Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace/Archive 2

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

Why "Cast"?

OK, I know that this is a featured article and all, but I just think that it would be appropriate to rename the Cast section into maybe Cast and Characters or simply Characters, since you're actually descriping the characters of the film and only mentioning the cast.

Partially it has to do with symmetry between all of the other Star Wars film articles. The Cast section also contains information on the casting of the film which supplements the fact that the section is used primarily to explain who played who rather than explaining the characters as the plot section pretty much takes care of that. The Filmaker 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, so the Cast section is basically a job description for the actors. Makes sense. --SoloReX 07:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solo Rex (talk • contribs) 07:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Um, was that supposed to be sarcasm? The Filmaker 02:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all. I mean I guess it does make sense to actually say a little bit about what role it is the various actors have to play. This is an excellent article. --SoloReX 06:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical and cultural allusions

PLEASE HELP ME Sorry to ask this but I was not able to find it on the page. I remember seeing this film on Midnight opening night, However the people I work with said that they where not allowed to show a midnight showing, and say that becuase I was nine years old that I must have seen it the next nigth and just thougth that it was the midnight showing, if you know where I can find a site that states that at least some theaters had a midnight showing that would be very helpful, you can email me at spencerjfish@yahoo.com. Thanks Again

To quote from the named section in the article: "The Star Wars film cycle features a similar religious narrative involving Anakin."

Similar to what? The previous sentence in that paragraph is referring Maul's appearance. The only sentence before that is a general statement, half of which is also on Maul's appearance. (Since contributors seem to be playing up the Japanese connection, one might as well say that Maul's appearance comes from oni. Maybe someone can write a piece of religious propaganda with that in it, then we can cite that as a reference--not introduce it as original research--such as a contributor has done to support the devil-like appearance.)

I must confess to being insufficiently familiar with the Bible to know the bit about a "messiah born of a virgin who is tempted to join ... his sworn enemy—in order to save the life of ... his secret wife." Perhaps that is part of the reworked Bible that originates from a similar place to that which ejested midichlorians. Virgin birth and a messiah only occur in the New Testament and--unless someone is tempted to relate this to the forty days--that character is never tempted to join the enemy, nor is there a secret wife. (Don't start quoting The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail to me, thank you.)

To claim that virgin birth "parallels a concept developed by Joseph Campbell" is an unfortunate choice of word--unless one is suggesting that Campbell is an immortal or time-traveller who first came up with the story of virgin birth a long time ago maybe in a galaxy far, far away. Perhaps he described or elaborated it but develop can mean originate generate and that he didn't do.

Given that the birth of Luke and Leia and Padme's death doesn't come until two films later this concept is misplaced in this article.

The section is confusing and needs to be reworked or removed. Waerloeg 09:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Corrected the blatant misquote about the samurai connections ("although they practice zen and martial arts, the jedi knights were modelled after the samurai warriors") to be in line with the source cited (and the fact that samurai warriors practiced zen and martial arts...). In addition to this I'd question the wisdom of citing Christian propaganda (The Gospel According to Lucas) as a source here. Although it is indeed in the source, I'm quite sure anyone with more than surface knowledge of the subject will agree that the Jedi Knights have very little to do with any orthodox form of buddhism as practiced in east asia (although it does seem quite similar to what some would term 'california zen'...) 87.60.172.211 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Saga Begins

Should this song be referenced anywhere here? Perhaps under "pop culture references" or something? Just a thought.--Gleezus 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • A "Pop culture references" section is merely a trivia section in disguise. The Filmaker 16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Several articles fork off "pop culture references" into their own lists for this reason. It keeps the size of the main article down, and keeps away objections of having a "trivia" section. --JohnDBuell 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jedi "Mind Tricks" don't work on Gungans

In the synopsis is the following sentence:

  • Through a Jedi mind trick, Qui-Gon secures a submarine, which he, Obi-Wan, and Jar Jar use to reach the capital of Naboo and rescue Queen Amidala and her escort.

As I recall, the trick didn't work, and Qui-Gon was chastised for trying it. He ultimately used diplomacy (and the Gungans' desire to be rid of Jar Jar) to get the submarine. I'll let someone more expert on the topic make the fix. Fjbfour 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Never mind, I realized my error, the article is correct. Fjbfour 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

VHS release?

I'm surprised nothing is said about the initial resistance to a DVD release. I still have one of the US boxsets of the VHS release (Widescreen Collector's Edition from early 2000), which Lucas's people said at the time would be all that would be released until the prequels were done. There was also apparently some consideration as to whether or not they should BACK DVD (which in 2000 hadn't really picked up in sales yet, and DIVX had only just died). It was only after fan-led petitions that they caved and did a DVD release, which then followed the later two movies. Archives of some of the debates on the issue can still be found online (see forums.dvdfile.com). Of course, conspiracy fans would say George intended it to happen that way all along, just as with releasing the original trilogy on DVD.... --JohnDBuell 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such debate or resistance to the DVD release. If you'd like it to be included in the article, you'll have to cite your sources. Message boards (forums) are not considered to be suitable references. The Filmaker 05:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[1] February 2000 statement by Lucasfilm on a non-release of Ep I on DVD in 2000. Amazon lists an original release date of April 2000 for the VHS, and preorders seemed to have started in January or February of 2000. The first DVD wasn't released until October 16rh 2001; the announcement must have been in August or September, but I'm not finding the actual announcement, just a September 10th 2001 press release about its creation: [2] IMDb also notes that this was the final (or one of the final) movies to be released on LaserDisc, but it seems to be the only source for that. (on another note, "The Phantom Edit" that circulated fan circles as episode 1.1, with a lot of Jar-Jar's scenes cut, got a mention in all but name at [3]). --JohnDBuell 05:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Going by the archives at thedigitalbits.com, the DVD announcement was made in June 2001, about 14 months after the VHS release, and 16 months after the DVD denials. [4] The release is covered on [5] details on the campaign run by SW fans and film fans is still up at [6]. --JohnDBuell 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Front Page

Good job guys, I feel both happy and sad that this is a featured article. On one hand, it's a star wars movie. On the other, it's Phantom Menace. Keep up the good work Star Wars Wiki. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

924.3 million?

The article says it made $924.3 million.That's more than ROTS which made about $850 million.

is there a miscalculation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.136.63 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

  • No, without adjusting for inflation, The Phantom Menace is the highest grossing Star Wars film. The Filmaker 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this 924.3 Million WORLDWIDE right? Because not even Titanic made that much domestically. And, that's the reason I came to this discussion page. I remember seeing a news show, can't remember which, that said Lucasfilm expected to break Titanic's gross income, they didn't, but I wish they had. Even though people camped our near movie theatres to be first to buy tickets to TPM, people were seeing Titanic literally 30 times. The snare 05:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, TPM = 924 million Worldwide, ROTS = 850 million Worldwide. The Filmaker 05:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yoda leader of the Jedi council?

I copied this from the article: "Frank Oz as Yoda. The leader of the Jedi Council, who is apprehensive about allowing Anakin to be trained. Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu. A member of the Jedi Council who also opposes the idea of training Anakin." But it's the other way around. Windu was the council leader, Yoda was just another member. It's counter intuitive, I know, but that's the way it was. Vince 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And where did you get this from? Gdo01 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Windu isn't the leader of Jedi Council. There is no clear leader, although Yoda is the most Senior member, followed by Mace Windu. Hibbidyhai

great

its the featured article.
again.
>:|—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.155.32 (talk • contribs)

Not "again". You may be confusing this article with Revenge of the Sith which was Today's featured article about six months ago. The Filmaker 04:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Angry

Forget it. I tried rewriting parts of the article to make it read better and we have the typical Wikipedia self-elitists making things the way they want. I'm not going to sit here for hours and hours and play games with this. Gabe 07:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You tried changing "George Lucas is a legend and" to "Legendary film maker George Lucas". Neither instance was correct, as while George is legendary in my opinion and yours, it's exactly that, an opinion. Any opinion in Wikipedia must be in quotation marks and cited to a reliable source. -- Zanimum 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious

The following is direct from the article

"... reappearance of the Sith, a religious order "

I know quite a bit in star wars and I do not believe that the sith should be classified as a "religious order." Does this mean that the Jedi order was an opposing "religious order"? Jackchen123

  • The Sith articles are in the 'Jedi religion' category although I don't know if that's appropriate. Siths form an order pursuing similar goals and using similar means, but I very much doubt it could be considered a religious order. I don't remember any Sith talking about gods, religious rituals and such. The only "religious" remark is about a god-like status of a Sith leader. I've replaced "a religious order" to "an opposing order." Svetovid 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In Star Wars itself one of the generals scoffs at Vader and his "sad devotion" to an "ancient religion." And Vader's response is, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." Also, in Empire, when Yoda explains the Force to Luke, he is clearly describing a religious attitude. Fumblebruschi 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, throughout the Star Wars series there are a number of references to the Force as an "outmoded religion" by those who have never witnessed somebody manipulate it. I think the idea of it as a religion is supposed to be a misconception brought on by the ignorance of those whose minds are too clouded to feel the force. It's much like Hinduism in the sense that people are clouded by their ego and do not realise that Hinduism is not a way of life, or a religion- it is dissosciation from life and a philosophy. It seems that there are a few plausible references to Eastern religions in the Star Wars series. The Jedi's were not organised in a religious fashion. Darth Vader was most likely mocking the General's ignorance for believing it to be just an "outmoded religion". Ph33rspace 04:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is nitpicking but the plural and singular form of Sith/Jedi are the same. Just like the singular and plural form of deer are the same. Hibbidyhai

It's true, in Star Wars Obi-Wan does not use the word "religion." Tarkin does ("The Jedi are extinct. You, my friend, are all that remains of their religion.") and so does Han Solo. However, Solo calls the Jedi beliefs a "religion" in front of Obi-Wan and Obi-Wan does not disagree. Also, the way the characters discuss it, it seems like a religious issue. Luke says accusingly to Solo, "You don't believe in the Force, do you?" And such statements as "May the Force be with you" are not really just philosophical observations. The Jedi do not seem to have been priests or ministers, but they were a hierarchical organization dedicated to a supernatural entity which they describe as though it were a living, conscious being. What is that, if not a religion? Fumblebruschi 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

so its defiently a religious order. But its more science then anything, the force is real (relativley speaking) and the lightsaber and stuff is based on science. I don't see how its a religion. Although Fumblebruschi point is well taken except i think Darth Vader was being sacarstic.

Kudos

One thing I like about this article, and that I was worried about when I set off to read it, was that the first sentence of the reaction section begins with the rottentomatoes score. I've been inserting that into the lead of all kinds of movie's critical reception/reaction sections as it first and foremost let's the reader know the real critical score and can serve to prevent cherry picking. Even if cherry picking is done later people can still see through it one way or the other. The rest of the article is solid too and I'm very glad to see this movie (which I actually liked despite Jar Jar and the kid's bad acting) get such a good article. Quadzilla99 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Front page needs changed

The opening line is vandalism and needs to be fixed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.61.0.50 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Reply on 204.61.0.50's talk page —Malber (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 June 2008

Sandstorm

I readded that bit which a user removed. It's relevant and interesting but could someone else review? Thanks. - Denny 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Seem relevant enough to me. The Filmaker 15:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's trivia. It's not relevent to the filming. It's just thrown in there. It's not brilliant prose. It's poorly sourced. This is a featured article. Enough reasons? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sandstorm that wipes out the film's sets is not relevant? It was relevant to them. It was relevant to their filming. It's relevant within the article. The prose is fine, there isn't anything wrong with it. As for the source, the source contains photographic evidence of the sandstorm and first-hand accounts of what happened. It is a proper source. The Filmaker 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. How many films filmed in the desert have their sets wiped out? Can you integrate some sandstorm into the overall narritave? As it was, you basically wrote "Hey, sandstorm." Write it here first. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I honestly do not have the statistics over how many films that are filmed in the desert have their sets wiped out. I also honestly don't believe that they exist. However, since an entire Featurette was devoted to the incident, I doubt that it is common enough to disregard. The Filmaker 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you add more info about it to integrate it into the text? Like I said - right now it reads "hey, sandstorm." It's just floating out there. Why is it notable? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I just made some edits to the section in question, mentioning that there was a similar sandstorm on the Star Wars set back in 1976. In light of the interesting parallels, I believe it's fairly significant to the production history of the film. If there is agreement, then the maintenance tag should be removed. Alcarillo 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the dispute about the ambiguity of the title - if you need to explain to someone who's already seen the film what the title refers to, it's ambiguous. MisfitToys 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


It's notable from this bit of historical trivia... "While filming, a fierce sandstorm destroyed several of the Tatooine sets in the desert outside Tozeur, Tunisia, and filming resumed two days later. The same thing would happen to George Lucas 22 years later while filming Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)" I can only find it (so far...) on IMDB here in the controlled (non-message board) section, so it's audited by their editors. The 1977 sandstorm is pretty common knowledge and in the extras--I don't remember which set/release--you can see Spielberg and Lucas walking through the wreckage, laughing about it in 1977 after the storm. It's worth mentioning since the historical irony of having it happen again at the lead off of the next trilogy as well.

What could be the best way to integrate this...? - Denny 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need that {{content}} tag in regard to this bit of information about the sandstorm? The tag seems to have been placed with unnecessary hostility, judging from the edit summaries. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag... the sand storm info has been in that spot since at least last July 2006. I think concensus supports its staying then. - Denny 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I reinserted the tag. You will not win by edit warring. I suggest you integrate "hey, sandstorm" into the text or get rid of it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the sandstorm bit out and remove the tag; it doesn't make or break the article, and it will stop this pointless squabbling. Please go back to editing your primary articles. — Deckiller 14:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel this information has merit, and there is no consensus to remove it. If this user reinserts it, it's a 3rr I believe... - Denny 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me understand - a four day old user is going to insist on keeping trivia in the article, he's not going to make any improvements to the trivia, he's going to edit war about it, and he's calling me the edit warrior? If this trivia problem isn't solved, I'm going to ask for more eyes to look at the entirety of this article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't wanna edit war, ok? What wording do you think is OK? And everyone else together? Please what do the regular article editors think too? - Denny 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
How about, instead of arguing over a tidbit of verifiable, you try to work something about the "citation needed" tag in that same section? It *is* a featured article, after all, and that tag is far more harmful to it than the question whether that detail about a sandstorm is relevant. Circeus 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna bow out and leave it to the regular contributors... I don't see what the big deal with the sandstorm stuff is, and it's verfable. If someone wants to take down the tag its up to you. Sorry if I caused I any trouble by trying to help... - Denny 19:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Protect Article

Now that it's featured article, shouldn't the admins protect/semiprotect it, cause there's been a lot of vandalism going on to this article. Luksuh 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Although main page FAs are the target of much vandalism, there is widespread concensus not to protect them. They are the first page many see of the free encyclopedia anyone can edit and its been felt to be offputting if that page cannot in fact be edited. Often anon users spot revert vandalism and sometimes they even spot errors or contribute useful content. Many users watchlist the mainpage FA and vandalism is reverted fairly quickly. WJBscribe 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Page gone?

I was going to edit out an instance of 'Obi-Wanker', when I noticed that the whole article had been changed to simply "aaaa". What happened??

victoria 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just love how vandals actually list in the edit summary what they did to the page. That is so stupid it's hilarious. I just wish it would stop because I was actually trying to look up something when I got the blank page and then the Worst Star Wars Movie ever line in the refresh. SailorAlphaCentauri 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the vandals don't; the summaries are automatically added. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh well. It was more fun when I thought people were being stupid. SailorAlphaCentauri 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I mean, on top of vandalizing the page. SailorAlphaCentauri 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 :-) WJBscribe 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Soory for damaging the formatting of this page. I was also working elsewhere, and wasn't paying enough attention. Again, my apologies.

Also, why is this page up for speedy deletion? MacGuy 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Messed Up!

Someone has messed the page up! With:

"Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars...ect" Aero Flame 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Someone has fixed it now :) Aero Flame 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a normal occurrence?

Does this happen to every page that becomes a featured article? MacGuy 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It mostly happens to featured articles that are Today's featured article. However, since it's Star Wars, it's a little more so. Especially since it's a film that was not...... loved by a lot of the fans. The Filmaker 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. You should have seen what happened when San Francisco was the featured article. Now that was bad. Gdo01 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Replying to MacGuy: Wikipedia chooses to allow each day's featured, most highly trafficked article to be abused over and over again by IP editors, and in doing so chooses to confuse some significant portion of its readers (as is obvious in a couple of comments here). I've never understood this silliness and dogmatism, but it's based on the (disputed) "policy" at Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Discussion is here. –Outriggr § 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The particularly preposterous levels of vandalism are recent development of the last six months, however, and it's quite likely that it will soon become the normal practice to semi-protect today's feature. Circeus 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Not really the last six months, no. You should have seen the vandalism on the Ido article last Christmas. Mithridates 22:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

youtube links of music videos

The links to various video websites present various copyright and WP issues, such as spurious links. See WP:EL for a full discussion. thanks!-Robotam 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sectioning of Reaction section

The recent sectioning of the Reaction section seems pointless. While I can see the desire for efficiency, there is a line that has to be drawn. All of these subjects are on the subject of the public's (as in not the production and distribution companies') reaction to the film. Hence we have a "Reaction" section. This is over sectioning. There is no need to section of Fans vs. Critics as they are related to the same overall subject. In addition, I believe that user also added a bit of OR to the opening of the "Fan Reaction" section. Something can not be allowed in an FA. The Filmaker 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The section also includes racial controversy and box-office returns, which are categorically very different than fan and critical reaction. Box office, in particular, is a significant topic (particularly given this film's record-setting returns) and deserves more than to be lumped under "Reaction." Vote for some form of sectioning. Happywaffle 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I am not saying that the Reaction section only or should only contain information on the critical and fan reaction to the film. The "Reaction" section is for any reaction of any sort. Box office and racial controversy are both reactions to the release of the film. If the paragraph(s) on them should grow into an abundant amount of information, then it would be wise to section them off from the rest of the section. However, at the moment, to section the information off will create small, one paragraph sections that go against the FA criteria. The Filmaker 16:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Article doesn't capture the disillusionment this film caused to fans

It bears noting that this film virtually destroyed all credibility that George Lucas had with his fans and there was a lot of hostility toward the film from fans. It is an important part of the Star Wars exostory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.242.205 (talk • contribs)

Certain controversies and reactions are covered in the "Reaction" section. Anything more would require a suitable reliable source. — TKD::Talk 11:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You're definitely gonna need at least one reference, if not many more than one, for the line "this film virtually destroyed all credibility that George Lucas had with his fans." The number of people that went to see Episodes II and III disagrees with your point. 152.23.196.162 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"DESPITE FAILING TO LIVE UP TO IMMENSE EXPECTATIONS..."

I have tried to edit this before with no luck. This line makes no sense and is clearly not NPOV. You say this and then follow it up by saying it was 1999's most successful movie and made more than any other Star Wars film to date. This just looks sloppy and the line should be removed.

venom-smasher

The sentence is obviously a means of "switching gears" from the critical reception to the box office reception. When speaking of "success" the paragraph is obviously referring to the box office draw. However, the "immense expectations" is referring to the reaction the public had to the film. In other words, box office does not equal "living up to expectations". The Filmaker 02:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
you know, ive never really known a guy who could say that the phantom menace is just his favorite star wars movie (or favorite movie in general)... on the contrary, there seems to be many who seem to believe otherwize, some of them fervently while we are at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.56.249 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New Jar Jar Additions

I do find the addition of Lucas' response to the criticism of the character to be well sourced and informative. It should stay. However the additions of a petition and what seems to be the equivalent of linking to a message board, I disagree with. The petition is from a site where anyone is able to make a petition as they please. In addition, it is not a notable petition as it only contains 86 signatures (which from my experience is not a lot). We did not say that all fans disliked Jar Jar. But a high number did. The Filmaker 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My problems with this article

I have added a weasel words tag to the reaction section. I suggest looking at The Spider-Man movie articles to see how a reaction section should be done (although with hopefully less critic's sources). This is in response to all of The Star Wars movie articles, which seem to be trolled by the same users.

The fact is, if you read all of the articles from A New Hope to Revenge of The Sith, you can see a number of individual Star Wars Fans have made sure that anyone reading the article will read that The Original Trilogy is superior to the Prequel Trilogy, and that nobody liked The Phantom Menace.

Actually, I myself was the prime editor of these articles when bringing them up to featured status. And I actually liked the prequel trilogy. This goes the same for majority of the prolific editors of these articles, I believe. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No professional writer would ever put anything even resembling opinions such as that in a real encyclopedia article.

Nearly every single good article on Wikipedia features some sort of Reception or Reaction section. The reaction of the public, especially with media related articles is extremely important. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of IMDB as a credible source is atrocious, though it hasn't stopped anyone on wikipedia from using it as a safety net. Again, with IMDB, their ratings for movies are irrelevant because of the millions who saw said movie, how many of them actually are members and voted on these polls? Just looking at The Phantom Menace, it says 133,791 votes. How many of those are double registered users? And thats still a fraction of how many people actually saw the film.

From what I am told now, IMDB is only a credible source when sourcing IMDB related information. A high number of people use IMDB as their film outlet, more so than any other film database. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly only being used to weasel an opinion into the article, by circumventing the rules, because in "wiki-land," apparently if you cite a source, no matter how ridiculous, it's concrete. Those aren't the rules, it's just a way that users have been able to weasel their opinions into an article (hence the term "weasel words").

Wikipedia is devoted to reliable sources. IMDB is only one you have cited so far as an unreliable source, however you are mistaken as it is citing IMDB related information. Also, that is not the definition of weasel words. Please read, WP:AWT. Because of that, I am going to remove the tags. If you still wish for the tags to be readded, please state why in the talk page and I will readd them myself. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Infact, the whole forced opinion thing on Wikipedia is completely out of control. I for one am tired of reading articles and seeing an entire section devoted to "Some people didn't like the cute fuzzy creatures in the movie" and then citing a source where somebody said they didn't like the cute fuzzy creatures because they reminded them of a dog they used to have that chewed up their favorite pair of socks.

An encyclopedia article should be in depth, but I don't care who liked this or that, even if you have proof, which you don't. It's irrelevant and you know it. The Revenge of The Sith article actually reads amateurishly like that, saying something to the effect of "Some people thought it was the best of the three prequels, some people thought it was just better than The Phantom Menace, some other guy said it was the best film since The Empire Strikes back, and still some people thought it was on par with the other two movies."

I mean, come on, if an article can make it to featured with that in it, then obviously your article isn't 100% error proof.

You know, I'm sure that if I polled a bunch of people, I could find many people who didn't like "New York styled Pizza" because the crust was too thin and they liked more toppings. But, who cares? If I am curious about New York style Pizza and I feel like reading an article about it, why would I need to know that "some" people thought Deep Dish was superior?

Now, if thin crust pizza was found to lower your cholesterol and a certain age group liked it because of this, then that is relevant to the article. movieguy999 August 16 2007

I don't care if you don't care. Wikipedia is not here to please you and you alone. If you can explain exactly why the reception of...... well...... anything is irrelevant to a subject, than you might have a case. Despite what you may think of Wikipedia, just because you say something is irrelevant, doesn't make it true. I'm unsure of why you even want the information removed. At times you seem to want it removed for inaccuracy and other times it's because you think it is irrelevant. However, the citations are from notable media outlets. Hence it is not inaccurate. And you would be hard pressed to find anyone on Wikipedia that would agree with you that the reception to a film is irrelevant. The Filmaker 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
uff, dont mind if i sayd it but this was a pretty pointless argument, anonimous user you are using many chauvinisms when it comes to discussing, this page is supposed to give an optimal account of knoledge already out there about the movie, this ranges from critics, imdb, etc. Every single movie article is supposed to have it. And Filmaker, for putting up with him (or who knows how many others) i humbly salute you.200.83.56.249 15:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

NEW CHANGES TO THIS ARTICLE!!!

1) Had to remove almost all of the critical reaction section. All that is left is a line from Roger Ebert. The rest of the lines were just fluff and contained weasel words like "Many" and "Some" which can never be validated. It was just unnacceptable.

2) Removed lines regarding characters being stereotypical as it was just a figment of a reporters imagination and this kind of thing could be said of just about any work of fiction. This also seems more like trivia or something a reader could find out about elsewhere. This section should only contain general information about the reaction of the film.

3) Also removed lines about midi-chlorians. Whoever originally worked on this could work it into the main article, without the empty fan opinions of course. Not surprising that there is absolutely no mention of midi-chlorians in the main article, because someone was trying to shift the reader towards their opinion that midi-chlorians were a bad plot point. This stuff just sucks the life out of the article and makes it look totally unprofessional because it's obviously just a fan opinion.

4) Removed information about IMDB.com and RottenTomatoes.com because both of these sites are not valid review sites. It's ok to quote Roger Ebert, or other valid critics who are regularly published and hold water within the industry. However, RottenTomatoes calculates both film critics and amateur critics from the internet, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. IMDB's voting has also come under scrutiny for it's voting calculations (which has not surprisingly been removed from it's wikipedia page) and simply cannot be taken seriously for ranking films. It's a great database for information about films, but should never be confused as a valid method of determining a movies popularity as only a fraction of people who see a movie actually vote.

Futhermore, polls are irrelevant in articles such as this.

5) Also removed information about The Razzies as it is also not a valid award. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movieguy999 (talk • contribs) 16:04, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I hope we can work together to continue to cleanup this article, as well as the other Star Wars articles which I will be working on during the week, and make them some of the best on wikipedia!

movieguy999 August 22 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:55, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

As I said in the edit summary, reverting your large edit, please do not remove copious amounts of information from the article without discussing it in the talk page. Placing a message on the talk page explaining your actions, does not qualify as "discussing". The article is a featured article and is required to remain stable. Please help come to a consensus before making such edits again.

1) You're going to have explain a little better than. "It was fluff" and "It had weasel words". Considering that everything is cited, you're going to have explain why each exact line should not be included.

2) Reaction/Reception section's include controversy. It is not the "General Reaction" it is "Reaction", that is positive and negative. Whether it was the reporter's imaginaton or not, it was well documented. Therefore is notable.

3) You don't seem to be assuming good faith by that assertion. The information is cited, therefore it is not simply "a fan opinion".

4) Rotten Tomatoes has a strict criteria for it's film critics. They are only allowed to be added if they are associated with particular film critic organizaton, i.e. Boston Society of Film Critics, Broadcast Film Critics Association, Chicago Film Critics Association, London Film Critics Circle. Please see http://www.rottentomatoes.com/pages/critics

Furthermore, you will have to provide a citation for this so called "scrutiny" of IMDB's ranking system.

5) Most film sites I have seen list when the Razzies are announced and list what awards are "won". Film stars have shown up to accept these awards. I'd say that's notable and valid.

The Filmaker 22:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Movieguy999 has been repeatedly removing information and while I tried to tell him to stop, he has once again removed information. I think the removal of information of Movieguy999 and reverting of Movieguy999's revision could be a big problem. Greg Jones II 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I came here from the AN/I thread about this problem. I only agree with one change Movieguy made, and have reinstated that singular change. The box office section opened with a ridiculously negative connotation, and in reading the source, the subtle chagnes made only barely skirt plagarism, and further, I read the cited source to be referring to fan expactations not being met regarding content, not box office performance expectations not being met. As the #1 film of the year in 1999, I think that reading that comment to mean the performance and earnings wwere lousier than expected seems absurd. Nothing in the citation supports the 'we were expecting to be higher than #1, we were shooting for #-1' implications that would be needed to open the wiki article's section with that slant.

As for the rest, it looks like tons of sections being gutted, which is a bad decision for an FA status piece. If there are genuine concerns, perhaps Movieguy could get a diff between the version he objects to and the FA status version, and compare points he finds genuine interest with, and revert to the FA version, or improve ON the FA version to include newer worthy information? ThuranX 19:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This would not be a good idea, considering that he refuses to discuss any of his changes in the first place. The Filmaker 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

REACTION SECTION DISCUSSION

Ok, as you can see, I am discussing the changes I think need to be made and haven't edited anything. I have been thinking more about it and I think we can come to a compromise here.

First, the midi-cholorians statement needs to be completely removed as the source cited is a forum. If we are going to be using that as a credible source, then we could come up with all kinds of fan opinion to smear this movie with. There still needs to be a write up of midi-chlorians in another section of the article. I don't see how it was only being mentioned as part of the reaction section.

Second, I propose a move of the stereotyping of characters paragraph into a CONTROVERSY section. Wikipedia rules suggest doing this as well, or else not mentioning it at all. It's a stretch to begin with.

Third, I suggest beefing up the reviews from critics. I had put in a statement from Roger Ebert is a really good description of the film, but alas it was lost in the revert. I am not trying to steer the article in any way, so positive and negative reviews should be included. However, it looks very much like you are steering the article by having all of these lesser known critics as sources and then just saying "many people" or whatever. Those are weasel words for sure and in a similar situation, you would not use Roger Ebert as a source and then say "Many," you would say Roger Ebert. So, again it looks much like you are trying to steer the reader with fluff sources.

Also pertaining to the critics, I would like to see the same critics used for all 3 prequels (preferably all 6 films). This would establish a pattern for the reader. For example, if you have Roger Ebert's review on all of the articles, the reader can see a clear comparison of each movie. So, you wouldn't need to embellish or look like you are steering the article with bogus sources and say something like "Most people thought the film was better than the previous one, etc, etc, etc." By having clear critical reviews from a set number of critics, you establish a true critical reaction and the reader can then draw their own conclusions.

I think a number such as 3, 4, or at the most 5 critics should be listed, with Ebert a definite and preferably critics that are really well known, like Roeper, Leonard Maltin, or Joel Siegel.

Fourth, I disagree with the statements that begin these sections, such as "The film received mixed reviews" and then you cite rottentomatoes, which as I have previously argued, isn't a valid source. A fun website none the less, but you shouldn't use their ratings in an article that you want to look professional. Take for example, Revenge Of The Sith carries an 80% (says 82% in the article) with Phantom Menace at 63%. However, they only counted 139 reviews for The Phantom Menace, while they counted 247 for Revenge. It also shows that the source isn't stable as it apparently crawls the web finding new reviews or something like that.

The same goes for IMDB and their controversial rating system. All in all, anytime you put ratings like that in an article, it looks like you are trying to steer the reader towards a distinct opinion.

Fifth, I suggest moving the Mystery Science Theater 3000 paragraph into a "References in Popular Culture" section as it's just one guy poking fun at the movie. You don't mention Mel Brooks' spoof, Spaceballs in any of the original trilogy articles, so this just looks like an inconsistent snip that is included in the article.

The same can also be said of Ewan McGregor's statement about The Phantom Menace being flat. While he did say that, it's only in the article to smear the film. It just doesn't fit at all. Take for example, Harrison Ford's now infamous line "You can type this shit, but you sure can't say it" is included in the production section for A NEW HOPE, where it's also used as a reference in the reaction section of REVENGE OF THE SITH to smear George Lucas' writing talent. And here McGregor's statement is being used to sandbag The Phantom Menace, while in the A NEW HOPE article, Ford's line is just a neat tidbit for the production section (which is where it should be). Again, if the Ford line is used the same way as McGregor's, then it would be smearing A NEW HOPE.

Movieguy999 01:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you are willing to discuss. Please remain civil in your discussion and unbiased as it has become very obvious that you feel that the article is too negative towards the film. Might I add that a couple sections up I have another user who complains the article isn't negative enough. I will reply and I hope that you reply back to my messages, rather than simply changing the article again and complaining that I simply won't let you edit.

"First, the midi-cholorians statement needs to be completely removed as the source cited is a forum. If we are going to be using that as a credible source, then we could come up with all kinds of fan opinion to smear this movie with. There still needs to be a write up of midi-chlorians in another section of the article. I don't see how it was only being mentioned as part of the reaction section."

Once again your first impulse is too simply remove the information. In this case the section only needs to have the citation removed and a "fact" tag placed in it's place. I'm not sure why you what a "write up" of midichlorians and how it would aid the article.

"Second, I propose a move of the stereotyping of characters paragraph into a CONTROVERSY section. Wikipedia rules suggest doing this as well, or else not mentioning it at all. It's a stretch to begin with."

If you are going to say "Wikipedia rules" you're going to have to provide a policy page, or at least an essay page. A controversy section would simply end up being a subsection of the Reaction section. So I'm not seeing what the big difference is. Also, the information is only a small paragraph and therefore does warrant it's own section. Again, you're being rather vague as to how it is a stretch. It sounds like your own biased opinion.

"Third, I suggest beefing up the reviews from critics. I had put in a statement from Roger Ebert is a really good description of the film, but alas it was lost in the revert. I am not trying to steer the article in any way, so positive and negative reviews should be included. However, it looks very much like you are steering the article by having all of these lesser known critics as sources and then just saying "many people" or whatever. Those are weasel words for sure and in a similar situation, you would not use Roger Ebert as a source and then say "Many," you would say Roger Ebert. So, again it looks much like you are trying to steer the reader with fluff sources."

If you would like to add more notable critics reviews, I have no problem with that. However, the "Many" and "Many people" and other "weasel words" you speak of, are cited with actual news articles that state "Many" and "Many people". Please understand that the use of weasel words is used to bias information when no actual citation is available. Here the citation specifically states "Many" and "Many people". We don't have one opinion, we have a journalist who reports on the opinions of "Many people".

"Also pertaining to the critics, I would like to see the same critics used for all 3 prequels (preferably all 6 films). This would establish a pattern for the reader. For example, if you have Roger Ebert's review on all of the articles, the reader can see a clear comparison of each movie. So, you wouldn't need to embellish or look like you are steering the article with bogus sources and say something like "Most people thought the film was better than the previous one, etc, etc, etc." By having clear critical reviews from a set number of critics, you establish a true critical reaction and the reader can then draw their own conclusions.

I think a number such as 3, 4, or at the most 5 critics should be listed, with Ebert a definite and preferably critics that are really well known, like Roeper, Leonard Maltin, or Joel Siegel."

I see no real point to having a pattern of critics. If you'd like to add more critical reviews to the articles, that is fine. Just as long as you are not removing information.

"Fourth, I disagree with the statements that begin these sections, such as "The film received mixed reviews" and then you cite rottentomatoes, which as I have previously argued, isn't a valid source. A fun website none the less, but you shouldn't use their ratings in an article that you want to look professional. Take for example, Revenge Of The Sith carries an 80% (says 82% in the article) with Phantom Menace at 63%. However, they only counted 139 reviews for The Phantom Menace, while they counted 247 for Revenge. It also shows that the source isn't stable as it apparently crawls the web finding new reviews or something like that.

The same goes for IMDB and their controversial rating system. All in all, anytime you put ratings like that in an article, it looks like you are trying to steer the reader towards a distinct opinion."

You have never provided a citation for IMDB's "controversial rating system". Rotten Tomatoes collects as many reviews as it can at the time of release. One film was released in 1999, One film was released in 2005, obviously the internet and the sites resources have grown in the last six years. It could also be argued that more critics are around or have requested to be added. Roger Ebert has mentioned Rotten Tomatoes both in his TV and newspaper reviews. Also, the site is owned by IGN Entertainment, which is in turn owned by News Corporation. Thus the final owner of the site is Rupert Murdoch. The fact is that the site can be used a mass reference hall and it also provides an easily wrapped up package of events. How this is not stable or reliable is beyond me.

"Fifth, I suggest moving the Mystery Science Theater 3000 paragraph into a "References in Popular Culture" section as it's just one guy poking fun at the movie. You don't mention Mel Brooks' spoof, Spaceballs in any of the original trilogy articles, so this just looks like an inconsistent snip that is included in the article."

Well, first, sections akin to "References in Pop Culture" are despised as we will get every new user of unregistered editor coming along an adding a little tidbit anytime somebody mentioned Jar Jar in a film. Second, the difference is that Spaceballs simply spoofed the films. Whereas MST3 outright mocked the films and as stated for the record that they honestly believe that it was the first film ever made (for the resources that were had).

"The same can also be said of Ewan McGregor's statement about The Phantom Menace being flat. While he did say that, it's only in the article to smear the film. It just doesn't fit at all. Take for example, Harrison Ford's now infamous line "You can type this shit, but you sure can't say it" is included in the production section for A NEW HOPE, where it's also used as a reference in the reaction section of REVENGE OF THE SITH to smear George Lucas' writing talent. And here McGregor's statement is being used to sandbag The Phantom Menace, while in the A NEW HOPE article, Ford's line is just a neat tidbit for the production section (which is where it should be). Again, if the Ford line is used the same way as McGregor's, then it would be smearing A NEW HOPE."

Is it not notable that one of leading actors of a film thought the film was not particularly stellar? As for Ford's line, Ford was speaking of one element of the production, he has said that he likes the films and likes George Lucas. McGregor outright said that the film itself, in entirety, wasn't great. Their opinions are notable. As for their placement, Ford stated the "You can type this shit..." line during production, about the production. McGregor stated the "flat" line after the release, about the release. And considering that a large number of people did not like TPM, it's notable that the star kind of agrees with them. Ford simply had a problem with dealing with the dialogue. Did any fans agree with him at the time? The Filmaker 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To The Filmaker...

As to your responses:

Yes, there needs to be something mentioned about midi-chlorians in the article, other than it being used to smear the movie in the reaction section. Again, it was a critical plot point, which describes how the Jedi are able to do what they do, and yet it's not mentioned in the article at all, save for that a hand full of fans on a message board didn't like the idea. The part in the reaction section should still be removed completely and I don't need an admin to mediate that. There is a bogus source, so it's not even worth mentioning (unless you are trying to smear the movie).

The supposed stereotyping of characters should either be in a controversy section or not at all. But, again, the whole thing is mentioned only to emphasize the negativity of the film, which is why it should be in it's own section or taken out completely. If it isn't worthy of it's own controversy section, then it's pretty much irrelevant to the reaction section. Take for example, a similar controversy was created over Lando being played by a black man, with allegations that George Lucas hired a black actor only because of backlash from the first film, blah blah blah. But there is no mention of this at all in the original trilogy articles.

I can't understand your reasoning at all of not wanting to maintain the articles consistency by having the same critics reactions on each of the articles. The only reason I can think of that a person wouldn't want that, is if they were trying to smear the articles. Take for example, you have Roger Ebert calling The Phantom Menace "exhilarating" with a 3 and a half star rating, but you conveniently only use Ebert as a source for the AOTC and REVENGE articles where A) He gives a 2 star rating to AOTC and B) He gives REVENGE the same star rating as The Phantom Menace.

You, or whoever originally made these edits is clearly CHERRY-PICKING their critic reactions in order to force an opinion. For example, You are only using Ebert when his statements are useful to your opinion, otherwise you bury him. You are doing the same by cherry-picking other critics. The critic you have praising one movie, could also be praising the other two. There is absolutely no other reason why you would mention Ebert's "3 and a half Star" rating for Phantom Menace and not mention his "2 Star" rating for AOTC. Again, you or someone else is using their edits to lead the reader.

You have the audacity to put blunt fan opinions in each article saying "MOST FANS THOUGHT THIS MOVIE WAS BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS, ETC, ETC, ETC" but then don't mention when one of the most well known critics in the world says otherwise.

Which is essentially your argument about the McGregor statement. If it is notable that the star of a movie says that movie is "flat" and if it is (apparently) notable if a comedian in Mike Nelson says the movie was the worst, then how is it NOT notable that Roger Ebert gave AOTC a 2 star rating?

And finally with Mike Nelson, you mention the RIFF TRAX of The Phantom Menace, but once again conveniently fail to mention that ATTACK OF THE CLONES received the exact same treatment:

http://rifftrax.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=66

In general, all three articles could use some beefing up in the reaction section to bring them up to be more consistent with the original trilogy. Take once again for example, the A NEW HOPE article goes on about people waiting in line to see the movie. The same thing happened for The Phantom Menace. The excitement was there. There was a lot more going on than Jar Jar bashing when this movie came out.

Movieguy999 20:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are not assuming good faith. You are still accusing me and others of intentionally trying to "smear" the film as if the reaction were more negative than it actually was. There was controversy there was a notable amount of fans who disliked midi-chlorians (a new citation however, needs to be provided). Midi-chlorians are mentioned in the Cast section are also wiki-linked should the reader want more information.

"The supposed stereotyping of characters should either be in a controversy section or not at all." Again, you need to provide a policy page or at least an essay for this statement to be taken seriously. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a suitable rationale (I know it's for AFDs, but the principal is the same), just because something does or does not exist elsewhere on Wikipedia does not mean it is suitable or inappropriate for this article. Once again, you've accused us of simply adding information to emphasize the negative reaction. Reaction means all reaction not just certain elements. It is an indiscriminate term. Controversy is apart of reaction. Whereas the information is not abundant enough to deserve it's own section. If we were to place the information in it's own section, it could easily be argued that the information should simply merged into other sections.

I just said that if you wanted to add information (positive or negative), that was fine as long it was notable and you did not remove information. I was also under the impression at the time that Ebert was sourced in all three articles, it appears I was wrong and he should be added purely on his notability. However, there seems no point to cherry pick certain critics to be the Star Wars critics of the film articles. If anything it is biased. Once again, I'm not arguing with adding critics, as long as you don't remove them. I'm really not sure what you're complaining about. WP:AGF

As for RiffTrax: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

The Filmaker 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you assume good faith when the facts are staring you right in the face? The notable number of fans who didn't like said film is debatable regardless. Only a fan himself with similar feelings would even think to put that in the article. Suggesting that only the most notable critics be featured in the article is not cherry-picking. Cherry-Picking is exactly what has been done in the articles, which is "User doesn't like the movie, wants the article to reflect that most people agree with his opinion, so he searches the internet until he finds a critic review that agrees with him."

You can assume good faith all you want, but noone is going to even find these critics and use them in the article unless they are agreeing with their opinion. And even then, just because a critic who is more of a fan than other critics says "Most people hated the last movie" or whatever, doesn't make it fact and looks bad in the article to begin with.

The reason Roger Ebert would never say anything close to that, is because Roger Ebert doesn't crawl around the internet looking for fan opinions to put in his article. There are other well known critics who also don't look for fan opinion. So, you are guaranteed an unbiased review.

Your arguments have been noted and I will be editing shortly with what I believe is a good middle ground.

Movieguy999 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what discussion is. Discussion is a means to find consensus, not a compromise. Especially on Wikipedia. And two replies to one editor is a bit of stretch when comes to actual "discussion", especially for changes of this magnitude.
You are again making accusations with no proof. I was main contributor to these articles. And I'll have you know that I actually liked the prequel trilogy, including Episode I. Yet for some reason I am hellbent on biasing the public to believe that the film is despised by all. For some reason I want the film articles to "smear" the films with negativity. Finally, the number of fans who didn't like the film is debatable yes. However the article does provide citation of well known magazines and news articles that state these as fact. That's more than anything that you have provided to counter the argument. The Filmaker 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around. You seem to think discussion and consensus are tools for you to use in order to keep other users from editing things you don't want them to edit.

FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CON

What is from WP:CON? If you're going to make more accusations, please more clear and specific about them. Once again you are simply falling back on accusations, rather than actually rebutalling by arguments against your edits.

I don't need to reach consensus to make these edits, though I have attempted to negotiate with you out of kindness. You haven't negotiated at all, and that should be noted here, ONCE AGAIN. I added to the article and removed items that were against the rules.

I'm not negotiating? I am the one who actually replies to your messages, rather than simply circling back to your original argument, as if I hadn't ever said anything. You're not only not negotiating, you're simply ignoring another editors attempts at negotiating. Also, you say that remove the items because they are against the rules. What rules?, this is fundamental, you must cite a policy or essay page explaining how such item is in violation or at least provide a suitable rationale as to why they are in violation ("it's trivia" is not a suitable rationale).

I removed the midi-chlorians statement because it wasn't cited. You chose to add a needs citation tag in order to keep it in. If you are aloud to do that, then you can put any fan boy opinions in this article.

No, a citation tag is added to allow editors a chance to cite the information before it is removed. If it has not be cited in a reasonable amount of time, then it should be removed. One day is not a reasonable amount of time.

I removed the Ewan McGregor line because it's trivia. Do you want to have a trivia section now?

WP:AVTRIV, before you ask again. You still have not explained how a quote from the star of a film saying that the film wasn't great is trivial.

We have already discussed the shady imdb.com polls.

We have? It seems as though I rebuttuled your reasoning and you are simply refusing to talk about anymore.

The Mike Nelson bit is trivia as well and he also gave the same treatment to AOTC. You argued that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This does not apply here. You can't use that line to describe the reaction of one movie in a trilogy and not use it when describing another movie in a trilogy that received the same treatment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS only pertains to seperate subjects. Do we have to have a reaction section for each film in the trilogy? If your "just because one article has it, doesn't mean the other article has to" argument was true, which it clearly isn't, I could change the three dramatically.

Movieguy999 00:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you must explain or respond to my rebuttal over it being trivia. And yes, perhaps it should be added to AOTC as well. The Filmaker 02:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It continues...

We have been over this several times. imdb.com is not a valid source. Your original argument:

"From what I am told now, IMDB is only a credible source when sourcing IMDB related information. A high number of people use IMDB as their film outlet, more so than any other film database."

That is not negotiation. First, it's a credible source when SOURCING IMDB related information? This makes zero sense. Of course you would use it as a source if you were talking about IMDB...

That's what we are talking about. IMDB related information is being sourced with IMDB. How does that make zero sense? If you are going to source the plot of the film, you use the film. If you are going to source IMDB, you use IMDB.

The point is, imdb can't be taken seriously as a reliable source to rate said film to begin with, let alone use it as part of this reaction section. It goes back to the message board sources you keep putting in the article. IMDB IS TRIVIA.

What message board sources? The one message board source that was used for the midichlorians? The one that was removed? All of the sudden all of the sources are message board sources? Also, I've have already answered to your assertion of IMDB not being taken as a reliable source, you however have not answered to mine (this is you once again falling back on your original argument, rather responding to other user's replies).

Lets talk about trivia. Trivia = Unimportant or TRIVIAL. The fact that a fraction of people voted said movie as the most disappointing, the fact that Mike Nelson, a man who makes his living off of mocking films said the movie sucked, or one of the films stars says the film was flat 3 YEARS AFTER the release, IS NOT IMPORTANT TO THIS ARTICLE...

Mike Nelson would not be important if he were not from a well-known television series that mocked B-movies and rarely (if ever) did films as large as Episode I. This is not trivial.

Mike Nelson would have done a riff whatever you want to call it on a film of this magnitude, regardless if it was a masterpiece. Thats how he makes a living. The line about him honestly thinking it was the worst movie ever made just sounds oh so much like a fan boy opinion, with no credibility. The only difference in him saying that and the kid at the comic book store saying that, is he has been on tv. So, now you are going to give a comedian credibility in your "sacred" featured article? Again, how is it important that THIS GUY said that and made an audio commentary?

Again, Mystery Science Theater rarely mocked films of this magnitude. I don't care if it does "sound like" a fanboy opinion. It is not, and the opinion of what it "sounds like" is left up to all readers, not just you.

The McGregor statement should probably be removed from this article and added to The Attack of The Clones article as he was comparing the new film to Phantom Menace.

Oh, so now all of the sudden the McGregor statement is notable? Your opinion is like a newspaper, there's a new one out every day! The McGregor statement is more notable for the fact that he was degrading this film, not that he was comparing films.

Much like imdb, the rottentomatoes site is suspect. I went through all three prequels and the majority of the reviews that they had listed there couldn't be accessed in full, so it makes you wonder how they are truely rating these movies. A critic who had a C+ rating for one of the films was listed as ROTTEN on the site. I also found that very few critics actually reviewed all three films. Some never reviewed the first two prequels. Some never reviewed AOTC. And some critics who have actually passed away are still mysteriously reviewing movies! (Paul Clinton).

So, consistency is a huge issue with that site.

"so it makes you wonder how they are truely rating these movies." Now you are purely speculating. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research. "I also found that very few critics actually reviewed all three films. Some never reviewed the first two prequels. Some never reviewed AOTC." And your point is? "And some critics who have actually passed away are still mysteriously reviewing movies! (Paul Clinton)." Paul Clinton died in 2006, so if you're talking about reviews for the prequel trilogy, you are incorrect. If you are talking about reviews for other films, you're going to have to provide evidence.

I think what you get carried away with is, you seem to believe that if you cite a source, regardless of how ridiculous (message boards, fansites), then it makes it true.

Movieguy999 23:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if you cite a source, it does make it true. On Wikipedia, truth is derived from consensus. Consensus is derived through source. Consensus and source. You have neither. The Filmaker 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:I believe that if you cite a source, it does make it true. On Wikipedia, truth is derived from consensus. Consensus is derived through source. Consensus and source. You have neither. The Filmaker 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say to me? If you cite a source that says McDonald's French Fries are perfectly healthy to eat everyday and noone takes the time to edit your weak article, it becomes FACT? I think not...

The history of this article and your own talk page alone shows that you reach "consensus" by guarding this and other articles 24 hours a day and quickly reverting any changes and immediately reporting users that dare edit an article that you have worked on...

Movieguy999 01:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who has ever reverted your edits or the edits of those like you? I think not. I will humor you with your McDonald's analogy. If I cited a source that said that these French Fries were healthy to eat everyday, it would not be a reliable source. And even if it was, there would be someone along to contest this. This article has been featured on the main page, it has been edited and viewed by hundreds, probably thousands of different users. You are among an incredibly small minority that has a problem with it. The Filmaker 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

IMDb and other comments

I'd just like to add in the point that the usage of the IMDb as a source for much of anything, much less its own ratings, has been fairly conclusively decided against per the rejected proposal at WP:CIMDB. There was very little content which was even proposed for being allowed for sourcing, and things such as the polls and ratings were specifically proscribed more or less unanimously. One of the main reasons is because indiscriminate ratings on such sites usually are considered violations of WP:RS and WP:NOR policies. So I would have to agree that IMDb ratings should be deleted from the article.

As for Rottentomatoes, I'm not so much against that because it is a meta-compilation of pre-existing critical opinion and it does restrict which critics may participate. (Your opinions of its inclusiveness notwithstanding.) The reasons why a newer film has more reviews than an older film should be obvious - less reviews were made available online in 1999, even from longstanding critics, many of which remain offline for various reasons involving individual sites' willingness to create online archives for their pre-online material. And of course there are critics now active who were not back then. I don't think it particularly matters much, as the sample size for all of the films is large enough to be considered a valid cross-section of critical views. I do agree, however, that critical opinion is better displayed through selected quotes which highlight common thoughts or schools of thought regarding the film which were voiced by many critics.

And regarding quotes, I agree that the MST3K-person's quote probably should go, since the man has no particular relevance to the film itself, nor does he have credentials as a professional critic. However, MacGregor's should stay since he was one of the leads. In regards to the comparison with Harrison Ford's quote on ANH, I think that MacGregor's should stay in the reception section, since his reaction was to the finished film, whereas Ford's comment was made during production and therefore is perfectly understandable in its current position under Production. Girolamo Savonarola 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A quote from IMDB is nothing more than a quote from IMDB, this means that the user when reading it should have some knoledge about it to discern for himself how reliable the information is or how important he think it is to the article (same aplies to historical articles; Fox News is more than a valid source when it comes to the Iraq war, but its the user who must discern wether is this a biased statement or not). Currently IMDB has a voting system that cannot be tampered with in the long run (the voting process is specially made to counter that). It is a valid source of information regarding its own status as a popular website within the the internet itself. Currently 135.000 people have voted for the Phantom Menace as is, and the rating itself while not proper for UNESCO standards, is proper IMDB standards (all in all we are talking about noteworthy information here). Regarding Rottentomatoes we aply the same logic, its just the information Rottentomatoes gives, and again it is the user that must discern for himself. Yet all in all, these are the best tools we have when the time comes to have an idea about how a movie has been recieved once its out; one can say that IMDB doesnt count the voting of ordinary people, but only the vote of IMDB voters, yet this reassoning is affected by a serious chauvinism regarding why arent IMDB voters worthy of mentionning then?, do we have proof that they are biased?, that their opinnions are not worthy, perhaps too ignorant to have apreciated the jamaican accent of Jar Jar Binks?, are they not valid consumers of movies, and therefor have a valid point when it comes to make their opinnion, from their own perspective. A critic makes his view from his perspective depending on many factors, Roger Ebert may be a respected movie critic, but he is working for a newspaper and his review must be understandable for the common public or the readers of the Sun, he is not going to review the Phantom Menace using the same critical point of view as if he was watching a Kielowsky movie; because the audiences differ from movie to movie, he is well aware of which audience is he writting his review, he doesnt need to be a proffesional critic to watch the Phantom Menace, mainly because sayd movie doesnt have an epystomological high level; its a movie about shiny lasers (...in a galaxy far far away) that can be watched by the average Joe without any problems. YET, for some reasson you believe that something within the Phantom Menace makes it so special that we should take in accountance only critics that have a PHD in philosophy and a doctorate in linguistics (or maybe just "respectable critics", a rather lose, snobbish term); now tell me, was the movie so hard to understand?, is this movie so brilliant that an average person without any degrees or a respectable status cannot give his own account about the movie? (such as IMDB reviewers!, for example).Kessingler 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If you aren't going to discuss this in reference to policy issues, it's going to have little ability to sway me. Girolamo Savonarola 19:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
User ratings at sites like IMDb will be inherently fallacious. I've seen films like 300 and Transformers get into the Top 250 at IMDb, then they fall out of the rankings. This is a clear reflection of potential abuse, and there's no telling if even-handed follow-up votes ever truly give a balanced rating for a film. The best way to do this is to conduct bona fide polls, such as film audiences being approached and polled. Online user ratings are far too prone to manipulation, and they should be excluded from Wikipedia articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that any opinion within the article should be a direct quote from that person and that person should have some kind of credentials pertaining to film. Otherwise, you have (or already have) weaseled in fan opinions. I still argue the rottentomatoes thing, because as Girolamo Savonarola put it, you don't have balance because there are more reviewers on the net now than there were and quite frankly I still question their sources because for every review from a major newspaper, you see a website that looks very much like it was made using a basic html editor.

I have thought about Ewan McGregor's statement and I was going to say that it should simply be added to The Attack Of The Clones article, as he is praising the new movie, more than bashing the old one, but I am willing to let it stay in this article as long as we get the other changes mentioned above, so it doesn't look like it's being used just to bring down the film.

I mean lets be honest here. I am not trying to make The Phantom Menace look good, look better than it was, etc, etc, etc. Personally, I have always viewed The Star Wars films as one entity and each film could be argued to have the same controversy and criticism as the next one. Obviously, being a fan who uses the internet, you will hear a lot of people saying this or that about a certain movie, but why is there a need to give these faceless people credibility in an article that should be neutral and unbiased?

I honestly think Jake Lloyd and Natalie Portman's performances were pretty bad, but were they any worse than Hayden Christensen in the next two films or even Mark Hamil in the original trilogy? By taking Jar Jar out of the next two films, you still have the suspect acting. The point is, this is all up to the person watching the film to decide if they like it or not. Even if so many people didn't like this or that, why are they given credibility over all of the other people who don't voice their opinion on the internet 24/7? If you really hate the movie or if you really like it, feel free to go onto the internet and talk about it, but it needs to stay out of this article.

Why is there such a rabid need to edit an article so that it reflects those kinds of opinions? Why are they relevant to anyone except a hardcore fan?

It's interesting to note that out of all these people who supposedly hated the movie, a lot of people sure got upset when the movie didn't goto DVD straight out of the theaters.

If anyone actually cares about polls and ratings, they will surely venture to these sites like imdb and view them for themselves.

Movieguy999 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and we can use that same "venture themselves" logic for nearly anything, its lobbying 101, does smoking cause cancer?, well, we cant put that on the cigarrette article, no way sir... if people want to know about criticism of cigarrettes, they will venture themselves into sites like that!. The Phantom Menace?, same thing... we shouldnt place comments from those snarky "viewers" and "fans" that make Star Wars what Star Wars is, we should look around for critics like Rogert Ebert, who has the all the credentials of a film reviewer (had a tv show) and gaved one of the few all around positive reviews of Episode One back in the day. How do i know?, Rottentomatoes of course!. Yet, since both Rottentomatoes and IMDB do not provide the positive kind of review that certain people want to see, they are censored into oblivion... like a lawyer would make OJ wear Jar-Jar mittens. There is nothing wrong with this, but the problem is that like a bad political move, we are promised that no more we'll be using either IMDB or Rottentomatoes, but a better, more fair system that is not biased, composed mainly of critics with doctorates that can understand the dichotomy of good and evil present in the multi million dollars blockbuster. Yet, we have not witnessed any of that yet, the criticism section is a pastiche of Ebert, a few short lines of criticism (all of them start with the word "some...") and of course a counterpart to each criticism ("the screenplay was criticized by "some" but the saberfight really kicked ass"). Philosophers and people with doctorates (any) dont watch the Phantom Menace! (or write about it), who do you people think you are fooling?, they have actual serious work to do! ("gee, should i make my thesis about Nietzsche or George Lucas... thats a tough one"). And even if they have... what could make their reviews so different from the review of an averafe Joe?. If you people have deleted both IMDB and Rottentomatoes, at least do so properly, re-writte the whole criticism section so that it could reflect sayd change. Considering this is the most criticized Star Wars movie out there (by fans, who else?), it surprises me that none of that is on this page. How did it even accomplished a Featured Article status to begin with?.200.83.57.71 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed Lines in Reaction Section

Removed midi-chlorians line as no citation was ever found.

Removed IMDB references as per wikipedia rules (see above arguments).

Removed Mystery Science Theater 3000 ref as the show nor the host have any relevance to Star Wars.

Movieguy999 01:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted two citations from reputable film and religion scholars that support the midi-chlorian statement. Dmoon1 04:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dmoon, I am cool with the sources on the midi-chlorians, though you need to reword that first line, it makes no sense and looks unprofessional:

Film historian Daniel Dinello notes, "Anathema to Star Wars fanatics who thought they reduced the Force to a kind of viral infection, midi-chlorians provide a biological interface, the link between physical bodies and spiritual energy.

I don't know if you cut into his statement at Anathema, or what, but that looks terrible. The rest is really good.

You also should put something in the main article about midi-chlorians because they were introduced into the series in this film. It needs a brief write up at the least, and would be really nice if it had it's own section. I can do it sometime later, but you've done a pretty solid job here, so I say go for it.

Movieguy999 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. This is a common way to quote from a source when using that quote as evidence to support the statement that just came before it. You have taken the quote out of context from the first part of the paragraph. Dmoon1 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Greg Jones II 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job movie guy, now the reaction section makes absolutely no sense at all, besides giving no real account of the reaction of the movie with fans. I salute you for being one of those who contributed the most into making this article a poor one.200.83.56.253 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

FA Status Removed

Hey um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we need this article back up to FA status since this article has now been demoted. We need to get this article back to FA if we can. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 12:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Someone put down Chuck Noris as playing Darth Maul, when in fact it was Ray Parks; who was also toad in the first xmen movie. Of course Ray didn't provide the voice for Maul, and I'm not sure who did 100%. But I know Parks was the actor who played the physical part of the character, this needed to be changed in the main article part. I'm surprized this wasn't caught before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.45.49 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: It is well written with correct prose and grammar.
2. Factually accurate?: Yes, it has references and citations throughout most of the article, with little or no Originial research. Although, the "Plot" section could use some references.
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, it has everything on the movie, and stays on topic.
4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral point of view
5. Article stability? The article has been very stable with hardly any edit wars or vandalism.
6. Images?: Provides images on the topic.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)