Talk:The Star Wars Holiday Special

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review The Star Wars Holiday Special has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
The Star Wars Holiday Special was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: October 9, 2006
The Mona Lisa This article in the Arts category is being tracked by the Work via WikiProjects group at Wikipedia 1.0, as part of our plan to organise and build a collection of articles for offline release.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
To-do list for The Star Wars Holiday Special: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Contradictory Statement

    At the end of the article header there are the following two sentences:

    "Though the program received excellent ratings for its one-time airing, Star Wars creator George Lucas, who created its original story, removed his story credit from the special. Despite scathing reviews, this film is considered the first canonical sequel to A New Hope."

    These appear to contradict each other - the program recieved excellent ratings, but it had scathing reviews?? Can anyone resolve this, or are the two opinions (positive and negative) actually coming from two different reviewing sources? -- Edward Tremel 23:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

    A lot of people watched it, but they thought it was rubbish. There's no contradiction Bombot 19:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Cast list

    Adamwankenobi has posted the complete cast list of The Star Wars Holiday Special to this article. I removed it once, but Adamwankenobi added it back. Well, rather than get into an edit war (Adam, I've got nothin' against ya), I figured I'd open the subject for discussion.

    My opinion is that the cast listed in the infobox should suffice. For those who want to see the full So, what say y'all? BrianSmithson 00:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    Well, mainly I'm trying to keep the look of the page similar to the format of the other Star Wars articles. The other articles, even the Star Wars spin-off articles, have a complete, or nearly complete cast listing. Also, this is a rather unknown film to most people, and I, as well as many other fans would like to document everything there is to know about it. I know in most cases that you wouldn't go into such detail about a movie, but ones like this have very little information known about them in the first place, and us fans are attempting to make all known information about the movie known. I, as well don't want an edit war, as this isn't exactly the most important article on Wikipedia, or in the Star Wars articles for that matter, its just sort of a documentation effort. Adamwankenobi, 20 July 2005

    [edit] Later character appearances

    I merged a bit of this paragraph into "Role in greater Star Wars continuity" and deleted the rest. First of all, much of the information in the deleted paragraph already appears in other parts of the article. Secondly, there are articles about Kashyyyk, and articles about Chewbacca's family members should be written if they haven't been already. But I don't see why an article on the Holiday Special needs to list each and every appearance of the planet, the Wookiees, or Boba Fett. This information belongs in other articles:

    "Several of the characters who made their small-screen appearance in The Star Wars Holiday Special have gone on to appear in other works from the Star Wars universe. Boba Fett appeared later on in The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and in many expanded universe works such as books, comics, and video games. Fett has appeared in many Star Wars FanFilms as well. Chewbacca's family has appeared in the 1979 children's book, Star Wars: The Wookiee Storybook, the young adult/adult novel, Star Wars: A Forest Apart, the adult novels of The Han Solo Trilogy and The Han Solo Adventures, in issue #91 of Marvel comic's Star Wars comic book series of the 80's, and in a comic strip by famed artist Russ Manning called The Kashyyyk Depths. The planet Kashyyyk has gone on to appear in many other expanded universe works. It was seen in the theatrical film, Revenge of the Sith, the cartoon micro-series known as Star Wars: Clone Wars, and video games such as Star Wars: Battlefront, Star Wars: Republic Commando, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. The latter video game takes place 4000 years before the Galactic Empire, with the Wookiees being oppressed by the slavers of Czerka Corporation." BrianSmithson 02:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

    Adam, did you even read what I wrote above? Your added paragraph adds nothing new to the article that wasn't there already. In fact, it repeats information that is in the section above it, "Role in greater Star Wars continuity". I have already merged what new information you provided in your redundant paragraph into that section. Please discuss things here before you make another aggressive revert. I do not wish to bring more edit wars to the Star Wars articles, but I see that you tend to leave them in your wake. Let's avoid it here, I beg of you. BrianSmithson 19:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I like the format in which you organized and worded the information, however, I think that the way I had the article before better represents information on the holiday special. Although it is redundant, it organizes categories of the article into specific sections, similar to the other articles. I have reverted the article again. At least you are not Copperchair.
    Adam, reverting to your own version time and again is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Until you provide more justification for dismissing my edits out of hand, I am reverting to the newest version of the article (rather than your favored version). Are you willing to hammer out a compromise? As it is now, I'm not sure what it is you want. You reverted all sorts of copy editing that I did that made the article read much more clearly, in my opinion. Perhaps we should take this to Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment? BrianSmithson 17:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    Look, ok, you can revert the article to your version. It does make the article flow better. However, you must leave in the section on later character appearances. It organizes all later appearances, even though some of them appeaed before. Adamwankenobi
    Done. I went back to my latest copy edit and then reinserted your "Later character appearances" section. I then moved the information about Kashyyyk out of your section, since Kashyyyk is not a character. Then I copy edited a bit more. I think it's a good compromise, don't you? BrianSmithson
    I do have a question, though. Why do you want the laundry list of every later appearance by Kashyyyk and Chewbacca's family? This information appears in the Kashyyyk article; my inner Wikipedian wants to expunge this article of the redundancy. BrianSmithson 13:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] List of Kashyyyk appearances

    Adam, until you provide a reason for including such a long paragraph about Kashyyyk's later appearances, I am removing the paragraph. You cannot simply keep changing things to suit your tastes. As for the paragraph itself, I find it unnecessary. This is the article on The Star Wars Holiday Special; there is another article about Kashyyyk where the information already appears. I will take this to Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment if you refuse to discuss this before automatically reverting me. BrianSmithson 02:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

    Look, fine, you can keep my section on Kashyyyk appearances separate, as long as they are on the Kashyyyk page. Adamwankenobi 13:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Airing Dates and Locations

    [edit] Australia: twice in the early 80's

    I can personally confirm that the Holiday Special aired at least twice more in Australia during the early 80's, after the dates given in the article. I first saw A New Hope on TV circa 1983 on Channel Ten Victoria, and I distinctly recall seeing the Holiday Special on the same channel twice afterwards (most likely 1983 and 1984 - I don't think it would've been aired again after 1986). Fastbak77 02:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

    Sounds like good info. Add it to the article however you think it would fit. Adamwankenobi 02:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    While I appreciate you going in and adding what I've mentioned above, I had to go in and clarify some details - A New Hope and the HS never screened as a double bill, at least not to my knowledge! ;) Fastbak77 02:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Australia (on Revovery): once in the early 90's

    I reverted the article for a reason, esp. as far as the reference to 'Recovery' was concerned. I was a regular viewer of 'Recovery', and to my knowledge, the Holiday Special never was aired as part of 'Recovery'. It may have been briefly excerpted, but I strongly doubt it was ever shown in its entirety. (The broadcaster wouldn't have had the legal rights to do so, unless they were willing to risk a lawsuit from Lucasfilm.) I plan on removing the reference once again, until such a claim can be backed up. Fastbak77 10:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

    We don't know for sure, it could have. What we are listing on the page are any and all claims of the airings. I have no idea where to find information about this show, I've tried on the net. It sounds interesting that it could have aired, in the 90's. Someone didn't just put it there to make it up, they had to have a reason. I'm going to revert the article, just because of the remote possibility that it aired. Adamwankenobi 10:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    It most definitely was aired on Recovery. I would never have known of it otherwise. Recovery had a habit of getting old television shows (most notably Monkey) and showing them piecemeal throughout a show. — Yama 15:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    The article should contain NO speculation (and personal recollections DO NOT count as verifiable proof)- it there isn't verifiable proof, get it out of the article.

    [edit] (Non)-Release on DVD

    I'm not sure how to get this through to you (the person who wants the Amazon.com information in here) so you believe it, but Amazon.com has a page on nearly any unreleased-on-DVD movie or television show. It's a marketing thing for them, and a way to collect email addresses they can (they say) send to the studio to encourage a release and to use to notify users if and when such a release occurs. The fact that there is a SWHS page really means nothing; it's not an "announcement" by Amazon of anything. I understand that you've moderated the language since your original inclusion, and I've moderated it further. I'd suggest that the information is rather useless (it's sort of the epitome of "non-information"), but keep it in if you must. Moncrief 05:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Redundant information in the article

    I removed some information that appears twice in the article, but my change was reverted. At one point, the article says:

    Segments of the cartoon appear in the 2002 Attack of the Clones web documentary "Bucket Head." Boba Fett actor Jeremy Bulloch introduces the segment as coming from the Holiday Special.

    And then it says again:

    This is one of the few occasions when a part of the Holiday Special has been shown officially. Previously a clip from the cartoon appeared in the Episode II webdoc "Bucket Head", which was later included on the Episode II DVD.

    The Amazon.com page is also explained twice. First:

    Amazon.com has placed an entry for the Holiday Special on its site [1], something the company does for nearly all movies and television shows that have not yet been released on DVD. If there are any plans to officially release the Star Wars Holiday Special on DVD, those plans have never been stated by Lucasfilm and there has never been any announcement suggesting such a release either on Lucasfilm's site, or the starwars.com site. Perhaps because of Amazon's routine SWHS page, Target.com has posted a page on their site, with the same information about the show.

    And then again:

    The Star Wars Holiday Special has yet to be given an official DVD release by Lucasfilm Ltd. However, an eventual release is expected by many fans, if only as a comedic novelty. Amazon.com's reports of a possible release was the source of rumors in summer 2005 that a DVD was to come out soon. These reports have proved to have little significance, other than a marketing technique used by Amazon to find popular titles and interest in the public.

    In particular, the "comedic novelty" bit appears twice:

    Most viewers (including Lucas himself) revile The Star Wars Holiday Special for its meager plot and low production values, but some enjoy it for its wackiness and novelty, and many Star Wars fans have a copy in their collection. Some fans hope for an official release, if only as a comedic novelty.

    I removed those two redundant paragraphs ("This...DVD" and "Amazon.com...show.") but they were added back, so I'm opening this for discussion in the Talk page. At the very least, the paragraphs should be reworded to remove the repeated information. --LodeRunner 08:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

    I reverted becuase the information is relevant in different places, as in the aticle. Becuase of this, I agree that it should be reworded in some places so that it can stay, yet notbe a repeat of information. The Wookieepedian 08:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    Ok, I had a try at rewording. Here's what I did:
    • Moved all the Amazon info to the "DVD Release" section. That section already mentions there are no official releases in the beginning, so no loss there (maybe add a pointer to the "DVD Release" section).
    • Kept the 2nd mention of "Bucket Head", but collapsed the explanation of what it is since it was already given before.
    I think it's good to have the information accessible in the relevant sections, but it's also important for articles to flow as a nice read without repetition. I think it's nice now, but if you don't like it feel free to fix as you see fit. Cheers, --LodeRunner 10:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    Great! I had a look at the article, and everything seems to be in its proper place. Looks fine to me. The Wookieepedian 10:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Copies links

    I reluctantly deleted the section with links on how to obtain copies of the special. I believe it is against Wikipolicy to promote copyvio in this way and, while the special isn't available and likely won't be, the fact remains it's still copyrighted and to post links to Bittorrent streams and the like is I believe against the rules. If someone can find a rule or a second opinion from a sysop that overrules me, it's easy enough to revert the deletion. 23skidoo 02:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

    Well, it doesn't promote it, it merely tells someone where they could find it if they wish. The copyright violation would then end up the responsibility of the one who buys or downloads it. If you think it promotes it in any way, let me know, and I'll remove any wording that suggests that, or I will reword that section. Most people coming to this article are usually nastalgics who want to see it for themselves to see what all the fuss is about, and I don't see anything wrong with pointing them in the right direction, if they are so inclined. The Wookieepedian 02:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Featured at the Star Wars Wiki

    Just thought I'd let everyone know that this article is now a featured article at Wookieepedia: The Star Wars Wiki, see [1]. The Wookieepedian 08:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Unused image

    At the moment, this is an unused image from the article:

    Image:Luke r2 working.jpg
    Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker working on his X-Wing.

    [edit] Belated peer review

    Sometime before the New Year, The Wookieepedian asked me to give my thoughts on this article. Well, I've finally had a chance to review the current piece, and here are my comments:

    1. Referencing is a bit spotty. I'd prefer a different system than simple external links were employed. There are many potentially spurious claims made in the article that should probably have a citation. For example:
      1. "this film is considered the first canonial sequel to A New Hope." According to whom?
      2. Any time you quote or paraphrase someone's statements on the special. For example, "At that time, according to a Star Wars licensing manager . . ."
      3. Any time you give figures or budget estimates.
      4. Any time you say someting was or is "considered" ("At the time, it was considered one of the most expensive. . . "
      5. ". . . he was fired by the producers due to 'creative differences.'
      6. "According to the reports, he was disgusted with what the producers had done to his story, and greatly disliked the special."
      7. "Rumor has it that he had signed an agreement . . . "
      8. ". . .many have considered it a general disappointment, and even an insult . . ."
      9. The sources of the Shepard Smith, Phillip Bloch, and Ralph Garman quotes need to be cited.
      10. The claim about how many copies are on eBay needs a source cite, even it it's a link to a search of that site for "Star Wars Holiday Special".
      11. The assertion that the Boba Fett cartoon is the only part generally accepted as good needs to be sourced.
      12. The Tom Burman quoted needs a citation.
      13. The George Lucas quotes need citations.
      14. "The Star Wars Holiday Special is important for being the first . . . " Who says it's important? Source citation needed.
      15. The band in the Cantina is called Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes. Is this just conjecture, or can you point to a source? They are never named in the special itself.
      16. The assertion that Fisher is off-key (which I agree with) needs to be sourced, as it possibly involves a value judgement.
      17. "the animation is above-average for television animation of the period . . . " Sez who? Source.
      18. "the cartoon sounds like a Star Wars film even if it looks a little odd at times." Source.
      19. "even George Lucas once called it that." Source.
      20. "It has also been called A Very Wookiee Christmas and A Wookiee Holiday." When? By whom? Source.
      21. References are needed on the deleted scenes.
    2. The comment in the lead that "It was broadcast one time only" is contradicted later in the text, when a long list of airings is given.
    3. The list of locales does not need to be in the lead. I'd axe the second paragraph completely for this reason.
    4. What does USC stand for? Spell it out.
    5. "many have considered it" is a weasel phrase. Reword it to say exactly who has considered it thus.
    6. The reference to Hofstede's book needs a page citation, not just a book citation.
    7. Instead of a vague "some fans think this, but others think this", you need to give actual citations.
    8. There's no need to do block quotes for every direct quotation. As a rule of thumb, do block quotes for long blocks of text that take up three or four lines of your browser window. When you do a block quote, don't put quotation marks around it, and don't italicize.
    9. Need a spoiler warning before the Story section.
    10. The plot currently takes up 5 pages(!) of my printout of this article. Reduce this to about 1-2 pages (about 1/4 of the current size). There is no need to go into such detail; people should be encouraged to experience the original, not our summary of it.
    11. The idea that people in general don't like the special is discussed early on in the article. There's no need to rehash in the "Versions and availability today" part.
    12. Lists are bad. Either convert the lists to prose, or delete them altogether. If this article were perfect, but still had all these lists, the probability of getting it through FAC would be pretty slim.
    13. Too many lists.
    14. The long section on C-Canon and B-Canon and Chief Bast is speculative and fancrufty. Better to delete.
    15. The "Later appearances" section is redundant and fancrufty. Delete.
    16. Trivia sections are never acceptable at FAC.
    17. External Links overload! Cut it back to about 1/20 of that.
    18. Did I mention there are too many lists?

    That's about it! I want to stress that this is a good article. It justs needs some listcruft and fancruft surgery and a good copy edit, plus some better referencing, and it would probably stand a chance at FAC. Good luck! — BrianSmithson 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Not the only live appearance

    The third-last trivia points suggests that this was the only live appearance of the actors playing Luke, Leia or Han in these roles outside of the films. I can recall a 'Muppet Show' episode, however, that featured Mark Hamill as Luke (with C-3PO, R2-D2 and Chewbacca). You can find information more here: http://www.lucasfan.com/swtv/muppets.html

    Ah, yes, of course! I can't believe I forgot that! OK, I suppose I'll reword that to say: "The only canonical appearance of the 'big three'." The Wookieepedian 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    also, Carrie Fisher hosted Saturday Night Live on NBC the day after the SWHS was shown on CBS. She appeared as Princess Leia, and sang "I'm a Teen Ager from Outer Space."

    [edit] What the hell is this?

    No. SERIOUSLY! What is this?!

    [edit] Lucas directors credit

    I've removed Lucas' directors credit for the same reason he has been removed from the Empire and Jedi film articles, also this is very similar to way-back-when Steven Spielberg had a credit on the Revenge of the Sith article, it was eventually decided that Spielberg did not do enough to warrant a credit in the infobox and that the mention of him in the production section was enough. Also, Lucas was removed from the Empire and Jedi articles despite the (SE) credit, because as Thefourdotelipsis pointed out, it's nothing more than second unit. The fact that Lucas directed some of the stock footage from A New Hope doesn't warrant a director's credit in the infobox. The Filmaker 01:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

    Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    PS: And BTW, can I say that I laughed my butt off at learning for the first time that there actually existed a Star Wars Holiday Special. :) It's articles like this that make me glad Wikipedia exist to document such things. I think I might have to hunt this one down to watch. Agne 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Delisted GA

    The synposis is too long. The bulleted lists are too numerous; they need to be prosified or removed altogether (like the trivia section). Why are there so many uses of cquote? Just use regular quotes. I believe too that there are too many external links, and the article also lacks in-line citations. Much of this article is "So what?" Do we need a long secion on mentions in LucasArts? Hbdragon88 03:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Harrison Ford on Conan O'Brien

    I have heard dissenting opinions from this article that claim that Harrison Ford acted his distraught reaction to the clip being aired, in which case he would be joining in on making fun of the SWHS. Can anyone confirm or deny, or better yet, find a clip from that show so we can all decide for ourselves? Otherwise, I don't think the commentary is warranted.

    I just watched a clip of it, and the commentary of it in the article is completely wrong, he was joking about it and joining in on the humor, not crying over it.
    Ford has been accused of being difficult, uninteresting, drunk, grumpy, protein deprived, loaded and a blithering idiot. Its no coincidence that these accusations always stem from TV interviews. He detests them. He also detests the many things in the film industry that, in his view, have nothing to do with acting; such as actors advertising movies. He is an intensely private person when dealing with the public in whole. He could care less about the Holiday Special, he was just their to fulfill his contractual obligation and promote his product. Conan is a smart guy, he likely scripted the whole thing before hand like a smart person would do if they had to interview Ford. I don't have any documentation to back this up, other than every interview he's ever given; just watch them, its obvious.


    I have just watched the Conan episode and Harrison Ford does not walk off the show after seeing the clip as said in this article. I think it should be changed. Danger bird (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    I've just watched this clip also, Harrison is clearly in on the joke. No question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.146.114.211 (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Happy Life Day everyone!

    See title. The Wookieepedian 23:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Canonicity of the Special?

    Is there any known grade of the SWCS's canonical level? I'm guessing not, but is it possible to inquire on the subject? (66.198.185.227 17:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

    [edit] Toyfare Spoof

    I don't know if it's worth mentioning, but I do remember that an issue of the toy magazine Toyfare spoofed the Holiday Special by making a several page spread on action figures from the special, a sort of "well, they've made figures of everyone else... guess these guys are next!" sort of thing.

    [edit] When it resurfaced

    The article says, "sometime in the early-to-mid-1990s when individuals came forward with original VHS recordings of the TV airing." I remember seeing bootlegs for it in the early 90's for sure. I always thought the tapes started to be traded in the 80's. Anyone remember that? I can't substantiate it. Celedor15 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

    I'd say this is probably correct as it coincides with the advent of the Internet (which became available to the masses in the early-to-mid-1990s). I certainly had never heard of such a thing as a Star Wars Holiday Special before seeing references to it on the Internet. So whatever trading did take place before that would have been on a really small scale, but once people became aware of its existence and had a way of finding and communicating with people around the globe... --87.192.15.179 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] White & Nerdy

    Should the appearance of The Star Wars Holiday Special in Weird Al's White & Nerdy music video be mentioned in this article? The Holiday Special is mentioned in the song's article. --Piroteknix 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    It's proper to talk about references to other works in a work, but the reverse is trivial. This article is already terribly plagued with trivia and too much loosely connected information. --Monotonehell 07:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    It's a notable parody. I added it to the new parodies/references section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.184.98 (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    HOW CAN I WATCH OR GET THİS?????? --88.233.13.47 11:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Hasbro Toy

    I removed the citation tag about Hasbro making a Holiday Special Boba Fett toy. Here's a site with a preorder for it: http://www.entertainmentearth.com/prodinfo.asp?number=HS87500D#top 64.40.53.171 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] eBay

    I removed the eBay statement from the bootlegging sentence in the article for when I made an eBay search for the special, I came up emptyhanded. Here it is: [2] 01kkk 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Misleading Information

    The article states that the animation for The Star Wars Holiday Special is above average for the time period, this is overwhelmingly and obviously false, as anyone who has watched the animation would know. The information was misleading, so it is now removed.

    -- J.M. 20:49, August 27 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but you didn't remove it, you replaced it with something that is generally not considered factual. I have undone your POV, and while it doesn't really merit citing, I'll
    http://www.stomptokyo.com/movies/star-wars-holiday-special.html: "The one bright spot in this mess is the animated short that Lumpy watches on a portable TV thingee. Animated in a style similar to the movie Heavy Metal, it has neat designs and a story that moves at a good clip."
    http://www.moria.co.nz/sf/swholidayspecial.htm: "It is generally agreed by all that the one redeemable aspect of the whole dire exercise is the animated segment."
    http://www.beyondhollywood.com/?p=181: "The only silver lining is that the “Holiday Special” is the first appearance of Boba Fett, predating “The Empire Strikes Back”. Debuting in an animated short, it’s nice to see a fan favorite in action for the first time. The animation is fairly well done, and makes for the only enjoyable part of the show."
    I saw a dozen other comments on the Nelvana animation being praised at the time. While the animation may indeed look dated and choppy, at the time, it was considered an excellent piece of animation for television, especially in comparison to the standard style of animation at the time (think of Scooby Doo or Captain Caveman). If others think the judgement should perhaps be removed, then I'd be ok with that, but your change is not factual. --Thespian 06:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    also, I have moved this discussion to the end of the talk page to follow the standard, as it was preceding things from over a year ago at the top. --Thespian 06:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)