Talk:The Empire Strikes Back/Archive 3

Naming

Why such a long name? What is wrong with The Empire Strikes Back? --mav 11:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Consistancy, all the other Star Wars movies have their titles written the same way. Why? Because if we made the title of the article for the first..er, I mean fourth film A New Hope, nobody, except Star Wars fans, would know what we're talking about.

Besides, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Stikes Back is the title of the movie. -Acjelen 02:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, only purists call it "The Empire Strikes Back," or those not so much in the fandom. Adamwankenobi 04:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the title of a movie comes from the title card (see, for example, Se7en) and has nothing to do with purity or perspective. When watching the movie, first "Star Wars" appears, followed by "Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back"; thus the title. While 'purists' and 'regular people' may think the movie is titled merely "The Empire Strikes Back", they are incorrect. -Acjelen 21:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting point

The novellization of the book came out before this movie. --172.194.68.52 16:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

James Earl Jones should have known as well...

From the article:

• Great secrecy surrounded the fact that Darth Vader was Luke's father. This secrecy extended to the cast with only Mark Hamill being told the truth so he could react to it. David Prowse was given the line, "Obi-Wan killed your father", to say during the scene and didn't find out the real lines until the premier screening.

Surely James Earl Jones knew as well, seeing how he spoke the "I am your father" line. Right? -- TomPreuss 22:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but only when he got the finalized script right before recording the line.

and Prowse said more the "Obi-Wan Killed your Father", as they did many shots of it, and they told him something new to say each time. I think another one of them was long the lines off "Obi-Wan is your Father" but i can't be sure about that

Credits correction

I saw the credit for Yoda in the movie, and it says "Frank Oz Performing Yoda", so I will correct it, but leaving the link for "Yoda".

Also, I noticed that James Earl Jones is not credited, so I will remove that information.

Credits Trivia

In the 2000 VHS version of the Special Edition of "The Empires Strikes Back", James Earl Jones IS credited as "Voice of Darth Vader".

Protection

There doesn't seem to be any disputes here that I can see. Just wondering, what is it exactly that causes the page to be protected?

Well, there has been an ongoing edit war between Copperchair and myself (Adamwankenobi). The issue is this: I want The Emperor in this film article, in the non-credited roles, to be credited to Ian McDiarmid for his portrayal of him in the 2004 updated re-release of the Star Wars Original Trilogy. And... Copperchair doesn't. He wants the cast list, even the non-credited roles to reflect those listed in the theatrical release version of the film. Myself, I want the cast list to reflect George Lucas's changes to them over the years, as these are the way he wants them, and he, the creator of them, considers them the versions he originally intended to make. I am trying to make the cast list fit this. --Adamwankenobi, 20 July 2005

I'm I the only one who sees an easy solution here? First: Start a disscussion on the talk page like this, that way, people can give their opinions, second: wait until a consensus has been reached until you make further edits, thrid: support your argument. Frankly, the DVD version does matter (unless we give it a seperates page.. which is not likely) and therefore the credit should be given to Ian McDiarmid somewhere. I think Copperchair is being a little overly sensitive here, I think an acceptable compromise would be to list a section as ===Additional Special Edition credits=== and list him under there. No confusion with the other credits. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

PS: I'm adding this to WP:LAME. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

How about listing a section as ===Additional DVD Version credits===? Copperchair 04:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it just the DVD version tho? I thought it was all special editions including the VHS... anyways, you have the idea, let's just get the facts straight and get this settled. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ian McDiarmid only appears as The Emperor in the DVD version. Copperchair 05:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, this dispute is pretty much settled then =) we shall create a sub-section Additional DVD Version credits. Consensus seems to be clear on this one, now lets just get this page unprotected. I imagine this will also apply to Episode VI. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

But changes to the movie aren't necessarily restricted to DVD format. Might as well have it as Special Edition.

This is a community article.

Adam, don't tell me I have no write to fix this article. I have MORE right, because my edits delete bad content. On what grounds do you argue that I don't have the right to edit this article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You're deleting things that need not be deleted. The only thing I believe I agree with you on is that the plot summary needs to be condensed (among all Star Wars movies), but other than that you're deleting things that don't deteriorate from the article. KramarDanIkabu 01:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't need an entire cast list, the the opening crawl creates a copyvio problem; it's not necessarily a copyvio status, but one other user I showed this to immediately said it was a copyvio problem. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow for people to own articles. The article belongs to everyone, so anyone can edit it as they feel fit. But suggest yall talk it over to see what is needed or not. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I do want the plot summary to be shortened, but I suggest it be done by the writer of it, TheCoffee. Adamwankenobi 01:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you stop reverting it then. You have basically admitted to reverting edits because you don't want anyone but the Star Wars community to edit Star Wars articles. I suggest you back off while you still have your ability to edit. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

My ability to edit? Look, I've tested the administrators many times. It's all in good fun. But at the end of the day, my real goal is to make these articles, the important ones, that is (not ones like the George W. Bush one), the best they can be. What I meant was that anyone should be able to edit, but not someone who is going to detract from the quality of an article. Adamwankenobi 02:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted no quality, I deleted a bunch of Star Wars cruft. Give me one good reason why it's GOOD to tell everyone every single scene in ESB, okay? If you can't, don't bother responding. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

From what I looked, all of the Star Wars movies have the opening crawl. While I am not sure if this is a clear copyright violation, we could put the opening crawls into one article, if yall so desire. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we should state in the articles, or somewhere that the opening crawl and all of its rights are copyright Lucasfilm, in order to clear up all problems. Adamwankenobi 02:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't even NEED it. Include bits and pieces in the improved plot summary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of trying to condense the summary here. I would appreciate if everyone read it and edited in order to improve it as necessary before we post it here. KramarDanIkabu 02:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's much better, but it still has the flaw of being just the movie, condensed. The plot summary should not be describing Event 1, Event 2, Event 3 and then the End, it basically has to do like what the opening scroll does (but try to make an original one). I mean, game articles and movie articles, usually, it's just a synopsis of what a character does early in the movie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, it needs to explain what is going on. This may sound cheasy, but this is star wars, not just some movie. Yeah, I know, that spounded extremely fanboyish! Adamwankenobi 02:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I think its needs to be a real summary that has actual plot details. If I go to an article about a movie, I expect to be able to read that article and know exactly what the movie is about (and get spoiled doing it). KramarDanIkabu 02:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Then the people who haven't seen the movie will lack any reason to watch it; Empire's best feature was the plot. Describing the action scenes in SW won't ruin it, because it'll still be actiony, but not being able to experience the plot by your own selves ain't no fun. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I don't want the cleanup template at the top of the page is because that's not specific enough. I only support "cleaning" the plot summaries of Eoisodes IV, V, and VI. Adamwankenobi 04:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The cleanup applies to the entire article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write the current plot summary, but I am working to condense it. I'll try to have it done by tomorrow. Also, I'm with User:A Link to the Past on removing the opening crawl. That is of interest to fans (and I am a fan), but it's a copyvio and not encyclopedic. Coffee 20:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you might have since you did the Revenge of the Sith one. Anyway, that's good that you are condensing it. So, has A Link to the Past agreed to allow you to insert the plot summary into the article? I am in full support of a smaller plot summary. But, I still think that the opening crawl should stay. Just like the images we use of the poster and DVD's of the movies, all we are doing with the opening crawls is showing them. We are not saying they were original creations, or something we created. We are more or less promoting the opening crawl. What is wrong with them exactly? TheAlternateReality 22:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Whew... alright, the plot summary is now about a third its previous size, and roughly consistent with the other Star Wars plot summaires (except for A New Hope, which is still massive). As for the opening crawl... I can't find the appropriate Wikipedia guideline/policy page right now, but I think articles in Wikipedia should be more about the subject than a repository of public domain or fair use sources. For example, articles about songs don't include the actual lyrics to the songs, though they can say a whole lotr about them. Coffee 23:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. A Link to the Past will be glad to hear that I am now content with the way the article looks. To prove that, I will remove the opening crawls from each of the six films. Find out what Wikipedia policies say, tough, as I'd love to have them back in. TheAlternateReality 00:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's still not what's appropriate. It shouldn't tell me a story, it should set me up for one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So let's change it to a movie preview instead of a plot summary, that's what you're saying? KramarDanIkabu 00:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean we put spoiler warnings for a reason. TheAlternateReality 01:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's consider the fact that the OPENING CRAWL didn't reveal every single plot detail, so this should not. It's INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT, not length. Plot summary, this is not. Let me ask you - is it good to give people no reason to even watch the movie? It's listing every important event of the movie. Does Casablanca do that? No. Does Sunset Blvd. do it? No. And you know what? They are FEATURED. I guarantee you that the plot summary now will prevent this article from EVER being featured. A featured article is an example of the best writing on Wikipedia, and if it cannot pass through the candidacy process, it is not appropriate for the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's not imperative that this, or any of the star wars articles be featured. Yeah, it would be good, but, I mean, it doesn't have to be. TheAlternateReality 01:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If it can't get featured, it shows the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Featured article is another word for great article; so it doesn't matter if you want it to be official or not, if it can't be featured, it's not great. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you want it to be exceptional, that would be ok. But, this article also needs to be appealing to star wars fans as well, who are the ones who likely most use this page. TheAlternateReality 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, not having every minute detail is good, and getting only to the most important events is good, but what you're asking is to pretty much give no information about the movie from how I see it. I think this is what you want as the summary: "The Rebel Allaince continues its struggle against the Galactic Empire." That's pretty much all we can give you. KramarDanIkabu 01:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the link for copyright information is [1] TheAlternateReality 01:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Breaking the long chain of colons... Casablanca (film) gives a brief summary on the plot. It doesn't spoon feed it to you, it leads you into it. And, based on logic, this article shouldn't spoon feed the plot, it should lead you into it. Use Casablanca's plot as an example. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

A Link to the Past: if you keep vandalizing this page, your conduct will be reported to the administrators. Copperchair 03:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The same admins, no doubt, that agreed with me, such as Tony_Sidaway who agreed it needed cleaning up. Are you honestly telling me the IDENTITY OF A SNOW MONSTER is encyclopediatic? This is not IMDB's article, this is a Wikipedia article. Are you telling me we need to point out every single actor that played a freaking Ewok? You don't care to have any improvement in the article; you show no interest in any form of cooperation, and all you care about is how you want Wikipedia to be run. Adam agreed to get rid of the scroll, you seem to be the only single person who wants it. So, what's your argument? That copyvios improve the quality of the article? Christ... - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Let me point out that there are more people that would side with me on this. If you want me to, I can get those people, including many admins. Do you want to do this quietly? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone cool it. You're starting to sound a bit hostile too, LttP. I think we can at least all agree that the current plot summary is better than the previous one (which was bordering on being a short story). If you feel that it should be different, go ahead and make changes and we'll try to arrive at consensus about it. By the way, the Casablanca plot summary actually does give the entire plot, not just "lead you into it" like the summary at the back of a book. I did consider the Casablanca and Sunset Boulevard plot summaries when I was making my summary, but I just find that the Star Wars fils are very event-oriented... a lot of things happen. Again, if you feel the plot summary should be different, by all means, edit it as you see fit. Coffee 09:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that Casablanca and Sunset Blvd. don't put their plot summaries on a spoon and shove them down your throat. We're not writing a book version here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested and willing to see what you think would be the ideal plot summary. Or at least be nice about it, I spent quite some time making the current summary. :/ Coffee 20:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So, the situation is: we either have a short plot summary or we don't have any at all. Hmm... TheAlternateReality 20:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with the plot summaries on the other movie articles, but they aren't trying to be a story book. IMDB doesn't tell a story, if you haven't noticed. We're not trying to make the longest article, we're trying to make the best. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

See the plot summary I chopped up at User:TheCoffee/temp. Is that anything like you have in mind? (feel free to edit that page) Coffee 21:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What I want for it isn't to make it really tiny, I want it to not go so much indepth on minor details. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:09, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but some of us thrive on minor details. Adamwankenobi 04:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of us don't. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wedge Antilles: Dennis Lawson (as Denis Lawson)

Is some sort of consensus going to be estableshed regarding who is going to be credited in the cast section, and how? I'm looking at a months worth of back-and-forth edits over this or that actor getting or not getting mention, and it's getting pretty silly. Please stop reverting and discuss it somewhere. I suggest here. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove the credit for Denis Lawson as Wedge. I removed the strange remark someone added "as Denis Lawson." Copperchair is the one removing the entire credit. The Wookieepedian 07:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Man in Black: It was discussed and there is a consensus, Copperchair just ignores it. — Phil Welch 07:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is important that we leave the "(as Dennis Lawson)" in there. Why? Dennis spells his name with one "n", but Lucas, for whatever reason, credited him as two-N Dennis. A search on IMDb for "Dennis Lawson" immediately redirects to "Denis Lawson" and shows his roles in Ep IV and V as being "(as Dennis Lawson)" just as we have here. The whole point is to indicate the discrepancy between what the actor's name is and what the credits say it is. (This is probably more important in situations where the actor was credited under a pseudonym, like Mike Judge in Office Space, rather than a simple spelling error.)--chris.lawson 13:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Check your user page. The Wookieepedian 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've protected this page for the time being, and directed everyone involved here. Once consensus is established how to credit Denis Lawson (or people have cooled off), I'll unprotect it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's fine with me how you've credited Denis Lawson. That's the version I keep reverting it back to. It's Copperchair that keeps reverting it. The Wookieepedian 07:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, that's how you credited him; I just protected the page. Like the template says, it's not an endorsement of the current version, and I'm personally indifferent about how he's credited. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair is going through here and reverting all the star wars articles to how he wants them. They already decided how it should be. He's not following their policies. The Wookieepedian 07:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

They? I realized there was a larger dispute here, but perhaps I didn't realize how large. What do you mean by "they"? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Phil, me, Coffee, several others who voted on shortening the cast. There is a consensus that's unspoken, with the fact that everyone seems to be reverting his edits. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I thought it was more than simply "Me and those who agree with me," so it turns out to be exactly the dispute I thought it was.

My suggestion is that you open an issue RFC on this topic (although I am aware of the User conduct RFC pending regarding Copperchair, but that's as much about uncivility as anything as far as I can tell), and get the input of the movie Wikiproject (if there is one). These revert wars don't serve any purpose, and to be honest, the world won't end if Copperchair's version ends up being on the article page for a bit while the issue is discussed. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, as far as the cast listing goes, it think it might be best in this case if we get input from the wiki films project people. Maybe they can make some suggestion s as to the format of the cast. The Wookieepedian 08:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The guy deleted my comment to him on his talk page about his reverts as seen here. The Wookieepedian 07:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry. He violated 3RR thrice. However, you did too, but since you have at LEAST tried to clean up your act, I asked for a lighter sentence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks The Wookieepedian 07:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, as someone who got into this whole mess doing RC patrol and who doesn't much give a crap one way or another about Star Wars (I like the movies, but as Johnny Cash up there said, this has got to be one of the lamest edit wars ever), here's my comment:

We should list Wedge. Why? Because he's major enough to be mentioned in the plot summary. If a character is important enough to be mentioned in the plot summary, the character is important enough for us to list in the credits. If the character isn't important enough for us to list in the credits, we shouldn't be talking about that character's exploits in the plot summary.

Since Wedge figures prominently in the movie, he gets a plot summary listing, and therefore a cast listing. Sounds reasonable, and there's ample consensus for this. Good.

OK, so how do we list him? Well, the way IMDb does it is the way it's listed in the section header here. In my fairly neutral opinion, that's how we should do it. IMDb is pretty much the industry standard, as far as I can tell, for how folks in the know list movie casts. I don't see any particularly compelling reason not to follow IMDb in this case.

Back to how we choose who gets listed. I wouldn't object to simply taking the cast as listed on the front page of IMDb. In other words, "Cast overview, first billed only." That might be a more objective means than the above suggestion, and like I said, I don't think we're going to exactly go wrong by following IMDb here.--chris.lawson 21:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If we were to use IMDB's cast list, there would need to be a set standard, and complications would arise when it goes by appearance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite an example of the latter?--chris.lawson 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

City of God? Many movies list charas/actors by appearance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that's not listed in order of appearance. That's listed alphabetically. IMDb, again lists the cast differently, as "Cast overview, first billed only".--chris.lawson 02:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I said movies, not IMDB. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, care to cite an example of Wikipedia doing that? I'm not understanding your point here. Is there something specifically wrong with using IMDb's cast listings as a guideline?--chris.lawson 03:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I NEVER said they do! I said they would HAVE to. If IMDB's setup becomes guidelines, that means that any credits that feature a Policeman at the beginning, we would have to include them. And IMDB follows the movie credits down to the letter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, one more time. Can you cite a specific example where such an inclusion would be a problem? More importantly, do you have a better suggestion?--chris.lawson 04:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to be a little rude and beligerant.

PAY ATTENTION!

FACT: IMDB uses the credits as they are in the movie.

FACT: That means that if one credits uses by appearance, IMDB uses by appearance.

FACT: That means that WE use it by appearance, failing to credit main characters and instead crediting Joe Schmoe the random passerby.

FACT: We could not make an exception with that, by not going with IMDB. Many movies do this, so many IMDB articles do this, so there would be no order with this movie policy.

Do you UNDERSTAND? Here's a better explanation - LEAVE IT ALONE! - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)