Talk:Star Wars/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

witches=not in star wars

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)

Try the Nightsisters of Dathomir. TheMoridian 07:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"I have a bad feeling about this"

Any reason why the phrase "I have a bad feeling about this" redirects to here? DanMat6288 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it's associated the most with the saga; it's a recurring line in all six films. Cubs Fan ^(Talk) 03:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration for Lucas?

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)

Deletion nominations

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)

I have a feeling....

....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)

What's wrong with this sentence?

"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.

Another Star Wars reference book.

• Peecher, John Phillip (1983) The Making of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Publisher: Ballantine Books. ISBN-10: 034531235X

End of plot overview misses critical movie dimension

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

List of Star Wars Characters

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)

Star Wars

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)

Please mention Michael Anderson in your article.

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)

'Based on the 2003 2d animated series of the same name'

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)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

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)

The Clone Wars

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)

This article is about Star Wars and clone wars is a Star Wars film. Doesn't matter if it is a spin off it's still a theatrical release and cannon. If you go to STarWars.com at the bottom it has the Clone Wars listed under the Movies section, not under Other films. --Gman124 ^talk 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the other Films section is about other Lucasfilms! that means Indiana Jones and stuff like that. And Actually TCW is also listed there. Although it is also listed to be quickly entered. It isn´t put between Episodes II and III. And isn´t just about everything canon? ;)

My suggestion: Either remove it or count it in for being a cinematic release and make a third section alongside the original trilogy and prequel trilogy stuff. But I´d rather not. Star Wars is a Film Saga. 6 Films. TCW is a Spin-off TV-Series, where the first cuple of Episodes were cut into a feature film and then released.87.174.223.150 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Link to Clone Wars videos

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)

• Please review the rules on external links. I doubt this site would qualify for inclusion. DP76764 (Talk) 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Language

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)

• This isn't really the place for a Q&A like this; talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article they belong to. But: Google is your friend. DP76764 (Talk) 00:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont get that eather......86.177.81.68 (talk)

I believe the Rebels use the same language as the rest of the civilized Star Wars universe : Basic. Basic is a langauge that is heavily based on English. Only specific terms and slang or curses are made up (example - curse 'Kriffing', name 'Chiss'). Also, I don't get the B-wing's name either. The strange runics are possibly other common languages. --<The Integer Conundrum> (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

clone wars

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)

Well, Lucas made one Film. And then developed 2 sequels with a rough backstory, which he wanted to make into a trilogy of feature films (and later did). That thing is complete. It is the story of Anakin Skywalker. But now he sees that there are some gaps. One of those are The Clone Wars. So, while Star Wars is the Story of Anakin Skywalker, The Clone Wars is the Story of the overall Conflict. It is a side story of the Anakin Skywalker Saga. In short, it is not an essential part of Star Wars but rather something new. Also TCW is not a feature film on it´s own, but rather a pilot for the Series. And since Star Wars has the neccessary prestige, this pilot could be released theatrical. And I think that should be noted somewhere. 87.174.223.150 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words, while the Prequels were something, that George Lucas planned for a long time and that completed the Series, TCW is just a spin-off based on the setting, gaps and, most importand, success of the Prequel Trilogy/ Films.87.174.223.150 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The box list Star Wars feature films, period. Lucas' motivations, trials and tribulations making the film would be fine for the article, if sourced. But the box lists Star Wars feature films. Whatever lead to The Clone Wars being made is irrelevant to the info box. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn´t make sense, I´m afraid. The Article is about Star Wars as a franchise. And logically it begins with the Star Wars Film Series, ehich is somewhat the Core of this franchise. Clone Wars is NOT part of that and (before asking me for any reference) you know that. I think it is somewhat idiotic listing TCW alongside the film series and later list it again as a spin-off film in the same article. Suggestion: Change the box to "Star Wars Film Series". Or create a new one, so everybody would be pleased :) 87.174.198.23 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Musical scores

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)

Hypnosis :The author most probably saw a review with the name, and linked to it. Unfortunatly, Amazon uses a strange type of address. (example - when every web page one goes to has the address 'www.webdomain.com') --<The Integer Conundrum> (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction or Fantasy?

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)

Alternative linking from the directory.

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)

The Clone Wars (second section)

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)

To what end? Really, I've seen this mentioned several times, but I don't get the gist of it. How does any of this improve the article, make it more factual or any more encyclopedic? All the arguments I've heard so far just sound like bias against a film people didn't like. It's a feature film. It's an official Star Wars film. What is there to argue? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did like the movie, although not at first.

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)

This isn't an article on the "Star Wars Films Series", this is an article on the franchise as a whole, which is clearly stated in the very first line above the article. Neither is this an article about what's "core" and what isn't, which would be pure fan speculation on our part to begin with. Lucasfilm get's to decide what's core, but I digress. You're making an argument for an article that doesn't exist. As I said, this article is about the franchise as a whole, not the two trilogies by themselves, or there wouldn't even be an Expanded Universe section. In addition to that, the article does indeed mention The Clone Wars outside of Box Office performance under Other films, where it lists it as a 2008 theatrical release. What's conflicting about that, I have no idea.

(As an aside, the Ewok films where made-for-TV-movies that were then released overseas theatrically, but that doesn't make them feature films. The Clone Wars was specifically filmed for cinema. That no more make them feature films then showing the pilot to Friends in the theater would make it "Friends - The Movie".) —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in the lead, in last paragraph. Gman124 ^talk 03:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, if you look feature film on wikipedia, you´ll notice, that, lets say, expert sources define a feature film by length, not if it was made for cinematic release or not.

Second, if you pay attention, Lucas & CO never intended it originally to be a cinematic release. They saw the first couple of finished episodes and thought "gee, that looks amazing, the fans should also see it on the big screen". Now you might say, they made an additional feature film, but that´s not the case. If you´ve seen the very first trailer, which was released back in 2006, looong before the feature film was announced, you´ll see, that the footage is mostly taken from what would become the feature film.

Third, what is conflicting, is that the article says, there are seven films, but there are also other films. And Clone Wars is listed in both of them. So are there two films of the same name or what? Because that´s, what it looks like.

Fourth, I realize, that the article is about the Star Wars franchise as a whole, buwhat did it originate from? The films. Actually one film, to which two sequels and three prequels were released. What about that is fan speculation? 87.174.181.233 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To your first and second, initial release is what marks a film as feature or not, length notwithstanding. But that's not really relevant to this discussion. To your third, the article is clear. The boxes list the stats of the feature films. The lists discuss the nature of films made besides the trilogies. For a reader to be confused by that, they'd have to be easily confused by the structure of most of the articles on Wikipedia to begin with. To your fourth, I've already triple stated my point. First you argue that only the three films are core, and now you're saying only the first film is core. What's fan speculation is what you are doing here. Deciding what's core and what isn't. Only Lucasfilm get's to make that determination. Aside from that, it's irrelavent. This article is about everything Star Wars. Seven feature films were made. That's a fact, and that's what articles do, reflect facts. There is nothing confusing in the article about what The Clone Wars is, where it takes place and where it stands in the saga, so it isn't likely to cause any confusion to anyone who even has a passing interest in the franchise. It's unlikely any of that is going to be changed. You need a way stronger foundation for you argument then what you have now, which so far has just been you don't think it's core, which is strictly your opinion. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read the definition on wikipedia and there it says, that feature is about the "main event" of the evening. In earlier days, several films were shown in cinemas and feature film is actually the featured film, the main event. Like in a boxing event, where you see several small fights and as the main event the championship fight for instance. This is where the term originates and it really is about length.

I originally said core, but I admit, the word was ill-chosen. What I meant is, that if you do an article about Star Wars as a whole, with what do you start? The six films. That´s the origin point (I actually said later origin point, not core). And before Clone Wars there weren´t any so called feature films (meaning orignal theatrical releases) aside from these six , so I think, the intend of the author of the article was, to first talk about the six films, and then talk about the Expanded Universe, of which The Clone Wars is part. So with feature films indeed the Star Wars G-Canon Film Series was meant. But the term isn´t up to date anymore. But we might better ask the guy. Does he have a talk page?

However if you say, the Box Office and Reception Boxes are indipendent from the six films, then I still say the structure is a little flawed for reasons named above. It´s unprofessionel.

Finally, that other Wikipedia articles are flawed in ther structure, does not mean, it´s ok for this article to be also. A possibility of changin that, would be to move the Box-Office/ Reception taglines down, so that it´s named after the other films/expanded universe section. 87.174.236.122 (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's only if you think the structure of most articles on Wikipedia are flawed to begin with. I don't. Nevertheless, I don't think you've really been clear on what it is you're asking for. You've changed stances a couple of times, so I'm not clear if you're asking for The Clone Wars removal (something that I can asure you won't happen) or you want the article rewritten. If it's the latter, then I disagree completely with you, as it's very clear what the The Clone Wars is, why it's in the Box Office/Reception boxes and it's up to the reader to decide whether he thinks it's core or not. You're now saying something about "origin point", but again, the Box Office/Reception boxes aren't there to distinguish origin points. They are there to show you which movies went to the theater, and how much they made. Nothing more. Nothing less. I see nothing unprofessional about it. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I´m sorry, if I somehow confused you. I thought, The Clone Wars was listed as sort of Episode VII. But if I get you right, you mean, the box office section is meant to be independant from the feature films section?

In that case I think, it would improve the article to also include the Ewok films box office performance, since they where released theatrically, although not in all the countries of the world. And also mildly rewrite the article. Put the box office performance below the other expanded universe section.

Or don´t you think, it´s sort of weird to first talk about six films, then show box office performance of all theatrical releases in Star Wars and then introduce Spin-off Films?

On the other hand, I think, it would also make sense to remove The Clone Wars and talk with the box office section specifically about the 6 main films.

I know the words "main" or "core" are ill chosen, but you know, what I mean. You often claim, that what is core, is simply fan speculation, but it´s not. Or do we not have G-Canon, that does NOT include The Clone Wars?87.174.205.114 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think Ewoks should be there at all. Their theatrical release was incidental. They were made for TV and sent to the theaters as an afterthought. I also don't think it's weird at all to list all Star Wars motion pictures in a box about all Star Wars motion pictures. I just don't see what the problem is. The Clone Wars is not just mentioned after the Feature films section. It's also mentioned before, in the lead, with the context of the seventh movie clear as crystal. This G-Canon business really has no bearing on an article about the franchise as a whole, and the significant parts of it. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Digital Jedi Master, the clone wars should be left in the tables. But I also think that the tv movies should be added to the reception table, if sources are found. Also I think a new section about clone wars should be added under production history section, since that was a theatrical release. --Gman124 ^talk 14:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your (DJM) reasoning. And I´d agree, if the article would discuss feature films (meaning original theatrical releases), then TV Movies, then TV Series, etc. However the article discusses feature films and then the expanded Universe (which is in turn divided into films, Tv series, etc.). So it is clearly implied, that the feature film section is indeed intended to deal the two trilogies only. Or is The Clone Wars not part of the expanded Universe?

My problem with the article is, that it implies, that The Clone Wars does not belong to the expanded universe. But there is an easy solution. Even more than one.

One would be to remove The Clone Wars and rename the feature films section into the Star Wars Film Series, which I´d prefer.

Another one would be to restructure the article and divide it simply into feature films, Tv films, Tv Series, etc. and remove the expanded universe Umbrella. That would improve your preferred version of the article.

I also agree, that (in the latter case) behind the scenes information about the Clone Wars should be given. And if it was something like "After the trilogies another film was produced for cinematic release as an introduction to the series of the same name".87.174.193.235 (talk) 21:01, 24 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)

What is conflicting is, you´re doing a melting pot of 2 kinds of structures at the same time.

One divides into the, as you called it, "Main Series" and the Expanded Universe. The other structure of this pot sepperates the Star Wars franchise into the different forms of Media (e.g. feature films, TV films, etc.). Both make equally sense on their own.

I believe originally the first was the case. But someone named the Main Series section "feature films", since before The Clone Wars there were no others outside the two trilogies. Then some other guy came along and thought "oh, The Clone Wars is a feature film, so it belongs there". Although not wrong by words, it violates the Main Series - Expanded Universe Structure. Or: The words were used to violate the spirit.

Ultimately, you´re doing now a feature films - expanded universe structure.

To explain the problem:

If you structure an article, you sepperate it into sections, which discuss the aspects of an article´s subject, right?

Now, is it encyclopedic to define these sections in a way, that leaves an aspect applied to more than one section?87.174.179.165 (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Except neither Box office performance nor Critical reaction are part of the Feature films section, which is why they have their own links in the jump boxes. We could move them down below EU, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's warranted for something that's already pretty well explained. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification: You agree, that the feature film section is indeed only about the 2 trilogies? And you are saying the box office and critical reaction boxes are independant from the feature film section?

If so, I think, we have moved forward and are now talking about merely the placement of these two sections in the article. For shortness, I will now refer to those sections as the success section.

So I understand the success section is about the box office performance of all the theatrical releases of the whole Star Wars Franchise. Then why are the Ewoks films omitted (Of course I understand, you can´t list a box office performance that can´t be sourced)? They were released theatrically. That happened. Granted, this was not originally intended. But The Clone Wars was also released theatrically as an "afterthought". The only difference is, that TCW had not yet aired at the time, when the decision has been made to release it theatrically.

But the more crucial question is: Why do you talk about Box Office performence and critical reaction in context of the Star Wars franchise? Because you want to talk about it´s success. So why is only the success of feature films discussed and not the ratings of television films or comic book and novel sales? Why can they be omitted?

Of course I know, that it would be simply to much for that article. So I think, the box office performence should become a sub-section of the feature films section like it originally was and deal only with the main series.87.174.219.118 (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucas may call The Clone Wars' theatrical release "almost an afterthought", but that's still an "afterthought" that occurred during production. It was decided sometime during production that it would be a motion picture and it was released as such. The Ewok movies were produced as TV movies and released as TV movies. They were released theatrically (if my sources are accurate) 5 months (Caravan) and a year (Battle for Endor) after their television premiers. Box Office/Reaction stats, other then being hard to find, would be irrelevant info.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see the point in your suggestion other then to remove The Clone Wars from any affiliation with the two trilogies. Star Wars made seven feature films. That's factual. Feature films are the most visible hallmarks of the franchise. All the boxes do is chronicle the important details of those most visible hallmarks. Whether we like them or think they were good movies or not, doesn't change that. The films are important. Even the ones we don't like that much. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 09:12, 28 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.

• As I said, length is the main issue in determining what a feature film is, not release. So by that definition, the Ewok films indeed are feature films; so is the Hliday Special and even The Great Heap.
• The Clone Wars is a originally theatrical released film, still it is part of the Expanded Universe. The article is about Star Wars as a franchise. How do you structure it?
  • The different Media (which would only mean to remove or rename the EU Umbrella, because the term Expanded Universe in the specific case of Star Wars is adressing Everything (whether TV Series, Novels, Comic books or thatrical films) outside the main series, the 2 film-trilogies. The rest of the article would stay exactly as it is.) In that case, the box office performance and critical reaction boxes can be part of the Feature Films or Theatrical Films Umbrella and you could leave it as it is.
  • Film Series - EU. In that case, box-office performance and critical reaction boxes should be part of the film series umbrella and only feature six films. The Box office performance of the The Clone Wars film can still be viewed on the recpective article.

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)

split

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 articlesIAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We already have a huge portal linking to individual articles on the Films, Animated TV Shows, Books, Characters, Comics, Conflicts, Creatures, Games, Governments, Jedi Religion...well, you get the idea. What would an article on the film series add that these other individual articles don't already cover? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, how would it harm the Star Wars Article - Franchise?^^ I don´t think, it is a bad idea. This article could serve as an overview to everything, the Star Wars Franchise covers, structured by media (e.g. theatrical films, tv-films, tv-series, comic books, novels, video games) and then you have the respective articles. There are also extra articles on the comic books or novels, so why not one about the film series?87.174.246.185 (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Day

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)

Does it have any notability? DP76764 (Talk) 15:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is official in the Los Angeles City Council, that May 25th is Star Wars day, celebrating the release of the first Star Wars movie. May the 4th is just a pun however (May the 4th be with you) Barras (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Box Office Performance

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)

"epic space opera"

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)

If you follow the link to Epic film and read what it's about you will see that the description is accurate. DP76764 (Talk) 03:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

funny how you recommend that i read the link to Epic film]...i have read this article and nowhere does it mention star wars as an example. also, the article states that a criteria for an "epic" film is it contains an ensemble, bankable cast - when star wars came out, no one heard of harrison ford, carrie fisher or mark hamill. sorry to say, but your argument is moot. Jackass110 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See: List of epic films. DP76764 (Talk) 04:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

i doubt that this is an authoritative list of all movies, ever-produced, that are considered "epic". where are the sources? it is merely a list. Jackass110 (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. But consider that this article is about the franchise as a whole, not any specific film. For the record, epic film doesn't list a 'bankable cast' as a requirement, but that it 'often entails' one. The other 'often entails' are quite satisfied by this series. Just because this series isn't listed as an example on the epic film page doesn't mean it isn't one. I mean, if this series doesn't qualify then what films do? DP76764 (Talk) 05:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)"

Titanic is considered an epic and nibidy even knew Leonardo Di Caprio when it came out. 69.248.186.163 (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you looked up "epic movie" now look up "moot point" so you can use the word correctly next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.185.21 (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fan derived sources.

I would agree that some owners discourage fan made productions, Star Trek is not one of them.

• Some owners, such as Paramount Pictures with the Star Trek properties, have been known to actively discourage the creation of such works by fans.

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)

Um... shouldn't that be on Talk:Star Trek instead? BAPACop (converse) 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a larger contributor of Star Trek. I was actually looking at this page as a template for improvement of that page. The statement on THIS PAGE that paramount does not allow fan productions is simply not true. Hence, the discussion should be on THIS PAGE. Oldag07 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't find that statement in the article, so I assumed it was on the wrong page. My apologies. BAPACop (converse) 13:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

EVIL EMPIRE speach link

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)

Star Wars: In Concert

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)

credits inspiration

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)

If this is true, which it may well be, it should still be left out of the article unless someone is able to find a quote about any of the makers of Star Wars referring to the film, which seems unlikely. --Darktower 12345 17:23, 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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination)

FYI. Ikip (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mace "Windy"?

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)

Fixed. You can always edit the entire article (instead of just a section) and use your browser's Find function. Also, please put new topics on Talk Pages at the bottom of the page. Happy editing! DP76764 (Talk) 01:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in this instance, "Windy" was correct. I checked the listed reference (J.W. Rinzler's 2007 book The Making of Star Wars), and not only does the page corroborate the spelling, it has a scan of an original draft which shows the "Windy" spelling in Lucas' own handwriting. I've restored the original spelling. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much for your responses, glad somebody could clear this up for me. Thanks again. FlipsidePro09 (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Reading

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)

One should read the books in whatever order one wants. If you are looking for the canonical chronology, some books (like Dell Rey books) will list all currently published books in chronological order in a little section of the beginning. Emperor001 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Trilogy is only three

"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)

Major stars not mentioned

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)

Jedi Religion

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)

I agree. This was added [1], and I've reverted. For now I've left the See also link to Jediism which is more than sufficient, if the real world religion really exists (I think that article itself has major issues). I've added a See also to Jedi census phenomenon, which is the article that accurately discusses the census issue, without making absurd claims that all these people seriously believed themselves to be Jedi Knights(!) Mdwh (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unbiased citation needed in Themes

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)

Edit request from Transformers rock, 15 April 2010

{{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.

The gross revenue you see on the Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film) article includes revenue from DVD sales, the figures in the table in this article refers to takings at the box office. Although, there doesn't seem to be a reference for the number of $126 million. SCΛRECROW^CrossCom 10:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to request an addition, it is essential to provide an appropriate reliable source, and to tell us exactly which part to change. If you can do so, please reinstate the request. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  12:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Concur with Scarecrow and Chzz. There is no source for the film grossing over $126 million. I tried to Google to find a similar figure but did not come up with anything. Even if there was post-theatrical run revenue, I doubt it would nearly double the box office figure. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.191.164.75, 14 May 2010

{{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)

• Done Thanks for catching that mistake. SCΛRECROW^CrossCom 06:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo in R2-D2's description.

C-3P0 is listed as a "comanion" to R2-D2, instead of a "companion".

Fixed. SCΛRECROW^CrossCom 07:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Grievous

Is general grievous considered a sith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.154.19 (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no, as Grievous was not a Force user. He was only instructed in lightsaber usage. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also say no, but with a caveat. A Sith is (now) someone who follows an Ideal or set of beliefs, steaming from the original inhabitants of Korriban. KOTR discussed how "today's" Sith (That being over 4000BBY) were no longer a species but followers of an ideal. As such, I suppose one could say that a non force user could be a Sith, so long as (s)he followed the teachings... Dphilp75 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dphilp75, I would agree with you, in a way. While I have not yet reached that point in SW:KotOR (or maybe I ignored it), I think I remember hearing something about Korriban. General Grevious is Dark Side - oriented (while not necessarily of the Force) and is in fact a sentient being (with a droid's body--I could go into that, but that would be beside the point), but since he cannot use the Force, he is not a Sith. Besides, that would violate the Sith Code (I actually don't know if this is a written thing, but there seems to be present guidelines for the Sith, and the following is stated in The Phantom Menace at Qui-Gonn's memorial), where it says that there are only two--a master and an apprentice. Emperor Palpatine's apprentice was Count Dooku, but he used both him and Grevious as pawns in his 'master plan' (which of course ultimately failed). As far as I can remember, the Emporer always had one apprentice at a time. That is, unless he had a different Sith master (very unlikely, never heard anything about it--if anything there's evidence against it). Anyway, no, I wouldn't consider Grevious a Sith. There are droids in the Expanded Universe that use lightsabers (quite common during the Clone Wars), but they're not Sith.Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

...and what does this have to do with the article? They never talk about General Grevious at all. This discussion (if it isn't already) should be on the General Grevious page. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Space Opera

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)

Change what to what? This section makes little to no sense. DP76764 (Talk) 18:28, 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?

Agreed. Star Wars is the very definition of a "Space Opera". An Opera is not only defined as a "musical", but also as an Epic Story... Beowulf could also be accurately described as an Opera. Dphilp75 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As others before me have said, a space opera is an epic sci-fi/space fantasy storyline. It includes multiple heroic feats and drama. Check out the disambiguation page for epic (that would be in the film/literature subsection). Of course, you could simply see the Space opera page. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Clone Wars EU

The 2008 Clone Wars series is not considered "Expanded Universe;" who's the fool who put that there? Someone take it down, perhaps?

I don't mean to be "that guy", but says who? Seems to me that it would be EU... Dphilp75 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing this by memory here, so cut me some slack, but by my understanding canon goes, in order: M, T, EU, by priority. M = Movie, so what's in that is fact overriding all else, T = television (the animated Clone Wars series), which is overrided by movie canon, but is still above EU, and then there's EU, which is effectively fan-fiction in terms of canon, it's just widely accepted fan-fiction. As I recall, there was something in the aforementioned series that pissed some fans off, because it directly contradicted some EU novels that had a large following, and was technically true because of the M > T > EU relationship. Encyclopædia of Wørds 14:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That sort of similar to what I understood too. The Movies took highest priority, then the Video Games, then the TV show(s), then the EU, which was derived through how much Lucas had to work with each, with Lucas of course being able have final authority over everything... Dphilp75 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kierg10, 4 June 2010

{{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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 01:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Qui-gon is generally considered to be a "Grey Jedi". Grey Jedi hold a less "traditional" view of the Force and do not always recognize the Jedi Council as an Authority. This does not however mean that some Grey Jedi do not submit to the Councils wishes. Qui-gon in particular is a good example of this. He accepted Obi Wan as his Padawan with the Council's approval, he accepted missions assigned to him by the Council and even accepted the Council's decision to not out right train Anakin. Further, he was specifically called "Master" by both Obi Wan *AND* the Council. This all adds up to Qui-gon being a Jedi Master, albeit a Grey Jedi and held in some suspicion. Dphilp75 (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the sequel really going to be or is this website I link in the following a fake? What do you know or think about this?

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 is a good example of not always believing what you see on the "interwebz"... There *IS* a TV show coming out that apparently Lucas will be working on the first season of, but no new movie. If Lucas had even hinted at a new trilogy, the fan boys we be going insane... Dphilp75 (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

no kidding. hes actuallu baltenally declared there wont be one.(sequal trilogy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Read this information about SuperShadow before considering any information on his webside to be true.--BECK's 16:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

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:

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).

Thanks again Rich. œ^™ 02:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Critical reaction" section should use weighted average

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)

Fundamental Changes after “The Empire Strikes Back”

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)

An maybe merge

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)

It's been discussed several times before, and been through quite a lot of AFDs, e.g one of the AFDs. The general consensus is that it's well referenced and there is enough notable coverage about the topic. --The Taerkasten (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the reply. I knew the particular topic was worth talking about and notable. But still the topic seems to be something that could be just said right here in a section and not divided as it's own article just like the original and prequel trilogy. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I do understand the reason for merging the content here. I mean, the article's never gonna be FA or maybe even GA. But it's got some good coverage. The article looks quite developed for something of its kind. I'm therefore neutral on the merging. --The Taerkasten (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the Sequel Trilogy is not in the article itself, but the Star Wars template. Right below the Original Trilogy is the Sequel Trilogy link, with a blank space next to it where the episodes *will* go. At least, that's what I thought when I was browsing. I got all excited, seeing that empty space there, and clicked the Sequel Trilogy link only to discover that the blank space would remain blank. I think it should be placed somewhere else in the template, before we give other Star Wars fans heart attacks. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point, but where would it go? The template seems kinda full. Maybe if an "other" section was added or something.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

add it to universe section. Gman124 ^talk 13:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Theme park attractions

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)

Source: Creative process

• Michael Heilemann: George Lucas Stole Chewbacca, But It’s Okay, binarybonsai.com,18. September 2010, Sep 18, '10 --Max Dax (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would constitute a reliable source, but I could be wrong. It's somebody's personal website, per [2], so I'm not sure if it meets WP:RS.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ReedGaugeOR, 24 September 2010

{{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.

• (Using a cut and paste excerpt from her WikiPedia source article, she should be finally featured upon the death of her famous father, singer, Eddie Fisher, in September 2010.)- sic rg *

ReedGaugeOR (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Star Wars franchise, not the individual actors.--The Taerkasten (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: as per previous editor. SpigotMap 13:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

3D

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 hereGreatestLord (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Nice catch. I haven't even heard about it until now. SCΛRECROW 09:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well, let's see how it works out.GreatestLord (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Legacy: Weird Al Songs

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)

Movie in between episode 3 and 4

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)

Even more "Other FIlms"

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.

• The Pirates and the Prince
• The Haunted Village
• Treasure of the Hidden Planet
• Tales from the Endor Woods
• Clone Wars Volume I (yup, it is a movie, even though it is edited from the show)
• Clone Wars Volume II

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)

Suggested watching sequence

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)

Per WP:TALK, this is not really the place to have general discussion about the films. We're supposed to use the talk page to discuss improving the article. I recommend trying IMDb, which will probably have a plethora of answers for you. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

?I thought that this information should be put in the article ... Tomeasy _{T C} 20:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't really count as encyclopedic information relevant to the article. Also, the order in which to view the films is entirely subjective, not really in compliance with WP:NPOV. As per Erik, this information doesn't really improve the article. An online forum would be a better place to discuss this than on an encyclopedia--TÆRkast (Communicate) 20:43, 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)

I think it's mentioned in the individual film articles, but it could be mentioned here.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 19:57, 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)

Wikipedia is not a forum to voice your own opinions about the films. Our own opinions are irrelevant to the article.--Tærkast (Communicate) 14:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Box office ranking

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 request from 68.230.118.200, 8 March 2011

{{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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fox sets release date for 'Star Wars 3D' A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox?

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)

Space opera

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)

unlabled new section

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)

This is not a forum for general discussion on personal feelings about the films. FYI, Star Wars is not a real event. The Strategic Defence Initiative (aka Star Wars) was just nicknamed after the film, and has absolutely nothing to do with the franchise at all.--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word "franchise"

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)

See Media franchise, Star Wars#Expanded Universe and Star Wars Expanded Universe. The Star Wars franchise includes many other parts than the film series. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The predominant element of the franchise is in fact the film series. I think that the lead should reflect this, particularly the first sentence. I'm going to go ahead and make a mild edit in that direction, which I think will satisfy both of your concerns. But I welcome further discussion if it does not. Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, my edit got reverted with the comment "over woded" which I'm taking to mean "overly wordy". I'd appreciate some discussion here. I'm thinking of the reader who did not grow up with Star Wars and wants to find out what it is. I think that should be the target audience of the first sentence. So I think it is essential to include "film series" there. I guess I'll try trimming down the first sentence to that, which will make it less wordy, and working the media franchise in later. But again, it would be helpful to have discussion here. Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Williams' main theme derived from Glazunov

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)

Got a source for that? I personally hear a lot of tchaikovsky in his work. Composers take inspiration from a lot of sources, but if it were blatant plagarism, it's probably the case that someone would have documented that fact in a reliable source. i kan reed (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Marcia Lucas and Gary Kurtz

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)

Do you have sources to back those claims up? Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a forum for venting personal claims about anything. No OR and sources must be verifiable, and we must adhere to a neutral point of view. --Tærkast (Discuss) 15:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Are "Fan Documentary Film Trilogy" Links Ok?

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)

Controversy created by Blu-Ray releases

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)

They may warrent inclusion, certainly, the New York Times has a post about it and such however, perhaps better served in the list of changes article. Also, we must use third-party verifiable and reliable sources, fansites themselves would be primary sources, constituting original research.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes, The New York Times Reference Seems Relevant Of Course - Also, Of Possible Interest - The Star Wars BRD Amazon WebSite, At The Moment, Has 666 Posted Reviews - 24% (160) Are Rated 5 (of 5) and 76% (506) Are Rated 1 (of 5) - Seems A Bit Remarkable? - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Amazon reviews are irrelevant. We need more reliable 3rd party sources. This is just like the situation with Spore (2008 video game). DP76764 (Talk) 19:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I *Entirely* Agree - My Amazon Comment Was Noted Only To Somewhat Describe The BRD Controversy - More Reliable Sources Are *Always* Preferred Of Course - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Box office performance (incorrect inflation figures)

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)

doesn't the clone wars deserve it's own subsection?

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)

Just one question

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)

You would need an external, reliable source discussing this. A direct quote from Mr Lucas would be best. DP76764 (Talk) 04:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of this would just be a matter of opinion as there is no way to characterize which one of the persons in series would be construed as a single "most important" character. Especially since in all six films there are only a few characters that appear. The only person, as previously posted, whose opinion would matter, would be the series creator, George Lucas. Unless, there have been independent analyses of all the characters by authorities which have published peer-reviewed documents.User:Aneah 13:49, 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)

Edit request on 13 January 2012

1922

line

71.99.64.238 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a request--Jac16888 ^Talk 02:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Critical reaction

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)

Where do you see a problem? Star Wars#Critical reaction already says what you are saying. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per PrimeHunter. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following sentence to the introduction

"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)

Comment - The sentence, although maybe true, would 1) need to be referenced and 2) would probably need a scrub to ensure it is in a NPOV. W/O that it's pretty much a puff piece. Ckruschke (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Famous/recognisable moments?

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)

Sounds like a WP:TRIVIA section; generally not something that should be included in an article. DP76764 (Talk) 22:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to add the following sentence to the introduction

"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."

Notes:

[2] refers to ref 2 in the article

"influential" could denote a positive or a negative influence

--Fornanzo (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There's already an existing section regarding this suggestion, no need for another one. Still Disagree with adding 'fantasy' as a descriptor; the films are almost exclusively known and categorized as sci-fi, and should remain so. DP76764 (Talk) 16:25, 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)

Common Knowledge? Wookipedia, for example, calls the series Sci-Fi. Though I do find it interesting and funny that IMDB classifies 5 of the 6 films as fantasy, but since that's openly editable, who knows. Yes, it's my opinion that the series is Sci-Fi, but I think to declare it part fantasy we're still going to need a good source; perhaps a quote directly from Mr Lucas? DP76764 (Talk) 19:27, 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)

Cast and characters table

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)

I agree. Haphazardly throwing a list together doesn't look to great. Ckruschke (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Edit request on 29 March 2012

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)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Articles become semi-protected because they are frequently vandalized. The "Requested edit" template you used is intended to request a specific edit be made to the article, not to request that you be granted permission to edit it. If you say what specific change you would like to be made to the article, other editors can look into it and potentially make the edit for you. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Two suggestions

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)

Disagree with point 1. It's a Science-Fiction work, not a Fantasy work. (even though the Force sounds supernatural) DP76764 (Talk) 16:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with Point 1 for same reason as Dp76764. I have no comment on your second point. Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

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 Force itself has no morality attached to it; it's the users of the Force that attach any particular morality to its aspects. And, given the explanations in Ep1, the Force itself is entirely scientific. Thank you George and your "midichlorions". Either way, you'll need some supporting sources if you want a change like that. Please post whatever you can find. DP76764 (Talk) 01:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dp76764 - The Force is a tool to be used in whatever way the jedi will - it has as much inherent morality as a screwdriver. Ckruschke (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Even if The Force is a supernatural element, why should it dominate the more prevalent technological aspect of the film(s)? Supernatural forces can be found to have a significant place in fiction (X-files, Battlestar Galactica, SeaQuest DSV) that's still classified as Science Fiction because it's the more dominant theme. I could see it bearing mention if there were some qualifying sources bringing it up, but until then it's too much of a force fit. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(side note) "force fit"? no pun intended, I'm sure ;) DP76764 (Talk) 16:17, 28 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)

And you have a source for that? Sounds like a lot of conjecture/opinion to me. DP76764 (Talk) 16:21, 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)

Popularity

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)

This article is about the franchise, not Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Valid points were perhaps raised, however, such interpretations on its popularity need commentary by reliable and verifiable published sources. Personal commmentary is not appropriate.--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

infobox

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)

Never mind. I fixed it. It sure does make the lead more readable. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs sourcing

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)

Franchise reboot and aquisition by disney

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-disney-george-lucasmt1thewrap62801-20121030,0,3587016.story

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)

They're not rebooting the franchise, just creating more films. Live Light (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

?

Who changed it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbieranger (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed what? DP76764 (Talk) 21:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Adjusted for inflation numbers

Incorrect post.

Correctos!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.145.218 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fan-made map

You'll see

here

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)

I trust you mean you request removal for I don't see why it needs removal on Wikimedia Commons. In that case I understand and I have removed it. Just noticed it was on spanish article which is featured there but at the same time their rules can be different than english. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did. I just meant delete any mention of it on the actual article. Not Wikipedia entirely. Charlr6 (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it really all that unusual to have a customized drawing on Wikipedia? Most of the illustrations here are editor made, due to a lack of public domain imagery we're allowed to use. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Location

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)

Minor quibbles about lead grammar

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)

I mainly agree with you, but you don't need to start a discussion to clean up grammar. Take a bash at it and if someone reverts you then it can be discussed if necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make the first change. Since it's the lead which is usually the result of long-term collaboration, I thought I would post here first. Also I don't have a better alternative for the second issue, since what I came up with ("All six of the main films in the series were also nominated for Academy Awards, with three winning multiple Oscars") is also awkward. Hoping someone else has an idea how to fix. Thanks. El duderino ^(abides) 13:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes "Top Critics" scores

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)

Done. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 02:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Add telepathy to list of Jedi powers

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)

My bad! Clairvoyance is actually quite common ("search your feelings"; "I sense his presence") and telepathy seems only to be used by Force Ghosts. This change is not warranted, and this section of the talk page can be removed.

Cocococunut (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Expanded Universe introduction

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)

Crew section

This should really be in the same order of the films as the cast section is Frogkermit (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Other movies mention

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)

Quibble with plot summary

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)

Sounds like mostly WP:OR. The movies don't expressly elaborate on those details. DP76764 (Talk) 14:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OR? It's a major part of the plot! At the continual urging of Obi-Wan's voice or whatever, he turns off his computer, which is noted by the flight commanders, and uses the Force to hit the shot. It's hardly OR, it's the turning point of the movie. Vader goes from having no idea Luke exists to, at the opening of the next movie, being "obsessed" with finding him. This is no original thought - the plot summary on the page neglects to mention Luke using the Force to destroy the Death Star, which is (his choice of "his feelings" vs. the computer) the climax of Part IV and the reason for the whole plot of Part V. You could argue that saying "Luke himself fires the shot that destroys the deadly space station" is good enough - that the fact that he used the Force is not really an important detail. You would be wrong, but you could argue it. But how this is OR is beyond me.Kgdickey (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's so significant and is 'the turning point of the movie', then you'll easily be able to find some sources to corroborate that position. You're adding a lot of verbosity to (and promoting the importance of) something that's mostly visual/unspoken; that's where caution is important as it's easy for personal interpretation to sneak into an edit. I'm not against elaborating a teeny bit more, but it needs to be done judiciously and/or with good sourcing. DP76764 (Talk) 15:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my extra verbiage has confused the issue - all I really think is needed is some mention that Luke used the Force on the final shot. Is there honestly any doubt about this point? Other than the script of the film what other source could possibly be authoritative? To be clear I am not looking to have any interpretation included - maybe just, "Luke used the Force to deliver the shot that destroyed the Death Star." Dp76764 - need for sources aside, do you disagree with me? I did not think any of my contentions were original, controversial, or anything but obvious. Am I wrong about that? Kgdickey (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, a part from the script from Ben saying "use the force Luke" there is no evidence that he actually did this, I mean, he used torpedoes which probably had some lock on feature so what's to say that wasn't the case? I could also point out that Luke being a Jedi on the side of the rebels is a pretty big deal, and what is to say that they weren't advertising it left right and centre to let everyone know they had the last Jedi on their side? And if you read the comics, any sign of a Jedi and Vader was all over it like a fat kid in a sweet shop. Which would more than explain his motivations in hunting Luke. MisterShiney ✉ 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - he turns off the computer, indicating that the torpedoes are no longer locked onto anything - why else have him turn off the computer? That's the point - he decided to do it Obi-Wan's way. And the rebels did not know anything about having a Jedi in their midst - Biggs has to vouch for Luke (in the restored scene) just to convince the Rebels to throw the farmboy into battle as a common fighter pilot. How was Luke "the last Jedi" at this point in the timeline? He had done nothing but play a few lightsaber games with Obi-Wan. He doesn't claim to be a Jedi for the first time until Episode VI. Again, it's more than just Obi-Wan saying "use the Force Luke." The music changes from "battle" to "dreamy," he turns off the computer (acknowledged by mission commanders, to make sure you don't miss it), makes an "I am now feeling the Force flow through me" face and launches the torpedoes. They are shown changing direction to go straight into the exhaust port (both of them, on a shot that "impossible, even for a computer"). If Luke didn't use the Force in that moment, and since the computer was switch off, how exactly did he do it? Didn't you notice the music change? LOL. Kgdickey (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's clear that Luke uses the Force to make the shot and would support clarifying that line in the article in the simplest manner possible. (To answer your question about what other sources could be used here is 1 example: an interview with a writer/director/producer, in a respected trade publication, where they explain the scene. There are many other possibilities for other sources as well.) I think we should stop short of speculating on how this event motivated Luke's dad though, as that isn't clearly shown in the films; that would be where the OR could come in. DP76764 (Talk) 15:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We should remove this part

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))

If you have a citation that shows this isn't true, feel free to BE BOLD and delete it. Ckruschke (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

There's no need for a citation, that's inherent in the paragraph itself. "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 will be bold! (Zedell (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC))

I think it can come out as per WP:SPECULATION. In fact it is not even speculation, it is a rumor confirmed as not being true. Betty Logan (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! It was information that was just not useful in any way. (Zedell (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC))

Lack of information on inspiration

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)

Description of the Force

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)

missing theme

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)

Change in infobox

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)

So the split would include the original six movies on one side and then the Clone Wars and two films we don't know anything about? Seems hardly worth the effort. Not pooh-poohing your idea, but maybe we could wait a couple years when we have more that are actually official. Unless you want to stoop to adding in the laughable and, now, completely unwatchable Star Wars Christmas special...  ;-) Ckruschke (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I see what you mean. You're right, an edit like that should probably wait until those other two movie have official names and stuff.YodaFan67 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Palpatine Portrayal Addition

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)

Princess Change

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)

Rotten Tomato Rating switched around

Resolved

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)

Punctuation in film titles

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)

Tweaks to the EU content

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)

Inclusion of spin-off film crew

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)

Minor fix on "See also" section

Please adjust link as so: Star Wars Games should be: Star Wars Games

Ep 1 3d release date

is Feb 10th 2012

http://starwars.com/movies/episode-i/3dannouncedate/index.html

Error in "Production History"

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.

made change per your request. Also saw that "Annikin" was changed to "Anakin" in the third sentence above so I changed that too. Assume Lucas revised the spelling somewhere along the way to Ep 1.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2006). "Star Wars". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 109–124. ISBN 0275983951.
• Desilet, Gregory (2005). "Epic/Serial Melodrama: Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings". Our Faith in Evil: Melodrama and the Effects of Entertainment Violence. McFarland. pp. 265–275. ISBN 078642348X.

Fan Disappointment in the Prequels

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)

How strange is it that you are being active on subjects I am interested in. First Spider-Man related articles and now this. But yeah. I don't have a problem with addition related to these. As long as it is reliable sources. This article is not complete. If you want my opinion. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering the "Critical Reaction" section is basically a chart of the various ratings rather than a written dicussion of the reaction to the movies, my suggestion is that this material go in the actual section on the prequel trilogies. Shouldn't be very hard to find good mag/newspaper sources that discuss all the facets that the fans hate (Jar Jar, choice of Anakin actor, pathetically underwhelming dialogue, mitichlorian/Anakin is Star Wars' Jesus discussions/thread lines, going away from the "spirit" of the original trilogy is setting and feel, etc, etc etc). My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I think that this would be a great addition to the article. All the same, remember this is a Wikipedia article and not a blog post where someone is ranting about how much they hate the Prequels. I say it could be done in only one or two sentences, and it should only mention the things you just mentioned above (Jar Jar, choice of Anakin actor, pathetically underwhelming dialogue, mitichlorian/Anakin is Star Wars' Jesus discussions/thread lines, going away from the "spirit" of the original trilogy is setting and feel/ too much CGI). All these things are pretty much unanimously hated among older fanbase. Anything else (e.g. the Yoda duel in Ep II, some older fans like it some think its cheesy) should be left alone. It also should be mentioned that the arguably the most hated thing is [jar jar binks]. YodaFan67 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 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)

How Disney bought lucasfilm

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#p167.3.131.70 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to WP:BE BOLD and do so... Ckruschke (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Section 2.4.3 (The Sequels) Will Need an Update

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)

Split of Original trilogy and Prequel trilogy

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:

• http://observationdeck.io9.com/5-things-the-star-wars-prequels-did-right-1624100988
• http://www.hitfix.com/comedy/dear-jj-abrams-12-star-wars-prequel-mistakes-you-should-never-ever-repeat
• http://whatculture.com/film/8-redeeming-qualities-of-the-star-wars-prequel-trilogy.php
• http://www.nerdist.com/2014/05/the-star-wars-prequels-edited-into-a-single-movie/
• http://whatculture.com/film/15-reasons-why-star-wars-prequels-sucked.php
• http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-fan-writes-108page-rebuttal-red-letter-medias-phantom-menace-review/
• http://whatculture.com/film/5-ways-star-wars-prequels-are-better-than-the-original-trilogy.php
• http://www.hollywood.com/news/movies/7839748/ten-reasons-to-love-the-star-wars-prequels
• http://entertainment.time.com/2013/05/25/no-more-wars-10-reasons-george-lucas-should-have-quit-after-jedi/slide/the-prequel-trilogy/
• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/02/star-wars-rebels-explores-the-jedi-s-lost-years-between-the-prequels-and-the-original-trilogy.html
• http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/the-star-wars-prequels-could-have-been-so-much-better/story-e6frfmvr-1226906431995
• http://au.ign.com/articles/2013/04/15/the-9-dumbest-decisions-in-the-star-wars-prequels
• http://io9.com/storyboards-reveal-the-amazing-star-wars-prequel-you-ne-510134498
• http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star-wars/28860/positives-to-take-from-the-star-wars-prequels