Talk:Star Wars (film)

References to use

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

• Grimes, Caleb; Winship, George (2006). "Episode IV: A New Hope". Star Wars Jesus: A spiritual commentary on the reality of the Force. WinePress Publishing. ISBN 1579218849. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 November 2010‎ (UTC)

Original research in section "Cinematic and literary allusions"

This section contains several possibly speculative claims that are unsupported by the given citations. Furthermore, although Lucas has publicly acknowledged inspirations such as The Hidden Fortress, other assertions in this section that the film "draws on", "was inspired by", and so on, seem to be based solely on perceived similarities to other films by Wikipedia editors, rather than actual statements by Lucas or other reliable sources, that he was directly influenced by them.

Even if reliable sources can be found that provide a comparitive analysis, showing strong similarities to other films, Wikipedia editors must be careful to use language that distinguishes between similarities found by experts, and verifiable citations showing that Lucas has actually acknowledged these to be direct influences.

The only person who can say for a fact what inspired Lucas, is Lucas himself. It's permissible to write "Professor Dr. Filmexpert maintains that the character of C3PO was inspired by the robot Maria in Metropolis", but it's not allowed to simply state that as a fact, unless there is a citation of Lucas acknowledging that. IamNotU (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not gone through it myself but I agree with the principle of what you are saying. Observations must be attributed, and editorializing should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. That section is littered with original research, and the article Star Wars sources and analogues is absolutely riddled with it! that article, I note, has been tagged with OR since 2007 - how can an article remain in that state for almost 8 years without someone going in and tidying up? Star Wars music is in a similar state. It would be lovely to have good quality articles on these fascinating subjects. Such a shame.Cnbrb (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I went through and tried to edit out the original research in this section. If there is a consensus that this section is now free of OR, we should remove the template at the top of this section.Rocky Role (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Epic sf war film

An editor insists that Star Wars is neither an epic film, nor a sf war film. Clearly, SW is a film "with large scale, sweeping scope and spectacle, often transporting the viewer to other settings", which would satisfy the epic portion, and clearly is about the war between the empire and the rebels. But let's wait to hear from other editors and see what the consensus is.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Um... Star Wars. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You are not allowed to interpret genres from titles or your own opinion. Genre is subjective and per WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Your own definition that you listed above is not sourced. For a simple definition, "A film done on a large scale, involving massive set pieces, big-budget production values, and a cast of thousands. The emphasis tends to be on large events of historical importance, myth or heroic figures, and the setting is usually ancient times." Source. Regardless, you still need a source because we aren't allowed to interpret sources. I have never ever heard or seen the films discussed when bringing up war films or epic films. Can you find sources discussing the genre? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Epic is mentioned and sourced in the article. And here's another source (ten second search). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming to a consensus before removing tags. This sources is confusing to me because it goes against the other definitions of the epic, as it also refers to The Matrix as an epic and also seperatly refers to Star Wars as a fantasy film. In a more recent book on the epic genre, an author describes the genre like this: "There are as many definitions of epic as there are film critics to come up with them, so I hesitate to try to offer a complete definition of my own. However, I think what most people understand by the term today is not only a historical setting (though for me that is important), but something to do with size and expense, as well as the scope of the narrative settings and the size of the cast. Usually, because of the great crowds involved, this means that there is some sense of being caught up in the great moments of history: when a character’s actions affect an entire nation or civilisation, then it’s an epic. For example, Ben-Hur looking for his family is not epic, but taking on the might of Rome on behalf of Judah is. I think that’s why Darren Aronofsky misses the mark with his “Noah”: Noah-as-nation-founder feels epic; Noah-as-brooding-father chasing his family around a boat just doesn't feel as momentous." Source These are elements that are clearly missing from any of the Star Wars films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously that's your interpretation, one sources do not share [1], [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You see, it's not my definition. Its from someone who wrote and entire book on the subject. Since we do not have a clear source of the definition of the genre, perhaps we shouldn't even use it. Especially with a more modern interpretation of what the genre means. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"These are elements that are clearly missing from any of the Star Wars films." Your opinion. Simple as that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Not its not. Its not in the plot whatsoever from the difference above. You can interpret themes, but the plot and setting are clearly stated and no one would argue them. that's why plots are not sourced in most cases. So please address my points instead of just describing them as opinions, because I've only brought in something I thought was an issue. There has been no discussion of the war genre either, which still requires a source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've brought sources and all you've brought is your opinion, no matter what you say. I'm content to let others weigh in now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Because clearly the genre is not clearly defined obviously. You find someone vaguely tossing around the term, but what specifices this into the genre? Can you find anyone discussing how it fits in the genre specifically? I can't. It needs more discussions than just a google search, which is all has been provided. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. Those are links to pages in books which refer to Star Wars as an epic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess, I'll try to re-phrase again since you aren't replying to what I say. The epic film says some people will limit the genre to historical films while others will not. We can't decide which one is correct or not, which is why I'm asking, what should we do? Obviously some people do think it belongs as your sources above, while others are more strict and can only note that historical films should be considered into the epic. Do we ignore those? My suggestion for the article would be to remove the term epic only on the reasons that we can understand and grasp the genre of the film without this term, and it doesn't ignore the other sources and authors who have written books saying the film does not belong to the genre. Thoughts on that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Find a source that explicitly says Star Wars doesn't belong in the genre and then we can continue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't need one that specifically says it does not, because that would be just one trivial source. There is no argument that this specific film does not follow ideas stated above (which are also statements said by other sources such as American Film Institute). As the genre is vague and not needed for people to understand it, we need to discuss whether or not it was important enough to include in the lead. We had a similar issue on the 2001: A Space Odyssey article, and the conclusion was to include the category for epic films, but not have it as a descriptor in the lead. I'm going to ask you a few questions, 1) How does the term epic help the user understand the film? How is the average user going to interpret it? If you can't answer these, I don't see why it warrants an inclusion.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The genre is vague but here's a definition we should use. You haven't provided sources. The sources you provided aren't right. I don't have to provide sources, It's not important enough to be in the lead. You keep changing the goalposts. Where is the 2001 discussion, please? I see discussions where your assertion was hotly disputed and no consensus was formed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have several issues with it, that's why I think it's worth discussing. First, there is no clear consensus of the meaning of the genre, and since there is no current consensus of what makes a film an epic film, it shouldn't be used in the lead as it will not help a user understand the film. My other issue is with the category "science fiction war film", which has no source or mention in the article. Can you show me how it should fit with this article? Preferably with some sort of source, or at least a definition of the genre that shows that Star Wars fits in. I'll try to dig up the 2001 discussion. I hope I've made myself a bit more clear now.Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep "epic" label in lead

• Comment This discussion seems to be going around in circles a bit so I hope you don't mind me adding my 2 cents. First of all, I don't think it is reasonable to expect Andrzejbanas to provide sources saying that Star Wars is not an "epic", since in the case of sources that don't categorize it as such they will simply omit it. The concept of an "epic" is clearly ill-defined so I certainly think we have to take care in applying the label. The American Film Institute define an epic as "a genre of large-scale films set in a cinematic interpretation of the past", and therefore Star Wars is omitted. Likewise, Allmovie which extends to the definition to fantasy films such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy do not apply the label to Star Wars. Therefore, we can identify two sources (one of them fairly eminent) that implicitly categorize Star Wars as not an epic. If we accept that there is a debate, then I would say that WP:DUE is the applicable policy here i.e. where does the weight of authoritative sources lie? The first source I would always look to to settle a dispute such as this (particularly for English-language film) is The Encyclopedia of Epic Films (compiled by film academics): I can confirm that the Star Wars films are listed, so they are regarded as epics by a canonical source. Databases such as the IMDB get by without using the term so on a personal basis I have no objection to dropping the term, but in this instance WP:V and WP:DUE seem to have been satisfactorily met for those who wish to include the term. Betty Logan (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Was going to add my view but as is the case most times Betty Logan got it right. She has summarised the issue and shown clearly what the sources say. As usual it is just a case of following Wikipedia guidelines/rules and the sources. Not relevant really but thought I'd mention. The AFI has got it wrong to exclude Star Wars - after all it is a film 'A long time a go...' Makes it historical for me!!! And it fits their definition perfectly. Robynthehode (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Not support: Firstly, a film set in a fictional historical past based on, well, nothing is not historical. Historical would imply it was at least based on real events. I would avoid using the term "epic" in any sense in these articles as other terms can be used to describe them, and the term epic had too many variations to mean anything to a reader. I have no doubt that this film has been described this way, but no one seems to go into effort on how it fits in the genre or style. I'm not requesting that, but are we really gaining anything from such a vague term here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Well then, the LOTR films should also not be considered epics based on your standards. And I guess The Odyssey is also not an epic. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment.Andrzejbanas has misinterpreted my attempt at humour. I wasn't being serious when I stated that 'A long time ago...' gave Star Wars any status as an epic film. I did try to flag it with three exclamation marks!!! Robynthehode (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha. Eggs on my face. Honestly, I've seen people make comments online where I assumed they were joking. And I was way way way off. Hence the creation of the ";)" I guess. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So I've given this conversation some time and we've seemed to have hit a stalemate. Perhaps we should ask for some other opinions? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure whether this is a very proper source, but the Oxford Dictionary defines an epic (film, book, etc.) as "a long film, book, or other work portraying heroic deeds and adventures or covering an extended period of time," which doesn't necessarily exclude a work set in a fictional universe. Star Wars does portray heroic deeds and adventures, though it doesn't necessarily cover an extended period of time. I'll try to look for more film-specific sources on the matter, but the definition seems to include Star Wars. I'll see other sources on the topic though. Cheers. Katastasi and his talk page. 17:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – I agree with some of the sentiments in Betty's response above that the term "epic" is not well-defined, or at least consistently in regards to fantasy films. There are sources that consider Star Wars a part of the epic genre, but on the other hand, there are other sources that have omitted it. As mentioned earlier, we would be likely to side with The Encyclopedia of Epic Films, which does have Star Wars listed as an epic. However, I think the larger concern here is whether or not this classification is really necessary in the lead. If we look at another sci-fi epic franchise, Star Trek, which has multiple featured articles, the genre is simply listed as "science fiction". I think that makes the most sense in the lead, which should focus on the primary genre most often associated with the film, especially when the film may technically belong to multiple genres and sub-genres. It is just a mouthful to say "epic, space opera" in my humble opinion, and few visitors will know what that means without having to do additional research. If we are trying to be clear and concise, "science fiction" is the simple solution. If additional genre exploration is needed in the article, then dedicate a section or sub-section to the cause as opposed to trying to sort that out in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  I concur that we need to apply a simple solution here. Instead of "science fiction", though, I would support "space opera" as the most common genre I've seen for this film (and others), per the guidelines at WP:FILMLEAD. The lead section's second paragraph sufficiently conveys the "epic" and war-related premise of the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  Good point. I support leaving "space opera" because it is most definitely the film's genre. Same as films like A Clockwork Orange, you could insert more than ten genres in there, but it is science fiction primarily. But if it is concluded to change the article from epic to just space opera, I suggest raising the same discussion for the other Star Wars films out of consistency inside the franchise's coverage in Wikipedia. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 16:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comments. Yes, I was planning on propagating the change throughout the rest of the Star Wars articles (assuming someone doesn't beat me to the punch) once a consensus is reached. As Erik points out above, WP:FILMLEAD would definitely support us cutting this down from two genres to one in the opening sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. It may very well be true, but I don't think "epic" really contributes anything. Like GoneIn60, I think "science fiction film" is quite good enough. I think Wikipedia has a tendency to overcategorize things, especially bands and films. If people want to use "space opera" instead, that's fine, as "science fiction" is a bit vague. But not "epic film" or "war film". If we include them, where do we stop? "Adventure film" and "comedy film" are just as applicable as "war film", and then we end up with four or five genres in the lead. As mentioned above, MOS:FILM suggests we stick to just the primary genre, which, in this case, is science fiction (or, I guess, space opera). Other genres can be discussed outside of the opening sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support (edited) What a dorky discussion. Reminds me of Clerks Alaney2k (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: Just to be clear, you support keeping epic but prefer to remove space opera (per your response below)? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I see you've edited your response. In light of the confusion this is apparently causing, I've renamed the sub-sections for clarity. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Switching

• Support Switching order of space opera and epic so that it is clear how epic is used, that it describe the film not that space opera, and that it's not some colloquial use of epic as in "rad" or some such.--A21sauce (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - it's widely understood, there's a Wikipedia article that defines it, there are sources backing it. This is far from controversial and far too much energy is being spent arguing this point.Cnbrb (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per NinjaRobotPirate It may very well be true, but I don't think "epic" really contributes anything. Epic (in film terms) is almost meaningless, big story, big themes, big cast, big locations, often big budget, almost always big success, it's practically a synonym of 'blockbuster'. On another article, I found that the ten biggest epic films list according to a US film org. included 'Ten Commandments', 'Ben Hur', 'Gone With The Wind' 'Lawrence Of Arabia', 'Spartacus', 'Titanic', 'Reds' and 'Schindler's List' and (I think) a few 'classic' war movies. What on earth links those films apart from the scale of their success? Betty Logan's excellent appraisal shows that the term is probably/possibly justified, but how does it inform anyone of anything? Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Star Wars has always been considered a film series composed of epics. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Always been considered a film series composed of epics", mind backing that up @Kamek98:? What is your definition of epic? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• An epic emphasizes drama on a massive scale that has a sweeping scope. They also generally follow a heroic hero. All of them but one, Revenge of the Sith, follows a heroic hero. I guess you could say Revenge of the Sith is a tragic space opera but I don't really have anything to say on that one. But, that's not to say that each individual film can alone be considered an epic. Rather, the series as a whole can be considered one large epic saga. But if this IS the case, then The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, and the Hobbit films follow the same situation. So if we remove "epic" from these films, then surely the LOTR films and the Hobbit films should follow suit. I, however, think this is a controversial subject and is actually a huge waste of our time. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose keeping it in the opening sentence. It is not well-defined, adds nothing to basic identification, and looks like advertising fluff that is not appropriate in a wiki article. Expand on "epic" someplace else, maybe later in the lead, but not in the intro sentence. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, early reviews available in google scholar and google books call it an epic, and Moyers devotes a chapter to the film in his Book on Robert Campbell. Again, epic fits this to a tee, and see Star Wars: The Legacy Revealed μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove "space opera" label from lead

It is not an epic, which would involve a long period of time, e.g. an epic voyage. Star Wars should be simply called a "science fiction film". Many people do not know what "space opera" means, and wonder what it has to do with opera. Many fans like the term, but this is an encyclopedia, and the lead should be clear to all readers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "epic" is a problematic and controversial term, but I'm in full support of space opera. Simply calling it "science fiction" is oversimplifying it. It would be like changing "noir" to "crime thriller", noir is more specific and a respected genre. Besides, readers who don't know what space opera is can simply use the link and read the page on the genre, much like noir. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 20:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Film Noir stands alone as its own term. Space Opera does not. Readers should not have to click on a link to understand the opening sentence of an encyclopedia article. I asked non-Star Wars people if they knew what "space opera" meant, and they did not. When informed, they found it incredible an encyclopedia would prefer that term over science fiction. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I also know people, though not cinephiles, who like noir and neo-noir films without knowing their genres. Space opera does stand on its own, but this is entirely subjective. I'd leave space opera because that's the accurate definition, while science fiction is a bit more vague (not to mention the scientific inaccuracy in SW, if you really think about it). It'd be cool if others would weigh in, though. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

What does liking the films have to do with it? The people I mentioned did not dislike Star Wars. They simply had not spent enough time reading about it to come across the fan-favored term of "space opera" (which does not stand on its own when non-fans confuse it with opera - nothing subjective about that). "Science fiction" is less vague than the other primary genres we use in leads - drama film, thriller film, fantasy film, musical film, action film, etc. Scientific inaccuracy is common in science fiction. H.G. Wells created the genre with The Time Machine despite there being no real science to back the concept of time travel. As a compromise I would be willing to support the term Lucas himself called Star Wars in interviews in 1977: Space fantasy film - except as you can see it's a red link - there is no article for it. So unless someone creates an article for it as comprehensive as the one at science fiction film, the latter is the best one to use. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I kinda added the "scientific inaccuracy" thing as a joke, I'm perfectly aware that science fiction doesn't have to be accurate to real science. Also, non-fans can learn about space opera the same way they can learn about Star Wars reading the article, no? And there also exist non-film noir people who don't know what film noir is. I still prefer space opera, even if sci-fi is a more comprehensive term. Katastasi and his talk page. 02:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead of an encyclopedia is to be easily understood by everyone, not please the fans or act as a dictionary. Film noir is not synonymous with this. It goes back to the 1940s as a critical term. "Space opera" was created by people interested in certain works of science fiction. It has not been taken on by most critics or academics as a proper term or genre, and is unknown to most readers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My personal preference is 'space opera' because it is accurate and if someone doesn't understand what it is then there is a perfectly good article to go to. There are lots of articles where I don't understand all the terms in the lead. I use the links to broaden my knowledge. Simple. 'Science fiction' has its merits but also is limited by its breadth. However having checked the manual of style for films this is what is said 'At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified.' (my emphasis) So, as ever, it is not our opinions that matter but what the sources say. What do the sources identify Star Wars as? Not got time to check at the moment but will try to do this if no-one else does Robynthehode (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Critics were not calling Star Wars a "space opera" when it was originally released in 1977. They called it science fiction or space fantasy. Fans started calling it space opera years later, but that does not mean the term belongs in an encyclopedia lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Absolutely not. Wiki policies don't exist to make up for the ignorance of your friends (@Gothiciflm). You are in persistent violation of WP:SPECIFICLINK and should not be allowed to continue what you are doing.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTYLE from the same guideline states: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence." That is a big part of Gothicfilm's argument and shouldn't be ignored. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Generally in the case of arguing for noir, which can be applied to hundreds of films, "space opera" is very non-specific as its barely a film genre that only covers a very small handful of films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because few films are in a genre, doesn't mean it's not a genre. On the contrary, space opera is more specific than sci-fi. Katastasi and his talk page. 11:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

More specific isn't helpful if the genre or style of the film isn't discussed in the article itself. Especially in the lead where users should be given basic information, not the nitty gritty detail. Calling it sub-sub-genres, would be like calling the film a "May 27 1977 film" instead of a 1977 film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not discuss it, then? I assume this article will go through an overhaul someday to get it back to FA status, so I suggest including a background or explanation of space opera somewhere in the article, maybe in the Writing or Legacy sections, or include a footnote in the lead. I think the page would really benefit from that. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 10:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a very good point that the space opera genre should be discussed in the article to some extent, given this film's importance to the sub-genre. If we're getting technical, however, that content should exist in the body first, then added in some form to the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Until then, it would make more sense to use the more widely recognized term science fiction as a placeholder. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much what GoneIn60 said. Mind you, this kind of definition each time in each Star Wars film would be a bit frustrating. It would be better for an article on the Star Wars film series. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support (for now) – After browsing the article's citations, it seems clear that space opera is a widely accepted sub-genre of science fiction that is often applied to this film. However, there are just as many sources (if not more) that neglect the more-specific classification, and instead, opt to simply call it science fiction. AllMovie and AFI] are two prime examples. It might be that the term space opera is more ambiguous, I'm not sure, but clearly there's a reason. I'm in favor of Katastasi's suggestion to explore the sub-genre's relevance to the film in the article's body. A well-written, well-cited explanation of this would lead us to a better conclusion of what should be placed in the lead. One good compromise might be to leave science fiction in the opening line, but then later in the lead, mention the film's relevance to the space opera genre (knowing it's discussed in more detail within the body). Sounds like a win-win solution to me. We can certainly discuss it further once we reach that point. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting to me. If there aren't enough sources to support the genre as only "space opera" then it is a better idea to leave science fiction and either add a mention to space opera in the lead or a footnote. And then maybe repeat this for the other Star Wars film articles if consensus is reached, since they also state "epic space opera" in the lead. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 18:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (keep) What a dorky discussion. Reminds me of Clerks :-) (edited) Alaney2k (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yeah perhaps there's too many Jays and not enough Silent Bobs. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (keep) It's certainly not just a "sci-fi film". The Star Wars galaxy and its settings, mythology and supernatural features makes it more "fantasy" since its not bound by the laws of physics - nor does it acknowledge the existence of our own Earth. It takes place in space though, and the films are inspired by classical tales from ancient times and forward. So yeah, it's definitely a space opera. To me it just feels like the people who support the removal of space opera haven't even seen Star Wars. --Jonipoon (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (keep) For the same reasons already expressed by those in favor of retaining "space opera" as the genre. In terms of a wider scope of genres though, Star Wars at best leans more towards fantasy than science-fiction. In that case—if we were to remove the space opera from the lead—then I'd rather support the use of "science fiction fantasy film" to describe all the affected film articles. Other than that, I say leave space opera where it be.

Also, I don't know if these advance the discussion, but I found a few sources where several authors and publications employ the use of space opera to describe Star Wars: The Huffington Post calls it an "epic space opera", the Los Angeles Times describes the franchise as "fantasy space opera", The Hollywood Reporter, Sydney Morning Herald, OC Register, and this Deadline.com article refer to it as just "space opera", and in this recent interview George Lucas remarks that Star Wars is generally "called space opera", but personally describes it as a "soap opera". ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what this discussion is about: listing the sources to help us make the best call. I came across quite a few myself that call it space opera, but most of those were news media articles. I think the issue some (including myself at the moment) are having with the label is the fact that more reputable sources who specialize in genre classification are not using space opera or fantasy to describe the film. They are simply calling it science fiction, and those sources are listed above. Could it be that the sub-genre isn't well-known enough, or in other words, somewhat ambiguous? If that's the case, then we probably don't want to use it either. Also don't forget the compromise here isn't to avoid space opera altogether in the lead. It was proposed that the opening line state science fiction, then later in the lead mention its impact on the space opera genre (of course, assuming that this impact is mentioned with sources in the article's body). --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (keep) It's a widely accepted specific and unique film genre, just because you don't know what it means doesn't mean you should change it. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (keep) - This is really getting ridiculous. If an editor is going to start disagreeing with every description in the lead, soon it will have no adjectives at all: "Star Wars is a film". Seriously, I wish people would stop nit-picking over perfectly good content. Star Wars fits the description of a space opera - I don't like the term, but it's well defined.Cnbrb (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• SupportThe prime purpose of the lead is to be understood as broadly as possible, 'space opera' is not a well-established genre, nor (like sci-fi fantasy), is its meaning self-evident. The term seems to be favoured by fans and there is no reason for nor recording that in the article, but it should not be the opening definition, our purpose is not to spread or endorse the term. Star Wars has elements of many genres (comedy, fantasy, youth romance, a struggle between the forces of good and evil), but then so do many good films/plays, but its base line is Sci-fi or Sci-fi fantasy. Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Space opera: a novel, movie, or television program set in outer space, typically of a simplistic and melodramatic nature. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As much as I love SW myself, it isn't SciFi by any means, as that genre implies much more realism (>science< fiction, meaning fiction based on actually science, largely). This abuse might be sort of widespread, but that doesn't mean we should continue it. We have an encyclopedic approach. Thus, "epic space opera" is perfectly suitable. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't see where you're coming from. Terminator 2: Judgement Day and Back to the Future are considered science fiction movies and there is nothing realistic about them at all. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does anyone think it's a good idea to change the title to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and list it was originally titled just simply Star Wars, and do the same thing for The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi articles? let me know here on this talk page or on my talk page. Wikiman103 talk 16:43, 13 September 2015

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"it stars [...] Peter Cushing [...] Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker [...] co-star in supporting roles"!?

Okay, Peter Cushing was and is a better-known actor than either of the droid actors, but this wording is seriously flawed. I haven't watched it in a while, but if I recall correctly Cushing's screen time and line count were both negligible compared to Daniels's (Baker didn't have any lines but in terms of screen time...).

I didn't wanna make the change myself because it's in such a prominent place that I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere before and I didn't want to step on toes, but ... seriously, why?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a personal interpretation thing, it's a billing thing. Peter Cushing and Alec Guiness are top billed cast members, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker etc don't receive top billing. The film's credits are what this is representing, not someone't view on it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Billing in 1977 though, so do we have to necessarily honor? Peter Cushing's role was minor in comparison to Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness et al. We're an encyclopedia, not an archive.--A21sauce (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Bringing film up to Good Article status

Hi. I'm interested in bringing this article up to Good Article status. I'm starting by copyediting it and filling in research bits that I feel could be answered, if possible. See this for a list of the other articles I brought to GA. Questions thus far (and my style is to jump around alot), for the "[Star Wars (film)#Premiere_and_initial_release|Premiere and initial release section]" under "Release":

1. In what town or city was Harrison Ford's shirt torn off?

2. A second showing at the Grattman theater. How was this arranged?

3. Under "Box office," we use 2014 values. Given that it's almost 2016, I think this could use some updating. Do we necessarily have to use Wiki coding "inflation|US|1554475|1977" to get this? Why can't we use a site like oanda.com or something for a more up-to-date figure?--A21sauce (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence word order

The lead "[Star Wars] is a 1977 American epic space opera film..." is very clunky.

First, the word order emphasizes that its being a 1977 American epic space opera film, as opposed to a 1976 or 1978 American epic space opera film is somehow important.

Second "American epic space opera film" (opera film?) is hard to parse. This is easily addressable by splitting the "1977 American film" from "is an epic space opera Written and directed by George Lucas." Hence my edit to the front page. (The argument applies regardless of whether epic is retained.)

μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't agree with your first attempt at making this easier on the eyes, since I feel the genres "epic" and "space opera" need to remain together if they're both going to be mentioned, but I do agree with your latest attempt. We can probably go further and remove 1977 and mention it later in the lead. It doesn't need to be in the opening sentence, IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The intro sentence of pretty much all articles follows the pattern "article title" is "something". Most important thing first is the title of the article in bold and what it is is explained succinctly next. The rest of the lead expands on that. "Star Wars (later retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) is a 1977 space opera written and directed by George Lucas" is sufficient and any modifiers beyond the basic ones needed for identification are superfluous. "epic" is advertising fluff and does not add to basic identification of what this article is about. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo, see the discussion above about dropping the epic genre label from the lead. More than likely this will happen, but there's not a clear consensus there yet. You may want to voice your opinion in that discussion. As for the year, it can be simply mentioned in a following sentence that clarifies when the film was released. It shouldn't be needed as an additional descriptor preceding the film genre. Pretty much agree with your sentiment, however, that we should keep this as simple as possible. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Quick update: Just noticed you did comment above, so thanks for that! --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

per WP:FILMLEAD "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." and "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence." Basics for intro sentence title of the film, year of public release, primary genre, nationality. Other stuff may be useful in lead but probably should not be in the actual opening sentence of the lead. All that needs to be there is "Star Wars [title] (later retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope [alternate title]) is a 1977 [year of release] American [nationality] space opera [primary genre] film [what it is]. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm on board with that once a decision is finally made about the genre. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have again restored this version, given it was reverted 2 & 1/2 hours after this discussion was begun with the complaint that there had been no discussion. Again, I emphasize my soul goal is to split the adjectival description all believe is factual (1977 American film) from the predicate (epic space opera written...) μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you have to get consensus first and you simply do not have it. Opening a discussion does not give you powers to continue to edit war of the edit. JOJ ^Hutton 10:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

When an change is contested starting a discussion is appropriate but WP:STATUSQUO until consensus is reached to make the change. I object to starting the intro sentence with anything other than the exact article title (and alternative title) as the formulation is as a definition: "something" is "definition of that something". Adjectives belong as part of the definition. Geraldo Perez (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally prefer "Star wars is a 1977 film" over "The 1977 Star Wars film is", because no other article starts with "The". And there is a good reason for it, because it looks bad that way.

Also, the purpose of going to the talk page is to avoid edit wars. You don't have the right to revert back to the wording you prefer, Wikipedia isn't yours. You should only do if if people agree with you, and from what I see so far, nobody does. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 05 December 2015

Star Wars (film) → Star Wars – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. – Article editor (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• And Star Wars to Star Wars (franchise) (from Article editor (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC))

• @Article editor and 70.51.44.60: Extremely strong objection to undiscussed RMTR speedy move request Star Wars is clearly not uncontroversial, since it requires swapping articles around, and it's Star Wars. I don't see why you ever thought this should be an RMTR request. This clearly should have a normal full move discussion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)