Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. When the review is complete, a bot will update the article talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Featured article star Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Featured topic star Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is part of the "Star Wars episodes" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 15, 2006.
To-do list for Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith: edit · history · watch · refresh

Maintain article for featured status.
Priority 1 (top) 
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Most Conservative Film

A letter to a website? Is anyone seriously considering a letter to a website as an important information that should be included in an encyclopedia? Besides, the whole paragraph is about the many comparisons between the Bush administration and Palpatine, and then it ends saying that a LETTER TO A WEBSITE says it's the most conservative film of the year. Can anyone explain that to me? Is anyone trying to even the odds between conservatism and liberalism in this website? Lucas himself is a liberal who dislikes conservatism... 201.9.107.10 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read the source you will see that the letter is not a simply "I think ROTS is the most conservative film of the year!" It is a detailed essay on why the said reader feels that the film, in contrast to the media hype, is actually very conservative. It was deemed well-written and poignant enough by Jim Emerson (and probably by proxy Roger Ebert since it is his website), to be shown to those that are interested. This elevates it above "Just another fan opinion." The Filmaker 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've read the source, and the argumentation for this INTERPRETATION doesn't make the slightest sense. So, because the movie is pro-constitucionalism, it's conservative? Conservatives defend the constitution and liberals don't? Did I miss something in the last 70 years? The movie presents a clear comparison between Palpatine and the War in Vietnam, which Lucas himself stated that parallels Iraq; George Lucas dislikes conservatism; many conservatives didn't like the movie because of these comparisons... and a reader writes an e-mail showing HIS interpretation of the movie, an interpretation that doesn't even make sense ("conservatives are constitucionalists, liberals aren't", it might as well be: the movie defends justice and freedom, therefore it's conservative...), and you publish here as a relevant information. It's not: it's a fan's opinion, it's biased, it shows no facts, and it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. I'm going to pretend this is not just something that conservatives are putting here to even the odds... 201.9.107.10 19:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What you just stated yourself is original research. "It doesn't make sense because of my interpretation." Obviously since the letter was published by Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, it must make some sense in some people's eyes. As soon as you get published, than your opinion might matter. The Filmaker 20:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to get childish just because you don't agree with my opinion, mate... my opinion doesn't matter because I don't have a Pulitzer? Grow up, okay?
Your answer is interesting for two reason: first of all, there's no indication that "Pulitzer Prize winner" Roger Ebert was responsible for publishing that letter. Even if there was, it wouldn't mean that Ebert himself agrees with the FAN'S OPINION (I find that highly unlikely), it would just mean that he thought this interpretation interesting enough to publish in his website (which he didn't, since it was published by Jim Emerson). I've seem examples of editors publishing letters that they didnd't agree with and sometimes even thought it had no reasonable argument, but thought it relevant that other readers would see it. Second, you didn't even bother to counter any of my arguments regarding the fact that just because the movie favors constutionalism, that doesn't make it conservative, which is the main argument for calling the movie "conservative movie of the year" (something the writer of the letter doesn't do, he just shows some conservative qualities he saw on the film).
Don't bother to write unless you have a reasonable counter-arguments instead of the usual "you have no authority to speak here". 201.9.107.10 20:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
First, you are correct in that I forgot that Ebert himself had not published it (if he had, it would show that he felt that it was relevant side of the argument), however it was Jim Emerson, who is Ebert's editor. Not exactly the man himself, but still much more relevant than any other fan opinion. Jim Emerson also took over Ebert's spot of reviewing films while Ebert was hospitalized.
Second, I did not counter your argument, because your argument is original research vs. published research. One body of work is from a website of a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, submitted by the writer's editor who himself is published author. The other body of work is posted on an open forum website from an anynounmous editor who hasn't even posted on the site before then. One doesn't hold a candle to the other. The Filmaker 20:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Again with the "you have no authority to speak here" crap. Thought this was supossed to be a public encyclopedia, where everyone could be heard. If you have a relevant argument to counter my explanations, by god, write it down. If you don't... well, there really isn't much I can do for you... by the way, I've noticed you are anonymous too, since I can't see your name anywhere... funny isn't it?
You're making it sound like Jim Emerson AGREED with the FAN'S OPINION. He didn't express anything remotely like that, in fact, he called it exactly what it was: an INTERPRETATION. Besides, does every single fan letter that is published in a website constitutes something relevant to be added in an ENCYCLOPEDIA? I have a magazine here with a letter from a fan who said Revenge of the Sith is crap... should I publish that too? Imagine if every article in Wikipedia had that kind of information... If Ebert or Emerson had written that letter, or agreed with the contents in it, I'd have no complaints about this information being shown here, but they didn't, Emerson just published it, and he called it an INTERPRETATION. Besides, let's not forget that there isn't a single place in that letter where the fan refers to Revenge of the Sith as "Conservative Movie of the Year".
My name is George Pedrosa, by the way. Happy? 201.9.46.237 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What does my being anonymous have anything to do with this discussion? I'm not trying to make a case against this letter. In addition, I was more referring to the fact that you are unregistered. You also might want to read WP:CIVIL before you post again as you're beginning to edge into personal attacks.
Again, you are not seeing the irrelevance of your opinion. In your interpretation, the letter is wrong. However your interpretation holds no weight against a letter that is published work. Granted it is just "one fan's opinion" however Jim Emerson felt it to be a relevant side of the story. Now whether he agreed with it or not does not matter. They felt it was a well constructed point, whether it be correct or incorrect. The fact that you disagree with it, doesn't make it less notable. The Filmaker 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)



[edit] 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)
Movie guy, please do not be disruptive, and putting tags like POV on actively maintained Featured articles without any warning or discussion could be considered disruptive. Lets talk things out, and follow article guidelines. Judgesurreal777 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


I have made many attempts at resolving this. You can check the talk pages, the discussion has been completely one-sided. I have made my case, the article clearly has issues, and noone has made an attempt to resolve them. I have given exact details of what is wrong and The Filmaker has done nothing but point to other articles and his own fan opinion.

movieguy999 August 29 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieguy999 (talk • contribs) 12:49, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

If the removal continues to happen once again, I will report this conduct to the Wikipedia administrators. Greg Jones II 13:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am really getting sick and tired of Movieguy999's actions to the three prequel articles. This is a problem that needs to be fixed. Featured articles must be stabled. Greg Jones II 14:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am so close to leaving this place. Greg Jones II 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I will ask an advice from a Wikipedia administrator, and I will rely on what the administrator says, not by what Movieguy999 says. Greg Jones II 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Now, I am getting really upset about the repeated removal of the information for what Movieguy999 says. We need to ask someone to stop this issue as soon as possible. Greg Jones II 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


The admin needs to be impartial. There are several admins who are friends to editors of this article and this can be substantiated by checking their talk pages. movieguy999 August 29 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieguy999 (talk • contribs) 14:28, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Please abide by consensus. You are completely ignoring consensus, it does not need your demands, nor your threats. I do not lie. Greg Jones II 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I will now report this incident at WP:ANI as soon as possible. Greg Jones II 14:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


This situation has now been reported at WP:ANI. Comments there should be appreciated. Greg Jones II 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] DVD Release

Regarding this section of the article: "This release is notable because, due to marketing issues, it was the first Star Wars film never to be released on VHS in the United States." I think that this can be eliminated. First of all, this doesn't really make the release notable. Most films released at the same time were not released on VHS. Also, the fact that it WAS released on VHS in other countries makes it even less notable. It also does not have anything to do with the "DVD" release, but rather the "home video" release. Mcgonigle 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoda & Palpatine

Hmph, is there some reason for NOT including a short explanation about Yoda's attempts to stop Palpatine? Not to sound whiny about it but I've tried incl it at least once & it keeps being taken out. This is an important part of the plot, it explains why Yoda went into exile & the future of the Jedi order. I know this isn't Wookiepedia but it should be in here. Also, anywhere in the discussion of the article where this was debated previously? Oh yeah, almost forgot: WHINE! WHINE! WHINE! Tommyt 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil in discussion, the reason why the explanation of Yoda's attempts on Palpatine is not included is because the plot section is a summary of the plot of the film, not the plot of Yoda or Palpatine or the entire saga. This film alone. And while it does take up a large amount of the runtime, it is not essential to understand the plot coherently. The Filmaker 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I added few details --Blain Toddi 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the article it states that Yoda and Darth Sidious are equally matched. Does anyone have any references that support that claim. IMHO Darth Sidious at least at the point in the film has a slight advantage over Master Yoda. Here is my reasoning, at that point in the movie the separatist are killed and the only remaining Sith's are Vader and Sidious, so if Yoda defeats Sidious he would overturn the empire and the Sith would be destroyed (seeing as Vader is defeated by Obi-Wan). Yes I understand that at that point Yoda does not yet have knowledge that Obi-Wan had bested Vader, however, he sent Obi-Wan because he had full confidence that he would succeed. My point is that if Yoda were indeed more powerful than Sidious he would have killed him during the dual instead of running away. The reason being, the immediate overthrowing of the Sith's and the empire (which was their goal from the beginning) but he does not (even though he is technicily not defeated), instead he chooses to run away (because he knows he is outmatched), and even states "Into exile, I must go, failed, I have" (I think those are his exact words). If anyone could clarify that point it would be great. I am open to discussion. Ryulen1325 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nitpick!

"Grauman's Chinese Theatre, a traditional venue for the Star Wars films, did not show it. However, a line of people stood there for more than a month hoping to convince someone to change this. Most of them took advantage of an offer to see the film at a nearby cinema, ArcLight Cinemas (formerly the "Cinerama Dome")."

is this notable? why is it in parenthesis? these sentences are not very well written.--Keerllston 11:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Despite being the best reviewed and most well received film in the prequel trilogy, Revenge of the Sith received the smallest number of award nominations in comparison to the previous films (35 categories in total, compared to The Phantom Menace's 55 and Attack of the Clones' 38 category nominations)."

are the parenthesis necessary? wouldn't it be better "previous films, with 35 categories in total, compared to The Phantom Menace's" or "It received nominations in 35 categories in total compared to [...]"--Keerllston 11:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to 'Cinematic and Literary Allusions'??

Given the name of the heading, and the previous discussion of it in the article, is there a good reason to include the following from the first paragraph of the section:

Perhaps the most media coverage was given to a particular exchange between Anakin and Ob-Wan, which led to the aforementioned controversy: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," Anakin declares, to which Obi-Wan responds, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." In the novelization, Mace Windu says that the new laws decrease liberty in the name of security, but he doesn't feel safer. Despite Lucas' insistence to the contrary, The Seattle Times concluded, "Without naming Bush or the Patriot Act, it's all unmistakable no matter what your own politics may be."[39]

Seems like these allusions are neither cinematic nor literary, but rather political. (Which is pointed out in the the sentence I did not quote, because it otherwise seems like a good introduction to the section.Quine (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot confusions

For less familiar readers, the plot could be confusing. We've got Palpatine and Darth Sidieous being used interchangalbe; Anakein and Darth Vader aswell. I'm gonna try and make it clearer. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Why were almost all the images removed? I understand that fir use prevents Wikiedia from going overboard, but a FA should have more than a single screenshot, correct? Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Deleted roles" section

I personally find that the sub-section of "Deleted roles" is not very fitting under the section of "Reaction". The materals in "Deleted roles" have little relations to the reaction of viewers/fans/general public. I suggest moving "Deleted roles" to "Cast" or "Production". It will be more fitting in those two sections because, well, that section is about roles of certain casts being deleted, and that the deletion of scenes/roles is decided and carried out during production. Oidia (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding IMDb and Newsday "misquote"

There's no misquote. Go read the interview -- his quote was copied and pasted word for word. Ask yourself: How does one "know" something? I haven't seen a single direct, eyewitness account from anyone involved in the film's production that confirms Jones' involvement. Have you? Secondhand "reporting" and blogging and forums are rife with unverified rumors and, more significantly, assumptions

As for IMDb, Wikipedia: Reliable sources - Are wikis reliable sources specifies that wikis are not allowed as reference sources. IMDb falls under that definition as it has solely user-generated content, and, as noted elsewhere at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, IMDb does not "have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence."

Newsday is a major newspaper with a direct quote from Jones. There's no justification for removing a reliable, direct citation with IMDb rumors. Where did IMDb get that information? IT IS UNSOURCED.--24.215.162.198 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three years?

You know, I'm quite sure that Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith takes place two years since Attack of the Clones. Ewan McGregor says this in the 'Becoming Obi-Wan' feature on the Special Features disc when he's talking to his make-up lady. (Archwarrior) 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to complain about the part where it talks about the DVD movie being the exac t same as the theatrical cut apart from the last scene being a straight cut rather than a wipe. Oh come ON! Do you really remember that far back? Also nobody actually takes notice of such things especially when you've seen it only once (I assume you've only seen it in the cinema once). It's impossible to remember a tiny bit like a cut. Ishould be deleted unless evidence is provided, which I can only imagine can come from Lucas himself, unless you nerds have gotten hold of a pirate copy of the film.

[edit] Something not mentioned in this page?

Look-alike#film - The 2005 film Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith features actor Wayne Pygram, who, in the film, looks remarkably like Peter Cushing. Through stock footage, the film's producers wanted Cushing to reprise his role of Grand Moff Tarkin from Star Wars. However, the footage was deemed unusable. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)