Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

References to use

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

• Grimes, Caleb; Winship, George (2006). "Episode VI: Return of the Jedi". Star Wars Jesus: A spiritual commentary on the reality of the Force. WinePress Publishing. ISBN 1579218849. 

Original Theatrical Version on DVD

Under the section "Home video release," the article states that the original theatrical version was released in 2004 (as opposed to the Special Editions). I believe this is incorrect, as all the sources I could find state that the original movie has never been released on DVD (though it has been released on LaserDisc). Also, the reference for this section mentions nothing about the set including the original theatrical version. If someone could find a better citation, go ahead and put it back, but I edited that section a little. It still needs to be cleaned up a little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.179.9 (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

the original theatrical version was released in the 2006 release (codenamed the GOUT (Georges original unaltered trilogy) http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Trilogy-Harrison-Ford/dp/B001EN71DG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1251482669&sr=1-1)- no account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.186.109 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to cover the home media releases, and see if there are any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was discussion moved to Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back#Requested move to centralise discussion given the likely similarity of discussion. Comments left here mainly consisted of see comments on the Episode V page or were very similar. Non-admin closure. Dpmuk (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi → Return of the Jedi — I understand wanting to create consistency with the other Star Wars film articles, but there are important user concerns to consider. Return of the Jedi is the common name of the film, and the one people are most likely to search for in the search engine. The whole "Star Wars: Episode VI" prefix is a recent invention, and certainly the film wasn't called that when it was initially released. As a related aside, I'm curious as to what the copyright entry on the film actually is. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support as common name. Jafeluv (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per comments at Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. The Filmaker (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support again as per comments on Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Dpmuk (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Would anyone object making this a {{multimove}} with Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back? I have a feeling that pretty much every argument here will be the same for that page as well. Jafeluv (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No objection from me - would have done it myself but I wasn't entirely sure how to change it at this point in the process and didn't have the time to go and find out. Dpmuk (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Since it's been almost three minutes and nobody has objected, I've added this page to the multimove template at Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Please continue the discussion there. Jafeluv (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Metacritic score

Metacritic has aggregated 14 contemporary reviews of RotJ, and has given it a score of 52 out of 100, suggesting "Mixed or average reviews". Could this be included in the Reception section, or would it contradict the current statement about the film being a "critical hit"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerimon (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Retention of comparative photo of digital manipulation

thumb|200px|right I had recently uploaded an image (in the right) comparing the digital manipulation in new editions of DVD releases of Return of Jedi film, where Shaw's portrayal of Anakin's ghost (above) is replaced by Hayden Christensen (below), who portrayed Anakin in the prequel series which was shot and released after the original three films. However Solopiel has repeated removed the image citing that The change is not such an important issue in this article, replacing it with the shot of Shaw's portrayal in the original version. I would like to state that the image is in the home video section with the adjoining para describing the digital manipulation in later versions and how it drew criticism, thus a comparative photo would bring out clearly the differences and would make the point more transparent and easy to understand. I would also like to bring to notice that such comparative photo montage has been used in other wiki articles to bring out the similarities and differences like in E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial#20th_anniversary_version, Padmé_Amidala#Costumes, Photo_manipulation#Political_and_ethical_issues etc. Hence I would like to request all editors to discuss and retain the comparative image on the right instead of just the original shot. LegalEagle (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue is not that relevant to have it illustrated in this article. There were changes in all three Episodes of the Original Trilogy, some of them very controversial, but you don't see them in the articles of the previous two Episodes. Solopiel (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but in none of the other two articles do we find that a shot has been used to highlight the change, but it has been done in this article hence I would like to reiterate that to better illustrate the change it is imperative that we use a comparison montage of both the original and the manipulated shots. LegalEagle (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it is not more useful to have both versions (to replace the single image with the double-image). While I don't see this as terribly important (and certainly not imperative), I also see it as inexpensive easy and interesting, as well as "free"... it does not make the article more complex or harder to read or maintain. I was invited to comment here by LE86.- Sinneed 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this makes the article feel too charged. Furthermore, this has been discussed before, which led to the deletion of the previous comparisson image. I was invited to comment here by Solopiel. Xnacional (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Xnacional, thanks for your comments, I presume that the discussion that you are alluding to is this request by Redux for discussion on the issue, which was not replied to by any editor (if you know of any other discussions that turned down comparison photo in this particular instant, please let us know). Also I would request you to elaborate on what you mean by charged and why you think the retention of the image would make the article charged? Thanks. LegalEagle (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the discussion I am talking about was deleted along with the image (Spirits.jpg). By "charged" I mean it looks too full. Not by quantity of images, but because this particular image has a needless comparisson that distracts from the main topic: the movie itself. Its different versions is a minor issue. Xnacional (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the movie is the main topic, but then by your standard the article should only contain the plot summary and nothing about production, reception etc. I would like to reiterate that the home video sub section of the article speaks about changes in the later releases and gives a shot from the old release thus for better understanding of the change a comparative image is needed as it would be more illustrative. I would also like to refer you to E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial#20th_anniversary_version where a similar section has comparison photo to illustrate the difference between the earlier release and later ones. LegalEagle (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not true. What I mean is that the change is not so important as to have an illustration. All the Trilogy's Episodes' home video sub section of the articles speak about changes in the later releases, and none has an image. I would like to follow that trend. Xnacional (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Why does this particular Episode's article has to have a comparisson image? Solopiel (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Going by Xnacional's logic of no other Trilogy Episodes having any image, then we should also remove the image of Hayden Christensen, what I want to point out again is if the Hayden Christensen image is used it would be more enticing for average readers who may not have seen the film to compare the difference, as brought out by the comparison images. Also I feel that the discussion is going nowhere, so I would request all that we ask reputed editors/administrators to chip in the discussion.LegalEagle (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should. The changes are a minor issue in these articles. Xnacional (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that the change is a trivial issue then why not let the new image stay. LegalEagle (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You answered that with your own question. Xnacional (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats exactly the difference, I dont believe that this is a minor issue and think that the comparison image scores over the single image (because I am serious I have started this discussion to reach a consensus). And again I see no point having this discussion between 4 editors who have already made up their mind so I would request you to solicit other editors to put in their views on the issue. LegalEagle (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia guidelines, I can't really see anything to pick one image over the other. If anyone has a relevant guideline, policy, essay... please share. Otherwise I see the arguments for both images to come down to wp:LIKE... what each of us individually finds to be interesting to add to the article.- Sinneed 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe we can follow wp:CONS. LegalEagle (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:consensus, in a sense, plus wp:IAR, resting on top of the wp:Five Pillars is, in a sense, all there is... everything else devolves from those. :) I was hopeful that their might be something useful within wp:MOS or wp:UNDUE or such from similar concerns in the past. :)- Sinneed 20:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As a further boost to my argument in favor of comparative image I would refer all readers to look at the images at Censorship of images in the Soviet Union, it would show why comparative images are more encyclopedic in nature. LegalEagle (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just causally reading through this topic and thought I'd ask a question or two. Would you be including any additional sources to improve the argument that whatever change this documents is significant? Also, why not illustrate the difference here instead? They have an image in that article for 'Greedo shot first' after all. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 16:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dp76764 for weighing in, at present I do not have any plans to introduce any new/additional documents to improve the argument (given the hostility faced in improving an image, I guess the challenges to improve upon the text would be even more). I would definitely introduce the comparative image at List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases#Return_of_the_Jedi. Just as a side note there is inherent difficulty in comparing changes in Greedo shot given the 2 frame difference. LegalEagle (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi I write in response to the request at Star World Portal [1], if the comparative image is as per the referred ET image, I guess an average wiki reader like me would be happy to see the comparative image instead of just the old image Thanks Sumo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.208.251 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the bottom part of the image in question (the section with Hayden Christiansen edited in) has a completely screwed up aspect ratio? eyeball226 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Filming location not really Redwood National Park

Today, June 4, 2010, the article shows a photo and caption saying that Redwood National Park was used to film the forests of Endor. That apparently needs to be corrected:

Redwoods filming location for Endor in Return of the Jedi

The page provides a reasonably good basis. Would it be best to change the article so it mentions the main location? Or should the speeder parts be included? ThreeWikiteers (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Original ending

A new article by IGN here details how the series would have ended before producer Gary Kurtz left. Ωphois 03:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC) The phrase that Kurt revieed the truth behimd the hances is wrong, he xclaimed this, but this is nt fact it can be propoganda so the article should say he claimed thise. 62.45.85.181 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

uh credits do work that way, people are somwetimes not credited for extra work and people are sometimes inckluded out of curtisy, check al other wiki articles which mention Lucas wrote a big paert the screenplay without credit and check the article which mentions the producer from VI was also producer for the later half of V in Kurtz place, check Raider`s wiki, erealy can wikipedia atleast try to be consistent, please??????????? 62.45.81.211 (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Theft of 70mm film prints from Kansas in 1983

This is in reference to the recent rollback where unreferenced info on alleged theft of 70mm print of 'return of jedi' from Overland Park, Kansas, was removed. I googled it and found some interesting results [2], [3] there are few other message boards and discussions which also discuss the incidence. This can be a hoax and the sources seem not very reliable. However if someone from Kansas has access to news archive it would be great if you could check the local papers printed after July 6, 1983 (the day of the purported theft). Thanks. LegalEagle (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Wars On Ending Plot

People keep changing it back, but Palpatine IS killing Luke with lightning, not just torturing him. He says "YOU WILL DIE"! And YES, Anakin Skywalker reemerges from within Vader before he picks up Palpatine and throws him down the shaft, at the cost of his own life. Stop undoing a correct and common sense edit!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WHY IS IT BEING EVEN CONTESTED??? IT'S OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO HAS SEEN THE MOVIE THAT PALPATINE INTENDS TO KILL HIM AND ISN'T JUST GOING TO TORTURE HIM? WHY DOES THIS EDIT VIOLATE ANYTHING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)