![]() | This page 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. |
I have added a link to a website that I think is relevant ( http://www.keithshortsculptor.com/returnofthejedi.htm) to this article. The images are genuine production photos of the Emperor's chair, sculpted for this film. I know Wikipedia does not like too many external links but I am not going to upload images due to the risk of copyright fraud. Do you think the link is relevant or irrelevant? Should it stay or go? The link is for Keith Short, not for the other "film sculptor". If you want to read more on this issue please go to my user talk page. Thanks.-- Chloecshort 16:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've dropped the backstory section, as it was nothing but EU material that, while it may be considered canonical by some fans, is not referenced in the film at all. This is an article on THE FILM, not EU material, most of which would not be of interest to the common viewer, and for those who ARE interested, those items have their own articles. TheRealFennShysa 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The 1138 reference in the film has been found so I removed the sentance about it. It is on the side of Boushh's helmet. The picture can be seen here.
(I have made an identical comment on Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, because the same problem appears in that article)
The "Production" section is an interesting and informative read—right up to the point when you start reading the last, big paragraph. It is simply a long list of trivia, seperatied by periods with no apparent connection. I suggest that it either be turned into a list and moved further down into a new "Trivia" section, or it be reworded into a more coherent text. As it is, it just doesn't fit there and reads terrible. Opinions? — Mütze 14:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the allusions to the Oedipal complex in ROTJ. I've rectified the situation and added a "Cinematic and literary allusions" section here. Smiloid 01:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to The Filmaker for correcting my error. It was indeed ESB and NOT ANH in which Luke kisses Princess Leia.
I'm on a bit of a Star Wars kick right now, after purchasing the recent DVD's. Freud's Oedipal Complex is quite often referenced when discussing the saga as a whole. The dialogue between Yoda and Luke in ROTJ, shortly before death of the former, makes this most explicit I think. Those of you having the DVD can check Chapter 14 "Yoda's Twilight"
"One thing remains--Vader You must confront Vader. Then only then, a Jedi will you be"
With the understanding gained in ESB, that Vader is Lukes father, Yoda's words do appear to allude to this Freudian concept.
Doing a Google search on "star wars" , freud, oedipal, and/or "you must confront vader" yielded the following:
http://www.academon.com/lib/essay/oedipus-myth.html
http://www.amctv.com/article?CID=1914-1--0-15-CST
http://members.fortunecity.com/genede/lucas.htm
http://entertainment.msn.com/Movies/movie.aspx?mp=v&m=62623&murc=6&flt=6
http://www.geocities.com/noakes_m/Non_Fiction/Essays/essay_star.htm
http://professeurs.cstj.net/plemieux/oedipe.htm
Smiloid 06:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph is a collection of tidbits about the film... It's really messy and needs to be cleaned up! The sentences run one after another with no sort of organizations... so someone please clean that up in to a bulleted list or perhaps even a facts section? 24.87.73.104 07:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It was called "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi" since it was released in 1983. See the IMDb profile. Osaboramirez 07:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
How come this is the only Episode of the Star Wars Saga that doesn't have an image in the "Production" section of the article? Osaboramirez 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do... Osaboramirez 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Luke returns to Tatooine to rescue Han Solo The caption on this picture is misleading. It is correct in a vague sense, but in that specific scene Luke and gang are actually captured and being led to execution. The captions for the other pictures do a more accurate job of describing their respective scenes, so I believe that this one should, too. si»abhorreo» T 14:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This article contains several elementary editing mistakes. For example, it has sentences of the type, "The first_subject first_verbs, however the second_subject second_verbs." An example is, "The working relationship between George Lucas and Marquand was said to be bad, however Lucas has insisted that he and Marquand had a good working relationship and has gone as far to praise Marquand for being a very nice person who worked well with actors." Other examples of substandard writing include "For instance, the ewoks were going to be the giant wookiees..." (no article required) and "However, a few weeks before the film's premiere, George Lucas changed the title, stating revenge could not be used because Jedi do not seek revenge. However, the original teaser trailer for the film still carried this moniker." (repeated "however") Such mistakes should not happen in a "Good Article".
In my opinion, the article is also overly long, and could be tightened up by at least 10%-20% without losing content. Some of it also seems rather POV, though in an article of this sort that's probably always going to be an issue. Spoxjox 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The Synopsis part of this article requires clean-up. A user tried to include the opening crawl, but it is confusing as only the words "Opening Crawl" appear in a box. The rest just appears to be with the rest of the article. I tried fitting the whole opening crawl into the box, but the box stretches to the end of the page (Which isn't good as the opening crawl is written as a few words per line,) and the box also catches the picture inside it. Could someone that actually knows how to fix this issue please do so? -- Twipie 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
I have added a link to a website that I think is relevant ( http://www.keithshortsculptor.com/returnofthejedi.htm) to this article. The images are genuine production photos of the Emperor's chair, sculpted for this film. I know Wikipedia does not like too many external links but I am not going to upload images due to the risk of copyright fraud. Do you think the link is relevant or irrelevant? Should it stay or go? The link is for Keith Short, not for the other "film sculptor". If you want to read more on this issue please go to my user talk page. Thanks.-- Chloecshort 16:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've dropped the backstory section, as it was nothing but EU material that, while it may be considered canonical by some fans, is not referenced in the film at all. This is an article on THE FILM, not EU material, most of which would not be of interest to the common viewer, and for those who ARE interested, those items have their own articles. TheRealFennShysa 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The 1138 reference in the film has been found so I removed the sentance about it. It is on the side of Boushh's helmet. The picture can be seen here.
(I have made an identical comment on Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, because the same problem appears in that article)
The "Production" section is an interesting and informative read—right up to the point when you start reading the last, big paragraph. It is simply a long list of trivia, seperatied by periods with no apparent connection. I suggest that it either be turned into a list and moved further down into a new "Trivia" section, or it be reworded into a more coherent text. As it is, it just doesn't fit there and reads terrible. Opinions? — Mütze 14:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the allusions to the Oedipal complex in ROTJ. I've rectified the situation and added a "Cinematic and literary allusions" section here. Smiloid 01:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to The Filmaker for correcting my error. It was indeed ESB and NOT ANH in which Luke kisses Princess Leia.
I'm on a bit of a Star Wars kick right now, after purchasing the recent DVD's. Freud's Oedipal Complex is quite often referenced when discussing the saga as a whole. The dialogue between Yoda and Luke in ROTJ, shortly before death of the former, makes this most explicit I think. Those of you having the DVD can check Chapter 14 "Yoda's Twilight"
"One thing remains--Vader You must confront Vader. Then only then, a Jedi will you be"
With the understanding gained in ESB, that Vader is Lukes father, Yoda's words do appear to allude to this Freudian concept.
Doing a Google search on "star wars" , freud, oedipal, and/or "you must confront vader" yielded the following:
http://www.academon.com/lib/essay/oedipus-myth.html
http://www.amctv.com/article?CID=1914-1--0-15-CST
http://members.fortunecity.com/genede/lucas.htm
http://entertainment.msn.com/Movies/movie.aspx?mp=v&m=62623&murc=6&flt=6
http://www.geocities.com/noakes_m/Non_Fiction/Essays/essay_star.htm
http://professeurs.cstj.net/plemieux/oedipe.htm
Smiloid 06:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph is a collection of tidbits about the film... It's really messy and needs to be cleaned up! The sentences run one after another with no sort of organizations... so someone please clean that up in to a bulleted list or perhaps even a facts section? 24.87.73.104 07:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It was called "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi" since it was released in 1983. See the IMDb profile. Osaboramirez 07:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
How come this is the only Episode of the Star Wars Saga that doesn't have an image in the "Production" section of the article? Osaboramirez 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do... Osaboramirez 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Luke returns to Tatooine to rescue Han Solo The caption on this picture is misleading. It is correct in a vague sense, but in that specific scene Luke and gang are actually captured and being led to execution. The captions for the other pictures do a more accurate job of describing their respective scenes, so I believe that this one should, too. si»abhorreo» T 14:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This article contains several elementary editing mistakes. For example, it has sentences of the type, "The first_subject first_verbs, however the second_subject second_verbs." An example is, "The working relationship between George Lucas and Marquand was said to be bad, however Lucas has insisted that he and Marquand had a good working relationship and has gone as far to praise Marquand for being a very nice person who worked well with actors." Other examples of substandard writing include "For instance, the ewoks were going to be the giant wookiees..." (no article required) and "However, a few weeks before the film's premiere, George Lucas changed the title, stating revenge could not be used because Jedi do not seek revenge. However, the original teaser trailer for the film still carried this moniker." (repeated "however") Such mistakes should not happen in a "Good Article".
In my opinion, the article is also overly long, and could be tightened up by at least 10%-20% without losing content. Some of it also seems rather POV, though in an article of this sort that's probably always going to be an issue. Spoxjox 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The Synopsis part of this article requires clean-up. A user tried to include the opening crawl, but it is confusing as only the words "Opening Crawl" appear in a box. The rest just appears to be with the rest of the article. I tried fitting the whole opening crawl into the box, but the box stretches to the end of the page (Which isn't good as the opening crawl is written as a few words per line,) and the box also catches the picture inside it. Could someone that actually knows how to fix this issue please do so? -- Twipie 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)