![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Yes it does say that star wars includes witches...I understand that theo ther examples used were almost metaphors for some of the characters; but witches?!? I can't think of a character that fits into the Major Franchise (that was the article) that could possibly be thought of as a with.
86.162.193.159 ( talk) 15:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Any reason why the phrase "I have a bad feeling about this" redirects to here? DanMat6288 ( talk) 03:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Funny video dubs Star Wars audio on top of older war movie 633 squadron. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OZq-tlJTrU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.170.76 ( talk) 06:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Templates, Template:Episode I, Template:Episode II, Template:Episode III, Template:Episode IV, Template:Episode V and Template:Episode VI have been nominated for deletion. See the nomination for more. Mythdon ( talk) 06:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
....that the News Corporation-owned 20th Century Fox is no longer the only film studio associated with Star Wars, because the 2008 film Star Wars: The Clone Wars is distributed by the Time Warner-owned Warner Bros. Pictures on behalf of Lucasfilm and Cartoon Network, also owned by Time Warner. Yes, Warner Bros. is the second film studio associated with Star Wars. Don-Don ( talk) 03:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
"Star Wars is an epic space opera franchise, initially conceived by George Lucas during the 1970s and significantly expanded since that time."
I am putting my faith into the system of Wikipedia and expect this sentence to be fixed by 04:25 EDT.
The overview doesn’t point out why Vader killed the Emperor; a father's love for his son! It should end something like this:
Instead of convincing Luke to join the dark side, the young Jedi defeats Vader in a lightsaber duel and is able to convince him that there is still some good in him. The Emporer then attempts to kill Luke however before he can succeed Vader’s love for his son proves stronger than his allegence to the Emporer. Vader defends Luke and kills the Emperor before succumbing to his own injuries, and the second Death Star is destroyed, restoring freedom to the galaxy.
71.63.28.162 ( talk) 04:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Phil Shisbey
Master Yoda - Green fellow who is the head master of the Jedi Temple leader of the Jedi Knights
Mace Windu - (played by Samuel Jackson) Jedi Knight
Obi-Wan Kenobi - Master of Anakin Skywalker, plays a vital role in the story
Anakin Skywalker - claimed to be the "chosen one" who will bring balance to the force darkness consumed him which led to his transformation to DARTH VADER
Luke Skywalker - Main Charecter in Star Wars IV-VI, grew up on Tatooine, learns true identity of Jedi knight... some claims he is the "chosen one" that brings balance to the "force"
Darth Vader - (Anakin Skywalker) henchmen of Darth Sidious (Palpatine) consumed by evil with goodness still in him
Chewbacca - A large wookiee who is a partner of Han Solo.
Han Solo - A smart eleck and is captain of he Millennium Falcon.
Leia Organa - Sister to Luke, raised by Senator Organa, helps leads Rebel Troops in defeating Imperial Army
Old Ben Kenobi- known as Obi-Wan Kenobi in earlier series, master of Anakin and Luke
C-3PO- A protical droid owned by Padme Amidala (epid I-III) later owned by Luke (Epid IV-VI)
R2-D2 A small astro droid that is owned by Anakin Skywalker (Epid I-III, but later owned by his son Luke (Epid IV-VI)
I was trying to find some info about the Star Wars racism allegatins and conroversy. Why is this not mentioned here? I know individual articles such as Watto mention it but i think a dedicated article might be needed. --neon white talk 15:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Star Wars is not loosely based on the Hidden Fortress. Star wars is a remake of the first two-thirds of the Hidden Fortress. The movie follows the Hidden Fortress closely until after the spear duel. That is where the similarity ends. It is then that the movie is a remake of the final battle of The Damnbusters.
The Damnbusters is 1954 Micheal Anderson film depicting a battle in which british bombers make attack runs at low altitude along a river trench to launch bouncing bombs at precise moments to destroy nazi damns. They are harried by enemy fighters and guns mounted on the damns. Even the targeting methods they use are strikingly similar to the targeting computers used in star wars.
If you wish to be accurate and fair you should give credit to both Kurosawa and Michael Anderson. If you watch both movies you will see that Star Wars is not loosely remade of either one, but it is a remake of both. It is two thirds Hidden Fortress/one third Damnbusters.
I am a huge fan of Star Wars and George Lucas. His great gift was taking two old, totally unrelated, stories and creating the greatest sci-fi movie of all time. He introduced many new, rich, bold, characters and created an entire saga around this one remake. I just feel very strongly that credit should be given where credit is due. I appluad you for giving credit to Akira Kurosawa and ask you extend the same courtesy to Michael Anderson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.154.116 ( talk) 12:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, no. The Clone Wars is its own monster. (in a good way) Could we get that bit at the beginning taken out? The new 3D series is not based on the Gendi series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toaofcheese ( talk • contribs) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip ( talk) 11:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is "The Clone Wars" listed with the other six? I mean, it is actually a spin-off film as the article and template themselves claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.221.27 ( talk) 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it would nice to add to the page where readers could watch some clone wars videos online. I proposed this site: http://www.watchtheclonewars.com. Often times people have trouble finding episodes and this site could help them find it. Wikipedia is all about information after all and helping people find more info. I think it fits in well. What are your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.52.60 ( talk) 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
what language and what alphabet does the Rebel Alliance have? Last night I saw A New Hope and of course the so-called "X-wings" and "Y-wings" were there. Now, I was wondering since I have seen other Star Wars films as well, that there are some strange runic scripts in the Star Wars universe. I was wondering what script the Rebels use because I believe the names are derived from their shapes. If that is indeed the case, their script should be the same as ours, right? The B-wing doesn't seem to fit this hypothesis. If someone knows, that would be great. Mallerd ( talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
lucas made the clone wars but he didn't think he would be able to make it so he didn't count it in the 6 films. Also it would be too expensive to make it live action in the current economic times so he mad e it an animation. Help this clears things up for you:)-helpfulperson123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.81.68 ( talk) 16:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is the footnote for this sentence: "Williams' Star Wars title theme has become one of the most famous and well-known musical compositions in modern music history" is a link to Amazon? (Not that I actually disagree - but it seems an odd reference.) Pgl ( talk) 09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This article discusses on ongoing debate: whether the movies' genre is science fiction or fantasy. The author convincingly argues that episodes 4-6 (the first trilogy) are classic high fantasy (despite the superficial "space" setting), while episodes 1-3, with a much harder scientific edge and talking of cells and cloning, are certainly science fiction:
What the Hell Is “Star Wars” Anyway — Science Fiction or Fantasy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeGGGG ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, theres movies star wars, and space program called star wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
Id like to separate those so the search for starwars would ask if its movie: starwars, or defence program: star wars.
Original idea of shooting down intercontinental missles with lasers, was also called star wars and it involved bouncing laser off from diffirent satellites to shoot down nuclear missle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHawx ( talk) 15:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I beg you, do something about The Clone Wars feature film! It may be a feature film, but it is not part of the Stwa Wars film series at the core of the franchise. It is a Spinn-off. Expanded Universe. That fact is also all over the articles concerning Star Wars!! And the film is later listed (a second time!) as a spin-off film! My suggestion: Rename the "feature films" section into "Film series". The Clone Wars is the pilot of the television series. It is not part of the core film series! 87.174.171.98 ( talk) 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
How it could improve the article? The article is about Star Wars. And what is Star Wars? An expanded Media universe? No, primarily a series of feature films! The fact is, they made 3 films in the 80s, then they made 3 films in the 90s and early 2000s. That´s it. They made other films. Some for television (Holiday Special, Great Heap), some for the big screen (The Clone Wars), some for both (Ewoks). The Clone Wars is a spin-off film. That is fact. It is not the seventh part of the Star Wars film series. It is the eleventh Star Wars Film, yeah. And the 8th to be released theatrically (by the way, you´re skipping Ewoks), but it is not the seventh Star Wars film in terms of the core series. It´s like, you´d say "Never say Never Again" was part of the Bond series. It isn´t. It´s still a good film, but it simply isn´t part of the film series. So is Clone Wars. It´s a good film (at least as a childrens film), but it simply is not part of the Star Wars Film Series! It´s a spin-off film. Like Ewoks. The article as it is now, gives wrong information. 87.174.212.150 ( talk) 09:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Also let me note, that the article already talks about 6 films. And every other article concerning Star Wars, too. It´s just the box office performance and critical reaction boxes, that are in question. So, the articel gives conflicting information. First there is all over the place something of six films, 2 trilogies and then, suddenly, in the concluding boxes about box office performance, there is a seventh film mentioned and no one knows, why. 87.174.212.150 ( talk) 09:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
[outdent]How can it imply one thing, yet very clearly demarcate something else in the lead? It's clear as crystal that The Clone Wars is part of the EU in the third paragraph. It's further explained in the EU section. Any more "clarification" would only seek to break the article up into more sections that aren't really necessary. The article not once implies that The Clone Wars is part of the main series. The boxes don't suggest it. The article doesn't suggest it. It simply discusses each according to it's own standing. As I said before, even someone with just a passing interest in Star Wars wouldn't be struck by the clarity. —— Digital Jedi Master ( talk) 02:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I´m not suggesting to simply remove The Clone Wars; I´m saying, your article has flaws. I explain those flaws, which are maybe not major, but still noteable. I´m even giving you suggestions, how to improve those and still keeping The Clone Wars in. But you insist on leaving your article as it is. I´m trying to make your article better, but you simply talk yourself arround flaws or downright ignore them, so it all fits neat and sweet in the version of the article, ehich has become comfortable to you.
For me it looks like you misunderstood an ill-chosen definition (feature films - EU, actually meaning Film Series - EU) and are now unwilling to change your idea of putting a seventh "feature film" in. I am just saying, you introduced a flaw. If you go a step further and make more tiny changes, this flaw would be erased. 87.174.225.135 ( talk) 23:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
can we please split the film section into: Star Wars (film series), just would be better and more appropiate. Also means it can be expanded, especially character section, with ones similar to other film series articles IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Today is Star Wars Day, May 4th. Should this be added to the Legacy section? I noticed that Star Wars day is an orphan page, so this could increase traffic. Just a thought. Barras ( talk) 09:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the Worldwide Box Office not made up of U.S. Domestic + Foreign Box Office Revenue? Because the Worldwide revenue of each is about $2,000,000 less than that sum.
Halfabeet ( talk) 22:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
just because someone devotes their entire life to this franchise does not equate it to being "epic". can we please remove this obvious fanboy reference, for the sake of some credibility? Jackass110 ( talk) 03:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that some owners discourage fan made productions, Star Trek is not one of them.
Original Source ***Edit statements that was in question than removed*** Oldag07 ( talk)
[ A source that contradicts this opinion.
And how did Star Trek's corporate overlords react? With what seems like remarkable grace, in this age of copyright crackdowns. CBS, which owns Star Trek these days, allows fans to create derivative works as long as they're not for profit. But Phase II wasn't just tolerated: It was impressive enough to attract many Hollywood veterans of the “real” Trek series. Legendary writers and special-effects producers pitched in, and even several of the Star Trek bridge crew, now aging movie stars, came back to reprise their roles.
Phase Two also has its own page. Star Trek: Phase II (fan series)
Oldag07 ( talk) 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This article links to an extremely biased web blog on the premise that it has something beneficial to say about the speach. The article gives constant, honorific praise to Ronald Regan; declaring that "many believe" he and his speach are soley responsible for the end of the cold war. Derides Regan's detractors, demonizes the Soviet Union. The speach itself is hardly present in the article, and fragmental when it appears. The wording used in the article would never be allowed in a wikipedia article. I'm removing the link -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 03:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Does this marketing premise fall under the guidelines of this article, another article, both, or not at all?? 170.128.175.137 ( talk) 14:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
the Starwars credits ,including music and unrolling of the text seem to be inspired by the french film "Les disparus de Saint Agil"
(the video showing it can be seen on the dailymotion video "la marche de saint agil" ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butard ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The credits seem to com the the 1930s Flash Gordon. They are almost identical. This is far more likely than an obscure French film with little thematic or likely inspirational connection. Gingermint ( talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI. Ikip ( talk) 09:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the character is called Mace Windu but the page says Mace Windy. For some reason I can't access the section to edit it so could somebody help me out here? Thanks. This can be found in one of the "Production History - Original trilogy" section. It reads: "Lucas wrote a short summary called "The Journal of the Whills", which told the tale of the training of apprentice C.J. Thorpe as a "Jedi-Bendu" space commando by the legendary Mace Windy." Let me know if anyone is able to change this to the way it should be. FlipsidePro09 ( talk) 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
In what order should SW books be read?
Which book or series of books should one read in the proper order; which is the first and all that follow?
Is it according to the publishing date order or is it according to chronology of the stories?
If someone can guide me I would really appreciate it. -- Stargazer2oo ( talk) 13:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
"With this new backstory in place, Lucas decided that the series would be a trilogy, changing Empire Strikes Back from Episode II to Episode V in the next draft.[32]"
Should this read "*more* than a trilogy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palaquin ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I just thought I would point out that the article mentions 17 comic book authors by name, and yet there is literally not one mention of Harrison Ford in the entire article.
I think the main cast members of the franchise deserve to be mentioned.
This is my first ever "discussion" on Wikipedia so sorry if this is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.43.19 ( talk) 06:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't it mention that most people who declared their religion as "Jedi" did so in humour? The way the article is written implies that there are 390,000 people in Britain who actually consider themselves as "Jedi". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.118.188 ( talk) 10:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There are a few claims to inspiring "Aliens", "Mad Max 2", and "Blade Runner" without any citation provided except one. This reference is the "Special Features" of the Star Wars films which is not an unbiased source of information.
Suggested removing of all links in the section - as Google and other search engines are inappropriately referencing this page for information on items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.161.204 ( talk) 02:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just started on the Faroese page about Star Wars, tried to link it to this page, didn't work, maybe someone else can do that for me; tha link would be fo Star Wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tofts ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} hello im just requesting an edit request as i see an error on this page. it is on star wars clone wars as you say its grossed just over 60 million when it has grossed just over 126 million. to be exact it grossed $126,802,845 worldwide. in north america it grossed $66,202,545 and 460,600,400 in foreign grossing. please put this on this page and show it did a lot better than grossing just over 60 million when it grossed over 126 million worldwide.
Transformers rock ( talk) 10:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) please edit this page as there is an error thanks.
Not done
{{ editsemiprotected}} In the list of main protagonists "Lando Carlissian" is misspelled (and the link doesn't work) it should be "Lando Calrissian" (the "r" and the "l"has been switched) and that article exists. Thanks!
94.191.164.75 ( talk) 05:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
C-3P0 is listed as a "comanion" to R2-D2, instead of a "companion".
Is general grievous considered a sith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.154.19 ( talk) 06:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a joke... That is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.133.174 ( talk) 07:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain what you mean? -- The Taerkasten ( talk) 18:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I dont really think who ever added space opera was being serious. Its a movie that george lucas had no intent to be a "space opera" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.13.102.95 ( talk) 19:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone want to change this? Or should I? Eragon123123 ( talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I mean it should just be taken out. Does anyone else agree? Eragon123123 ( talk) 16:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It could be considered a space "opera." Not in the singing aspect but the word "opera" mean story in Italian. The star wars saga is a story, is it not?
The 2008 Clone Wars series is not considered "Expanded Universe;" who's the fool who put that there? Someone take it down, perhaps?
{{editsemiprotected}}
please change that Qui-gon Jinn is a jedi master to he isn't a jedi master because he doesn't follow the jedi code Kierg10 ( talk) 00:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You learned men, look a this and tell me what you think about it!
http://www.supershadow.com/starwars/lucas/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.87.132 ( talk) 09:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Critical reaction section helpfully lists the scores and number of reviews for each score. Still, scores are simply averaged. Looking at the distribution, "average" scores seem to be much inflated now. Should use weighted mean instead. 88.112.57.198 ( talk) 00:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Quote:
"I could see where things were headed. The toy business began to drive the [Lucasfilm] empire. It's a shame. They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It's natural to make decisions that protect the toy business but that's not the best thing for making quality films.... The emphasis on the toys, it's like the cart driving the horse. If it wasn't for that the films would be done for their own merits. The creative team wouldn't be looking over their shoulder all the time."
Did 'Star Wars' become a toy story? Producer Gary Kurtz looks back LA TIMES. 12.08.2010. --
84.152.104.2 (
talk)
09:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Is Star Wars sequel trilogy a necessary article on it's own? Wouldn't it be better off merged or redirected here? Jhenderson777 ( talk) 22:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section describing the Star Wars themed attractions at Disney parks worldwide? This seems siginificant enough to be mentioned in this article. For instance, the Indiana Jones franchise page has a small section dedicated solely to attractions. Jedi94 ( talk) 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Please add this:
Carrie Frances Fisher (born October 21, 1956) is an American novelist, screenwriter and actress. She is most famous for her portrayal of Princess Leia in the original Star Wars trilogy.
ReedGaugeOR ( talk) 05:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Not done: as per previous editor.
Spigot
Map
13:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, since the article is protected, I announce here that Lucasfilm just revealed today that all SW films will be re-realeased in theaters with 3D technology, beginning with The Phantom Menace in 2012. It is announced here GreatestLord ( talk) 02:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It specifically mentions there are two derivative Weird Al Yancovich recordings: "Yoda" and "The saga begins" but doesn't seem to be aware of "Livin' la vida Yoda". Maybe someone could add the third, or update the text to "at least two" - or even better, update to "at least three" AND add the missing song. Seems likely Weird Al will revisit this saga again sooner or later... Also wondering if the topic is so controversial it requires protection? I didn't see any mention of who shot first... umlimo@homail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.106.147 ( talk) 04:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Long time ago, I saw on an overseas tv guide that they were showing a Star Wars film that takes place in between episode 3 and 4; the story didn't follow the main characters (Anakin/Luke, Obi Wan etc) but follwed another gang, it also wasn't made by George Lucas and his team. I think it was made somewhere around the time of the third film or possibly a year before it). I forgot the name of it (does anyone know) - but I think it should be mentioned in this article, in the section where they mention the other films outside of the original 6... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.42.249 ( talk) 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
if it wasnt made by george lucas its a fan-film, therefore outsde of offical canon. there are some movies about a girl living with ewoks that i think are between the triologys, so it could be them. there was also some misunderstanding about the swtor mmorpg, that it would be set between the triologys so there could have been a mis traslation or some such casuing confusion. Joesolo13 ( talk) 21:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It ocurred to me that there are actually a couple of films missing in the other films list. The only reason for that is likely that those were re-edits of existing material.
I know, they are reedits of existing material and if added, this should be mentioned, yet they exist and cannot be ignored. They are even listed in a wikipedia chronology of Star Wars. 87.174.213.9 ( talk) 21:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
For someone who has never watched any of the episodes, which sequence would be optimal? Star with Episode 1 thru 6, or start with 4 thru 6 then 1 thru 3? Tomeasy T C 16:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
?I thought that this information should be put in the article ... Tomeasy T C 20:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn`t it be mentioned that the franchise, unlike most other big franchises, is an independent film franchise owned by the creator, also it`s true Lucas had the rights from the bwginning right, making a deal weith 20th century fox, they would only get part of the income, right, not selling the screenplay???????? 62.45.130.67 ( talk) 01:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Watch the original film first (ie Star Wars), then the sequel (is it, The Empire Strikes Back?), and then Return of the Jedi. You can probably leave it there to be honest because the 3 prequals are seriously boring. And pointless. And free of any plot or purpose other than squeezing a few more dollars out of the franchise. 62.232.34.3 ( talk) 14:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The dollars in the box office ranking section are adjusted for inflation, but the rankings are not. This is very misleading and I propose that the rankings should also be adjusted for inflation, making episode IV #2 for all-time instead of #4 Here is my reference: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=2011&p=.htm Unifyingtheory ( talk) 23:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
the 3d release of ep 1 was announced to be Feb 10th 2012. might want to add that to the section on upcoming releases.
68.230.118.200 ( talk) 22:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
What about {{ Infobox film}}, which is also used in many film franchise articles? Or perhaps {{ Infobox media franchise}}? Glimmer721 talk 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The intro states Star Wars is a "space opera". It should be noted that this was bred as a subjective term, and that the Star Wars franchise deals with lots of colossal themes of both science fiction and what could be defined as "space opera".-- Birombi ( talk) 21:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
star wars is a real event in history and the movie does not do this justice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.86.75.170 ( talk) 02:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do we keep using the work "franchise" when we mean "series". This has become common and is incorrect. A franchise is "a business or service given such authorization to operate." A "series" is "a set of related television or radio programs, esp. of a specified kind." And "other documents published in a common format or under a common title." Movies can fit into that definition. If you run a PizzaHut restaurant, that's a franchise because you don't own the company, but are doing business with them with your own restaurant, and they allow you to do so. The Star Wars movies are a series, all done by the same producer. If Lucas had other people make their own versions on a regular basis, that would be a franchise. i.e., they don't own it, but as licensing it from Lucas. Let's not dumb down the English language with this sportscaster speak nonsense. DavidRavenMoon ( talk) 13:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that John Williams' main theme for the series is clearly derived from a piece from Russian author Alexander Glazunov [1866 - 1936]: "The Seasons", op. 67, particularly in XIII. "Quatrième tableau: L'automne" and XV. "Allegro". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.7.164 ( talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Did George Lucas try to steal all of the credit for the success of Star Wars by erasing people like his ex-wife - editor Marcia Lucas, and former producer Gary Kurtz, both of whom contributed greatly to Star Wars and are rarely mentioned anymore? Are there any sources on this?-- 87.178.98.25 ( talk) 15:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Are The "Fan Documentary Film Trilogy" (YouTube) Links Ok Additions To The External Links Section? Please Feel Free To Modify Or Remove As Needed Of Course. Drbogdan ( talk) 21:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I realize that, on the surface, any complaints about a movie's home video releases are generally considered personal opinion. However, the backlash by fans of the BRD releases seems substantial enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Their concerns lie with the factual and verifiable evidence that the movies have been altered from the original theatrical release editions to the extent that most fansites are suggesting that people NOT purchase the sets when they are released on BRD. MJEH ( talk) 02:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems the figures for episode IV, V, and VI are revised for inflation upward to a closer year, while those for the prequels, episodes I, II, and III are revised downwards.
Taking the worldwide figures from each film the year they were released, and plugging them into an inflation calculator for the current year:, I arrived at the following figures.
Episode IV: $2,898,721,807 Episode V: $1,480,172,082 Episode VI: $1,080,651,897
Episode I: $1,256,899,887 Episode II: $817,776,232 Episode III: $984,825,584
The inflation calculator I used is here: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
As one can see, the figures are drastically different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wicke038 ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the Clone Wars is significant enough to have it's own sub-section next to the films and the EU. It is like this on the official site. George Lucas talked in a TV Interview about now having three Generations of Fans (OT, PT and Clone Wars). And indeed many children today come primarily into contact with Clone Wars withou knowing anything about the Films, while usually very few (possibly no one) vome into first contact with star wars through EU-Material. Even TCW's canon level was raised above regular EU. Just a proposal. 178.203.22.48 ( talk) 13:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.scott ( talk • contribs)
I understand that Wikipedia is not a forum, but I just want to know one thing: Who is the most important character in the series as a whole? Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker? Maybe we should mention in this article who the most important character of the whole franchise is. 67.169.72.3 ( talk) 04:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
One might say that it focuses on the Skywalker family and it's affiliates, most noticeably Anakin (Darth Vader) and Luke. -- GABBY ( talk) 22:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1922
line
71.99.64.238 ( talk) 02:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 19% on RottenTomatoes that has been awarded to Star Wars: Episode II is actually for Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated film ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/clone_wars/). The actual movie being talked about has 67% ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_ii_attack_of_the_clones/). Magicwings92 ( talk) 18:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
"Groundbreaking in its use of special effects and science fiction/fantasy storytelling, the Star Wars film series is one of the most successful and influential of all time." -- Fornanzo ( talk) 10:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that, apart from the small legacy section, there isn't a section on famous lines or images that have come from the series. I think that's totally workable; all it'd need to be is a list of quotes and maybe some accompanying pictures (e.g. Tatooine's two moons). Some famous lines already have pages, like May the Force be with you. Would it be okay to have that?
Smurfandbuffalo ( talk) 15:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
"Groundbreaking in its use of Special effects and science fiction/ fantasy storytelling, the Star Wars film series is one of the most successful[2] and influential of all time."
-- Fornanzo ( talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Where is your evidence that "the films are almost exclusively known and categorized as sci-fi"? The science fiction page is not in accord with your opinion (scifi deals with non-supernatural phenomena). This article calls the force supernatural. -- Fornanzo ( talk) 18:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Mr. Lucas: "Star Wars was my elaborate fantasy, but its popularity has gone beyond anything ever I had imagined...I hope that you, your children, and your children's children will enjoy experiencing this saga as much as I have." -- Fornanzo ( talk) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Force aside, my understanding is that anything involving aliens (among other fantastic elements) is at least considered sci-fan, if not clear fantasy. - jc37 02:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Are the characters arranged in any particular order? Seems to me alphabetical would be best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldon Kepler ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I got to know that this page is semi-protected. However, can you allow me to edit it? All I would like to do, is update Box Office amounts on this article. I will never make vandalism, i.e. in this case, that would be putting wrong amounts. Actually you can see my talkpage and the "contributions" hyperlink, and that I have already made several Box Office edit, and no edit was vandalism
Hopefully you can allow me to edit this. Thank You. Dark Defender Yuki ( talk) 23:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
1)The introduction states Star Wars is an American epic space opera.... The intro should mention the word fantasy as there is a strong fantasy element in the films. (Space Opera does not have to include any fantasy.)
1a) "Star Wars is an American epic space opera" is vague and overstates the quality of this mediocre film. Change it or this article will be called into dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.130.138 ( talk) 20:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
2)Concerning the quotation However, Lucas had previously conceived of the film as the first in a series of adventures under Production History -> Original History: the wording seems a bit strong to me given that you refer to a 90s interview rather than any 70s manuscript. How about:
However, Lucas has indicated that he previously conceived of the film as the first in a series of adventures -- Fornanzo ( talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The Force has a subjective morality attached to it ("Good" and "Evil"). It is therefore unscientific and belongs to the realm of fantasy not science fiction. Bias towards a particular type of religion is being shown here unless the word fantasy is included in the intro. -- Fornanzo ( talk) 22:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The characters in the films state that the "Force" has 2 sides to it. They cannot be sure of that. It is not scientifically provable. It is their belief that the "Force" has only 2 sides (why cant it have more). They believe that because that is Lucas's particular religious message. -- Fornanzo ( talk) 11:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is a reference and here is another -- Fornanzo ( talk) 11:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Organic life may vary from planet to planet; Physics does not. "The Force"'s energy field has nothing to do with the 4 observed forces of nature: electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear. -- Fornanzo ( talk) 12:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The article should explain why this film is so popular. It is very frequently voted 'best film ever' in polls of readers of magazines and websites which have a predominantly male readership. There must be an explanation to this, yet I've not seen one. Those of us who see it as nothing more than a children's fairytale set in outer space would like to know why millions of men state that this is their favourite film (not merely that it was their favourite when they first watched it during their childhood). Does it have a subtext? Does it say something important about society, politics, international relations or philosophy? 188.28.66.84 ( talk) 23:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the infobox too fat? I am not sure what is the cause. Jhenderson 777 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, this sentence is very much an opinion statement and needs sourcing: "Reactions to the original trilogy were mostly positive, with the last film being considered the weakest, while the prequel trilogy received a more mixed reaction, with most of the praise being for the final movie, according to most review aggregator websites" Sounds like OR to me. 38.100.76.228 ( talk) 15:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I dont want to do the edit myself, but someone should add this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.114.214 ( talk) 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Who changed it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbieranger ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect post.
Correctos!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.145.218 ( talk) 21:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
You'll see
is a fan-made map, and it says in the article it is a fan-made map. This isn't acceptable by Wikipedia standards because Wikipedia is for reliable information from official sources. If we are going to put a fan-made map on then we might as well include fan-fiction into the article as well. I propose a deletion of the image and any mention of it. Charlr6 ( talk) 23:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't it say anywhere the shooting locations? It was filmed mostly in UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.13 ( talk) 21:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Filming locations are covered in the Production section of the articles for each of the individual films. Primogen ( talk) 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Two areas of the lead section seem to contain grammar which could be improved. The first sentence says, "Star Wars is an American epic space opera franchise consisting of a film series created by George Lucas." (my emphasis on the problematic part) I think this should be worded more clearly, since the term "consisting of" implies that's all there is, yet 'franchise' (generally and here) includes more than the film series. I know the next sentence goes on to explain that, but I think the first sentence should say something like "franchise centered on a film series..." or "franchise including a film series..." Also the third paragraph ends with this: "All six of the main films in the series were also nominated for or won Academy Awards." I understand this was probably written with efficiency in mind, but it's an awkward construction because of the "or" -- so I think the sentence should be expanded to make it clear that all six got nominations, with three winning (unless it's more than three as listed in this article.) El duderino ( abides) 13:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The MOS for film articles was recently changed. You can read the whole section here: MOS:FILM#Reception, but in short the section says 'There is a consensus against using the "Top Critics" scores at Rotten Tomatoes.' Since the page is protected, I would appreciate it if another editor could remove the "Top Critics" score column from the table on the page. Thanks. 99.192.79.137 ( talk) 23:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Under Setting, telepathy (mind-to-mind communication) should be added to the list. Telepathy is used much more often in the films than clairvoyance, which I'm not sure is even used at all.
"The Force allows users to perform various supernatural feats (such as telekinesis, clairvoyance, precognition, and mind control)"
Cocococunut ( talk) 07:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the way, the introduction to the expanded universe section needs slight adjustment. especially the term "licensed star wars material" - technically some TV Works like The Clone Wars and the Ewok movies are not licensed, since they're actually produced by Lucasfilm and not handed of to other studios to be produced there (like the Ewoks and Droids cartoons, which were licensed to nelvana). Okay, maybe this is nitpicking :) 91.23.169.174 ( talk) 23:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
This should really be in the same order of the films as the cast section is Frogkermit ( talk) 19:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
There are three additional Star Wars movies that should be listed since the CGI movie and games are listed. These are the Star Wars Holiday Special and the two Star Wars Ewok Adventures movies. Nothing more than a mention of their existance and links to their pages are needed, imo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Wars_Holiday_Special
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewoks:_The_Battle_for_Endor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_of_Courage:_An_Ewok_Adventure
People may not know they exist, may be cleaning out their attics and find those old VHS and Beta casettes and wonder what the heck they have! It would be nice if there were legal avenues of procuring these movies. Maybe Disney will make them available one day.
~AeSix
72.77.197.173 (
talk)
05:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
One of the key plot details of the trilogy is left out. The closing scene of the original movie is summarized as "Luke himself fires the shot that destroys the deadly space station." True, but this moment had greater significance to the plot of the rest of the trilogy, since Luke didn't just fire the shot, but rather used the Force to hit a shot that was practically impossible (in fact the torpedoes are shown changing direction to hit the target). By doing this practically in front of Vader, who noted the strength of the Force coming from the young pilot, Luke announced his existence - came out of the closet as it were. Thus "Empire" opens with Vader "obsessed with finding" young Skywalker.
Our plot summary goes from Luke being completely unknown to Vader to Vader luring him into a trap. This needs to be linked and the link is Luke using the Force to destroy the Death Star.
It's a great plot summary and better than I could do but I will propose a replacement sentence knowing others can probably improve: "Although the station's weakness proves to be tiny, Luke uses the Force to deliver the deadly shot, attracting the attention of Vader, who barely survives the battle." Or something like that. Kgdickey ( talk) 08:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Under the heading 'Standalone Films', is a rumour that was later disproved and is no longer in circulation.
"In January 2013, New York reported that director Zack Snyder is developing a stand-alone Star Wars film based on Akira Kurosawa's 1954 film, Seven Samurai.[66] In response to this report, Snyder's spokesperson informed The Hollywood Reporter that Snyder has no involvement with any of the new Star Wars films.[67]"
I fail to see why this is relevant... ( Zedell ( talk) 10:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC))
There seems to be a large part of the article talking about what has been sparkled/inspired from the Star Wars series, but very little about what inspired George Lucas in creating Star Wars. Should we mention Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon? What else can be said of the origins of Star Wars? 87.198.61.190 ( talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
In "Setting", the first sentence of the second paragraph is "One of the prominent elements of Star Wars is the "Force", an omnipresent energy that can be harnessed by those with that ability, known as Force-sensitives. It is described in the first produced film as "an energy field created by all living things [that] surrounds us, penetrates us, [and] binds the galaxy together." Is this sentence grammatically correct? It seems like the words "that ability" in "can be harnessed by those with that ability" doesn't seem to refer anything. Perhaps, instead:
One of the prominent elements of Star Wars is the "Force", an omnipresent energy that can be harnessed by certain beings known as "force-sensitives". The Force is describe in the first produced film... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.176.90 ( talk) 20:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
What about adding political science to the themes along with religion and philosophy? Look at the prequel trilogies for reference.- 99.226.242.202 ( talk) 03:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking one day as I was on this article, “The clone wars” movie should not be listed with the other movies of the saga in the infobox. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Also, with other stand-alone star wars films on the way, I suggest we create two new categories in “films and television”, one for the “saga” films (episodes I-IX), and another for the standalone films (Clone Wars, TBA origin movie, the other TBA origin movie). I would do this myself, but I’m terrible at working with infoboxes. Could one of you editing pros do this. YodaFan67 ( talk) 23:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
In the Clone Wars, Palpatine was portrayed by two actors. Ian Abercrombie portrayed the character's voice in the vast majority of episodes, but after his death in January 2012, the position was taken over by Brtish actor Tim Curry. This addition should be made. 174.27.218.42 ( talk) 05:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The table listing the characters seemed too strange to me to leave unedited. The Wikipedia article is Princess Leia not "Princess Leia Organa" much less "Leia Organa". I was there for the premiere of "Star Wars" (sic). There was no number, no semicolon, nor any other words in the title. It was absolutely a two word title in total. The heroine had no last name, she was just Princess Leia. The rule is to write these Wikipedia articles for the interested, non-expert, reader. I am sure that most readers do not know her last name.
I also rearranged the order of characters slightly. I really think the table should have Luke and Leia first.
I know this is an old article, and that people are passionate about Star Wars. I have no desire to get into an 'edit war' with anyone. I made these changes in the sincere spirit of Wikipedia editing, with nothing but the greatest good will.
Nick Beeson ( talk) 15:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
in the section "Critical reaction" is a table with rating percentages from metacritic and rotten tomatoes, but the rotten tomatoes rating for ep. IV "A new Hope" says 39%, which is obviously false, the reference link also shows it should be 93%, while the rating for episode I "The Phantom Menace" says 93, which is also obviously false (real rating is currently 57), but incidentally the rating of "A New Hope". I would assume the stuff got just switched around and the other ratings are faulty as well. It would be nice if someone who can edit this article could just fix the Rotten Tomatoe rating entries. 77.183.232.96 ( talk) 14:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean to raise this as a major issue, but something came to my attention in regards to the current punctuation of the film titles on Wikipedia. On the 2011 Blu-ray packaging and accompanying billing block credits, all six films are written as Star Wars: Episode #—Title, with the colon in between Wars and Episode and an em dash separating the episode numeral and its title (e.g. Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace). This contradicts the current punctuation for the films on Wikipedia, as they are presented without the en dash, and with the colon in its place instead. Should this format be taken under consideration or not? ~ Jedi94 ( Want to tell me something?) 00:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The first of these is a pretty small change; the article states that the Expanded Universe covers a period spanning from from 25,000 years before SW1: The Phantom Menace to 140 years after SW6: The Return of the Jedi (paraphrased from the actual article). Firstly (and pretty inconsequentially), the year system runs from SW4: A New Hope, with anything before being classed as Before the Battle of Yavin (BBY) and everything after Episode 4 being After the Battle of Yavin (ABY). Secondly, the earliest date in the EU has been pushed back to 36,453 BBY as opposed to circa 25000 years BBY in the 2012 comic book series Dawn of the Jedi (issue 1 published February 15th 2012- the date is quite clearly stated inside).
It would also be worth noting that as of April 25th, 2014, Lucasfilm Ltd. has revealed that any new material written around Star Wars will not be done so in the context of the existing expanded universe, and any existing EU titles will henceforth be printed as part of Star Wars: Legends. It is as yet unclear how any media from the metaphorical clean slate of the will be implemented without causing confusion, as Dark Horse (comic publishing company) have large amounts of material scheduled for release throughout the year within the Legends grouping, while newer, post- April 25th announcement books have been scheduled for launch as early as September, 2014, with John Jackson Miller's A New Dawn, which is itself a novel acting as a prequel to Star Wars Rebels.
That's about it for changes to this section, hope it helps tie off some of those loose ends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.tf ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The I.P. address 99.129.228.207 has been removing connections on the pages Gareth Edwards and Gary Whitta, claiming that they should not be included, due this editor's perception that they are not working on the main storyline. I strongly disagree with this assertion, considering that they are indeed Star Wars film crew members, but what are your guys' perception? DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 18:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Please adjust link as so: Star Wars Games should be: Star Wars Games
is Feb 10th 2012
http://starwars.com/movies/episode-i/3dannouncedate/index.html
The first paragraph is currently as follows: By 1974, he had expanded the treatment into a rough draft screenplay, adding elements such as the Sith, the Death Star, and a protagonist named Annikin Starkiller. For the second draft, Lucas made heavy simplifications, and introduced the young hero on a farm as Luke Skywalker. Anakin became Luke's father, a wise Jedi knight. "The Force" was also introduced as a supernatural power. The next draft removed the father character and replaced him with a substitute named Ben Kenobi, and in 1976 a fourth draft had been prepared for principal photography. The film was titled Adventures of Luke Starkiller, as taken from the Journal of the Whills, Saga I: The Star Wars. During production, Lucas changed Luke's name to Skywalker and altered the title to simply The Star Wars and finally Star Wars.
The following line should be corrected: "For the second draft, Lucas made heavy simplifications, and introduced the young hero on a farm as Luke Skywalker." It should read "For the second draft, Lucas made heavy simplifications, and introduced the young hero on a farm as Luke Starkiller." Without this change the last two sentences do not make any sense.
I think enough fans and critics objected to material in the prequels it should probably be mentioned in some of the articles; given they mention the cultural impact of the acclaim. Also the data gathered could be of use to Disney so they can realize what it is that actually makes Star Wars interesting. CensoredScribe ( talk) 07:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you create a Critical Response to Star Wars article but please refrain from adding any personal POV per Wiki-policy. I'd suggest you create an article by that title and use reliable sources to cite criticism of the bad aspects of the series. Nadirali نادرالی ( talk) 23:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of the info from this article needs to be added to the STar wars sequel trilogy section, like how lucas was working on the summaries of the ST BEFORE he sold to Disney.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-07/how-disney-bought-lucasfilm-and-its-plans-for-star-wars#p1 67.3.131.70 ( talk) 18:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I assume the mods already know of this, but if not, here's the deal: Kasdan is no longer writing Episode VIII. That honor, apparently, now goes to Rian Johnson (along with directing it).
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-star-wars-rian-johnson-director-20140620-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-film-starwars-20140620,0,5267959.story
It'll be interesting to see how all of this shakes out, to be sure.
-David
D'oh! I just saw it--it's already updated. Nebbermind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.132.93 ( talk) 00:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
There is wealth of information not just on the production of these trilogies, but also tonnes and tonnes of analysis that would not fit neatly into this article, where the two sections are framed within the narrative of production history. The articles were redirected here circa 2008, but with the new Star Wars sequel trilogy article, I think it is time these two articles ( Star Wars prequel trilogy & Star Wars original trilogy) were reinstated. These two trilogies are notable in their own right; it is not just a case of arbitrarily grouping together 3 notable movies.-- Coin945 ( talk) 19:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
An example of the types of sources a prequel trilogy article would have:
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Yes it does say that star wars includes witches...I understand that theo ther examples used were almost metaphors for some of the characters; but witches?!? I can't think of a character that fits into the Major Franchise (that was the article) that could possibly be thought of as a with.
86.162.193.159 ( talk) 15:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Any reason why the phrase "I have a bad feeling about this" redirects to here? DanMat6288 ( talk) 03:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Funny video dubs Star Wars audio on top of older war movie 633 squadron. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OZq-tlJTrU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.170.76 ( talk) 06:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Templates, Template:Episode I, Template:Episode II, Template:Episode III, Template:Episode IV, Template:Episode V and Template:Episode VI have been nominated for deletion. See the nomination for more. Mythdon ( talk) 06:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
....that the News Corporation-owned 20th Century Fox is no longer the only film studio associated with Star Wars, because the 2008 film Star Wars: The Clone Wars is distributed by the Time Warner-owned Warner Bros. Pictures on behalf of Lucasfilm and Cartoon Network, also owned by Time Warner. Yes, Warner Bros. is the second film studio associated with Star Wars. Don-Don ( talk) 03:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
"Star Wars is an epic space opera franchise, initially conceived by George Lucas during the 1970s and significantly expanded since that time."
I am putting my faith into the system of Wikipedia and expect this sentence to be fixed by 04:25 EDT.
The overview doesn’t point out why Vader killed the Emperor; a father's love for his son! It should end something like this:
Instead of convincing Luke to join the dark side, the young Jedi defeats Vader in a lightsaber duel and is able to convince him that there is still some good in him. The Emporer then attempts to kill Luke however before he can succeed Vader’s love for his son proves stronger than his allegence to the Emporer. Vader defends Luke and kills the Emperor before succumbing to his own injuries, and the second Death Star is destroyed, restoring freedom to the galaxy.
71.63.28.162 ( talk) 04:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Phil Shisbey
Master Yoda - Green fellow who is the head master of the Jedi Temple leader of the Jedi Knights
Mace Windu - (played by Samuel Jackson) Jedi Knight
Obi-Wan Kenobi - Master of Anakin Skywalker, plays a vital role in the story
Anakin Skywalker - claimed to be the "chosen one" who will bring balance to the force darkness consumed him which led to his transformation to DARTH VADER
Luke Skywalker - Main Charecter in Star Wars IV-VI, grew up on Tatooine, learns true identity of Jedi knight... some claims he is the "chosen one" that brings balance to the "force"
Darth Vader - (Anakin Skywalker) henchmen of Darth Sidious (Palpatine) consumed by evil with goodness still in him
Chewbacca - A large wookiee who is a partner of Han Solo.
Han Solo - A smart eleck and is captain of he Millennium Falcon.
Leia Organa - Sister to Luke, raised by Senator Organa, helps leads Rebel Troops in defeating Imperial Army
Old Ben Kenobi- known as Obi-Wan Kenobi in earlier series, master of Anakin and Luke
C-3PO- A protical droid owned by Padme Amidala (epid I-III) later owned by Luke (Epid IV-VI)
R2-D2 A small astro droid that is owned by Anakin Skywalker (Epid I-III, but later owned by his son Luke (Epid IV-VI)
I was trying to find some info about the Star Wars racism allegatins and conroversy. Why is this not mentioned here? I know individual articles such as Watto mention it but i think a dedicated article might be needed. --neon white talk 15:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Star Wars is not loosely based on the Hidden Fortress. Star wars is a remake of the first two-thirds of the Hidden Fortress. The movie follows the Hidden Fortress closely until after the spear duel. That is where the similarity ends. It is then that the movie is a remake of the final battle of The Damnbusters.
The Damnbusters is 1954 Micheal Anderson film depicting a battle in which british bombers make attack runs at low altitude along a river trench to launch bouncing bombs at precise moments to destroy nazi damns. They are harried by enemy fighters and guns mounted on the damns. Even the targeting methods they use are strikingly similar to the targeting computers used in star wars.
If you wish to be accurate and fair you should give credit to both Kurosawa and Michael Anderson. If you watch both movies you will see that Star Wars is not loosely remade of either one, but it is a remake of both. It is two thirds Hidden Fortress/one third Damnbusters.
I am a huge fan of Star Wars and George Lucas. His great gift was taking two old, totally unrelated, stories and creating the greatest sci-fi movie of all time. He introduced many new, rich, bold, characters and created an entire saga around this one remake. I just feel very strongly that credit should be given where credit is due. I appluad you for giving credit to Akira Kurosawa and ask you extend the same courtesy to Michael Anderson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.154.116 ( talk) 12:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, no. The Clone Wars is its own monster. (in a good way) Could we get that bit at the beginning taken out? The new 3D series is not based on the Gendi series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toaofcheese ( talk • contribs) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip ( talk) 11:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is "The Clone Wars" listed with the other six? I mean, it is actually a spin-off film as the article and template themselves claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.221.27 ( talk) 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it would nice to add to the page where readers could watch some clone wars videos online. I proposed this site: http://www.watchtheclonewars.com. Often times people have trouble finding episodes and this site could help them find it. Wikipedia is all about information after all and helping people find more info. I think it fits in well. What are your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.52.60 ( talk) 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
what language and what alphabet does the Rebel Alliance have? Last night I saw A New Hope and of course the so-called "X-wings" and "Y-wings" were there. Now, I was wondering since I have seen other Star Wars films as well, that there are some strange runic scripts in the Star Wars universe. I was wondering what script the Rebels use because I believe the names are derived from their shapes. If that is indeed the case, their script should be the same as ours, right? The B-wing doesn't seem to fit this hypothesis. If someone knows, that would be great. Mallerd ( talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
lucas made the clone wars but he didn't think he would be able to make it so he didn't count it in the 6 films. Also it would be too expensive to make it live action in the current economic times so he mad e it an animation. Help this clears things up for you:)-helpfulperson123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.81.68 ( talk) 16:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is the footnote for this sentence: "Williams' Star Wars title theme has become one of the most famous and well-known musical compositions in modern music history" is a link to Amazon? (Not that I actually disagree - but it seems an odd reference.) Pgl ( talk) 09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This article discusses on ongoing debate: whether the movies' genre is science fiction or fantasy. The author convincingly argues that episodes 4-6 (the first trilogy) are classic high fantasy (despite the superficial "space" setting), while episodes 1-3, with a much harder scientific edge and talking of cells and cloning, are certainly science fiction:
What the Hell Is “Star Wars” Anyway — Science Fiction or Fantasy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeGGGG ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, theres movies star wars, and space program called star wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
Id like to separate those so the search for starwars would ask if its movie: starwars, or defence program: star wars.
Original idea of shooting down intercontinental missles with lasers, was also called star wars and it involved bouncing laser off from diffirent satellites to shoot down nuclear missle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHawx ( talk) 15:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I beg you, do something about The Clone Wars feature film! It may be a feature film, but it is not part of the Stwa Wars film series at the core of the franchise. It is a Spinn-off. Expanded Universe. That fact is also all over the articles concerning Star Wars!! And the film is later listed (a second time!) as a spin-off film! My suggestion: Rename the "feature films" section into "Film series". The Clone Wars is the pilot of the television series. It is not part of the core film series! 87.174.171.98 ( talk) 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
How it could improve the article? The article is about Star Wars. And what is Star Wars? An expanded Media universe? No, primarily a series of feature films! The fact is, they made 3 films in the 80s, then they made 3 films in the 90s and early 2000s. That´s it. They made other films. Some for television (Holiday Special, Great Heap), some for the big screen (The Clone Wars), some for both (Ewoks). The Clone Wars is a spin-off film. That is fact. It is not the seventh part of the Star Wars film series. It is the eleventh Star Wars Film, yeah. And the 8th to be released theatrically (by the way, you´re skipping Ewoks), but it is not the seventh Star Wars film in terms of the core series. It´s like, you´d say "Never say Never Again" was part of the Bond series. It isn´t. It´s still a good film, but it simply isn´t part of the film series. So is Clone Wars. It´s a good film (at least as a childrens film), but it simply is not part of the Star Wars Film Series! It´s a spin-off film. Like Ewoks. The article as it is now, gives wrong information. 87.174.212.150 ( talk) 09:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Also let me note, that the article already talks about 6 films. And every other article concerning Star Wars, too. It´s just the box office performance and critical reaction boxes, that are in question. So, the articel gives conflicting information. First there is all over the place something of six films, 2 trilogies and then, suddenly, in the concluding boxes about box office performance, there is a seventh film mentioned and no one knows, why. 87.174.212.150 ( talk) 09:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
[outdent]How can it imply one thing, yet very clearly demarcate something else in the lead? It's clear as crystal that The Clone Wars is part of the EU in the third paragraph. It's further explained in the EU section. Any more "clarification" would only seek to break the article up into more sections that aren't really necessary. The article not once implies that The Clone Wars is part of the main series. The boxes don't suggest it. The article doesn't suggest it. It simply discusses each according to it's own standing. As I said before, even someone with just a passing interest in Star Wars wouldn't be struck by the clarity. —— Digital Jedi Master ( talk) 02:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I´m not suggesting to simply remove The Clone Wars; I´m saying, your article has flaws. I explain those flaws, which are maybe not major, but still noteable. I´m even giving you suggestions, how to improve those and still keeping The Clone Wars in. But you insist on leaving your article as it is. I´m trying to make your article better, but you simply talk yourself arround flaws or downright ignore them, so it all fits neat and sweet in the version of the article, ehich has become comfortable to you.
For me it looks like you misunderstood an ill-chosen definition (feature films - EU, actually meaning Film Series - EU) and are now unwilling to change your idea of putting a seventh "feature film" in. I am just saying, you introduced a flaw. If you go a step further and make more tiny changes, this flaw would be erased. 87.174.225.135 ( talk) 23:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
can we please split the film section into: Star Wars (film series), just would be better and more appropiate. Also means it can be expanded, especially character section, with ones similar to other film series articles IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Today is Star Wars Day, May 4th. Should this be added to the Legacy section? I noticed that Star Wars day is an orphan page, so this could increase traffic. Just a thought. Barras ( talk) 09:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the Worldwide Box Office not made up of U.S. Domestic + Foreign Box Office Revenue? Because the Worldwide revenue of each is about $2,000,000 less than that sum.
Halfabeet ( talk) 22:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
just because someone devotes their entire life to this franchise does not equate it to being "epic". can we please remove this obvious fanboy reference, for the sake of some credibility? Jackass110 ( talk) 03:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that some owners discourage fan made productions, Star Trek is not one of them.
Original Source ***Edit statements that was in question than removed*** Oldag07 ( talk)
[ A source that contradicts this opinion.
And how did Star Trek's corporate overlords react? With what seems like remarkable grace, in this age of copyright crackdowns. CBS, which owns Star Trek these days, allows fans to create derivative works as long as they're not for profit. But Phase II wasn't just tolerated: It was impressive enough to attract many Hollywood veterans of the “real” Trek series. Legendary writers and special-effects producers pitched in, and even several of the Star Trek bridge crew, now aging movie stars, came back to reprise their roles.
Phase Two also has its own page. Star Trek: Phase II (fan series)
Oldag07 ( talk) 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This article links to an extremely biased web blog on the premise that it has something beneficial to say about the speach. The article gives constant, honorific praise to Ronald Regan; declaring that "many believe" he and his speach are soley responsible for the end of the cold war. Derides Regan's detractors, demonizes the Soviet Union. The speach itself is hardly present in the article, and fragmental when it appears. The wording used in the article would never be allowed in a wikipedia article. I'm removing the link -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 03:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Does this marketing premise fall under the guidelines of this article, another article, both, or not at all?? 170.128.175.137 ( talk) 14:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
the Starwars credits ,including music and unrolling of the text seem to be inspired by the french film "Les disparus de Saint Agil"
(the video showing it can be seen on the dailymotion video "la marche de saint agil" ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butard ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The credits seem to com the the 1930s Flash Gordon. They are almost identical. This is far more likely than an obscure French film with little thematic or likely inspirational connection. Gingermint ( talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI. Ikip ( talk) 09:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the character is called Mace Windu but the page says Mace Windy. For some reason I can't access the section to edit it so could somebody help me out here? Thanks. This can be found in one of the "Production History - Original trilogy" section. It reads: "Lucas wrote a short summary called "The Journal of the Whills", which told the tale of the training of apprentice C.J. Thorpe as a "Jedi-Bendu" space commando by the legendary Mace Windy." Let me know if anyone is able to change this to the way it should be. FlipsidePro09 ( talk) 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
In what order should SW books be read?
Which book or series of books should one read in the proper order; which is the first and all that follow?
Is it according to the publishing date order or is it according to chronology of the stories?
If someone can guide me I would really appreciate it. -- Stargazer2oo ( talk) 13:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
"With this new backstory in place, Lucas decided that the series would be a trilogy, changing Empire Strikes Back from Episode II to Episode V in the next draft.[32]"
Should this read "*more* than a trilogy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palaquin ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I just thought I would point out that the article mentions 17 comic book authors by name, and yet there is literally not one mention of Harrison Ford in the entire article.
I think the main cast members of the franchise deserve to be mentioned.
This is my first ever "discussion" on Wikipedia so sorry if this is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.43.19 ( talk) 06:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't it mention that most people who declared their religion as "Jedi" did so in humour? The way the article is written implies that there are 390,000 people in Britain who actually consider themselves as "Jedi". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.118.188 ( talk) 10:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There are a few claims to inspiring "Aliens", "Mad Max 2", and "Blade Runner" without any citation provided except one. This reference is the "Special Features" of the Star Wars films which is not an unbiased source of information.
Suggested removing of all links in the section - as Google and other search engines are inappropriately referencing this page for information on items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.161.204 ( talk) 02:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just started on the Faroese page about Star Wars, tried to link it to this page, didn't work, maybe someone else can do that for me; tha link would be fo Star Wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tofts ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} hello im just requesting an edit request as i see an error on this page. it is on star wars clone wars as you say its grossed just over 60 million when it has grossed just over 126 million. to be exact it grossed $126,802,845 worldwide. in north america it grossed $66,202,545 and 460,600,400 in foreign grossing. please put this on this page and show it did a lot better than grossing just over 60 million when it grossed over 126 million worldwide.
Transformers rock ( talk) 10:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) please edit this page as there is an error thanks.
Not done
{{ editsemiprotected}} In the list of main protagonists "Lando Carlissian" is misspelled (and the link doesn't work) it should be "Lando Calrissian" (the "r" and the "l"has been switched) and that article exists. Thanks!
94.191.164.75 ( talk) 05:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
C-3P0 is listed as a "comanion" to R2-D2, instead of a "companion".
Is general grievous considered a sith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.154.19 ( talk) 06:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a joke... That is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.133.174 ( talk) 07:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain what you mean? -- The Taerkasten ( talk) 18:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I dont really think who ever added space opera was being serious. Its a movie that george lucas had no intent to be a "space opera" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.13.102.95 ( talk) 19:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone want to change this? Or should I? Eragon123123 ( talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I mean it should just be taken out. Does anyone else agree? Eragon123123 ( talk) 16:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It could be considered a space "opera." Not in the singing aspect but the word "opera" mean story in Italian. The star wars saga is a story, is it not?
The 2008 Clone Wars series is not considered "Expanded Universe;" who's the fool who put that there? Someone take it down, perhaps?
{{editsemiprotected}}
please change that Qui-gon Jinn is a jedi master to he isn't a jedi master because he doesn't follow the jedi code Kierg10 ( talk) 00:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You learned men, look a this and tell me what you think about it!
http://www.supershadow.com/starwars/lucas/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.87.132 ( talk) 09:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Critical reaction section helpfully lists the scores and number of reviews for each score. Still, scores are simply averaged. Looking at the distribution, "average" scores seem to be much inflated now. Should use weighted mean instead. 88.112.57.198 ( talk) 00:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Quote:
"I could see where things were headed. The toy business began to drive the [Lucasfilm] empire. It's a shame. They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It's natural to make decisions that protect the toy business but that's not the best thing for making quality films.... The emphasis on the toys, it's like the cart driving the horse. If it wasn't for that the films would be done for their own merits. The creative team wouldn't be looking over their shoulder all the time."
Did 'Star Wars' become a toy story? Producer Gary Kurtz looks back LA TIMES. 12.08.2010. --
84.152.104.2 (
talk)
09:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Is Star Wars sequel trilogy a necessary article on it's own? Wouldn't it be better off merged or redirected here? Jhenderson777 ( talk) 22:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section describing the Star Wars themed attractions at Disney parks worldwide? This seems siginificant enough to be mentioned in this article. For instance, the Indiana Jones franchise page has a small section dedicated solely to attractions. Jedi94 ( talk) 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Please add this:
Carrie Frances Fisher (born October 21, 1956) is an American novelist, screenwriter and actress. She is most famous for her portrayal of Princess Leia in the original Star Wars trilogy.
ReedGaugeOR ( talk) 05:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Not done: as per previous editor.
Spigot
Map
13:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, since the article is protected, I announce here that Lucasfilm just revealed today that all SW films will be re-realeased in theaters with 3D technology, beginning with The Phantom Menace in 2012. It is announced here GreatestLord ( talk) 02:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It specifically mentions there are two derivative Weird Al Yancovich recordings: "Yoda" and "The saga begins" but doesn't seem to be aware of "Livin' la vida Yoda". Maybe someone could add the third, or update the text to "at least two" - or even better, update to "at least three" AND add the missing song. Seems likely Weird Al will revisit this saga again sooner or later... Also wondering if the topic is so controversial it requires protection? I didn't see any mention of who shot first... umlimo@homail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.106.147 ( talk) 04:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Long time ago, I saw on an overseas tv guide that they were showing a Star Wars film that takes place in between episode 3 and 4; the story didn't follow the main characters (Anakin/Luke, Obi Wan etc) but follwed another gang, it also wasn't made by George Lucas and his team. I think it was made somewhere around the time of the third film or possibly a year before it). I forgot the name of it (does anyone know) - but I think it should be mentioned in this article, in the section where they mention the other films outside of the original 6... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.42.249 ( talk) 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
if it wasnt made by george lucas its a fan-film, therefore outsde of offical canon. there are some movies about a girl living with ewoks that i think are between the triologys, so it could be them. there was also some misunderstanding about the swtor mmorpg, that it would be set between the triologys so there could have been a mis traslation or some such casuing confusion. Joesolo13 ( talk) 21:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It ocurred to me that there are actually a couple of films missing in the other films list. The only reason for that is likely that those were re-edits of existing material.
I know, they are reedits of existing material and if added, this should be mentioned, yet they exist and cannot be ignored. They are even listed in a wikipedia chronology of Star Wars. 87.174.213.9 ( talk) 21:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
For someone who has never watched any of the episodes, which sequence would be optimal? Star with Episode 1 thru 6, or start with 4 thru 6 then 1 thru 3? Tomeasy T C 16:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
?I thought that this information should be put in the article ... Tomeasy T C 20:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn`t it be mentioned that the franchise, unlike most other big franchises, is an independent film franchise owned by the creator, also it`s true Lucas had the rights from the bwginning right, making a deal weith 20th century fox, they would only get part of the income, right, not selling the screenplay???????? 62.45.130.67 ( talk) 01:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Watch the original film first (ie Star Wars), then the sequel (is it, The Empire Strikes Back?), and then Return of the Jedi. You can probably leave it there to be honest because the 3 prequals are seriously boring. And pointless. And free of any plot or purpose other than squeezing a few more dollars out of the franchise. 62.232.34.3 ( talk) 14:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The dollars in the box office ranking section are adjusted for inflation, but the rankings are not. This is very misleading and I propose that the rankings should also be adjusted for inflation, making episode IV #2 for all-time instead of #4 Here is my reference: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=2011&p=.htm Unifyingtheory ( talk) 23:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
the 3d release of ep 1 was announced to be Feb 10th 2012. might want to add that to the section on upcoming releases.
68.230.118.200 ( talk) 22:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
What about {{ Infobox film}}, which is also used in many film franchise articles? Or perhaps {{ Infobox media franchise}}? Glimmer721 talk 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The intro states Star Wars is a "space opera". It should be noted that this was bred as a subjective term, and that the Star Wars franchise deals with lots of colossal themes of both science fiction and what could be defined as "space opera".-- Birombi ( talk) 21:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
star wars is a real event in history and the movie does not do this justice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.86.75.170 ( talk) 02:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do we keep using the work "franchise" when we mean "series". This has become common and is incorrect. A franchise is "a business or service given such authorization to operate." A "series" is "a set of related television or radio programs, esp. of a specified kind." And "other documents published in a common format or under a common title." Movies can fit into that definition. If you run a PizzaHut restaurant, that's a franchise because you don't own the company, but are doing business with them with your own restaurant, and they allow you to do so. The Star Wars movies are a series, all done by the same producer. If Lucas had other people make their own versions on a regular basis, that would be a franchise. i.e., they don't own it, but as licensing it from Lucas. Let's not dumb down the English language with this sportscaster speak nonsense. DavidRavenMoon ( talk) 13:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that John Williams' main theme for the series is clearly derived from a piece from Russian author Alexander Glazunov [1866 - 1936]: "The Seasons", op. 67, particularly in XIII. "Quatrième tableau: L'automne" and XV. "Allegro". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.7.164 ( talk) 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Did George Lucas try to steal all of the credit for the success of Star Wars by erasing people like his ex-wife - editor Marcia Lucas, and former producer Gary Kurtz, both of whom contributed greatly to Star Wars and are rarely mentioned anymore? Are there any sources on this?-- 87.178.98.25 ( talk) 15:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Are The "Fan Documentary Film Trilogy" (YouTube) Links Ok Additions To The External Links Section? Please Feel Free To Modify Or Remove As Needed Of Course. Drbogdan ( talk) 21:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I realize that, on the surface, any complaints about a movie's home video releases are generally considered personal opinion. However, the backlash by fans of the BRD releases seems substantial enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Their concerns lie with the factual and verifiable evidence that the movies have been altered from the original theatrical release editions to the extent that most fansites are suggesting that people NOT purchase the sets when they are released on BRD. MJEH ( talk) 02:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems the figures for episode IV, V, and VI are revised for inflation upward to a closer year, while those for the prequels, episodes I, II, and III are revised downwards.
Taking the worldwide figures from each film the year they were released, and plugging them into an inflation calculator for the current year:, I arrived at the following figures.
Episode IV: $2,898,721,807 Episode V: $1,480,172,082 Episode VI: $1,080,651,897
Episode I: $1,256,899,887 Episode II: $817,776,232 Episode III: $984,825,584
The inflation calculator I used is here: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
As one can see, the figures are drastically different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wicke038 ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the Clone Wars is significant enough to have it's own sub-section next to the films and the EU. It is like this on the official site. George Lucas talked in a TV Interview about now having three Generations of Fans (OT, PT and Clone Wars). And indeed many children today come primarily into contact with Clone Wars withou knowing anything about the Films, while usually very few (possibly no one) vome into first contact with star wars through EU-Material. Even TCW's canon level was raised above regular EU. Just a proposal. 178.203.22.48 ( talk) 13:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.scott ( talk • contribs)
I understand that Wikipedia is not a forum, but I just want to know one thing: Who is the most important character in the series as a whole? Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker? Maybe we should mention in this article who the most important character of the whole franchise is. 67.169.72.3 ( talk) 04:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
One might say that it focuses on the Skywalker family and it's affiliates, most noticeably Anakin (Darth Vader) and Luke. -- GABBY ( talk) 22:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1922
line
71.99.64.238 ( talk) 02:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 19% on RottenTomatoes that has been awarded to Star Wars: Episode II is actually for Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated film ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/clone_wars/). The actual movie being talked about has 67% ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_ii_attack_of_the_clones/). Magicwings92 ( talk) 18:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
"Groundbreaking in its use of special effects and science fiction/fantasy storytelling, the Star Wars film series is one of the most successful and influential of all time." -- Fornanzo ( talk) 10:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that, apart from the small legacy section, there isn't a section on famous lines or images that have come from the series. I think that's totally workable; all it'd need to be is a list of quotes and maybe some accompanying pictures (e.g. Tatooine's two moons). Some famous lines already have pages, like May the Force be with you. Would it be okay to have that?
Smurfandbuffalo ( talk) 15:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
"Groundbreaking in its use of Special effects and science fiction/ fantasy storytelling, the Star Wars film series is one of the most successful[2] and influential of all time."
-- Fornanzo ( talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Where is your evidence that "the films are almost exclusively known and categorized as sci-fi"? The science fiction page is not in accord with your opinion (scifi deals with non-supernatural phenomena). This article calls the force supernatural. -- Fornanzo ( talk) 18:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Mr. Lucas: "Star Wars was my elaborate fantasy, but its popularity has gone beyond anything ever I had imagined...I hope that you, your children, and your children's children will enjoy experiencing this saga as much as I have." -- Fornanzo ( talk) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Force aside, my understanding is that anything involving aliens (among other fantastic elements) is at least considered sci-fan, if not clear fantasy. - jc37 02:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Are the characters arranged in any particular order? Seems to me alphabetical would be best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldon Kepler ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I got to know that this page is semi-protected. However, can you allow me to edit it? All I would like to do, is update Box Office amounts on this article. I will never make vandalism, i.e. in this case, that would be putting wrong amounts. Actually you can see my talkpage and the "contributions" hyperlink, and that I have already made several Box Office edit, and no edit was vandalism
Hopefully you can allow me to edit this. Thank You. Dark Defender Yuki ( talk) 23:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
1)The introduction states Star Wars is an American epic space opera.... The intro should mention the word fantasy as there is a strong fantasy element in the films. (Space Opera does not have to include any fantasy.)
1a) "Star Wars is an American epic space opera" is vague and overstates the quality of this mediocre film. Change it or this article will be called into dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.130.138 ( talk) 20:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
2)Concerning the quotation However, Lucas had previously conceived of the film as the first in a series of adventures under Production History -> Original History: the wording seems a bit strong to me given that you refer to a 90s interview rather than any 70s manuscript. How about:
However, Lucas has indicated that he previously conceived of the film as the first in a series of adventures -- Fornanzo ( talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The Force has a subjective morality attached to it ("Good" and "Evil"). It is therefore unscientific and belongs to the realm of fantasy not science fiction. Bias towards a particular type of religion is being shown here unless the word fantasy is included in the intro. -- Fornanzo ( talk) 22:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The characters in the films state that the "Force" has 2 sides to it. They cannot be sure of that. It is not scientifically provable. It is their belief that the "Force" has only 2 sides (why cant it have more). They believe that because that is Lucas's particular religious message. -- Fornanzo ( talk) 11:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is a reference and here is another -- Fornanzo ( talk) 11:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Organic life may vary from planet to planet; Physics does not. "The Force"'s energy field has nothing to do with the 4 observed forces of nature: electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear. -- Fornanzo ( talk) 12:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The article should explain why this film is so popular. It is very frequently voted 'best film ever' in polls of readers of magazines and websites which have a predominantly male readership. There must be an explanation to this, yet I've not seen one. Those of us who see it as nothing more than a children's fairytale set in outer space would like to know why millions of men state that this is their favourite film (not merely that it was their favourite when they first watched it during their childhood). Does it have a subtext? Does it say something important about society, politics, international relations or philosophy? 188.28.66.84 ( talk) 23:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the infobox too fat? I am not sure what is the cause. Jhenderson 777 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, this sentence is very much an opinion statement and needs sourcing: "Reactions to the original trilogy were mostly positive, with the last film being considered the weakest, while the prequel trilogy received a more mixed reaction, with most of the praise being for the final movie, according to most review aggregator websites" Sounds like OR to me. 38.100.76.228 ( talk) 15:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I dont want to do the edit myself, but someone should add this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.114.214 ( talk) 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Who changed it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbieranger ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect post.
Correctos!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.145.218 ( talk) 21:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
You'll see
is a fan-made map, and it says in the article it is a fan-made map. This isn't acceptable by Wikipedia standards because Wikipedia is for reliable information from official sources. If we are going to put a fan-made map on then we might as well include fan-fiction into the article as well. I propose a deletion of the image and any mention of it. Charlr6 ( talk) 23:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't it say anywhere the shooting locations? It was filmed mostly in UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.13 ( talk) 21:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Filming locations are covered in the Production section of the articles for each of the individual films. Primogen ( talk) 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Two areas of the lead section seem to contain grammar which could be improved. The first sentence says, "Star Wars is an American epic space opera franchise consisting of a film series created by George Lucas." (my emphasis on the problematic part) I think this should be worded more clearly, since the term "consisting of" implies that's all there is, yet 'franchise' (generally and here) includes more than the film series. I know the next sentence goes on to explain that, but I think the first sentence should say something like "franchise centered on a film series..." or "franchise including a film series..." Also the third paragraph ends with this: "All six of the main films in the series were also nominated for or won Academy Awards." I understand this was probably written with efficiency in mind, but it's an awkward construction because of the "or" -- so I think the sentence should be expanded to make it clear that all six got nominations, with three winning (unless it's more than three as listed in this article.) El duderino ( abides) 13:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The MOS for film articles was recently changed. You can read the whole section here: MOS:FILM#Reception, but in short the section says 'There is a consensus against using the "Top Critics" scores at Rotten Tomatoes.' Since the page is protected, I would appreciate it if another editor could remove the "Top Critics" score column from the table on the page. Thanks. 99.192.79.137 ( talk) 23:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Under Setting, telepathy (mind-to-mind communication) should be added to the list. Telepathy is used much more often in the films than clairvoyance, which I'm not sure is even used at all.
"The Force allows users to perform various supernatural feats (such as telekinesis, clairvoyance, precognition, and mind control)"
Cocococunut ( talk) 07:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the way, the introduction to the expanded universe section needs slight adjustment. especially the term "licensed star wars material" - technically some TV Works like The Clone Wars and the Ewok movies are not licensed, since they're actually produced by Lucasfilm and not handed of to other studios to be produced there (like the Ewoks and Droids cartoons, which were licensed to nelvana). Okay, maybe this is nitpicking :) 91.23.169.174 ( talk) 23:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
This should really be in the same order of the films as the cast section is Frogkermit ( talk) 19:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
There are three additional Star Wars movies that should be listed since the CGI movie and games are listed. These are the Star Wars Holiday Special and the two Star Wars Ewok Adventures movies. Nothing more than a mention of their existance and links to their pages are needed, imo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Wars_Holiday_Special
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewoks:_The_Battle_for_Endor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_of_Courage:_An_Ewok_Adventure
People may not know they exist, may be cleaning out their attics and find those old VHS and Beta casettes and wonder what the heck they have! It would be nice if there were legal avenues of procuring these movies. Maybe Disney will make them available one day.
~AeSix
72.77.197.173 (
talk)
05:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
One of the key plot details of the trilogy is left out. The closing scene of the original movie is summarized as "Luke himself fires the shot that destroys the deadly space station." True, but this moment had greater significance to the plot of the rest of the trilogy, since Luke didn't just fire the shot, but rather used the Force to hit a shot that was practically impossible (in fact the torpedoes are shown changing direction to hit the target). By doing this practically in front of Vader, who noted the strength of the Force coming from the young pilot, Luke announced his existence - came out of the closet as it were. Thus "Empire" opens with Vader "obsessed with finding" young Skywalker.
Our plot summary goes from Luke being completely unknown to Vader to Vader luring him into a trap. This needs to be linked and the link is Luke using the Force to destroy the Death Star.
It's a great plot summary and better than I could do but I will propose a replacement sentence knowing others can probably improve: "Although the station's weakness proves to be tiny, Luke uses the Force to deliver the deadly shot, attracting the attention of Vader, who barely survives the battle." Or something like that. Kgdickey ( talk) 08:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Under the heading 'Standalone Films', is a rumour that was later disproved and is no longer in circulation.
"In January 2013, New York reported that director Zack Snyder is developing a stand-alone Star Wars film based on Akira Kurosawa's 1954 film, Seven Samurai.[66] In response to this report, Snyder's spokesperson informed The Hollywood Reporter that Snyder has no involvement with any of the new Star Wars films.[67]"
I fail to see why this is relevant... ( Zedell ( talk) 10:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC))
There seems to be a large part of the article talking about what has been sparkled/inspired from the Star Wars series, but very little about what inspired George Lucas in creating Star Wars. Should we mention Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon? What else can be said of the origins of Star Wars? 87.198.61.190 ( talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
In "Setting", the first sentence of the second paragraph is "One of the prominent elements of Star Wars is the "Force", an omnipresent energy that can be harnessed by those with that ability, known as Force-sensitives. It is described in the first produced film as "an energy field created by all living things [that] surrounds us, penetrates us, [and] binds the galaxy together." Is this sentence grammatically correct? It seems like the words "that ability" in "can be harnessed by those with that ability" doesn't seem to refer anything. Perhaps, instead:
One of the prominent elements of Star Wars is the "Force", an omnipresent energy that can be harnessed by certain beings known as "force-sensitives". The Force is describe in the first produced film... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.176.90 ( talk) 20:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
What about adding political science to the themes along with religion and philosophy? Look at the prequel trilogies for reference.- 99.226.242.202 ( talk) 03:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking one day as I was on this article, “The clone wars” movie should not be listed with the other movies of the saga in the infobox. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Also, with other stand-alone star wars films on the way, I suggest we create two new categories in “films and television”, one for the “saga” films (episodes I-IX), and another for the standalone films (Clone Wars, TBA origin movie, the other TBA origin movie). I would do this myself, but I’m terrible at working with infoboxes. Could one of you editing pros do this. YodaFan67 ( talk) 23:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
In the Clone Wars, Palpatine was portrayed by two actors. Ian Abercrombie portrayed the character's voice in the vast majority of episodes, but after his death in January 2012, the position was taken over by Brtish actor Tim Curry. This addition should be made. 174.27.218.42 ( talk) 05:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The table listing the characters seemed too strange to me to leave unedited. The Wikipedia article is Princess Leia not "Princess Leia Organa" much less "Leia Organa". I was there for the premiere of "Star Wars" (sic). There was no number, no semicolon, nor any other words in the title. It was absolutely a two word title in total. The heroine had no last name, she was just Princess Leia. The rule is to write these Wikipedia articles for the interested, non-expert, reader. I am sure that most readers do not know her last name.
I also rearranged the order of characters slightly. I really think the table should have Luke and Leia first.
I know this is an old article, and that people are passionate about Star Wars. I have no desire to get into an 'edit war' with anyone. I made these changes in the sincere spirit of Wikipedia editing, with nothing but the greatest good will.
Nick Beeson ( talk) 15:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
in the section "Critical reaction" is a table with rating percentages from metacritic and rotten tomatoes, but the rotten tomatoes rating for ep. IV "A new Hope" says 39%, which is obviously false, the reference link also shows it should be 93%, while the rating for episode I "The Phantom Menace" says 93, which is also obviously false (real rating is currently 57), but incidentally the rating of "A New Hope". I would assume the stuff got just switched around and the other ratings are faulty as well. It would be nice if someone who can edit this article could just fix the Rotten Tomatoe rating entries. 77.183.232.96 ( talk) 14:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean to raise this as a major issue, but something came to my attention in regards to the current punctuation of the film titles on Wikipedia. On the 2011 Blu-ray packaging and accompanying billing block credits, all six films are written as Star Wars: Episode #—Title, with the colon in between Wars and Episode and an em dash separating the episode numeral and its title (e.g. Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace). This contradicts the current punctuation for the films on Wikipedia, as they are presented without the en dash, and with the colon in its place instead. Should this format be taken under consideration or not? ~ Jedi94 ( Want to tell me something?) 00:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The first of these is a pretty small change; the article states that the Expanded Universe covers a period spanning from from 25,000 years before SW1: The Phantom Menace to 140 years after SW6: The Return of the Jedi (paraphrased from the actual article). Firstly (and pretty inconsequentially), the year system runs from SW4: A New Hope, with anything before being classed as Before the Battle of Yavin (BBY) and everything after Episode 4 being After the Battle of Yavin (ABY). Secondly, the earliest date in the EU has been pushed back to 36,453 BBY as opposed to circa 25000 years BBY in the 2012 comic book series Dawn of the Jedi (issue 1 published February 15th 2012- the date is quite clearly stated inside).
It would also be worth noting that as of April 25th, 2014, Lucasfilm Ltd. has revealed that any new material written around Star Wars will not be done so in the context of the existing expanded universe, and any existing EU titles will henceforth be printed as part of Star Wars: Legends. It is as yet unclear how any media from the metaphorical clean slate of the will be implemented without causing confusion, as Dark Horse (comic publishing company) have large amounts of material scheduled for release throughout the year within the Legends grouping, while newer, post- April 25th announcement books have been scheduled for launch as early as September, 2014, with John Jackson Miller's A New Dawn, which is itself a novel acting as a prequel to Star Wars Rebels.
That's about it for changes to this section, hope it helps tie off some of those loose ends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.tf ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The I.P. address 99.129.228.207 has been removing connections on the pages Gareth Edwards and Gary Whitta, claiming that they should not be included, due this editor's perception that they are not working on the main storyline. I strongly disagree with this assertion, considering that they are indeed Star Wars film crew members, but what are your guys' perception? DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 18:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Please adjust link as so: Star Wars Games should be: Star Wars Games
is Feb 10th 2012
http://starwars.com/movies/episode-i/3dannouncedate/index.html
The first paragraph is currently as follows: By 1974, he had expanded the treatment into a rough draft screenplay, adding elements such as the Sith, the Death Star, and a protagonist named Annikin Starkiller. For the second draft, Lucas made heavy simplifications, and introduced the young hero on a farm as Luke Skywalker. Anakin became Luke's father, a wise Jedi knight. "The Force" was also introduced as a supernatural power. The next draft removed the father character and replaced him with a substitute named Ben Kenobi, and in 1976 a fourth draft had been prepared for principal photography. The film was titled Adventures of Luke Starkiller, as taken from the Journal of the Whills, Saga I: The Star Wars. During production, Lucas changed Luke's name to Skywalker and altered the title to simply The Star Wars and finally Star Wars.
The following line should be corrected: "For the second draft, Lucas made heavy simplifications, and introduced the young hero on a farm as Luke Skywalker." It should read "For the second draft, Lucas made heavy simplifications, and introduced the young hero on a farm as Luke Starkiller." Without this change the last two sentences do not make any sense.
I think enough fans and critics objected to material in the prequels it should probably be mentioned in some of the articles; given they mention the cultural impact of the acclaim. Also the data gathered could be of use to Disney so they can realize what it is that actually makes Star Wars interesting. CensoredScribe ( talk) 07:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you create a Critical Response to Star Wars article but please refrain from adding any personal POV per Wiki-policy. I'd suggest you create an article by that title and use reliable sources to cite criticism of the bad aspects of the series. Nadirali نادرالی ( talk) 23:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of the info from this article needs to be added to the STar wars sequel trilogy section, like how lucas was working on the summaries of the ST BEFORE he sold to Disney.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-07/how-disney-bought-lucasfilm-and-its-plans-for-star-wars#p1 67.3.131.70 ( talk) 18:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I assume the mods already know of this, but if not, here's the deal: Kasdan is no longer writing Episode VIII. That honor, apparently, now goes to Rian Johnson (along with directing it).
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-star-wars-rian-johnson-director-20140620-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-film-starwars-20140620,0,5267959.story
It'll be interesting to see how all of this shakes out, to be sure.
-David
D'oh! I just saw it--it's already updated. Nebbermind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.132.93 ( talk) 00:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
There is wealth of information not just on the production of these trilogies, but also tonnes and tonnes of analysis that would not fit neatly into this article, where the two sections are framed within the narrative of production history. The articles were redirected here circa 2008, but with the new Star Wars sequel trilogy article, I think it is time these two articles ( Star Wars prequel trilogy & Star Wars original trilogy) were reinstated. These two trilogies are notable in their own right; it is not just a case of arbitrarily grouping together 3 notable movies.-- Coin945 ( talk) 19:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
An example of the types of sources a prequel trilogy article would have: