Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace article.|
|Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 1, 2007.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia|
|To-do list for Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace:|
- 1 References to use
- 2 Mixed Reviews
- 3 Maul: once and for all?
- 4 How should we get this arrticle back to FA
- 5 Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
- 6 Huttese
- 7 Box Office Mojo has made an error in calculating the 3D re-release amount of the film
- 8 more information should be added about changes in the blu-ray release
- 9 Critical reception upon initial release
- 10 Star Wars: Balance of the Force
- 11 Age?
References to use
- Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
- Grimes, Caleb; Winship, George (2006). "Episode I: The Phantom Menace". Star Wars Jesus: A spiritual commentary on the reality of the Force. WinePress Publishing. ISBN 1579218849.
I'm not sure if mixed is the right word, especially considering immediately after it says that they criticized everything except for the special effects, which is really inconsequential compared to things like story and characterization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- They are mixed because of the scores given, not the things they said. A 63% on RT and a 52% on Metacritic are considered mixed.18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I have never seen a positive film response from any other professionell film critic than Roger Ebert (the very same man who praised Gigli and The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle). I have read so many reviews from critics (even from different countries outside the US, like England, France and Germany), and not ONE critic gave this movie a good or okay rating. How can this movie be called "mixed" if there are nearly no positive reactions? From what I can tell, the only positive reviews this movie received were from like hardcore fans. What comes next, do we have to talk about the cultural influence of Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2?--22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the "mixed rating" sounds like a joke to me. I have tried to find a good review of the movie online. I failed. Most were written by star wars fans, not professionell critics.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
While this is my favorite of the Prequels, I see a lot of bad reviews. So yeah, people may want to look into that. But honestly, not trying to say it was good or anything, but how can people look at this as the worst of the trilogy? When in reality, if you compare it to episodes 2 and 3, it's almost, if not as good as the original trilogy. Is it because of the huge disappointment it brought afterwards upon release? If so, then yes, it's the most disappointing, but in no way the worst. But we all agree it's the most disappointing. Episode 2 was worse by a million times, but we all knew it was going to be terrible, so there was nothing to be disappointed with. Episode 3 was bad to the point it made Phantom Menace look like Empire Strikes Back, but people call it the best because it's darker. But we knew it was going to be terrible, and people only like it because it was "Slightly" (very that word very loosely) better than we thought it would be. Episode 3 was the worst, it made even episode 2 look like a oscar winner, it was that bad. IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2014
Maul: once and for all?
The Jedi, meanwhile, encounter Darth Maul once more and engage him in a two-on-one lightsaber duel. Qui-Gon is mortally wounded in the battle, but Obi-Wan manages to kill the Sith once and for all.
I'm given to understand that many Star Wars materials resurrect or otherwise bring back Maul in further stories. Should the latter sentence be adjusted somehow to reflect this? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- What other 'material' is this? I would suspect that if it is not considered 'canon', then it shouldn't be accommodated. But the sentence could be changed to something more neutral, as in: remove the 'once and for all'. That would indicate neither the death being final, nor any possible resurrection. DP76764 (Talk) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
How should we get this arrticle back to FA
I really would like to help out here but where do we need more work on the article. Should I get another peer review here soon. I have looked at Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope which is fa already and it looks like this article a lot already. Any help is appreciated.--team6and7 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This movie uses a great deal of the Huttese language. While a constructed language, Huttese is in many ways a real language. I feel that if Italian is listed as a language of the movie The Godfather, then Huttese should be listed as a language in this movie.184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- As I recall, the amount of Huttese in the movie is about on par with the amount of German in Saving Private Ryan, and that is not listed on the infobox on that page. Since nobody (at least that I know of) speaks Huttese regularly, it doesn't seem like it is a very helpful additional for readers. –CWenger (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Box Office Mojo has made an error in calculating the 3D re-release amount of the film
It seems that Box Office Mojo has made an error in calculating the 3D re-release earnings of the film. The 3D version's data, shows the earnings as $100.5 million, but now if we subtract the original old amount ($924,317,558), from the new amount, the earnings show as $101.8 million. We are keeping the subtracted amount because, according to the "Box Office" section of this article, it is correct. To calculate the amount, we are using the system, and not determining it on our own. This is for people to be able to understand the error. Darkdefenderyuki (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
more information should be added about changes in the blu-ray release
Critical reception upon initial release
I have added a "clarification needed" tag to the statement that it received initially mixed reviews. I think we should probably give the RT score for the film before 2012 as well, as it seems likely given the abysmal reputation the film received over the intervening 13 years that it may have got much more negative reviews from mainstream critics the second time it was released to theaters. I have no evidence of this -- I'm not a regular RT user, so I don't know if there's a way to check what a film's score used to be, but if I as a reader noticed this others probably will too. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I actually kind of like what Never Say Never Again has, with "contemporary" and "reflective" reviews giver separate sub-sections. Since the film is technically still "new" compared to that film, it's not quite the same case, but I imagine opinions have still soured toward this film over the years where initial reviews were more positive. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Star Wars: Balance of the Force
I just found a magazine article from August 1997 which says that as of press time, the rumored title for the then-upcoming movie was "Star Wars: Balance of the Force". I'm not sure where the best place to put this info into the article would be, so I'll leave it to this article's regular editors to add it in. Here's the citation, minus the "ref" code: