they wouldn't be true.

The author claims that Gandalf fighting the Balrog was the inspiration for Obi-Wan fighting Darth Vader, while Frodo/Skywalker looked-on. Plus, the article attempts to 'prove' this by pointing out that Gandalf and OBI both had blue weapons and Balrog and Darth had Red weapons.

Hmm...

Have you ever heard of reverse engineering? It is where you start with a conclusion then work backwards, cherry-picking things to prove your conclusion. It is EXACTLY what the author of the SW/LOTR section did. They wanted the link to be true and searched for evidence to prove it. Unfortunately, that 'evidence' is laughable and has no concrete reference to back it up. (quoting another fanzine website that explores this silly idea is NOT a reference).

Reverse Engineering is a piece of cake, watch, I will now 'prove' 10 things that show Gandalf was the inspiration for Obi-Wan...

1) Gandalf and Obi are both old guys with grey beards

2) Gandalf and Obi both wear scruffy monkish robes and are very wise

3) Gandalf and Obi are both warm, lovable and spiritual, but hard as nails in a fight

4) They are both keepers of secret arcane knowledge

5) They are both members of a quasi-religious secret order.

6) They both lead a small party of desperadoes in a perilous quest against Evil.

7) They both die in the attempt of their quest, but come back after death

8) They are both very humane, tolerant, incorruptable, unflappable liberals who never panic or get scared and they are both rock-solid Father figures for their young inexperienced heroes.

9) Both face grave, continous temptation from evil but remain good (the ring/the dark side) and both must defeat enemies who have fallen to that evil temptation (Sauron/Darth)

10) Gandalf's staff is Obi's light-sabre and they both are only available to members of their Order.

There, not bad, even if I say so myself! And I could give you ten more just as easily. Reverse Engineering is SIMPLE and the end result is convincing if you don't look too carefully. Here's another 'loony-tune' example from the article...

"Darth Vader resembles the Witch-king of Angmar in that both are the chief servants of a higher evil power and dress in black."

This is just something picked out of the air! My theories are more convincing and I'm only mucking about!!! A LOTR /SW link is obviously the untested theory of a young, over-imaginative SF/Fantasy fan. No offense, but Wiki is not the site for such THC-fuelled inspiration.

Basically, both LOTR and SW are modern examples of medieval Eurpoean mythology and both are stories of monsters and magic and strange lands where reluctant heroes must face terrible dangers etc etc. Of course you can find similarities if you look, because they are both rooted in King Arthur, The Crusades, Beowulf, Robin Hood, Legends, Myths, Bible stories and so on.

There is no link. It spoils an otherwise solid article. Come on! ... Remove it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.10.13 (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Only if you can prove it is not a reliable source, it is not up to us to agree or disagree with article components and remove them if we dont like them .Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are asking for proof of a negative. The burden of proof is on the person adding the information, that is they must prove they got said information from a reliable source, and, as explained below, that does not seem to be the case here. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is backed by reliable sources, and has been backed by different but concurring reliable sources in the past. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
After fishing the only reference for the alleged LotR inspiration out of the Internet Archive, I'm under the impression, that this is (or was) a self-published source, not written by a notable journalistic figure and hence fails our criteria for reliable sources. Given that, the respective paragraph in the "Cinematic and literary allusions" section may be removed per our verifiability guidelines. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of films
I am very well aware that the films in the "preceded by" and "followed by" are listed in terms of internal chronology, but many other film series are listed in the order they were made. And I sure as heck know that "Revenge of the Sith" was not made before "A New Hope." Now I understand why people feel these films should be listed in order of events within them, but that's not how other films do it in Wikipedia, is it? Maybe we should stay true to the fact that Lucas filmed the latter half of the saga first? Immblueversion 01:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what is the Wikipedia policy on film series order? "In-Universe" or "Real World" order? Dp76764 (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Production order is the standard. But in my opinion, using the production order in the inforboxes, combined with the episode numbers, would only serve to confuse readers. Maybe only the subtitles of each film should be used in the infoboxes. The Wookieepedian (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just looking through some of the series listed under Prequel, most of them have production order in the infoboxes. Subtitles might be a good compromise; less number confusion (do people even know Roman Numerals these days anyway?).  Then again, who doesn't know that 4-6 were made first and 1-3 most recently? Dp76764 (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They should be in in Star Wars canon order, so "In-Universe." Episode VI is NOT preceded by Episode I, it does not make sense. The prequel trilogy should be followed by the original. --// A Raider Like Indiana 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the in-universe chronology of the story, it's an established and incontrovertible fact that the prequels were made *after* the original trilogy - thus, Episode VI *was*, in fact, followed by Episode I. I'm in favor of Real World order. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The real-world policy will make extreme controversy over these article. Its confusing, I have been a Star Wars fan for 12 years now and due to my advanced knowledge of the saga, I dont appreciate it. The movie order in the template has been the same for 4 years, we should keep it the same. // A Raider Like Indiana 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Advanced knowledge of the saga? A Fan for 12 years? You don't appreciate it? Thanks for making me laugh... Seriously, though, this isn't your personal page, y'know - right now, the consensus seems to indicate real-world order - I'd suggest you actually TRY and work with other editors instead of trying to own these articles... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Im not here to fight. And please, dont talk back. Dont revert unless we come up with a solution. Keep these articles the smae, I dont own them . I have been a contributor on Wikipedia since 2004, I know the policies. I dont wish to fight. // A Raider Like Indiana 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I could ask you the same - do not revert until a solution is reached. Surely you've noticed that several editors keep reverting back to a real-world chronology - that should clue you in to the consensus. If you can't do what you want to command others to do, you shouldn't be editing this in the first place. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to the way it was, the way it should be. Im done talking about this // A Raider Like Indiana 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "the way it should be" is your opinion. Unless you can reference an official Wikipedia policy that backs your opinion up, it should stay in chronological order until a consensus has been established.  Which will be difficult if you refuse to discuss it rationally. Dp76764 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One more point - by ARaiderLikeIndiana's reasoning, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom should be listed as preceeding Raiders of the Lost Ark, since TOD was actually a prequel - but of course, that's not how the Indy films are listed; they're listed in production order - and that sets a precedent which this series of films should also follow. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was certainly a nifty bit of irony, hehe. I think The Wookieepedian made a good suggestion: change the infobox links to only use the subtitles, ie: A New Hope instead of Star Wars Episode IV : A New Hope  That would remove any confusion in regards to episode numbers and not require any 'advanced knowledge' of the series.  Dp76764 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesnt require knowledge of Star Wars. But if we can do it in In-Universe and place only the subtitle of the episode without the episode number, that is fine with me. However, keep the article title and title of the infobox the same. // A Raider Like Indiana 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to see an example of another series that is using 'in-universe'. Every other series (Indiana Jones, The Godfather, Aliens, Silence of the Lambs, etc) I've looked at has used production order. So that seems pretty clear as the standard to follow. Dp76764 (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles are not meant to be the same. // A Raider Like Indiana 23:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that there are no standards, templates or policies on Wikipedia? If every other set of articles about movie series follows a pattern, shouldn't that pattern apply to this one too? Dp76764 (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is pretty cut and dried. Episode IV came out first. Episode III came out last. I think we can all agree on that. So how did Sith precede New Hope? It didn't, it just didn't, because we are dealing with real world facts here and the facts say, quite clearly that Episode IV is the first movie in the franchise. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to just gently remind some of you that some of us here are old enough to have seen A New Hope in the theatre when it originally came out in 1977, so it may not get you too far to take on an unwarranted air of expertise and experience on the subject. Also, a quick read of what consensus is might be a good idea. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Summary so far: 5 people recommend staying with a real world chronological order and 1 person recommends an 'in-universe' order. Dp76764 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Production order seems more logical for films in an encyclopedia.Urzatron (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Those who want a "real-world" order are in denial that Lucas has made it crystal clear he wants them in a specific order, and no matter how much many of you want to believe the original trilogy belongs first, it does not sadly. Lucas made it clear he wants people to view them in their correct chronology, he merely started with Episode IV because he thought the series would be a flop and wanted to start with action. His entire purpose for numbering them has been because he wants his story accepted for its true chronology, and outside viewers have no right to try to override his wishes. The movies belong in their true chronological order, I-VI. Do we place the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe before the Magician's Nephew today? No, because Lewis made it clear he wanted TMN to be first. The same goes for this, and as I said no one else but the creators should have any say in changing the way the films are viewed chronologically. 12.227.159.219 (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, George Lucas does NOT run Wikipedia. Please respect the decisions of consensus. Dp76764 (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's Lucas' work, and he clearly states he wants the films in numbered episodes according to the story he crafted. No "consensus" or even WP itself has the right to change the chronology of his story. That is vandalism. It is also more of the denial that the original trilogy comes second. The creator's wishes come before any fan's wishes in a case like this, and you are insulting Lucas by not honoring his wish for the films to be viewed as they are numbered. They are "his" films, and they are "his" stories, not the "consensus'" stories. Hence, he numbered them the way he intends them to be viewed, and that is how they need to stay as per his wishes. 12.227.159.219 (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can say is please read this page, and step back from the brink. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is no matter what any "page" says, it is Lucas' property, and he wants it viewed a certain way. By not respecting his wishes, you are insulting his work and his authority over his own property. It is you that needs to "step back from the brink" and respect the wishes of the Star Wars creator, because they are not your films nor your stories. If Lucas didn't care what order they went in, he would never have numbered them, which he made it a point to do. So you need to respect his wishes in this case. 12.227.159.219 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What you're not understanding is that the chronology in the infobox is based on production order, not episode number. No one is renumbering the episodes - what we are listing is the absolute fact that these films were made in a certain order, no matter what order Lucas wants them viewed in. And since Lucas isn't (and won't) weigh in here, consensus rules, and consensus is against you. I think I and others will treat any such reversions from you as vandalism, and will be dealt with in that fashion. Thanks for playing, and have a day. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand that the infobox doesn't tell people in what order to see the movies. Do you understand? Urzatron (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What you're not understanding is that "production order" is "incorrect" as far as continuity goes. You're telling me that Anakin died before he was even born? You're telling me the Emperor was killed before the Empire even existed? No. That makes no sense, and Lucas gave the films numbers for very specific reasons, and that is how he wants them viewed. Not "in production order." Your "fact" is "fiction" as far as continuity goes, and in the series itself, they go in the order of I-VI. I think your revisions are "vandalism" and an act of great disrespect to Lucas, who has requested time and again that people stop going by "production order" and wise up to the fact that he gave the movies their numbers so they would be seen as such. So I will treat your revisions as vandalism by the same token, since yours are out of order. You are all not understanding that you are misinforming people who have never seen the films by trying to put them "in production order" rather than the "continuity order" Lucas himself set for new people to the series, and it needs to stop. They go in the order of their respective numbers, and no excuse any of you present is going to change that. If the films weren't meant to be in any particular order, Lucas wouldn't have revised Episode IV to have its number, as well as the subsequent movies. He did so because he wants people to know which order he, the creator, has deemed they go. And "nice try" to you, Mr. Monsters Inc. 12.227.159.219 (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is telling you in what order to watch the films, and no one is claiming the insane story convolutions or "disrespect" you've tried to foist on us. What that infobox is showing is the undeniable and uncontestable fact that these films were made in a certain order - 4,5,6,1,2,3. Lucas does not get to change history, as this is not his website or webpage, and neither is it yours. There are certain ways of doing things around here, which you as a relatively new editor (based on your edit count and non-understanding of simple rules, like 3RR) have yet to understand. The standard for all films this far on wikipedia in these types of series is for production order - I don't see you on a crusade to claim that Temple of Doom" should be placed as preceeding Raiders of the Lost Ark, even though chronologically, that is true. Consensus rules here, and the consensus is clearly for staying true to actual real world chronology, of which the facts are not in dispute. Your "over a decade" experience is neither here or there - and laughable to some of us who've been following Star Wars'' for over THREE decades. The infobox listings will STAY in chronological production order unless you can change consensus with established editors - and I don't see that happening anytime soon. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Episode 4 was labeled 'Episode 4' in the original release in 1977.  As far as Lucas 'requesting time and again that people stop going by production order', how about you cite a reference on that?  Dp76764 (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is you that "has no idea what you're talking about." No, it was not. If you will look at the Limited Edition DVD, the original release did not include a number, because Lucas expected the film to be a flop. "Episode IV: A New Hope" was later added by Lucas when he realized it was successful enough to continue on with his pre-written story, and at the conclusion of Episode VI, he promised fans that one day he would go back in time to tell the story of the first three Episodes and place them into the continuity as he had already written. And so get your facts straight and quit challenging peoples' knowledge about something even you don't know about. I have done extensive research on the Star Wars films for over a decade, so I will thank you to not insult my knowledge of the series due to ignorance on your part. 12.227.159.219 (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand that the info box isn't telling people in what order to see the movies. It's a production info box. Urzatron (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the box needs to be changed, because I don't see it saying "order of production" either. These films are meant to be viewed I-VI, not the other way around. I think it is all of you that are missing the point that this is misinforming viewers who don't know the Star Wars series yet, and I see nothing wrong with them being in their correct order. SithLord990205 (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the box is a standardized template. It might be true that such boxes should say "Production Information." This could be a really good idea. On the other hand, I would have to disagree that readers of Wikipedia are being confused by production info boxes about in which order to view the Star Wars movies. I would be very surprised if even one person on Earth were to say, "I didn't know which Star Wars movie to watch first, so I went to Wikipedia." Furthermore, suppose someone actually were confused about in which order to watch the Star Wars movies, and so that person watched Episode IV first. So what? I watched it first myself -- in the theater. When it came out. So I don't consider this a bona fide problem. I do like your suggestion about production info boxes maybe saying "Production information." Urzatron (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, because any John Doe out there that has never seen Star Wars before could look at this and think "Oh, I need to watch A New Hope before I watch the Phantom Menace." That is misinformation. Just because you, someone who has seen it, isn't confused doesn't mean that someone out there with no knowledge of the series isn't. I had a friend not too long ago that said they were confused because they'd heard the Phantom Menace came first but they thought A New Hope comes first. You are not thinking outside of people like yourself or myself. There is not a thing wrong with putting them in their correct order, and I see no reason why you are arguing for "production order" because that could misguide new viewers into watching IV before I. And you'd be very surprised how many people actually do come here to look up films because there are in actuality a lot of them, and this blatant misinformation needs to be corrected. You already have the production date in the box, that's more than enough for your "production order." The films need to be put in their correct, numbered order. Not to do so is a slap in the face to George Lucas and the actors that made these films. SithLord990205 (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree that normally there wouldn't be anything wrong with putting the films in in-universe order. However, there's definitely nothing wrong with putting cinematic production information in production order. So we're faced with two reasonable conclusions. Given two reasonable conclusions, I lean toward consensus. The production boxes use production order throughout Wikipedia. Urzatron (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to see a source that George Lucas feels he's been slapped in the face. Is there a source for that? Has George Lucas ever said, "I sure wish Wikipedia would put production box info for my movies in in-universe order"? Urzatron (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if they are in production order, that's perfectly fine. But you need to make it clearly stated that these are production order, not canonical order. As it is, it appears they are in canonical order, and that's not the case. I think that's the most reasaonable solution is to make it clearly known in the prodcution boxes that that's what it is, prodcution order and not canonical order. Or perhaps add another section of it for canonical order. There needs to be something to eliminate possible confusion. And as for you Urzatron, why don't you go ask Lucas himself, I'm sure he'd be more than willing to tell you, if you ever read his interviews, which I'm sure you've never once done. If you want to know, go look it up yourself. SithLord990205 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it then that you have no source for George Lucas feeling slapped in the face. Urzatron (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have plenty of sources in his own words, but I'm not going to go digging all of them back up just because you refuse to believe it. If you want to know something more about it, go look it up for yourself like I had to three years ago when he was discussing the future of the series and his wishes for the public to accept the prequels for their canonical placement before the original trilogy. If you want to know more about it, go look through his webchats in the months before and shortly following the release of Revenge of the Sith. SithLord990205 (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand. I think anyone in the world is aware that George Lucas numbered his prequel trilogy I, II and III and that he therefore wants us to understand that they take place in-universe before the films he numbered IV, V and VI. Anyone can grasp that. What I'm talking about is George Lucas somehow wanting no one in any encyclopedias to ever refer to his films in production order. Source? Urzatron (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

He wants the public to accept the films in the order he himself placed them in. He wants people to quit clinging to the idea that the original trilogy precludes the prequels, because he wants the story he wrote to be seen in an equal context. By placing the original trilogy first without making mention that it is merely the production order and not the canonical order can cause those less knowledgeable about the series to mistake it for that. Lucas has not said anything about production order, but he has stated he wants his series to be viewed equally, with Episodes I, II, and III coming before IV, V, and VI, because he knows there are many out there that refuse to place the prequels on the same playing field as the original trilogy. And as to a source, I have told you: go look through his webchats before the release of Revenge of the Sith and shortly thereafter. I remember him discussing his desire for the prequels to be taken in context of their true placement in the series, but as to the exact date I cannot say. I only know that it was within three months before or after the release of Revenge of the Sith, on the Hyperspace part of the Star Wars website, of which I was a member of at the time. SithLord990205 (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so when you say that "There are many out there that refuse to place the prequels on the same playing field as the original trilogy," are you trying to correct that? Urzatron (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, many refuse to even consider the prequels as being on the same level as the originals, and Lucas himself has tired of this. He wants people to view his series in its entirety as one complete story, I to VI. There are die-hards out there that refuse to honor his wishes though. And yes, the whole point is to place Lucas' films as he has stated he wants them. If you want them to remain in production order, that's perfectly fine, but you need to specify that in the info box itself, or maybe add another area in the info box that includes the canonical preceding and following movies. SithLord990205 (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for being honest. You may want to take a look at WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not the place to try to convince people that "the Star Wars prequel trilogy is on the same playing field as the original trilogy." I know that you just said that that's what you trying to do here, but Wikipedia isn't the place for this effort. We're not here to make people have particular opinions about certain movies being "on the same playing field" as other movies, whatever that might mean. We're here to provide encyclopedic information. For example, the fact that the original Star Wars film is numbered "IV," and the fact that it was the first film produced. Urzatron (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not about that at all, you're not understanding anything about it. This is not about what fans think of the movies, this is about eliminating confusion. I merely told you a fact about Star Wars fandom that has nothing to do with the matter at hand because you asked about it, so I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the point. I never once said that's the reason I'm objecting to the current placement of the films on here. There needs to be an additional box on the info box for the correct continuity of the movies or there needs to be something that denotes that this order you have it in right now is not the canonical order but rather the production order. This is not a Star Wars fan debate, this is about eliminating confusion for those not familiar with the series, so I'm afraid what you just said above is irrelevant to the matter at hand. SithLord990205 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're saying that there should be an additional box explaining the in-universe continuity. That's probably a good idea. Urzatron (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY!! I'm glad to see you're coming around to the idea. Doesn't that sound the most reasonable for everyone? And that way, newbies to the Star Wars universe won't be confused about the continuity of the saga, and the production order will be preserved. How could we go about doing that? SithLord990205 (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * m isn't that what you much vaunted episode numbers are for? As long as the episode number is in the article title, what is the problem exactly? Beeblbrox (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement of which episode comes before which is the problem. As it stands now, it appears that the article is suggesting that the events of Return of the Jedi occur before the events of the Phantom Menace. That's not correct. What I propose is that we add another area to the box for the canonical order of the films, which would place them in their correct order and yet still preserve the production order as well. That way though there won't be any confusion as to how the films go in order. Because like I said, despite the Episode number, I've had friends that still mistake Episode IV as being the first in continuity, and this is to eliminate confusion like that. SithLord990205 (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article makes no such claim or suggestion. The article makes it absolutely clear as to what order and placement the film has. ONLY the infobox lists the absolutely undeniable fact of what order the films were produced in. If the infobox was the ONLY place one could learn about continuity and film order, your argument might have merit - as it stands now, it does not. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With due respect to your friends, Sith, it concerns me that they could mistake a film subtitled Episode IV as coming before a film subtitled Episode I... ;-)   FWIW, I saw Star Wars at the movies before it ever became Episode IV and as much as I enjoy Lucas' grand vision I see no reason to depart from production order in the chronology; the episode number should be enough to establish the in-universe timeline. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While I might agree that it might be interesting to have some sort of in-universe chronology information, especially with the animated movie coming out this summer, I can't remotely agree that any person anywhere is confused by this entry. The movies have numbers on them. This entire "people are confused" line of reasoning doesn't hold up whatsoever. Urzatron (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

None of you get the point, but if you wish to blindly keep going with the way it is, go for it. And as much as you may want to deny it, there are people out there that don't even know there are numbers in the movies because they don't know much about the movies period. No matter how much you all may want to believe it's just fine the way it is, the article does suggest that the events of the movies are mixed around by saying that Episode VI "precedes" Episode I. It's a contradiction of the numbers in the title, which is why I'm saying it can be confusing for new viewers if you have Episode I saying it's preceded by Episode VI. Nothing any of you say is going to change that. I have suggested as a compromise to make it clear in the info box that this is the production order and not canonical order or adding a second area for the canonical order for the sake of clearing up any confusion that the current box implies, but if none of you are willing to negotiate on it or be reasonable, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince a lot of naysayers of the need for disambiguation because ten-to-one none of you would listen to reason anyway. SithLord990205 (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This was a massive painful debate (that I'm not going to even start reading because it seems so tedious, but what's wrong with putting down Episode III with a bracketed note (plot sequence) or (produced later) which allows both views to be expressed? Of course, if the wikipedia film infobox used the wikipedia music infoboxes' style of chronology boxes, there could just be two boxes (one for plot order and one for production order), which would be the best solution, but it doesn't. I agree that production takes precedence over plot, but it seems like there ought to be a way to express both. TheHYPO (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This debate has been added at WP:RFC

 * Let's try to get some more input on this subject, Do we use the in-universe chronology of the films, as some claim George Lucas intended, or do we use the real-world production order of the films? Beeblbrox (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Production order seems the most natural way to present the films in an encyclopedia. This isn't a fan site. --FF 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If "production order" is how you want it to remain, then you need to alter the box to make it clear that it's not the canonical order of the films, because that is misleading and false. Or you should add another section to the box for the canonical order of the films, which is the correct order.  SithLord990205 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * hold up the idea of the RfC listing is to get different opinions on this subject, not to re-hash the debate from above here all over again. Those of us already involved should wait for more outside opinions to come in before just carrying on the same argument again. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Real-World ~ as an outsider, having read all through this, i am having a hard time understanding the problem; WP is in the real world, is it not? We are about real facts, aren't we? 'cause if not i've got a lot of edits i need to go back to and revert what i did.  Clearly, production order is the fact of importance.  Just as clearly, the fact that the episodes are numbered shows the filmmaker's opinion of how to see them.  If that fact needs any further highlighting it belongs in a Trivia section:  "Though Lucas made the second trilogy first, he now intends them to be seen in episode order." Cheers, Lindsay 12:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at all the other talk on this page consensus (opinions of the majority) is that production order is standard. Perhaps a compromise could be reached by listing both? One column which specifically says "Production Order" and another that says "Recommended Viewing Order" (but, this would need a citation/reference to where Lucas recommends it). Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Real-World - My gut reaction to this argument was, "you're kidding, right?" Of course the sequential order should be based on the real-world production and release of the films.  The in-universe order is clearly and readily available in the info box at the bottom of the page, in line with every other similar multi-part franchise.  I find SithLord990205's argument to be exceedingly pedantic and patronizing, and somewhat insulting to my intelligence as a user of Wikipedia.  I don't need my hand held and have it explained to me in big bold letters that 1 comes before 4.  Common sense tells me that.   Take a step out of Lucas's universe and realize that this website is devoted to the presentation of information as it pertains to the reality we live in. Poechalkdust (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Outsider Ryan" says... Production Order. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear that consensus is for the real world, I would urge SithLord990205 to let it go. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I basically don't care. I love Star Wars and I like it the way its suppose to be. Episodes I-VI. // A Raider Like Indiana 08:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

critical
It must really be more about its financial success.....but it seems critical reception has been somewhat mixed, or at least the impression the article gives...99.242.25.121 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucas never refused to shoot the sequels
I fixed a loud mistake in the article : concerning Kenobi's death the article pretended that Lucas abandoned the idea of making the sequels. That's completely false, in fact the notes themselves proove the opposite of what the article pretended they had to proove! What Lucas did was preventing his movie from a flop, he conceived his 1977 movie as a single unique story, without talking about prequels or sequels, even if the film was a part and not a whole. The audiences hadn't to know the movie they were watching was an episode from a serial, so Kenobi's death is not related to any Lucas refusal of making the sequels but only to his vision of a lack of climax in a given moment of his movie (read Rolling Stone interview). So Lucas never refused to shoot the sequels, he even confirmed he wanted to shoot the last movie of the trilogy leaving the middle one to somebody else. In the same interview he said he had the idea to shoot Young Kenobi's adventures (the nowadays so called prequels). Just read the Rolling Stone interview (I included the link in the note), you'll see. 343KKT Kintaro (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not originally called "A New Hope"?
The article claims that the film was "originally released as Star Wars," sans the subtitle A New Hope. As mentioned in the Star Wars discussion page (as that article makes the same assertion), I'm questioning this claim because I've been unable to find any reliable sources that verify it. --James26 (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As mentioned on the other page, I've since found what probably amounts to credible verification (Amazon.com), but I'm uncertain as to whether or not that would be appropriate here, so I'm taking no action. --James26 (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey James, how old are you ? Didn't you see any of the old video tapes with the original 1977 opening ? I bought my first Star Wars VHS video tapes in 1990 (in Spain), from the CBS/Fox Video collection. Watching the first movie from those tapes we don't see any "episode IV" or "a new hope" subtitle, only the Star Wars logo starting with the sound track, and then the "roll up synopsis" ("it is a period of civil war" etc etc etc). I didn't understand why "Empire" and "Return" where subtitled as episodes V and VI !!! Of course I was a recent Star Wars fan and it didn't take a long time to me to learn the reason. Lucas included "episode IV, a new hope" in the 1978 (or 1979?) re-release, but it seems that this modified version indicating the number and the title of the episode wasn't included in any VHS tape until the 1997 special edition video tape release. So the problem is not to claim it or not, any Star Wars fan knows the story, the "problem" (if we can call this a problem...) consists in finding a source for this very well known information. There are official Lucasfilm books explaining those things very clearly, but I don't have any of them... Soon I'll try to consult some books in bookshops or libraries, it shouldn't take a while to find a reliable source... 343KKT Kintaro (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I remembered queueing around the block to watch Star Wars as a ten year old, but now I think about it I was wrong. I queued around the block to watch Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope. It was always called Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope. The image of the theatrical poster attached to this article has always shown Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope. We have always been at war with Eastasia.58.106.94.63 (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of the posters or merchandise of the time ever said "Episode IV" or "A New Hope," including that poster. Answers.com among others briefly summarizes the story behind the addition. As far as I know, Fox didn't want the "Episode IV" in the crawl because it would've been too confusing for audiences. Once "Empire" came out with "Episode V" in its own crawl and everyone kinda got the idea, Lucas was allowed to change "A New Hope" for the 1981 theatrical rerelease. Also, the unmodified version released on DVD a couple years includes the original crawl without the subtitle. That in itself doesn't really resolve the exact timeline or reasons behind the change, but it's there and I don't think it's really a matter of debate anymore. Km9000 (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did queue to see the original Star Wars. I was 18 at the time. None of the theatrical releases of the period had episode numbers attached, including Star Wars Return Of The Jedi. This image is from a collectors compendium that I purchased in 1983 (note the price!). The episode numbers were added for the TV and video releases. When Jedi was being shown in theatres, sans episode number, Star Wars Epoisode IV A New Hope was shown on TV and available for rental and purchase on videotape. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also confirmed. I bought a 3-vhs set of the "original" (pre-digitally remastered) series (which i can no longer find, much to my chagrin), and the first episode was simply "Star Wars".  Any person who watched the film between 1977 and the mid 80's (at least, I'm being a bit conservative here) would testify to that fact.  I'm actually surprised that this is being questioned, only 31 years after the release.  It's an interesting comment on historical accuracy, that something as *solid* as this could be questioned so soon after the event. :-) Johnmc (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

80 Days that Changed the world
The release of the Star Wars is among TIME's 80 Days that Changed the World. . I reckon this is important enough to add to the article. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statements
I have moved the statements lacking sources here until citations can be found. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Tagged since September 2008) The film was originally released as—and consequently often called—Star Wars, without Episode IV or the subtitle A New Hope.
 * (Tagged since August 2008) The final hailing of the heroes strongly echoes the similar moment in the 1952 film version of Richard Thorpe's Ivanhoe, starring Robert Taylor.

Do not assume that Luke's uncle and aunt are killed by sandtroopers
Regarding "Luke discovers that his home has been destroyed and his aunt and uncle killed by Imperial stormtroopers in search of the droids". Firstly, it was never shown in the movie that Luke's uncle and aunt are killed by stormtroopers, which additionally I think sandtroopers should be a more correct term. The article shouldn't just assume who killed Luke's uncle and aunt. A simple "Luke discovers that his home has been destroyed and his aunt and uncle killed" will have sufficed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.9.113 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Without a reliable source discussing this, it is mostly original research. It's plainly obvious from the dialogue and the plot who killed them.  DP 76764  (Talk) 05:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Unlike C-3PO, through the First Trilogy he is characteristically found without his subsequent partner C-3PO."
? ۝ ۞ ░ 02:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't get it either, but I believe it's trying to say that unlike 3PO, R2 is frequently seen without his counterpart. In other words, we often see R2 without 3PO. We rarely, if ever, see 3PO without R2. If that's the case, I think it could have been worded better. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

a
What is making the letter "a" appear at the bottom left of this article? Cirt (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Images
I think it's rather odd that this is a featured article (and has even been on the main page!) when it doesn't include any screenshots from the movie. If any article can satisfy the non-free use criteria of "substantially increasing the readers understanding of the subject" then it's this one. Cavie78 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When the article was initially promoted it did contain fair-use images that were screenshots of the film. But since then there has been this whole free-image bru-ha-ha. And now it seems as though they are not allowed. I personally think that this is just ridiculous. It sacrifices the professionalism, artistic demonstration, and just the common sense of the article. The Filmaker (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope → Star Wars (film) &mdash; Film was released as Star Wars, the episodes came much later. The film is commonly referred to only by its title, Star Wars. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the proposed title is that it's ambiguous. At the time the film was released, there was only one film named "Star Wars". Today, however, if someone tells me that they watched "Star Wars" it's not necessarily clear which of the movies they mean. At the time Episode 3 came out, if someone told me that they had seen "Star Wars" I would have immediately thought of the most recent one. Were the title unambiguous, I would happily support moving to the most common name. Here, however, some sort of disambiguation is going to have to be done anyway, and using the full title is a logical way to do it. It's a solution similar to the one used at Naming conventions (books), where Orlando: A Biography is explicitly preferred over Orlando (novel) and Orlando (book). Jafeluv (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Using the correct title is preferred over one with an uneeded disambiguation.  TJ   Spyke   23:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Star Wars is the correct title of the film; the additional subtitle was only added years later so its name could be consistent with other films in the franchise. In addition to being the correct release title "Star Wars" is also the common name that this movie is known by to the general public (which definitely meets WP:UCN criteria); While "Episode IV: A New Hope" is used frequently by fans, and indeed helps distinguishes from the other films, this subtitle is not widely known to the general public. As for the article title being confused with the franchise that is not likely to occur with the (film) tag at the end. If anything I think a person who is searching for the movie Star Wars and finds themselves at the franchise page could be very confused that the available redirect goes to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope a title that person is very likely unfamiliar with. Solid State Survivor (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OpposeWhile "Star Wars" was the original title, The new title is much clearer, as it illustrates the chapter's position in the series, and is the current title of the film. Keytar Shredder (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The proposed title is both the movie's original title and its common name.  —   AjaxSmack   22:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest moving to "Star Wars (1977 film)". It would clear up any confusion decisively, while still making it easy for unfamiliar readers to find the page. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As someone old enough (just!) to remember seeing Star Wars before all the episode stuff, I might be expected to take a traditional view and support renaming this article Star Wars (film). However, for the vast majority of its existence it's been known as Episode IV: A New Hope, and the symmetry with the other film/article names in the series appeals to me somewhat. I really don't see a big deal when Star Wars (film) currently redirects to this one. Another option would be making Star Wars redirect here and renaming the existing Star Wars article Star Wars (franchise), or "movie series" or some such, but perhaps that way madness lies... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, my opposition to this and the retitling of the other films is detailed on Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. The Filmaker (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while the film was originally titled simply "Star Wars" - it has not had that title for nearly thirty years now. This is the title of the film now, and provides the least confusion - the in-place redirects are fine as they are. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * support Move to "Star Wars (1977 film). This would match the intro sentence and give proper wieght to the name that was used for decades. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

boba fett
boba fett makes an apperance in this movie right? Yes he does when he they are on tatooine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.147.93 (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

boba fett is only in the deuxe release (well i forgot the name) he was not in the original movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.98.148 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mos Isley Cantina
Someone HELP! I need the name of the song being sung in the cantina when Luke meets Han, and does anyone know who is singing it?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.26.21 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Parodies
There are many parodies of "Star Wars", just like Spaceballs, (T)Raumschiff Surprise - Periode 1, Something, Something, Something Dark Side. Can someone make a list with movies or series parodyin' Star Wars? --84.113.33.181 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't need to clutter the article with lists of parodies. Tempshill (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ford casting

 * Lucas initially rejected the idea of using Harrison Ford, as he had previously worked with him on American Graffiti, and instead asked Ford to assist in the auditions by reading lines with the other actors and explaining the concepts and history behind the scenes that they were reading.

This needs to be more clear. If Lucas rejected the idea, this means he had considered it, or it had been proposed. Had he considered it for a year and finally rejected it? Or perhaps had he never considered it, so the word "rejected" is a little off? Also, why did he ask Ford to help in the auditions? This is normally a job for the "script girl". Was Ford just doing absolutely nothing that week? Was he on the payroll? Could a knowledgeable editor add a little more to this sentence to clarify these questions? Tempshill (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Novelization sales
The Novelization section says that a half million copies had been sold by February 1977, but this was way before the movie came out. Can this be correct? (It's got an inline citation but I don't have access to it.) Tempshill (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the novelization was released in December 1976, this is entirely possible. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging with Han shot first
O.K. so that last merge request didn't go over well. I thought that if anyone objected, they would come to the talk page, but seeing as that didn't happen, and there were just a bunch of reverts, I am creating a section to discuss the merge. So, what are the reasons that Han shot first should not be merged into this article? --WikiDonn (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More to the point, what are the reasons it *should* be merged into this article? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason is that topic is not notable enough to get its own article, and anyone who is not familiar with the movie wouldn't understand it outside the context of the Star Wars article. Therefore it is just fancruft. It was nominated 3 times for deletion, and was kept just because some people really really wanted it. In the AfDs there was some consensus that it should be merged, and to me that sounds like a fair compromise, because it is somewhat notable, but it doesn't deserve its own article. It is so small, it can easily be merged into Star Wars, and it doesn't really mean anything outside of the Star Wars universe. --WikiDonn (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that the article has keep Kept in three separate AfD discussions says more than your assertation that "just because some people really really wanted it". The article clearly satisfies WP:N and WP:V, based on the sources brought up in last year's AfD, and other established editors (who I'm inclned to agree with) appear to think that the merge is not necessary. You've still yet to show that the topic is "not notable enough to get its own article", as you claim. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at last year's AfD, most of the Keep votes say "Keep per LtPowers". Other than that, everybody else wanted to delete, and had good reasons to do so. The reasons LtPowers stated were just sources defending the claim that it was unsourced. The other reasons to delete it were not countered, and it was basically kept based on WP:ILIKEIT. And it wasn't closed by an admin (so I'm not inclined to agree with him). Now, according to WP:Merging, it meets the 3rd and 4th (text and context) criteria for merging, and fails to meet the 3 criteria for not merging. --WikiDonn (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely inappropriate for the main article. A merge of Han shot first has been discussed many times, and if ever it were to be done, as said many times before, it would be merged with List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. Mkdw talk 08:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that it doesn't need its own article. But I'd also have to agree with Mkdw and say it belongs in List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. Not here. It doesn't bring anything to this article. (And "List of changes" has a number of its own issues) —Digital Jedi Master (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article?
Really? CityFeedback 07:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CityFeedback (talk • contribs)
 * And what has you puzzled? —Digital Jedi Master (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the gold standard for a Featured Article. Articles like American Beauty (film) and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan are extremely high-quality. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been edited to death since that version. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a featured article review would be appropriate.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 13:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I feel that an FAR is necessary for feedback so we can improve it. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe The Empire Strikes Back may also need a FAR.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 10:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree (re: this article): Please see below. (I added the wikify template before I ever looked here at the talk page.Bddmagic (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikify
Y'know, this is a good article......it really is....but Featured? Hmmmmmm, I don't think it's that good. Any-hoo......it still needs LOTS of wikifying....particularly around the middle section.Bddmagic (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have problems readinf the writing part, I have a few questions, Iss it true Lucas ha bought the full writes to Star Wars and if so did this mean he had fll creative control and could tell any story he wnted??? Also how could the studio pass on American Graffiti whenthey had a deal and how could they make timelimits????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.72.45 (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
Being that the article is about an AMERICAN film series directed by an AMERICAN director, I do not fully understand why it has to use BRITISH spellings (e.g. "theatres" as opposed to "thearters".) I have corrected that and added "movie" to the noun because the movie is shown in MOVIE theaters, not REGULAR theaters as opposed to a PLAY, though it is true that the end credits of many movies use the term PHOTOPLAY, but I repeat: this is NOT an actual play. Marceki111 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads-up
Hi, I've helped in improving roughly 50 articles to GA status, and have always wanted to improve this article, as it's probably in my top-10 favorite films of all time. I created a user sub-page containing further information, particularly from the books, Mythmaker, Skywalking, and The Cinema of George Lucas. Obviously I'm far from finished, and I intend to add further information already present in this article. I will help get this article to GA status, and eventually back to Featured Article recognition. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Original name
I don't think a film can be renamed retrospectively just because the director says so. Nobody who isn't paid to do so calls this movie 'Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope'. That name doesn't appear anywhere in the movie itself. Surely Wikipedia should refer to it by its original, best-known and correct name: Star Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Avis (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion of the title has happened many times, and can be found both here and in the talk archives. A New Hope is (now) the official name, used by studios, the official website, and it's also used for consistency within the Star Wars articles on Wikipedia. And the name does appear in subsequent versions of the film. A personal opinion of the film's title is irrelevant.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 16:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely it's not a personal opinion to say that the movie, as released, was called "Star Wars"? john k (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, it's been discussed and agreed before. The examples you cite are all by employees of the studio - as I said, nobody calls the movie that unless they are paid money to do so.  If the policy is always to use the latest marketing-based name (rather than the original released name) then I guess this needs to be formalized somewhere.  It does mean that if the studio decides to retrospectively change the name again in the future then the articles will need renaming.Ed Avis (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't see the big green 'Requested Move' box earlier in this page. Ed Avis (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually It is known as ANH in the Star Wars fan community and I for one always refer to the film as A New Hope. Aslo, Lucusfilm employees use the name Star Wars in documentaries. George Lucus himself uses the two names interchangeably.Greneath (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)