Talk:Star Wars/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

good vs. evil

Hello Lir,


I'm not sure how NPOV applies to fiction but Good and Evil in Star Wars are a (somewhat heavy handed) plot device and I don't think that an article about this topic would be complete without referring to them somehow.


-- v

I haven't read a piece of fiction in my life that doesn't seem to touch upon good vs. evil. I think it would be fair to say that good vs. evil is pretty prevalent no matter where you look. It would probably be fine to say that the movie uses the Empire as the stereotypical bad guys and the rebels as the stereotypical good guys-i just thought it was cluttering up the opening paragraph a bit too much. Lir 06:56 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

Star Wars is notable in being very simplistic and heavy handed in it's approach to the topic. There's plenty of fiction that avoids good and evil, for example Existentialist novels, Thus Spake Zarasthustra by Nietzsche, most poetry. But anyway I'll try to work it back in making it clear that it's a plot device, stereotypical depictions etc, when I have a bit more time to word it properly. -- v

Extended Universe and Fan Fiction

There are WAY too many wikipedia articles about Star Wars topics which include Expanded Universe and Fan Fiction information intermingled with film information. This needs to be CLEARLY separated out and labeled. Examples are the articles on Jango Fett and Count Dooku.

links and edits

"changed it so Leia wasn't listed as Luke's BROTHER"

Jeez. Picky, picky, picky ...  :-)

Shouldn't we change all the ugly subpage edit links listed here into regular links to articles? The subpage functionality no longer works with wikipedia so there is no real reason why they should still exist. How many other instances of the term X-wing or Boba Fett are likely to crop up in any context other than Star Wars? If this does occur we can create disambiguation pages on a case by case basis and turn Star Wars term X into X (Star Wars) if another term is at least equally used in English. However, if the non-Star Wars term is not nearly as widely known in English than the Star Wars one, then the text of the article should be about the Star Wars term with a link at the bottom to the non-Star Wars term. See Paris for an example. Either way, we should try to make linking to Star Wars terms easy and natural within edit windows -- I for one would not enjoy having to write [[Star Wars/Boba Fett|Boba Fett]] each time I wanted to link to that article and not expose the ugliness of the subpage link. --maveric149

Done. I did preemptively disambiguate some of the edit links and will take a look at some of the minor characters and potentially ambiguous terms later to see if they also need preemptive

disambiguation. --maveric149, Sunday, April 28, 2002

Disambiguation

Shouldn't the movie-series be listed first? I mean, the project's nickname was (presumably) given after the first movie was released. jheijmans

Yes it should, but not because one usage is derived from another, but because one usage is far and away the one most widely used in the English language (you first have to establish context for the minor usage to be understood). Because there is an ambiguity issue here and one usage is far more widely understood, I would even suggest moving the space defense content to Strategic Defense Initiative, simply placing a link at the bottom of the Star Wars page to SDI and fixing any links in other articles that are trying to link to Star Wars as th space defense term. Star Wars was a nickname that was applied by the popular media for the SDI anyway so it doesn't make sense to have the content separate. The only reason why I suggest this is because of the ambiguity issue -- I am not advocating always using the most proper and correct name for things (which violates the wikipedia naming convention on use of common names that are easy to remember or link). Exceptions to this rule arise when there is an ambiguity - such as exists here (this is also why the asteroid articles are given their more technical names rather than their most common names -- 433 Eros for example -- so as to naturally disambiguate the term from the god Eros and avoid the use of parenthesis). I will do this myself in a day or two if nobody beats me to it. --maveric149, Monday, May 27, 2002

Epic

epic

    adj 1: surpassing the ordinary especially in size or scale; "an
           epic voyage"; "of heroic proportions"; "heroic
           sculpture" [syn: heroic, larger-than-life]
    2: constituting or having to do with or suggestive of a
       literary epic; "epic tradition" [syn: epical]
    n : a long narrative poem telling of a hero's deeds [syn: epic
        poem, epos]

I used it as an adjective so linking to the article was incorrect but the usage is correct. --mav

Vaders

I saw an edit war going on with links to people like Good Vader and Bad Vader and a some other people I had never heard of. The links were added and then deleted (both by non-logged in editors). Are these real characters (perhaps from the Marvel Star Wars universe)? If they are, I think the links should be left in and it should be noted in their entries that they are characters are from Marvel's Star Wars comics. -Frecklefoot

The "Wikipedia:Google Test" refers to looking something up on Google: even minor comic book characters tend to be listed on multiple webpages. These characters apparently do not. I vote for their deletion until evidence is supplied that these are "real" characters in the Star Wars fictional universe, rather than an attempt at a rather lame practical joke. The Anome
Sounds good to me! -Frecklefoot

Lucas and Campbell

Is there actually any record of Lucas talking to Campbell at all before third-parties began to link Star Wars to Campbell's "Hero With a Thousand Faces"? I'm old enough to actually remember all the press and hype that surrounded Star Wars' initial release and post-release mania. I don't remember Lucas ever mentioning Campbell's name at the time. In fact I don't recall him mentioning Campbell's name until well after a decade had passed -- long after many pundits started to make the link.

Lucas talks about Campbell on the DVD, but that's all I know.

Open SW wikipedia tasks

Do you think that I should put this in the article? It seems logical to do so, but I am not sure about it. Maybe I should put it in one of the other minor articles like Yuuzhan Vong? BTW, I made it myself.


Also, if anyone needs some good boilerplate or article text effects (i.e. background color, borders, etc.) all you have to do is point me to the article. ;)


JediMaster16 02:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No. That boiler plate isn't encyclopediatic (sp?). If anything, it should go here in discussion where things are significantly more informal. Oberiko 02:48, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put it in here. :JediMaster16 12:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Super Shadow

Supershadow (aka Mickey Suttle) is a known fraud and joke in the Star Wars community, and it's unfortunate that there are still people who fall for his act. Practically everything of actual worth on the site has been taken from other sites and posted with no attribution to the originating sites, and the rest is made up by Supershadow, including the majority of the reader mail he posts. Supershadow apparently places great pride in how accurate his "predictions" about the prequels have been, but longtime watchers of the site should note that all the claims he's made over the years that turn out later to be "true" are merely creative editing on his account - he simply goes back and changes the pages to the correct information after the fact, and deletes the original erroneous information.

All during the production of Episode I, Suttle claimed to be an employee of Industrial Light & Magic assigned to a key position on the Episode I VFX crew - that's one heck of a commute for someone who also claimed to be living in North Carolina! He also claimed to have visited Skywalker Ranch many times and to have met and worked with George Lucas. Then suddenly one day a disclaimer appears on his website (although not there now) stating that he has absolutely no connection to Lucasfilm, ILM or any of the Lucas companies. No doubt Suttle was contacted by someone within the Lucas organization and told to knock it off.

Close to this time, there were also many allegations about him involving credit card fraud, stemming from a pay section of his site that no longer exists, thanks to legal intervention from Lucasfilm which shut that down, as he was not licensed by Lucasfilm to do so. I would also hazard a guess that the apologists for Supershadow on this site are probably aliases for Suttle.

In short, the site is a fraud, the character of Supershadow is a fraud, and nothing relating to this person deserves recognition of any kind from any respectable site. Fenn 18:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


My friends and I go there a lot, and as far as we can see, it is a legitimate website. I mean, the guy knows George Lucas, he's going to star in Episode 3, and all his predictions about Episode 1 and 2 turned out to be accurate. I fail to see how this constitutes a "known fraud".

Ok, now I'm really mad. You guys had to delete it too. It's a perfectly legitimate site as far as I can see. If it really is a bad site, perhaps you could enlighten me on some of its faults.

I removed the SuperShadow link. Anybody taking a look around the site for 10 minutes could see that it is obviously bogus. Notably: SS has 'plot scripts' for Episodes 7, 8 and 9 when Lucas has time and again stated he's not going to make them, let alone has scripted them; SS's so called 'filmography' is laughable and consists of film's which don't exist (check IMDB); the picture of SS's 'girlfriend' is a hoot. We're not here to link to every single Star Wars site in existence. The links are to notable sites. SuperShadow's is notable only for its dishonesty. In fact, the Natalie Portman Empire link isn't appropriate either. HWelles 05:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually the plot scripts just give the general storyline. Even if Lucas decided not to make them, he could still have an idea for a storyline in his head. Also, look at all the information it provides such as a detailed map of the star wars galaxy, a list of the midichlorian counts of various Jedi and Sith, a detailed history of the dealings of the Jedi and the Sith. This site has so many resources that other sites don't have. My friend and I went there over a year before episode 2 and read the predictions and printed them out. We went to the movie, and they were legitimate (we did it a year early so he couldn't change them after seeing the movie). With this many Star War-based resources, I still fail to see how you can see it as fraudulent. Maybe it isn't official, but it DID accurately predict what would happen in the movies and the guy DOES know George Lucas. (forgot to sign)

I don't know if the site is accurate or bogus (fraudulent is a bit strong), because the fonts were too ugly and style to cramped for me to stay long enough to judge. It did seem to have a lot of stuff. Why not leave the link? There really aren't that many there now. --ssd 05:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have no objection to the link. People can make up their own minds. I just don't agree to editorializing the link summary. - Tεxτurε 05:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The site has 'resources' that other sites don't have because he makes them up. There's a lot of material on the site because a lot of it made up. Everything not made up is available on other sites. It's not difficult to 'predict' what's going to happen if you follow leaks. Visit his site all you want, but a link to it doesn't belong in the main article here due to there being so much unsourced and objectionable content at his site. The only proof that he knows George Lucas is this message on his site: "As you would expect, all information regarding SuperShadow is above top secret (classified at the highest level). Currently, nothing is known about SuperShadow except that SS is very close, personal friends with George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars." Clearly, the creator of the site has delusions of grandeur. Information about him is classified? It's an obvious lie, to go along with the other lies on his site. Again, I don't care if you go to the site. A link to it doesn't belong on Wikipedia because the information on SuperShadow's site is not sourced, and any reasonable knowledgable Star Wars fan would have grave doubts about its veracity. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Linking to sites with material that is widely regarded to be untrue is thus inappropriate. HWelles 05:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is not a good enough reason to remove the link. I've put a comment on there that is less biased and hopefully agreeable to all. We aren't including information from his site in wikipedia, just linking to it. If people are too stupid to make their own judgements, they shouldn't be on the web, I'm not going to judge for them. Actually, it was pretty obvious to me that his site is pure speculative stuff without reading much. I don't think it tries to hide it. I don't see anything wrong with linking to a speculation site as long as it is labeled as such. --ssd 05:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why would we link to a site if we generally agree it's not a good information resource? Wikipedia is not a link repository or a web directory. Links should be to the sources used to write the Wikipedia article, and to sites elsewhere that provide further information. This article fits neither category. Isomorphic 05:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we're in general agreement. RickK 05:43, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Isomorphic. Further, I'm reluctant to have a link to SuperShadow's site when there are dozens of sites out there with far more useful and well thought out information and even speculation that should be linked before his. Again, I'd say remove the link, or perhaps replace it with something better. I won't remove it again, to avoid endless edits, but let's try to reach a consensus. HWelles 05:46, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Link looks informative to me. Or, at least, entertaining. Well, at least, it's got a lot of info there, true or not. I've not looked at other speculation sites, so I can't compare this one to them. Either way, I don't see reason to remove the link. If there's really that many sites out there, can you find a site that links to nearly all of them, then we could list that instead; otherwise, if there really are that many, perhaps it is time for an article on Star Wars speculation where all such links could be included along with commentary about Lucas's feelings on this, and his changing opinion over the years on 6 vs. 9, etc... --ssd 05:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Adding "speculation" was a good choice. It allows that the site may not be 100% credible without making any claim either way. - Tεxτurε 06:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've created a very rough Star Wars speculation page off the top of my head. There's a link to SuperShadow's site there. We ok to remove the link from this article then? HWelles 06:47, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason why the link should be deleted. Label it speculation and leave it here. RickK 19:13, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I thought Isomorphic was convincing as to why the link shouldn't be there. We're not here to link to every Star Wars site on the web, just to the very notable ones. HWelles 12:26, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to remove it. It is labelled as speculative now. - Tεxτurε 14:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I thought you said there were hundreds of speculation sites? If there's only three, then leaving the supershadow site on the star wars page doesn't hurt much. Wiki isn't paper. --ssd 00:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What I said (or meant) was there were dozens of sites with better information and some sites with better speculation (and like I put in the Star Wars speculation article, most speculation goes on in message boards, rather than being posted up onto sites). Since the only possible value of SuperShadow's site is in its speculation, it belongs with Star Wars speculation rather than on the Star Wars article which should link to valuable information about Star Wars. Actually, I may add some more links here and there among the various Star Wars articles, of sites that I think are fairly good. HWelles 05:15, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Suit against Battlestar Galactica

What was the result of the lawsuit? The commentators on the DVD said one of the terms of the settlement was that the laser guns could not shoot "beams" of light. Can anyone document this and other terms of any settlement or judgment? Ellsworth 15:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Grand Moff Tarkin

At Talk:Grand Moff Tarkin, User:Husnock says that his understanding was that the Star Wars Homepage (i.e. Lucasfilm's starwars.com) had given permission for text from their article on Tarkin to be copied to Wikipedia (this edit). Can anybody here confirm that? It seems unlikely to me, but I'm not a Star Wars specialist. --rbrwrˆ 13:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

are paramount! We need pictures from at least each movie of the series, not to mention games like KotOR. Unacceptable. Lockeownzj00 19:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know it's late, but I'm going to have to agree. We should at least have a picture of the main "STAR WARS" yellow writing on blackground. Oberiko 13:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, how about those science fiction paintings which first inspired George Lucas? The ones with the C3PO and R2D2-like robots on a Tatooine-like planet.

Lucas' original plans

Does anyone know much about Lucas' original plans for the movie(s) back in the 1970s? Various articles give snippets (e.g. a lot of action in A New Hope was shifted from Coruscant [then named Alderaan] to the Death Star; Mace Windu was originally intended to be one of the key characters) - anyone bold enough to do an article on the full development? Timrollpickering 15:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

what about this picture?

Look at it - see if the artist minds--Txredcoat 06:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Concerning the last edit

I'd like us to take a look at the last edit (dated 16 Dec 2004 by user Jon Hart - I don't want to start a war on this page.

Much talk is made of Canon and it's application. However, we've got to come to an agreement. Please see the following comparison:

Opposing Viewpoints

Your thoughts regarding this please.

Also, to the posters - if you wish to defend your statements, please submit evidence.--Txredcoat 21:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

It's been destroyed

May the Force be with those who do not mess with the great galactic wikipedia, and do not do this thing- What happened here it's been destroyed. I am very angry with those doing these things and messing up my views of this STAR WARS part of Wikipedia- all who see this page, also research the name Zackary Richardson, yall might find it quite interesting. Anyway, please stop messing and put real stuff on Wikipedia. Z, I sure am happy that I put that on the web.

Darth Vader : Was he an Evil, or an unfortunate tool of Evil?

How does Darth Vader size up to the ultimate effect of evil? He seems to me not the real bad guy in this film, but as just a tool picked up by the emperor (dark side, lone power, devil, satan, or whatever you want to call him) and used in ways he didn't need to be. Annakin could have been the ultimate jedi, as was Yoda, but had not the power to resist. I find that Lucas was very good at personifying the devil in the form of the emperor, and Darth as just a tool, just as well as his son could have been. He showed us that We all have some bad in us, and we cannot resist the power of those higher up unless we are strong in our spirit as Luke was. We are weak, unfortunately, compared to the greater powers of this universe and galaxy.

Location of the Star Wars galaxy

The article says Star Wars takes place in the Vordarian Beltway Galaxy. Do a Google search for "vordarian beltway galaxy". Every site that mentions it says the same thing about it, and at least one admits to getting this information from supershadow.com. I say we remove the information right away. User:SpaceCaptain

If every site reads the same, then maybe its generally accepted as being canon. It also says the same on the Star Wars galaxy article. Riffsyphon1024 01:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I'm saying is this isn't canon or even generally accepted. It is fan-created information from a notoriously unreliable source. Read this article. If it's also in the Star Wars galaxy article, maybe the same person who put it here put it there. SpaceCaptain 23:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the general policy is to leave fanon out of articles. Only information with a legitimate source should be written in here. Oberiko 16:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My mistake. I realize the fathom of the situation now. Shall I also remove it from the galaxy article? Riffsyphon1024 23:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please remove it from both articles. I mean, it says a little further down on the page that the galaxy is unnamed. SpaceCaptain 17:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Need some Star Wars experts

We need to work out how much of Star Wars III is speculation and how much is actually known. Help. DJ Clayworth 22:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Character Chart

My husband and I were amusing ourselves after watching the original movies on DVD. We came up with the following chart. Maybe someone can edit it after Revenge of the Sith and place it appropriately:

Characters seen in Five movies (assume all six):

C3PO, R2D2, Obi-Wan (Ben), Anakin/Darth Vader

Characters seen in Four movies (assume Five of six)

Palpatine/Emperor (not in ANH), Yoda (not in ANH)

Characters seen in Three movies (across two "series")

Boba Fett (not in ESB or CW (or original ANH)), Jabba (not in CW or ESB (or original ANH))

Characters seen in Two movies (across two "series")

Beru Lars (CW and ANH), Owen Lars (CW and ANH)

--Entrprs6 21:35, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

May I ask what CW means? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Clone Wars" --Entrprs6 21:50, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Oh. That was dumb of me. Well maybe to avert further confusion, you could use the more-familiar AOTC (Attack of the Clones). -- Riffsyphon1024 22:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Translation request

The article contains this sentence:

The movies revolve around the transition between the Galactic Republic and the Galactic Empire during the Battle of Naboo and the Clone Wars against the Trade Federation and its allies in the Confederacy of Independent Systems led by the Sith (wrongly thought to be long dead after the Great Jedi-Sith Hyperspace Civil Wars that ended in the Battle of Ruusan, but in reality, operated in secret) who also secretly control the Old Galactic Republic, as well as the Galactic Civil War that erupts between the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire in an epic struggle between good and evil.

Can someone translate it to English?

I threw it out entirely; it didn't make any sense at all to me, and made the movies seem more like a ancient Greek history lesson. I rewrote it. Feel free to rewrite my rewrite. - Brian Kendig 23:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Expanded Universe

I just rewrote this section, and I now believe it's more accurate. I also cut out some information that I felt wasn't important enough to be in the main Star Wars article. The old version will be at my user page for the time being. Thoughts?-LtNOWIS 04:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Themes-text removal

"The prequel trilogy seems to pose a mistrust for neo-capitalism, displayed by the greedy Trade Federation. The Federation's own profit agenda is their downfall. Perhaps this entails Lucas as a democratic socialist."-I removed this from the the Themes section, shortly after an anon. user put it in. I have several reasons. First, I couldn't find "neo-capitalism" on Wikipedia, not even under another article. Second, based on what I found looking up "neo-capitalism" it doesn't seem to match the trade federation's practices. Third, the main reason they fail is that they break the law and are mean to people, who proceed to fight them. Sure, they wanted profits, but it didn't really have anything to do with any neo-capitalist sentiments-LtNOWIS 04:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

SUPERSHADOW /MICKEY SUTTLE

Ok check this out.........

I grew up on the whole Star Wars mythology and find myself to be a fountain of knowledge in regards to details and plots in the SW Universe. I however never got caught up in the whole roleplay/cosplay thing because I thought it added negative attention from fans who took the stories too far. And I never got caught up in the Expanded Universe either because both Lucas and McCallum said that EU is not absolute. point is this, I am the biggest cynic and skeptic when it comes to what SW fans have to say. More often than not they are spewing facts they think are absolute because they got it from a fansite or rumor mill. Never do they sit back and research what they find out.

One day, while trying to locate original scripts, I come upon Super Shadow's website. IMMEDIATELY I thought it was bogus !! BUT after seeing episode III, one thing stood out. The mention of Darth Plagies (or however its spelled). I have to say the first time I saw that name was on Mickey SuperShadow Suttle's site about 2 months ago. Now on I hear the name in the movie? And I also saw that Plagies may have been Palpatine's master. Also mentioned in Mickey's article 2 months prior.

Maybe SuperShadow has some legitimacy after all OR Darth Plagies was mentioned somewhere somehow before and I missed it and Mickey found it and used it in his article. PLEASE someone clear this up for me and email me at HeroicIconEric@aol.com

Some bastard made the Holocaust part uneditable

I just don't understand how some jewish extremists think.

The Holocaust part is totally uncalled for and unnecessary. and George Lucas didn't make these two trilogies just so that holocaust fanatics use the Wikipedia entry to remind people of the holocaust. Furthermore the bastard who worked in that bogus comparison between the emperor and hitler, made it so that the holocaust section does NOT appear in ANY of the page editing textboxes. The subsection simply cannot be edited. This is beyond outrageous. Those bastards are the enemies of speech and free speech. And their fanaticism will come back to haunt them ; AGAIN !

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IDIOT, THE HOLOCAUST BIT IS EASILY EDITABLE.

Themes

Any idea how the Dark Side and Galactic Empire equates to Communism and Soviet Union? After all, this was in the Cold War. Boohoo to those who claim this was a Nazi thing; so Godwinesque.

This sounds like crap, I don't see any way in which the two are linked.

Does anyone know what the line "Star Wars makes brownies" means in the article? Am I just missing a very simple joke?

It was probably vandalism. It does not seem to be there now. Johntex 21:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)