Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith/Archive 03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Do not edit or post replies to this page. This page is an archive.

Contents

Episode VII

Are there any official quotes where Lucas says there will absolutely never ever be an Episode 7, 8 and 9? Skeeter08865 21:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. See Sequel trilogy (Star Wars). The Wookieepedian 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Biblical allusions

I was thinking of putting this into the liteary allusions sections, but I'd like some comments and a quote check first.

"The film makes a number of seemingly biblical references, intrestingly it is mostly the Sith who make them. These possible references include: "It is done" "I do not know you anymore" "If you are not with us, you are against us" ( Though the last one might be more of a political reference to George Bushes use of the same quote)."


Original Trilogy vs. original trilogy

I've noticed that there is some dispute as to whether "original trilogy" is a noun (thus indicating it should be typed in lowercase) or a proper noun (thus indicating it should be capitalized). Is there any consensus as to how the term should be used? I personally feel it is not a proper noun, but I'm not sure if that's a majority or minority opinion. At any rate, we should try to be consistent across pages. – Mipadi 20:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT a proper noun. I'm going to go through the other five movies' pages here in a minute and fix any references I find there as well.—chris.lawson (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Conflicting info in Trivia section

I've removed the following because it seems the two "facts" contradict each other:

  • Being six-foot-one or 1.85 metres (compared to David Prowse, who is six-foot-seven or 2 metres), Hayden Christensen had to look through the mouthpiece of the Darth Vader costume, which itself featured shoe lifts and muscle suit. "Being inside makes you feel powerful and strong — it's absolutely incredible", he recalls.
  • The Darth Vader costumes used in the film were created specifically to fit Hayden Christensen, rather than use the old costumes from the original trilogy. Camera tricks are used to make it appear Christensen is as tall as David Prowse, who played Vader in the Original Trilogy.

They can't both be true as written. Either the costume fit Hayden Christensen, or it didn't. Which was it?—chris.lawson (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they should be merged, but they are both completely alright. The Christensen's costume was made in this way, because he is shorter than Prowse. From the outside, it had to look like the original; however it needed certain enhancements to fit Christensen inside. Conf 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
My problem with it lies mostly in this phrasing: "Camera tricks are used to make it appear Christensen is as tall as David Prowse" If Hayden was wearing a suit that was deliberately larger than he is, why bother with camera tricks at all? If the suit is the same size as David Prowse, you don't need camera tricks. I still don't buy it.—chris.lawson (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so that leaves us with:

  • The Darth Vader costumes used in the film were created specifically to fit Hayden Christensen, rather than use the old costumes from the original trilogy. The new costumes featured shoe lifts and a muscle suit. Being six-foot-one or 1.85 metres (compared to David Prowse, who is six-foot-seven or 2 metres), Hayden Christensen had to look through the mouthpiece of the Darth Vader costume. "Being inside makes you feel powerful and strong — it's absolutely incredible", he recalls.

Is everyone cool with that? — Phil Welch 01:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Is that even true? It seems rather ridiculous to build a custom suit for the guy and not give him a proper eye hole. It's not as though he does much in the Vader suit, so it seems more likely that camera tricks and/or Lucas's love of CG played a role here, much more so than some prosthetic suit. The point, though, is that clearly someone who added this didn't cite a source, which is why no one has any idea what the real story is.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure there's some data on it somewhere, if anyone wants to do a 30 minute research project. But yeah, they actually did build a suit and put Hayden in it, according to a featurette on the Star Wars DVD box set. — Phil Welch 03:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

A big goofy prosthetic suit, or a properly fitted suit? If it's the former, I see no reason to suspect camera trickery at all. Seems the DVD is authoritative enough, so absent a mention of camera trickery specifically, we should probably go with the option that is explained.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't noticed this "camera tricks" part, it doesn't make sense indeed. The way Phil has rewritten it above seems right to me. We may also restore the quote reference (http://www.thefreeman.com/entertainment/story-20050521-30725.html). However, are you sure about "costumes" (plural)? I've been thinking there was just one. Conf 21:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

ME AGAIN: The article on starwars.com reads:

When I walked past in full costume, the crew's eyes would light up, but a few of them had a glimmer of fear in their eyes as well," Christensen chuckles. They would take two steps back and lower their heads a bit."
However while wearing the intimidating outfit, Christensen told the Celebration III audience that seeing through the eyes of a fallen hero wasn't easy, in fact he had trouble seeing much at all.

I believe the phrasing "seeing through the eyes of a fallen hero" is solely a metaphor... what a mess :-)

"I had limited vision through the mask," Christensen admits. "I sat higher up in the costume due to the shoe lifts, so I had to look through the mouthpiece instead of the eyes. I didn't see much as Vader."

I think he says "so" ("so I had to look") when he means "and". However, it's clear that he indeed had to look through the mouthpiece. I've inserted a slightly modified Phil's version with two references. Conf 15:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing things up. — Phil Welch 18:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice to know I did! Conf 19:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes to this article

I think this article has beome too long and ungainly for its own good. Bigger does not mean better — there's a difference between data and knowledge. I'd like to propose that we cut down on some unencyclopedic sections of the article.

  1. Remove ratings section entirely. It was created in the euphoria leading up to the film's release where every tiny bit of official information was a big deal. No other film article has nor needs such a section like this.
  2. Cut down on cast section. It should be reduced to the major and somewhat-major characters. Perhaps we can change the section to "Casting" and change it from list to paragraph form.
  3. Remove opening crawl. That should be summaried in the plot section.
  4. Rewrite excessively long plot summary. The current one is too detailed. The guideline at Wikipedia:Fiction says to keep it reasonably short.

I just wanted people's opinions before changing. We should emulate the style of the film-related featured articles like Casablanca (film) and Sunset Boulevard (film). Heck, maybe we can even make this a featured article. :) Coffee 19:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that only the plot summary should be changed. It is much too long. The ratings section, though, was contributed by many people leading up to the release, as someone pointed out earlier, and should be kept. The opening crawl section gives unity to all the star wars film articles. This is what makes them so unique. Jusr because there is a specific style to other film articles, doesn't mean the star wars articles should be changed. Adamwankenobi 19:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I realized that the other Star Wars articles have that "opening crawl" section too... that's something I don't agree with either. I mean, that's well and good for Star Wars fans, but when a casual reader wants to find information about the movie and sees and "Opening crawl" section (before any other section, and without explanation), it can make the article seem a bit daunting and confusing.
As for the ratings, I don't think there was really proper consensus to keep in the discussion above. One person proposed removing it, a second person seemed to be alright with removing it once the film was out of theaters, and the third person was more opposed to keeping only the US rating. Coffee 20:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, as far as the ratings go, A New Hope actually also has a section for ratings. Removing the Revenge of the Sith ratings would bring up the importance or place for the ratings in that article. The opening crawl, I believe, is something that definately should stay. The Star Wars series was a unique set of movies. As you know, they have an opening very different than that of most other films in that they do not list actors' names or have anything but an opening crawl. And that leads directly into the movie. Most who will come to this page, fan or not, will have likely had knowledge of the series in some form or another, and recognize the idea of an opening crawl. Adamwankenobi 20:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
We at least agree on shortening the plot summary. I've brought it down to a relatively lean 1000 words (down from the previous 2600 word "summary"). I actually hoped to get it down to about 500 words or so, but I found that there's a lot of detail I couldn't left out. Coffee 11:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
In addition to the revised summary, I think that the first paragraph should have a very short plot summary. The lead section is supposed to give a rapid overview introducing the basic facts of the subject. ike9898 15:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. I agree that all the articles should not have rediculousluy long "summaries" like this one had, which actually told you a short story form of the movie! I do feel, though, that eventually, all the star wars films (including the spin-off films) should be placed into a certain format. Adamwankenobi 15:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I considered putting a one-sentence synopsis in the lead section ("The film revolves around the seduction of Anakin Skywalker to the Dark Side of the Force, culminating in his transformation into Darth Vader"), but even that might be considered a major spoiler by some. Coffee 16:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that is too bad. You pretty much find out that much from the advertisements. If people are going to be that sensitive to spoiling, I'd say the burden is on them to isolate themselves from any infomation about the plot (by for example, not reading encyclopedia articles on the subject!) ike9898 13:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
How about we move the cast section to after the plot section (in all 6 movie pages)? "Opening crawl - plot - cast" makes more sense to me than having the cast section divide the opening crawl from the plot. Coffee 16:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. The only weakness is that this order it would put spoiler info (plot) earlier in the article than non-spoiler info (cast). ike9898 13:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

What's everyone's opinion on the opening crawl? I don't have one but I think it deserves more discussion until it's removed from the article. (We should also be consistent across all six articles, so let's centralize discussion here to take effect on all articles.) — Phil Welch 01:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Mention should be made that McDiarmid and Oz were the actors most praised by critics. Current article puts all focus on Christensen and Portman.

Cast list dispute

In an attempt to head off yet another ridiculous, embarassing, and childish edit war over the content (or, more importantly, the amount of content) of this page's cast list, I think that the issue should first be discussed here, so we can get a variety of opinions, and reach a consensus, rather than watching the opinions of two or three users get edited in and out of the article. – Mipadi 20:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to make the same argument on this talk page. Qaz 20:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.
Fact: Wikipedia =/= IMDB. No dispute there. So, 'kay, we don't need their cast list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
OK, so, Wikipedia is not the IMDB. True. Wikipedia is more than the IMDB. Adamwankenobi 20:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Or, we could consider NOT filling it with any information, regardless of how notable it is. Fact of the Day: A list of Ewokian actors =/= encyclopediatic. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The ewok actors still acted in ROTJ, and deserve the credit. Adamwankenobi 20:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Why? Are you telling me that we must list every single person in the movies? So go ahead. It's a small list or no list, because I have a feeling you CAN'T get the names of everyone in the crowd at the funeral in Ep. III. And, let me remind you we're NOT trying to be IMDB, who lists this information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
We can only give credit to all who we can confirm. That is the best we can do. Take this star wars article for example. It is made from all actors who were in the movie. In that case all involved were documented and credited. Adamwankenobi 21:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with Adamwankenobi. As an encyclopedia, it should contain all the cast featured in the films. And the cast already was the subject of a discussion (about credited/uncredited roles [[1]]), and we determined to have the cast as it appears in the movies, plus non-credited roles. Copperchair 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Summary of arguments so far (if you think I'm misrepresenting you go ahead and correct me:

For complete cast list (arguments by User:Adamwankenobi)

  • The articles should include every member of the cast, major and minor.
  • "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is made up of content, including both major and minor details." edit summary for this diff
  • "All cast members hold an equal importance." edit summary for this diff
  • If the cast list is abridged, "we should call the cast list, "cast summary" or something similar saying that the list is not that of a complete cast." edit summary for this diff

For abridged cast list (arguments by User:A Link to the Past and User:Philwelch)

  • An unabridged cast list is primary source material, which Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not IMDB. [2], [3], [4]
  • "Just as we have a plot summary instead of a longer accounting of the plot we should have a shorter cast listing." edit summary for this diff
  • Rebuttal to the notion that "all cast members hold an equal importance": This argument is ridiculous. Bobo the extra, playing Jawa #7, is not as important as Mark Hamill. Guard Getting Thrown Against The Wall By Yoda #2 is not as important a role as Palpatine. [5]
  • Rebuttal to the notion that we should indicate that the cast list is incomplete: This argument is similarly fallacious. It would insult the intelligence of our readers to tell them, in effect, "there are more than sixteen characters in Revenge of the Sith". [6]

As you can see a great bit of discussion has already occurred through the edit summaries, which is a big reason I hold the (heretical) view that revert wars can be friendly and constructive. Indeed, they are the first stage in resolving a conflict—by introducing opening arguments and affirming that a dispute of some weight and substance exists. This isn't to say that there are never aggressive edit wars out of bad faith, but I don't think this is an example of that. That said, I think it's more productive to take the discussion to a talk page when edit summaries cease to be a useful forum for them. Anyway, if anyone wants to add arguments I'd be pleased to continue this discussion here. I'd also like to centralize discussion here, with the intent that it applies to all six Star Wars articles. — Phil Welch 20:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Extras are generally not credited, but if they are, they were for some reason, and that is the way the filmmaker wanted the film to be. Thereby, if a "Jawa #7"-like credit appears in the film, we should respect that it was included. Copperchair 00:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Support abridged cast listing

  • For the record, User:Qaz has expressed support for the abridged cast list. [7] I moved that down here because I wanted the above refactoring to remain a summary of arguments instead of a vote. — Phil Welch 21:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I support a short cast list of only important characters. And I will bet my left arm that anyone who isn't biased towards Star Wars will agree. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to throw in my support for an abridged cast list as well. Admittedly, I can see both sides of the argument here, and I can understand Adamwankenobi's view that everyone deserves credit. However, I feel that a list of many of the extras and "less important" characters is not encyclopedic; I haven't been convinced that anyone, especially non-Star Wars fans, will come to this page (or the article for any of the movies) looking for the names of all the Ewoks at the "destruction of the Death Star" celebration, or for the name of a bunch of clone troopers who were standing around in the background. I especially feel that extras who were not credited in the film itself warrant being credited on this page. Leave that sort of thing to a Star Wars fansite. – Mipadi 21:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to reiterate that we're trying to create consensus here and not just vote. However, in practice, "consensus" means "supermajority" here on Wikipedia, and four to one is and 80% supermajority—much more than has been required in the past to, say, change significant Wikipedia policies. — Phil Welch 22:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Me too, abridge the cast listing. I pray we don't have to have a discussion like this every time Adamwankenobi insists on his version of the article. Coffee 02:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the abridged version. The other version is way too friggin long, period. Put it up on a Web site and link to it if you must, but I see no reason to expand on the official listing here.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as well. I'm a Star Wars fan, but there's a reason why there's a Star Wars Wiki... let's keep it trimmed. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support this is an encyclopedia, not imdb. --Phroziac (talk) 01:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Support full cast listing

  • I (Adamwankenobi) support that the most complete list available be created on the page. What I mean is, I don't want it just copied and pasted from IMDB.com OR to be shortened. I want the list to include all known actors who has a part in the movie. This is what we have done, by giving an officially given list, then added on to the list with any information we could confirm elsewhere. We have given credit to actors such as who played Luke and Leia in Ep3, or the fact that Ian McDirmis Plays the Emperor in the revised 2004 version of Empire. Adamwankenobi 21:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You can still give credit to Ian McDiarmid in ESB, with a footnote that says he's only in the DVD version. Coffee 03:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Copperchair has recently reverted to the full cast listing [8], however, his edit summary labeled the abridgment as "vandalism". Whether he was truly mistaken or is simply continuing his practice of writing deceptive edit summaries is unknown. — Phil Welch 03:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Always attacking me, don't you? If information is deleted without a consensus it is vandalism, even you should know that. And I wasn't aware a discussion existed until Mipadi was kind enough to send me a message. Copperchair 00:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, not vandalism. --Phroziac (talk) 01:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Phroziac's right. It's a true statement that Copperchair often writes deceptive edit summaries. I wasn't attacking you for the sake of attacking you, I was explaining the context of your edit summary. If you don't want to be accused of writing deceptive edit summaries, cease writing deceptive edit summaries. — Phil Welch 01:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue is settled

With an apparent vote of 6 to 2, or 75% assent, the clear consensus is to leave the cast listing in its abridged form. Those in disagreement are always free to re-open this discussion again, but it will be a waste of time unless they can get a couple more people on their side. — Phil Welch 03:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I feel like we should give it some more time for discussion. When I opened up discussion in the talk page, I hadn't meant for it to be declared over and done with by a single person after an arbitrary amount of time decided upon solely by that single person. – Mipadi 05:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we've had a number of people comment and a pretty clear consensus emerge. If there were more than a couple people disagreeing it would be one thing and warrant more discussion, but I think it's obvious to everyone where the consensus is. I don't think there's any need to belabor the issue any further. — Phil Welch 05:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

As always, I disagree with Phil. There is no rush to take a final decision. Copperchair 00:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

I would just like to say that I'm finding it hard to believe that Copperchair has become the hero. KramarDanIkabu 01:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for deciding who's in

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

Yes, as long as we list such uncredited actors as Ian McDiarmid in Empire as The Emperor in the DVD version. Adamwankenobi 13:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we should only put what Coffee suggested, otherwise, the list will begin to grow again. Copperchair 08:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

A Link to the Past keeps adding Wedge, despite the consensus reached here. Copperchair 00:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Coffee said "all the acting credits that come before "scrolling" closing credits" should be included, and Wedge is not one of them.Copperchair 01:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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

For what it's worth, I think Wedge is pretty darned important. He should be in there.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not about importance, it is about order. There has to be a pattern to follow when we decide who's in. In this case, that pattern is the acting credits that come before "scrolling" closing credits. Copperchair 08:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No original research

In the "political comparisons" section, the last five paragraphs following paragraphs (about military coup, Colin Powell, Knights Templar, Pope Sidious, and The Invisible Hand) are unsourced, and appear to violate the no original research rule. If they can't be backed up by sources that prove they're notable for inclusion, they should be deleted. Coffee 09:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, the enire "Cinematic and literary allusions" section seems to be unsorced original research. Saying that the film alludes or references certain things is subjective, and absolutely needs to be backed up by a credible source. That section also says that Lucas edited scenes in The Godfather... I doubt that's true. Coffee 07:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Opening crawl

Since the cast listing issue seems settled for the time being, let's discuss the opening crawl. I, for one, have no opinion—I think it counts as fair use as far as copyright goes but I really don't care whether the opening crawls belong in the articles or not. What do you people think? — Phil Welch 02:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm in support of keeping the opening crawl. Using the crawl seems to be just the same as using a DVD image. Adamwankenobi 03:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's unnecessary cruft, delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. It's unnecessary source material, and it should be summarized in the plot section. Coffee 04:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. We should usually summarize or quote, avoiding long tracts of source material. The article on Romeo and Juliet does not reprint the prologue but just summarizes it in the plot section. What is good enough for The Bard is good enough for Lucas. Qaz 13:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, copyvio and cruft. It's annoying enough in the movie, anyway. --04:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's been a whole week and consensus seems to be clear. I've removed the opening crawl from the six articles. Also, I put the spoilers tag at the top of the plot section -- ideally, that should be the only section that contains plot details or spoilers. Coffee 16:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It's OK with me that you are keeping it off. It's really not that bad the way you have it. I understand why you did whatr you did. Keep up the good work. Adamwankenobi 22:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the opening crawl should be included. When will you stop butchering the Star Wars articles? First the cast, now this... Copperchair 04:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not butchering if the majority doesn't think it is. It's called cleanup. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Better listen to him Copperchair, he won't give up. Trust me. I want the opening crawl as well, but the majority won't allow it. The Wookieepedian 23:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I am in no position to give up. As you point out, I'm in the majority, and if you're so horrified at democracy, you could do well to check out other web sites. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
I just pointed that out to him to show him what the results of a dispute like this would be. The Wookieepedian 11:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
A dispute like this? Is it THAT horrifying that people have a differing opinion on the matter, to the point where you have to act as if people are persecuting you and your friends? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Link, do you really have to get into these arguments? You're coming across as a jerk. — Phil Welch 19:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much to me. Some people here are just way too defensive in regard to these arguments, so they should expect that kind of response. They treat the "bashing" of certain contents in Star Wars articles as bashing them. There's too much receptiveness to deleted content, treating people like they're out to get them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I digress. The Wookieepedian 23:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Why include the opening crawl? I am not trying to add fire to an argument but instead of just boasting about who has more people on their side, I am trying to understand why the crawl is so important. Since this has less of a space crunch as a print edition, maybe the coders could make a box that would open up with the crawl and things like it (prologues and the ilk) for those who would like to see them but the box would be closed by default for people who do not want the clutter. Or maybe the crawls of all the movies could be on their own page so as to not bother the coders... Qaz 05:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The ANH credits argument

Not to start something, but, by the removal of the complete official credits, this entire argument was started. Who is and is not important in the story is a subjective stand. We could restore the original complete credits to the page. Thoughts? Comments? The Wookieepedian 02:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop dragging this out, Adam. People voted on the issue already, it's over. The majority doesn't want a full cast list, and using the "it won't cause a dispute over who should be in" isn't a viable argument. Disputes like this happen everywhere, and it's hardly a dispute; it's more of a few fanboys hanging onto their ideal article style with dear life. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter to me whether Wedge is in or out. I just noticed that Copperchair keeps removing the credit for Wedge, and had a suggestion to settle this dispute. The Wookieepedian 02:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Your suggestion was to nullify the past consensus because you and a couple other fanboys don't like how it came out? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair is violating a well-known guideline from meta and violating another well-known guideline on Wikipedia. This is not surprising. The correct thing to do is to revert and otherwise ignore his childish behavior. — Phil Welch 05:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No, am I doing what Coffee suggested. If noboby is going to respect that and everyone is going to do it their way, then I will add the complete cast list. There has to be a pattern to follow when we decide who's in. In this case, that pattern is the acting credits that come before "scrolling" closing credits. And Phil you are a behaving like a jerk, following me at every page just to attack me. This is just because you had to accept I was right about Anakin in Episode VI, right? Copperchair 08:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Propose a logical solution, make sure it is accepted by enough people in order for you to consider it consensus, and I will stick to it. Copperchair 23:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Which in this case is? Copperchair 04:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Why no VHS release?

That's really odd that it won't be released on VHS. Anyone know why? -- Wikipedian2005 05:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Jim Ward explained that the market is really moving away from VHS, and it wouldn't sell well. Plus, many stores noted that they were ending up with way too many extra VHS copies becuase no one was buying them. Also, Lucas is dead-set on making Digital media the only type of media on which films are prented. The Wookieepedian 07:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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 at Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Coffee 06:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There are also spelling and grammatical flaws that need to be corrected throughout this article.--unsigned comment by [[User:67.2.15.122]|67.2.15.122]
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 12:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Title

I'm haven't edited anything and don't plan to. I just want to ask about the title. Why is it that way? At the official site (and many other websites), the colon goes before Episode III (i.e. Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith). --Dara 03:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've always wondered the same thing. I've always thought it should technically be "Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith." Though it looks better as it is. The Wookieepedian 04:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
On rottentomatoes.com it's Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. This image on starwars.com also calls it Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith. But on IMDB it's Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith. Coffee 05:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, that image places the colon after "Star Wars" as Dara noted, not after "Episode III". Did you mean to link a different image?--chris.lawson 05:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Whoops, my mistake. :"> My eyes see what they want to... Coffee 06:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides, the way it is now lets us do this: Revenge of the Sith (coded as [[Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith|]]— Phil Welch 06:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Political comparisons

Could the fight scene between Palpatine and Yoda represent the Reichstag fire, as it destroys the Senate chamber? In the DVD commentary, they say it is suppose to represent the destruction of democracy, but I thought that it could also represent the fire.- JustPhil 21:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but heed NOR. — Phil Welch 21:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There WAS one slight change...

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

References to the OT

Are they really references or just some one pointing similarities. One example: "Obi-Wan says the traditional "I have a bad feeling about this!" just before Anakin enters the hangar of General Grievous' battlecruiser.". The bad feeling quote is in every movie and it's not a "reference", just a catch line. I believe all of them are people(or perhaps just one person) pointing out whatever similarity he/she/they could find. It should be removed.

Most of them are. But some, like the one you pointed out, go too far. The Wookieepedian 17:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


My Apologies

Whilst I was on RC patrol I reverted an edit by User:86.131.135.156 as vandalism, which in hindsight it clearly was not. I don't know if the statement about the piracy is true or not, so I won't revert back to it now. But either way, my apologies for calling it vandalism. - Akamad 12:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I believe what User:86.131.135.156 inserted into the article had some truth to it. I'll add a mention of it back into the page. The Wookieepedian 19:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Bonus Disc

Unlike the "Story Of Star Wars" disc that was packaged with ROTS, the "Star Wait" DVD that was offered at Target could only be purchased separately, so it's not a "bonus disc". The only relation to ROTS is that it was released the same day as the DVD. It is an not an official Lucasfilm product. I also wonder if the "Story Of Star Wars" section should be moved to it's own seperate page. Packratshow 14:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Spielberg's Direction

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

Very well. I will insert "uncredited" next to Spielberg"s name. The Wookieepedian 07:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No, "uncredited" implies he did enough work to deserve a credit. Listing him in the first place implies he did enough work to deserve a credit. He didn't. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 07:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Spielberg's contribution to the film is not nearly significant enough to warrant putting him in the infobox, even with "uncredited" beside his name. All he did, according to the article, was some tinkering with the animatics of an action sequence. If anything, I'd call that editing, not directing. A mention of it in the "production" or "trivia" section should be sufficient. Coffee 07:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?

What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/Talk%7EStar_Wars_Episode_III%7E_Revenge_of_the_Sith_Archive_03_a6ab.html"