Talk:Jabba the Hutt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Jabba the Hutt is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 15, 2006.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Jabba's size

Stormwriter, how big is Jabba? --Ed Poor

Reeaaalllyyy big.

But seriously, I dunno. I just edited the article after someone else created it. Stormwriter

As they say on the Tonight Show, "How big, Johnnie?" :-) --Ed Poor

"You idiots. when will you learn? you are the worst people I've ever seen. Jabba is about 10 feet long, so shut you face, star wars lovers.

According to the article, he is 3.9 meters long and weighs several tons

PlatinumTracks

I don't know if this is canon or fanon, but one explanation for the apparent difference in size between the Jabba in the special edition of A New Hope and the Jabba in Return of the Jedi is that Hutts don't stop growing, even after reaching adulthood. This might have been covered in the Han Solo Trilogy of books. Does anyone else have info on this? --Icarus 08:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure the source, it could be canon or fanon also but one explanation is that the Hutts are A-sexual creatures and half the race is concidered male and the other half is female but both can have children. Jabba had a litter of huttlings prior to episode 4 and then was in the process of re-adding the wieght back by episode 6 Danrduggan 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

the way i understand the hutt a-sexuality thing is that all hutts are born male, as time goes on they at some point become pregnant at which point they are considered female, once they give birth they revert back to being male. the just gave birth theory is more likely i think, seeing that when you see jabba in the phantom menace he is about the same size as he is in a new hope, so if the "the hutts never stop growing" theory were to be true, and in keeping with the time to growth ratio for a new hope to the return of the jedi then jabba should be far more massive then he was in in both a new hope and the return combined.--Manwithbrisk 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture.

Of jabba. Shouldn't be hard to acquire. I'll look for it meself, perhaps. But, especially with aliens, there's no point in just talking about it. Lockeownzj00 20:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jabba's lustiness

Like all Hutts, Jabba is considered by most other Star Wars races to be very unpleasant. He is also seen as somewhat lascivious since he tends to lust after the beautiful alien female slaves he keeps in his palace.

That's a bit odd, since Hutts (according to this article) reproduce asexually. What need do they have for lust? The species difference is also very bizarre. Mr. Billion 06:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

That occurred to me while I was reading the article, too. I guess nobody thought it through. Or, perhaps the designers just wanted to make Jabba as abhorrent as possible at the expense of logic. Creatures who aren't humanoid animals and/or don't sexually reproduce but lust after humans nonetheless are common in fiction, nonsensical as they are. —Saric (Talk) 20:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jabba is a fictional character. What exactly about a thirteen-foot-long talking slug that smokes a pipe actually does makes sense? Dmoon1 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
well the way i understand it, though i can't remember just where i read this but it did read it somewhere, is that hutts are all born male, with all the male wants and all that, but after a time they become pregnant and are then considered female, give birth and then are male again--Manwithbrisk 17:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderful human being

I think it's reasonable to say that Han Solo was being sarcastic when he called Jabba a wonderful human being. I'd think it'd be in keeping with Han's character, especially when he's first introduced.
JesseG 17:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Original Jabba

The fact is, Jabba was supposed to be a human. At least at the beginning.

First of all, when producing a movie on a limited budget, as Star Wars originally was (or as Lucas claims it was), why would money be wasted on a costume for a stand-in?

Secondly, live-actor interaction with post-production effects was not a new idea; if Jabba had been meant to be a huge worm, Harisson Ford would have been directed to make room for the special effects team to insert the monster later. He didn't do that. George Lucas was able to make fleets of X-Wings and Star Destroyers look real. He was able to create Banthas and droids and stormtrooper armor and a whole cantina full of aliens. He could have come up with a very realistic foam rubber slug if he had wanted to. He didn't.

Finally, the novelization (and other pre-Jedi comic books) depicted Jabba as a humanoid gangster. Surely no one is going to argue that there weren't enough special effects to draw or even describe Lucas' intended creature? They could have. They didn't, because he hadn't thought of it yet. There's not even concept art of a Jabba character, and there is concept art of everything. Would he have filmed a scene without even the slightest idea of what would be in it? Of course not. A man was in it, and that's what was supposed to be there. Jabba the Hutt wasn't designed by Lucasfilm (and Jim Henson) until after The Empire Strikes Back. He wasn't even a thought until then.

In the early 80s, Lucas explained Jabba's appearance in Return of the Jedi by saying that he had contracted a horribly disfiguring virus that had turned him into a slug-like creature. But, in his typical revisionist fashion, he reversed himself a few years later and made Hutts a species unto themselves, and concocted a paper-thin story about the limitations of special effects in the 1970s.

If this article is about the fictional character of Jabba the Hutt, then I concede that it makes sense to accept Lucas' latest vision of the story and say that Jabba was born that way. But if the article is going to delve into the visual effects of the films, and the special edition versions of the original cut scene, then it should stick to NPOV facts, not just George Lucas' claims. Mention should be made about the novelization, the comic depictions, his interviews, and the costuming of the actor who was originally meant to play Jabba.Kafziel 19:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

WORD!! Arthurian Legend 14:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this whole-heartedly. I appreciate your remarks, Kafziel. I grew up a fan of Star Wars, I'm still a fan of Star Wars, and I in fact probably have far too many brain cells devoted to Star Wars (dear Lord, I can be a nerd), so this is not meant as an attack, but the truth is that George Lucas constantly revised his Star Wars universe. Jabba was originally supposed to be a man, not a slug, and if this is supposed to be an article about a movie character rather than a role-playing game character sheet, mention of that should be made. The same holds true with subsequent discussions, such as why Jabba lusts after slave girls if he's a hermaphrodite; that was a later revision to help with continuity. It's okay! We can say such things! They're movies!--Raulpascal 20:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More to the following quote, if you watch the scene carefully

When bored, Jabba would lethally dismiss his cherished chattels via a trap door.

If I recall, whomever got pushed into the trapdoor would reappear in a cup, this time [the person would be] of small size, and then Jabba would eat him/her. If you don't want to add that, it's okay, but I'm not gunna (every time I think of that scene I feel like barfing). --Wack'd About Wiki 14:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I'm speechless. Kafziel 07:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not. Every time I see that scene with that blue girl chained to him, I keep thinking "he's gunna drag her in and swallow her whole." The only thing that I was confused about was the cup. --Wack'd About Wiki 19:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a theory... And, I'm very glad to say, an untrue one. The people who he sent through the trap door would be eaten by the Rancor, not by Jabba. The things he was eating from the cup were a different creature entirely. Possibly nala tree frogs, though I'd have to check on that one. --Icarus 04:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

When was the last time you saw the movie? I've never heard that one before. I'm pretty sure (and I can't believe I'm finding this a matter worth fighting over) that it was...ugh, I can't say type it, it's to horrible! --Wack'd About Wiki 01:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I last saw the movie and read the screenplay three weeks ago. Anybody dropped into the pit was eaten by the rancor. What Jabba was snacking on were various small creatures; the movie does not specify, but I remember the EU anthology Tales from Jabba's Palace saying that they were some sort of vicious gladiatorial crustaceans. As for nala tree frogs, I only remember them being Hutt-food in the Han Solo Trilogy, where they served to Besadii (or maybe it was Desiljic?)'s clan leader. --maru (talk) contribs 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's where the frogs are from. I was making a pretty unlikely guess there just in case, lol. Good thing this is that talk page and not the article ;-) It was the Besadii leader who was fond of them. (Hope you don't mind, I made a tiny alteration to remove the spoiler from your comment. Just in case.)
Anyway, regarding Wack'd interpretation of the scene, Maru is definitely right. I haven't watched the movie in it's entirety in some time, but I know it pretty well as I've seen it... well, I lost count after a dozen times. But since I have the DVDs I checked the specific scenes. (Why couldn't Lucas have released the real version on DVD instead of those stupid "Special Editions"? But enough pouting, on to my point.) This is pretty much a blow-by-blow of what happens:
  1. Oola pisses Jabba off, so he activates the trap door. His throne slides forward over the resulting hole in the floor, and she is shown falling down the chute into the pit.
  2. The guests in Jabba's palace are shown crowding around the grate in the floor (the pit's ceiling) so they can see the, er, entertainment. (This is also why Jabba's throne slides forward—-he can't see from where it normally sits.)
  3. The big door in the pit start to open, and a roar is heard as Oola makes a terrified face.
  4. Cut back to Jabba's guests, who look excited as they watch the proceedings. Oola's wail and the rancor's growl can be heard, though somewhat indistinctly.
  5. Jabba grabs a critter from the water-filled cup and eats it. Time for... slooooooow-moooootioooooon! Yep, it looks like a frog, albeit with a bit of a tail and some tentacle-like things... But the prop used was definitely based on a frog, not Oola.
  6. There's a sudden disturbance, and you-know-who comes in with Chewbacca on a leash.
Jabba's snack-time goes by very quickly, and I can see enough of a resemblance thanks to the snack's tentacles (and greenish coloring and/or lighting) that I now understand where the misunderstanding came from.
They don't show the rancor in this initial scene because they wanted it to remain a surprise for when Luke faces it. That scene progresses almost the exact same way, but doesn't cut away from the opening door. The rancor appears, eats the gamorrean who fell through the trap door along with Luke, and then tries to eat Luke.
So, either the exact same thing happened to Luke and Oola after they fell through the trap door and saw the huge door open (except Luke survived), or the rancor is a magical creature and everything he eats somehow magically ends up in Jabba's cup. Seeing as this is sci-fi, and not fantasy, and no other references to rancors have mentione this ability, I'm going with the former. The way I see it, Jabba eating that little critter is a sort of visual joke. It's like, something's happening that's so horrible that they're not even going to show you yet, and what's Jabba doing? Eating popcorn! --Icarus 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

|------|: Wow...guess I was wrong then. Oh well. {starts danceing to celebrate that I can finally remove that hideous picture from my mind} --Wack'd About Wiki 15:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - |------|: = jaw dropping if you look at it with your head leaning to the right

[edit] Zorba the Hutt?

Is that real? It smells like a hoax referencing Zorba the Greek. --Jamie 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Try google. --mikka (t) 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
If star wars fans find out that this is a hoax after all, please don'd forget to delete the redirect, Zorba the Hutt. mikka (t) 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Zorba the Hutt is real, but non-canonical. He appeared in the Jedi Prince novel Zorba the Hutt's Revenge. – Mipadi 22:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. But I just can't see a Hutt dancing a Sirtaki.  :) -- Jamie 04:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

When were the Jedi Prince novels declared Infinities canon? --Maru (talk) Contribs 07:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

They were non-canonical before Infinities canon existed, but since then they've been incorporated into The New Essential Chronology, so I think that makes them canon... Either way, though, Zorba has been canon for years -- he was mentioned in the Han Solo Trilogy (The Hutt Gambit, I believe). -- Scannerx 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Answer to the "Lust"

Although Hutts do reproduce asexually, they assume gender roles - Jabba is a perfect example of this. He has many female slaves walking around his palace, dressed skimpily, for one thing. This goes hand-in-hand with the fact that he is hedonistic as well as sadistic. You see, Jabba "gets off" (figuratively speaking, of course) on watching others suffer; it only makes sense, then, that by having females reduced to the shameless role of slavery, he gets to watch their humiliation, their pain, their misery.

Just watch as he captures Princess Leia. She warns him of her powerful friends (the Rebellion), and that he would "regret this." Even as he pulls her against his fat body, pressing her hips close into his bulging gut, he makes a highly sarcastic response: "I'm sure." And then, as his long, slimy tongue stretches out to slurp her mouth in a beastly parody of a kiss, he begins the process of turning a woman of high nobility and respect, lady, a Princess, into just another slave. When next we see Leia, she's become a slave in every sense: bound to his throne by a chained collar on her neck, naked but for the skimpy metal bikini covering her privates, resisting his commands only upon the arrival of her last glimmer of hope, her brother Luke. And why? Because Jabba loved her misery, her loathing, her disgust, but above all else, her struggle for independence even in the bondage of lust.

Simply put, Jabba had his sex slaves because their pain was his pleasure.

For questions, comments, fun conversations, and NO backlashes, e-mail me at theotherness@hotmail.com, or IM me on AIM (theotherness) or Yahoo (the_shadow_child). I'm also on MySpace at theotherness. HO-Ho-ho-ho-hoooo...

They reproduce asexually? What is your source for this? In the Han Solo trilogy by A.C. Crispin it's shown that they are hermaphroditic, in that male hutts become female when they wish to reproduce, but I don't recall any mentions of how they get pregnant after that. I always assumed that after becoming female, they'd then mate with a hutt that was still male. --Icarus 04:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This is straight from StarWars.com's Questions & Answers, a canon source:
Q: If Jabba's species, the Hutts, have neither males nor females, how come Jabba has slave girls?
A: Day-to-day Hutt life really has no need for gender roles. Since Basic doesn't have a suitable genderless pronoun (the term "it" is kind of insulting to most), we tend to refer to a Hutt as "he" or "she," even though it's not biologically accurate. Commonly, most Hutts are referred to as "he" until they are pregnant with a brood, during which they become known as "she." Jabba the Hutt's depraved tastes were looked on with disdain by many Hutts who thought his obsession with the female humanoid form perverse. Jabba's increase in power, however, led to many fellow Hutts imitating his particular brand of debauchery.
This was originally published in Star Wars Insider and proves that Jabba did have a sexual attraction to women. We don't know the details of how he would have sex, but it doesn't matter -- he didn't do it to reproduce, he only did it for pleasure. However, the statement "Jabba had his sex slaves because their pain was his pleasure" is still true, since Jabba was also very sadistic. He got pleasure from sex as well as from tormenting them. -- Scannerx 01:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In relation to the hermaphroditic nature of Hutts, shouldnt, the following comment be rewritten or removed? "During the Boonta Eve Classic podrace at Mos Espa on Tatooine, in which nine-year-old slave Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) wins his freedom by outracing his competitors, Jabba the Hutt is featured in his grandstand accompanied by Gardulla the Hutt (a Hutt female) and his Twi'lek majordomo Bib Fortuna (Matthew Wood)." If Hutts are hermaphrodites and only considered femeale when pregnant, one would have to be able to prove the Hutt accompnaying Jabba was female.

See sociology of gender. (The short answer is no). — Amcaja 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] picture

I took of the old pic of Jabba from a A New Hope. This is the blue Jabba, and as the new DVDs have a new CGI Jabba, the old one is not the real hutt. I did add a screenshot of Jabba from the DVD. Jabba16031799 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup: "Jabba the Hutt Other Stuff"

This section could stand some cleanup, although I'm not sure how far to go. Clearly the section title needs to be changed. I think that much of the relevant information could easily be wrapped into the rest of the article, and this section could be dispensed with entirely. – Mipadi 06:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks like it could go at the bottom of the Expanded Universe section, at least the part conerning Oola. I don't think it warrants a new section. -- Scannerx 06:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update/rewrite of article

I rewrote this article to emphasize the characters role outside the Star Wars universe. 2/3 of this article now deals with Jabba the Hutt from a real-world perspective. Most of the original article seemed to be copy and pasted from Wookieepedia and the Star Wars Databank and merely rehashed the plot of the films and books.

Detailed description of rewrite:

  • Introduction: Three paragraph lead with brief description of the article. PURPOSEFULLY omitted (date of birth BBY - date of death ABY) since this is NOT appropriate for a fictional character (maybe on Wookieepedia, but not here). Birth date in the literature and age at death is noted in the body of the article.
  • Appearance: This section discusses the appearances of Jabba the Hutt in the Star Wars films and selected Expanded Universe literature. While giving important biographical details related to his role in the films and literature, this section is not an attempt to write a concise biography of the character.
    • Films: Jabba's appearances are discussed in the chronological order in which the character appeared in the Star Wars films, beginning with his first appearance in Return of the Jedi in 1983, then the Special Edition of A New Hope in 1997 and finally the brief appearance in The Phantom Menace in 1999.
    • Expanded Universe: Jabba's appearances in the Expanded Universe discussed only to highlight aspects of the Hutt's role in Star Wars outside the films. Also discusses how Jabba originally looked in the Expanded Universe prior to 1983.
  • Characteristics: Describes Jabba's personality and physical appearance based on some EU literature and secondary material. Once again, not meant to provide a concise biography of the character.
  • Concept and creation: Section describes how Lucas and others came up with Jabba the Hutt and designed him for the films. This section is listed in the order in which the character was developed by Lucas, beginning with Jabba's planned appearance in A New Hope in 1977, his deletion, and then reinsertion for the Special Edition in 1997. Section ends with the design of the puppet in Return of the Jedi.
  • Popular culture: this section discusses Jabba's role outside Star Wars in popular culture, including his influence as a marketing tool, his influence on other works of film and literature, and the use of the name Jabba the Hutt as a slur and caricature.

There are two facts that were in the original article that I thought were important but omitted simply because they were unreferenced and I could not find them anywhere outside of Wookieepedia. If someone can find references outside of fan pages and fan message boards, please reinsert them in the appropriate place and reference them properly:

  • During this battle, Leia strangled Jabba to death with the very chain which bound her. Jabba's death has been acknowledged by George Lucas as being a nod to the garroting death of Luca Brasi in The Godfather, directed by his mentor Francis Ford Coppola. This is mentioned Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays, p. 259.
  • There are rumors that the name of Jabba the Hutt is based on the Czech words žaba and had (English: toad and snake). Authors reportedly looked for words that were spelled in an ugly way. There is also the possibility that, like "Alderaan", it may have come from a disused real-world star name of Arabic origin.

I am of the opinion that with some minor tweaking, this article has the potential to become featured. Dmoon1 05:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work! I think that it now works much better to serve Wikipedia's purpose. Kudos! – Mipadi 16:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Overall, it's good, but I'm not happy with some of the changes? What's with the strange omission of dates in the introduction, unlike almost every other decent SW article? And for that matter, why is there no "concise biography"? That omission makes no sense to me. --maru (talk) contribs 04:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, none of the fictional character articles that are Featured have these things. Take a look at Batman, Superman, Bulbasaur, Goomba, Lakitu, Link (Legend of Zelda), and Wario. The Wikipedia community (those who hang around the FAC page, anyway) constantly shoots down fictional FAC articles that have this material in it. I made the mistake of including all of this in an article on Padmé Amidala (the first major rewrite I did) and the results were not good (see the article's talk page). Since the goal of the Star Wars Wikiproject is to: "organize, clean, and improve Star Wars information within a format that fits Wikipedia's fictional procedures to, ultimately, the level of quality stressed in the Featured Article and Featured List guidelines." That's not going to happen if the article only tries to please SW fans and not the Wikipedia community in general. Dmoon1 05:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree we should be improving to the level of FA-quality, but I believe the changes FAC demand, their specific demands are often injurious. Their criteria are best for straight factual articles, and are... sub-optimal for mixed articles. But give it a shot. We can always merge our and Wookieepedia's article if need be. --maru (talk) contribs 06:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a need for duplicating the Wookieepedia's efforts on every Star Wars article. Wikipedia and Wookieepedia have two different goals. Wikipedia's article should treat the fictional character, event, or concept in its relation to the fictional work as a whole, and the "real" world; whereas Wookieepedia can treat the Star Wars character as though he were a real person. If a biography already exists in detail on Wookieepedia, I don't see the need to copy the information over to the Wikipedia article. They don't need to be, and shouldn't be, the same—each should deal with the character from its own mission standpoint. – Mipadi 22:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
That's no reason to remove information- why shouldn't we have detailed summaries of Jabba the Hutt in EU and also have the real world perspective? Summary style doesn't apply cross-wiki. --maru (talk) contribs 22:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The article does provide brief summaries of biographical information in both the films and the EU. – Mipadi 23:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read through the article thoroughly yet (but I will), but at first glance, it looks excellent! I just wanted to point out that the type of thing Maru is requesting can be done while still nodding toward the real world. You could preface the whole thing with a phrase like "After x years as a part of the Star Wars universe, Jabba the Hutt's official biography now goes something like this: Blah blah blah blah . . . ." Then cite one of the EU sources that prints this type of thing: <ref>''The New Essential Guide to Characters'' xx-xy</ref>." That way, it's verifiable in a real-world source, and if people on FAC clamor to have it deleted, it's an easy cut to make. Keep it brief, though. I'll take a more thorough look at the article later today or tomorrow. — Amcaja 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be interesting to try to take a "Real-world" tact; ie. one would start off describing ROTJ's Jabba the Hutt, then one would segue into early EU depictions, followed by the picture the Jabba's Palace anthology and the original Essential Guide to Characters paint, with Darksaber and so on and so forth. Might even pass peer review. --maru (talk) contribs 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get thee to FAC

I just went through the article and copy edited a bit. There wasn't much to change, though. I mostly removed some redundancy and explained a few terms that non-fans may be unfamiliar with. I removed references to the species of certain minor characters, as I don't think it adds much to the article to know that Oola is a Twi'lek and Greedo is a Rodian; in fact, it may be confusing to non-fans to mention such details that are not directly pertinent to the subject at hand. My only remaining suggestion is to add some quotes from the films to the "Star Wars films" section. For example, in the paragraph with the line "Dialogue between the characters reveals that Jabba had sent Han Solo on a Kesel run to smuggle spice . . . ", pepper the whole thing with direct quotes from Han and Jabba. And where the heroes are being fed to the Sarlacc, perhaps quote C-3PO's description about being slowly digested and all that. (I'm a big fan of direct quotations from primary source material.)

Over all, I think this is a strong piece. I hope the authors will consider making a FAC run with this sometime soon. -- Amcaja 23:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Revised per your suggestions above. Placing it on FAC. Dmoon1 01:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jabba's laugh OGG

I think there must be some problem with the OGG file. From what I can tell, the way the file was linked in the article was correct. However, when I try to listen to the OGG, WinAmp just sits there. If a laugh sound effect is desired, perhaps someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars can record one? -- Amcaja 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome!

Just wanted to give my congrats to Dmoon1 for getting this to FA status! The Wookieepedian 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article does an excellent job of staying out-of-universe and is a good example of an appropriate Wikipedia article on a fictional topic, in stark contrast to the recently-featured Bulbasaur. (Clearly I'm still bitter that Raul654 deleted my Featured Article Review on that one.) --P3d0 12:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Alien" reference in intro

The use of the wikilink to extra-terrestrials and the description of Jabba as "alien" makes little sense. Jabba is portrayed as a native inhabitant of Tattooine, no? He is only alien from our perspective in the audience. I think a better word here would be creature. What is the consensus?Michael Dorosh 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Creature" is better. "Alien", as you've pointed out, is defined differently by various points of view, whereas "creature" doesn't have that flexibility. EVula 17:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the article is supposed to be written from our perspective as an audience, which by your own admission indicates that "alien" is a better choice. – Mipadi 17:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Er, no. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." From a real world perspective (and, coincidentally, an in-universe perspective), Jabba is not an alien, as the character is a Tattooine native. EVula 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the term "alien" would indicate "non-human" from an out-of-the-universe perspective. – Mipadi 21:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jabba the Hutt is a fictional character and not a native from anywhere. Even in fiction, though, Jabba is not a native of Tatooine; the character wasn't born there. Alien in Star Wars fiction describes any character that is not human. This is really a pointless debate. BTW, the article already received consensus at FAC with Jabba the Hutt defined as an alien. Dmoon1 21:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How is "alien" then being defined in that context? Because the humans in Star Wars would be just as "alien" and the creatures, from the perspective of the audience...Michael Dorosh 21:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Who says they're not aliens? This is why this is a pointless debate in semantics. The first few sentences in the lead define Jabba the Hutt as he is depicted in Star Wars fiction, and that is as an alien. This is why I gave more weight to the use of the word alien when I wrote this article. This is also why alien was linked here: Extraterrestrial life (popular culture) and not here: Extraterrestrial life. If you read the lead of Extraterrestrial life (popular culture), you will note that it says (this may, however, be OR):

This usage is clearly anthropocentric: when humans in fictional accounts accomplish interstellar travel and land on a planet elsewhere in the universe, the local inhabitants of these other planets are usually still referred to as "alien," even though they are the native life form and the humans are the intruders. In general they are seen as unfriendly life forms. This may be seen as a reversion to the classic meaning of "alien" (see Foreigner ) as referring to "other," in contrast to "us" in the context of the writer's frame of reference.

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Dmoon1 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: In this particular case, WP:WAF is unhelpful. Noting the quote mentioned by EVula above, Writing about fiction also says: "Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own milieu. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations." Dmoon1 23:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the quotation from Extraterrestrial life (popular culture) (and the fact that it was FACed with "alien") is good enough for me. I still disagree, but there are also about a thousand better things for me to argue over. ;) EVula 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I should have realized someone was guarding "their" article like a pride of lions defending a carcass by a look at the page history. I'll gracefully withdraw lest I get sprayed with urine. I also disagree, but if forging consensus means wading through pissy paragraphs like the one above, it is scarcely worth it. I should have thought it obvious that since the character is not regarded as "alien" by any of the characters it interacts with in the movie, it would be a misrepresentation to refer to him as such. Apparently not.Michael Dorosh 01:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jabba the Hutt and every other non-human character in science fiction (except robots) are referred to as "alien", regardless of what planet the human characters are from. This is not a matter of personal preference, but fact, as demonstrated by the sample of sources below.

  • Jean Cavelos, The Science of Star Wars: An Astrophysicist's Independent Examination of Space Travel, Aliens, Planets, and Robots as Portrayed in the Star Wars Films and Books (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999), pp. 20-22.
  • Max S. Kay and Michael J. Hanson, Star Wars: The New Myth (Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2002), pp. 35-36.
  • Jeffrey A. Weinstock, "Freaks in Space: 'Extraterrestrialism' and 'Deep-space Multiculturalism'," in Rosemarie G. Thomson, ed., Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body (New York: New York University Press, 1996), pp. 329-335.
  • Berkshire Encyclopedia Of Human-computer Interaction (Great Barrington, Mass.: Berkshire, 2004), p. 469.
  • Stephen J. Dick, Life on Other Worlds: The 20th-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 134.

BTW, the only way a featured article remains featured is when editors guard "'their' article[s] like a pride of lions defending a carcass". Little edits that detract from the article's quality add up if not kept in check. Mike: Thanks for withdrawing "gracefully". Dmoon1 03:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey dorosh your starting to sound like Obi-wan "...so what I told you was true, from a certain point of view... " (episode VI after Youda died "transformed into force")

[edit] Video games

The article lacks of a "appearance in video games" section. Is this because Jabba did not appear in one of the star wars video games? CG 17:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that pertinent to me. What would it say? "In Super Return of the Jedi, Jabba is the boss of Level 6." Unless some critical analysis of Jabba's video game appearances can be found, that seems like pointless filler to me. — Amcaja 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a quick mention of, "Jabba has also appeared in several videogames". The Wookieepedian 22:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Brian, no point and doesn't tell us anything critical about the character (unless it was Jabba the Hutt, the Video Game, which of course there is no such thing). As far as I know Jabba makes no major appearances in video games. Dmoon1 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. What about Star Wars Demolition, the pod-racing games, and mebbe Shadows of the Empire? --maru (talk) contribs 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about the first two, but I played Shadows of the Empire for the Nintendo 64 and I don't really remember Jabba the Hutt. I just looked at the Wookieepedia article on Star Wars: Demolition and it does seem that Jabba is doing something important in that game. I've added a small sub-sections under "Appearances". Dmoon1 04:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. I really think the new section on video games is overkill. It adds little or nothing to the article. It's not Wikipedia's job to document every appearance of every fictional character (despite all the horrid "in popular culture" sections that abound in other (non-featured) articles), and I don't know if I would have supported this article for FAC with this level of cruft. — Amcaja 08:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It pained me to do it and I'm not happy with it at all (I guess I was trying to be diplomatic or something). I had to struggle to come up with two paragraphs just to avoid having a one paragraph sub-section. I'm standing by my original statement: until there is a Jabba the Hutt, the Video Game, the character's appearances in video games is just not notable enough. Dmoon1 13:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In the MMORPG, Star Wars: Galaxies, the most significant questlines available to the player (except those to become a Jedi, perhaps) is choosing to join a side of the Galactic Civil War and doing missions for the Rebels or Imperials. However, there is a third lengthy "mercenary faction” questline available to all, working for Jabba at his palace on Tatooine. At first you can only enter the palace’s dark initial chamber (with the slowly rising metal gate), working for a lowly henchman, but as you progress through the quests you gain further and further access to explore the expertly recreated and expanded palace until you can enter Jabba’s party room and receive quests directly from Bib Fortuna and Jabba himself (if you beat all the quests you can even go into Jabba’s private bedroom). It’s not exactly Jabba: The Video Game, but it’s very nearly 1/3 of the MMORPG’s major content. JovBlackheart 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that MMORPG presence worth mentioning? JovBlackheart 19:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this makes the cut as notable. — Amcaja 03:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page

This is the main page article for today.--Chili14 00:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Suitable for a Featured Article

Although this article seems to be well written, it is far from a suitable candidate for a featured article. The subject matter renders it ineligible. Real encyclopaedias don't have articles about Jabba the Hut, because they are not written by sci-fi nerds. Wikipedia is, and one of the reasons it gets bashed in the press is because crap like Pokemon has more presence on wikipedia than serious topics like history. Having JABBA THE FREAKING HUT on the front page makes wikipedia look like a two-bit joke of an encyclopaedia - like it's a collection of trivial shit, compiled by uncultured, know-nothing computer nerds who think Star Wars is the greatest work of literature ever composed. Having this as featured article undermines the credibility of wikipedia as a serious work of reference. --Corinthian 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Common Wikipedia falacy #6 ("Wikipedia Pays Too Much Attention to Trivial Topics") rears its ugly head. Raul654 01:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does pay too much attention to trivial topics. Looking through the medical articles (my profession) they are very very poor and limited, while any pop culture reference is over-detailed. Probably because medical experts with time to spare on wikipedia are far rarer than pop culture freaks with lots of time on their hands. To which your response may be "why don't you fix them up", and of course my whole point is that I don't have time. I don't think this article is not suitable, because it does reflect what wikipedia is, I am just saying that you can't deny that wikipedia is greatly lacking in important areas. Sad mouse 03:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It will be helpful if you can recruit a few more medical experts to this site. You can also join Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Shawnc 08:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Like it or not, Jabba the Hutt's a pretty major figure in pop culture—he isn't limited only to Star Wars, as the article shows. A lot of work went into making sure the article related the character to facts in the "real world", and I'm of the opinion that the editors did a very good job. Just because a character is fictional does not mean he hasn't had an impact on culture and the "real world" in general. – Mipadi 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The great thing about Wikipedia is that even if you "don't have time to fix the medical articles", there are many people who do. And they will. --Boneka 07:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
They haven't. Sad mouse 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
They have indeed not. Your point? Are we supposed to erase articles about popular culture until medical articles are comprehensive enough? --Boneka 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No, as I said above, there is nothing wrong with wikipedia being pop-culture orientated, it is a simple consequence of the contributor demographics. I don't agree with Corinthian that pop-culture articles should not be featured articles. But I strongly disagree with Raul654 dismissing the statement "Wikipedia Pays Too Much Attention to Trivial Topics" as a fallacy, and the point of my reply to Raul654 was just to say he dismissed Corinthian's claim for the wrong reason. Sometimes having correct logic is more important than reaching the correct conclusion. Sad mouse 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion is a critique of Wikipedia on the whole, not this article. As such, it should be taken elsewhere. EVula 23:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article is going the wrong way

Since this "featured article" appeared on the main page, it is definitely going the wrong way. Comparing the current version [1] with whatever can be seen of the original introduction on the main page, you can see that the current version is much, much worse. It is going exactly the wrong way, against all the guidelines in 'writing about fiction'. See all that nonsense about "full name, Jabba Desilijic Tiure" and "a former monastery for a group of mystics known as the B'omarr monks", and all such unbearable, worthless cruft — and that's only the introductory section! This is WP:FAR material, if not worse. The cruft takes over. Very, very sad. 131.111.8.98 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not cruft, it's part of the character. The Wookieepedian 01:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
A lot of it is cruft that, if it had been in the article when it was up for Featured Article Candidacy, would have caused it to fail. The best thing to do is to revert vandalism now, and when the article leaves the main page, compare it's Featured version to the current version, reverting changes one-by-one and only leaving the actually helpful edits behind. — Amcaja 08:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This article was just vandalised!!! I don't know how to fix it though.Noha307 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This article STRONGLY needs to be S-Protected.-24.92.41.95 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be locked (Fredrikjohansson 14:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Yeah, when I looked at this article when it was featured for the day, there was a huge picture of Dick Cheney at the top of it. I'm not encouraging vandalism, but damn I had a good laugh about that one. Spoonman 22-Oct-2006

[edit] Resembalance to Another fictional character

Mabey include a bit about his resembalance to leto II in the dune books,its in the dune article so might be worth looking into Hellionzod 02:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in a more general section about parallels between the book at RotJ. I don't see much that can be said; the entire comment on Dune (novel) is "...and the "Hutts" which show a resemblance to Leto II as the god emporer [sic]". Not sure why I'm telling you this, though, since you're the one who added it. [2] I just removed it, as it stunk of OR. EVula 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how fair your dismissal of this person is. Many people have pointed out how Lucas mined other sources to create his works: Kurosawa, westerns, etc. Anyone who has read Dune can point out several parallels, like Tatooine to Arrakis, Fremen to Sand People, and, as this person says, Jabba the Hutt to Leto Atreides II in the later books. I don't think you can dismiss this out of hand; it may belong with RotJ, but it should probably be mentioned somewhere. --L.A.F. 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It smelled like original research, so I removed it (had it actually explained how the Hutts resemble Leto II, I might have left it alone). The Sarlaac and Tusken Raider parallels were explained; Jabba wasn't (the fact that it was introduced into the Dune article just a couple of hours before it was brought up here, by the same editor, puts a sizable strain on my good faith). I didn't mean to be dismissive, but I suppose I was. *shrug* I still feel like it was a valid edit, though. EVula 05:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you confused "original research" with "blatantly obvious?" If look up and say, "The sky is blue!" would you shoot me down for "original research?"
Unless a notable critic has made this comparison somewhere, it doesn't belong in the article. — Amcaja 08:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Right. Because "a notable critic" can see the resemblance, while normal people must be blind, deaf, and illiterate.
And I think that Jabba looks like Mount Rushmore. Shall I put that into the article? Please read our policy on original research and citing sources. — Amcaja 08:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

List of fiction inspired by Dune its in there,I added it to the main dune article as I saw it there.Not sure about the source though it seems to be a fairly common article on message boards (http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/12303,others i have seen via a google search),not sure if that makes it OR

Yeah, that's a start, but other Wikipedia articles, message boards, blogs, and the like are not acceptable per Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. — Amcaja 01:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who Shot First

Under Jabba's film appearances there is reference to the Mos Eisley cantina scene. The original wording of the article is as such: "Han Solo has a confrontation in a Mos Eisley cantina with an alien bounty hunter named Greedo (Paul Blake and Maria De Aragon) that ends with Greedo's death, even though Greedo shoots first." I have slightly altered this scentence to read: " ... alien bounty hunter named Greedo (Paul Blake and Maria De Aragon) that ends with Greedo's controversial death scene." I believe this entry is a little more encyclopedic and a little less fan opinion. I linked "controversial death scene" to the "Han Shot First" page for readers who are interested in forming their own opinion. Phimu222 12:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Props to whoever changed MY change to "Greedo's death" - it sounds better that way. Phimu222 15:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sprotect?

I thought articles on the main page were not supposed to be protected or s-protected. I know it keeps a lot of vandalism out, but it also keeps legitimate editors from editing anonymously. --Fang Aili talk 13:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree - I was about to post about this myself. See Semiprotection#When not to use semi-protection. Vandalism of the featured article is quickly spotted and removed. The FA is in the long run improved by being on the main page. I suggest that the semi-protection should be removed - there doesn't seem to have been any discussion on here about it before it was placed. --Richardrj talk email 13:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it.. I tried to unprotect it but it doesn't seem to be working. Plus the entire site seems to be running very, very slowly for me. --Fang Aili talk 14:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Mystery solved.. it's unprotected for editing but still protected against page move vandalism. Cheers, all. --Fang Aili talk 14:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't jabba first appear in Episode IV? Or was that another hutt that was talking to Han Solo?

In Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope you can clearly see Han Solo talking to a hutt, was that Jabba, or another hutt? Or maybe my memory is going crazy and there was no hutt in episode IV...

    He did.24.116.120.82 13:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read closely.. he did in the "Special Editions" which were released rather later, in 1997. I was confused too!

[edit] "Bellicose laugh"

How can one have a bellicose laugh? Laughter that incites or promotes fighting? Laughter that implies you're violent? It seems like someone is trying a little hard to use "big" words.

[edit] I assume this is a joke

"Although a relatively minor character in Star Wars Jabba lives in Sable River and goes by the name Josh Dittler and is very fond of Meatloaf"

Above comment was from me. I am going to remove that as it seems to be a joke RevKWR 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone already removed it, thanks! RevKWR 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fluctuating dates

There is a sentence that states "He first appeared on film in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977) " in the article. I've seen this switch between 1977 and 1983 quite a few times already over the past 24 hours. What is the correct date for this? --HappyCamper 16:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Both the original trilogy and episodes 1-3 were released with 3 years separating their release dates. Star Wars Episode IV was released in 1977, V in '80, and VI in '83. JovBlackheart 17:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

His first appearance was in VI (83), but was later added to IV (77) when it was re-released. Bytebear 17:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Chronologically, he first appeared in Episode 6. His insertion into Episode 4 is irrelevant (in this case). EVula 17:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Warning???

For the unfortunate among us that hav'nt got round to seeing Star Wars (myself not included), should there not be a spoiler warning as a large amount of plot is revealed? edit: forgot to log in! silvarbullet1 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If they haven't seen Star Wars, they don't deserve such a courtesy. JovBlackheart 17:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female Hutt??

The article states that Hutts are Hermaphrodite, so the female Hutt mentioned (and briefly seen) in Episode 1 is not actually female, but has female "qualities" or characteristics. Just a few extra words would fix this i guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvarbullet1 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Semi-protection

More vandalism is happening to this article. Since my attempts at sprotecting it failed twice, I recommend someone else do it. Diego001 18:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just adding {{sprotect}} won't actually protect the article. Also, I don't think protection is a good idea (See Semiprotection#When not to use semi-protection and the discussion above.) --Fang Aili talk 18:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor spelling correction needed in template

In the Episode I template near the bottom of the page; under Featured Vehicles: Trade Federation MTT; the word Federation is misspelled (as Federatin); just an FYI; thanks; --FeanorStar7 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'ved fixed it but since it was an obvious but minor error and you were sure you were correct, why didn't you just Wikipedia:Be Bold and fix it yourself? The template was never protected as far as I can tell and in any case you should have no problem editing a sprotected article... Nil Einne 19:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanx for fixing it; I would have done it myself but wasn't sure how to access the template; when I tried to do it from the Jabba page itself it just gave me an episode tag with no way to edit it. So I thought the fastest way to do it was to ask about it on the talk page--FeanorStar7 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leia captured before or after Luke

Leia frees Han from the carbonite, then is captured, then Luke enters the picture. Leia even tries to warn Luke that he's standing on the trap door over the rancor. Urania3 00:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

*nods in agreement* Leia is in her metal bikini when Luke arrives, which wouldn't happen if he arrived before she did. EVula 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that there is no specified time lapse between the scenes of her capture and Luke's arrival, therefore it could have been as little as one day or as much as several months before Luke arrived. Who knows what happened in that time... --Theotherness 15:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this accurate?

For example, in Return of the Jedi, the alien slave dancer Oola is fed to the rancor monster because she fails to satisfy his lust

If I recall correctly, Oola pulled on her chain before being fed to the rancor. This lack of obedience was surely what upset Jabba, no? Vranak 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. According to the Star Wars Databank: Jabba delighted in watching the young Oola dance to the music of the Max Rebo Band. When Jabba wanted more than dance, however, Oola refused. Angered with his rebellious slave, Jabba opened the trap-door beneath the dance floor, and fed Oola to his deadly rancor creature.
If you change "fails" to "refuses," you'll capture the rebellious side of her personality, while still keeping intact the idea that her death revolved around failing to fulfill Jabba's sexual desires. In fact, I'll make the change. It can be reverted easily if others dislike it. - PersonPerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.97.140 (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Appearances

I don't know how they should be put in, but Jabba (or some derivative of him) has appeared in at least one episode of Sealab 2021 and Drawn Together. Can anyone add that in the popular culture section? Shrumster 08:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First appearance

The first appearance is definitly Return of the Jedi (1983), this was his first apperance to audiences as he was cut from the 1977 release of A New Hope and only apeared in that movie in 1997 when the special editions were released. To suggest that his first appearance was in A New Hope is wrong as first appearance is historical rather than chronological. If it were to be chronological we should state that his first appearance was in The Phantom Menace, which also wouldnt technically be his first appearance. However i have said that he was digitally added into A New Hope in that opening paragraph but i think it might be unnessicary to include so we may want to remove it. --Paradox CT 00:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Trivia?!?!?

Whoa. Why the heck is there no trivia section? Someone totally needs to put that in. I included a little bit with Jabba's plaque in the Starwars films section Jackson Smith 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are not appropriate in articles. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. And your edit was original research and also inappropriate. Dmoon1 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The meaning of the name

Jabba means "frog" in Yiddish. Erudil 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean George Lucas derived Jabba the Hutt's name from Yiddish or that Jabba's name means "frog". Unless there is a reliable source that states otherwise, this is original research. Dmoon1 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

All I said was that Jabba means frog in Yiddish. This is a fact and you cannot deny it. Erudil 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How is that relevant to anything beyond just being a trivial fact? Dmoon1 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A trivial fact is still a fact. Erudil 17:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost (tv series) Allusion

Anyone want to include the allusion of Lost in The Brig episode to Jabba the Hut's death by shackles (Sawyer killed Cooper with shackles). Entertainment Weekly or E! Online wrote about this. Berserkerz Crit 08:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode I

Is Jabba displayed in episode 1 (starting the Pod race) or is that just another funny Hutt :)

Yes that was Jabba, you could have just worked it out by checking the end titles it says so there. Peace keeper IInobody but me 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does the Jabba article not mark him as dead?

Leia killed him so mark him as dead. Angry Sun 23:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The nature of fictional characters renders such distincitions pointless. See the deletion discussions for "Dead fictional character" categories for more info. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is where literary present tense comes into play. Simply put, the entire fictional work as a whole is viewed in the present tense and so we can only mark Jabba dead if he is dead every time we see him. Remember, stories are not events and so they don't exist in the past. Jabba is alive at the beginning of Return of the Jedi and then dead by the end, but he's very much alive the next time we watch the movie again. So, that's why we don't mark him dead. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When Jaba first appeared.

It is said in the article that Jabba first appeared on Star wars 6. I just saw star wars 4 and jabba appeared for about 2 min with Han solo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.118.38 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's from the 1997 Special Edition and the 2004 DVD release. Jabba was not present in the original Star Wars when it was first released in 1977. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)