Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose. It is not an epic, which would involve a long period of time, e.g. an epic voyage, like The Odyssey. By some of the definitions given above, any adventure story with a hero is an epic, leaving the term with no distinction. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
That's not entirely true. Braveheart is an epic and it doesn't take place over an extended period of time. And each installment of Star Wars is a piece of a larger story that is clearly an epic. If by your standards we must remove it here, then we must also remove it from the Lord of the Rings films and the Hobbit films. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is still going on? Support per my sources given above. --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: the opening sentence currently is: "Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a 2015 American epic space opera film directed, co-produced, and co-written by J. J. Abrams." This compound ("epic space opera film") is clearly wrong, because here "epic" is an adjective of "space opera", not of "film". This would require proof Star Wars is not an epic film, nor a space opera, but an epic space opera. This could easily be corrected by inserting a comma: "epic, space opera film". A better option would be: "space opera epic film", as has been suggested above. Michael! (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
PS Star Wars is not an epic (noun; a long narative poem), although it might be an epic (adjective) film. Michael! (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:LEAD. The discussion here is about whether or not "epic" ought to be in the lead. People in support should prove not only that it's an epic film (with at least one reliable source please), but more importantly, that the "epic film" aspect is important and relevant enough to be in the lead section, and also in the opening sentence.
As has been noted above, even if it's an epic film, it's doubtful ""epic" really contributes anything". Furthermore (emphasis is mine):
  • WP:MOSINTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" ... "not by using subjective "peacock terms"", and: "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions."
  • WP:MOSBEGIN: "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific."
  • WP:LEADSENTENCE: "the first sentence should give a concise definition", and: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject."
In the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article, "epic" is used exactly only once: in the opening sentence, which seems to contradict WP:LEAD's: "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".
Taking everything together, I conclude it's appropiate to remove "epic" from the lead. Michael! (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: As someone who has read (some) classical epic poetry, while it does not fit in the original poetic style with dactyllic hexameter and all, I would personally deem it to be a modern successor to that genre. (But let me use what I learnt during that period of my life to recapitulate and ramble about what's been said already and a month ago...)
Alas, personal beliefs are not grounds for me to mess with the wiki. That would violate WP:Pillars. We have to remember that while not a bureaucracy, policies were made for a reason: so we can get stuff done and make decisions smoothly. In this case, I think that means that verifiable facts get the right of way here, per WP:V. I don't believe the suggestion that the putting the term later down the article to reduce due-weight is particularly contentious. I'm not "involved" with the article, so I'm really abstaining, but if I were I'd probably go with what appears to be the majority and get rid of the term "epic" or oppose. It doesn't seem to belong. Techhead7890 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove "space opera" label from lead

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)
Just because there is a common misconception about what distinguishes the genre of science-based fiction (=SciFi) from futuristic and/or extraterrestrial fantasy settings belonging in the fantasy genre, doesn't mean we should keep it up or join the club of superficiality and ignorance. My 2c. -- Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Except that science fiction is based on technology that was not possible based on the time of it's release. We don't have space craft, planetary exploration or encounters with alien beings. Entire books have been written on discussin the film within context of science. like this one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Btw, the IMDb which is by far the most-cited movie website, is categorising the original Star Wars film as Action, Adventure, Fantasy genres (all others too). 'Nuff said. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Except we don't use IMDb as a source on wikipedia per WP:RS/IMDb @Horst-schlaemma:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Wiki is an encyclopedia not a fanzine, plain rather than grandiose language should be used, especially in the lede. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The genre space opera clearly stands on its own, otherwise we wouldn't have an article for it. Anyone curious about it can click through for details, and we shouldn't lose specificity. Keep it in the lead. —Torchiest talkedits 00:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Change to "science fantasy" label in the lead

After searching sources on the Internet, I found an article in Sci-Fi discussing that topic. It proposes that would be more appropriate to call Star Wars as science fantasy: "While it may feel like a cop-out, the best answer to whether Star Wars is sci-fi or fantasy is that it's a little bit of both. Calling Star Wars "sci-fi" ignores its fantasy elements, such as the Force; but calling Star Wars 'fantasy' ignores its interplanetary setting and sci-fi feel." There are even several novels with the same union of science-fantasy elements, and arguably it's a genre better established and defined than the space opera. And to emphasize more the mixture of science fantasy in Star Wars, another article in Sci-Fi discussing the midi-chlorians (, microscopic organisms (sci-fi element) which allow Jedi and other Force-sensitive beings to connect to the Force (fantasy element). This organism is mentioned in Episode I: The Phantom Menace, "when Qui-Gon Jinn, sensing Anakin Skywalker's Force potential, took a blood sample to determine the boy's midi-chlorian count." (that scene about midi-chlorians in YouTube) In a subtly way, Star Wars try to give a scientific approach, in some hard science-fiction style, to certain elements that could be seen as purely fantastic. But, The Force Awakens does not include midi-chlorian, according to IGN News on YouTube. Also quoting IMDb, the official page of The Force Awakens includes sci-fi and fantasy labels together, being two major genres, alongside adventure and action labels. And to give huge contrast between sci-fi feel and fantasy elements, George Lucas: Interviews (on Google Books) clarifies a little about the genre of Star Wars from the perspective of George Lucas: "Beyond the audience, George Lucas was firm that the general public should not be encouraged to see the film as esoteric science-fiction. 'We seem them constant memos', he says, 'Do not call this film sciencie-fiction, it's a space fantasy". And in my opinion, that "space fantasy" label is closely related to the science fantasy, after George Lucas deliberately exposes in the films key parts of space transportation/space technology, alternate universe o reality (there is no Earth, Coruscant is the equivalent of the Earth), alien races, biotechnology, ecopsychology, language and war, and the key fantasy elements includes the Force, the Dark Side, Force Ghost, the Jedi "religion", a strong Anima mundi essence, and the use of "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" trope as sci-fi equivalent of “once upon a time.” Finally, science fantasy could be clearer for readers because merges two major film terms in the world of cinema, and has precise literary antecedents. --Percy Meza (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well other than we need third party sources, so we don't go by studios or film makers to discuss genre and the same with the fact that we don't use IMDb for sources, I'd lean towards keeping it minimal. If you want to discuss the style and genre for the film, I'd say look for more outside sources to find what the common genre discussions are and put more weight into users who go into more detail about how the film fits a genre. You can use the Lucas and his crews commentary as well, but it shouldn't be used to sway the argument one way or another. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree with Science Fantasy, as long as we can provide proper sources. We know this all is kind of tricky as Star Wars is probably crossing the lines like hardly any other, but Science Fantasy definitely captures that really well. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
George Lucas: I wanted to create a whole new genre - in reference to "science-fantasy"
Jeez. It has been there all the time! :D George Lucas himself delivers the most appropriate classification:
As early as 1971, Lucas had wanted to film a space fantasy. "I wanted to make a Flash Gordon movie, with all the trimmings, but I couldn't obtain the rights to the characters. So I began researching and went right back and found where Alex Raymond (who had done the original Flash Gordon comic strips in newspapers) had got his idea from. I discovered that he'd got his inspiration from the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs (author of Tarzan) and especially from his John Carter of Mars series books. I read through that series, then found that what had sparked Burroughs off was a science-fantasy called Gulliver on Mars, written by Edwin Arnold and published in 1905. That was the first story in this genre that I have been able to trace. Jules Verne had got pretty close, I suppose, but he never had a hero battling against space creatures or having adventures on another planet. A whole new genre developed from that idea." WebCite
So he clearly states that science fantasy is the closest to what he thought of. While I have to admit, that the current article of Space Opera reflects the ideas of Star Wars much better. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
As Andrzejbanas mentions, we put little stock into an author's interpretation of their own work. For long-term classification, we should instead rely on reliable, third-party analysis. How it has been received and interpreted by everyone else holds more weight in the debate. Also in a contested issue like this one, certainly one or two sources (or even a handful) are not going to be enough to make a decision on, especially when there are so many others that do not use that classification. It is still my opinion that the best compromise here is to go with a widely recognized genre in the opening sentence; one that is considered a very high level genre by the most modest standards. Science fiction, fantasy, and epic are all up there in that realm, but I wouldn't include space opera, science fantasy, or any other sub-genre that is less recognizable and more likely to draw attention or spark edit wars. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, whenever I see multiple genres attributed to a film, I move the information to a separate section called "genre" and try to build a paragraph about it. Would this work in this article? Dimadick (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
For the article's body, that would be preferred and has even been suggested above, but per WP:FILMLEAD we run into issues if we avoid mentioning the primary genre in the opening sentence. The other issues mentioned earlier is how to handle the other Star Wars films and spinoffs that all currently have "epic space opera" in the lead. Do we replicate the solution and have a similar genre section in each article? At least one other editor doesn't think that would be a good idea, so that may turn into another hurdle. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

For the lede, why not settle with: "Star Wars (later retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) is a 1977 American science fiction and fantasy film written and directed by George Lucas."? I think this is a compromise that includes widely known genres and still recognizes the special direction Star Wars takes. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Because we don't use minority views and we need third party sources. Science fantasy isn't as nearly as common of a title as science fiction. And we don't just split hairs to compromise because that would be failing to go by what most sources call it. We can't interpret it per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It's science fiction. The sources refer to it as sci-fi and there is no real sign of the films being fantasy. People seem to confuse mythology, a theme commonly found in science fiction, to be fantasy. Sci-Fi-mythology could perhaps work here, but fantasy is ridiculous. Ilya Salkind regards Star Wars as science fiction as he stated in the director's commentary of Superman III (2006 Deluxe Edition to be exact). I can't remember the exact words from the back of my mind but it was something like "the 50s, 60s, 70s were a time when movies peaked with hit movies. Jaws, Exorcist, Star Wars. It was a time of fantasy-reality films that depicted fantasy and reality. Well OK- Star Wars is science fiction, that's a little different." I can later post the exact quote from the DVD director's commentary, but it's clear that he considers it science fiction- and that's more than a reliable source. Salkind is a person very experienced in film making in the area of these genres.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I just watched parts of the Star Wars red carpet premier and George Lucas mentions it as mythology but makes no mention of fantasy [3]--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Title ambiguity

I know this has been beaten to death, by me included. But is anyone else having second thoughts on this title once again? A lot of people are referring to Star Wars: The Force Awakens as simply Star Wars for short. Any thoughts? How many more films will there be before this film should be moved to a different title? Should all films just be retitled to Star Wars: Subtitle? What could we do differently? This may not be up for debate but I just wanted to hear some thoughts on the topic. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why this article includes "(film)" after the words "Star Wars". Takes care of the ambiguity on its own since "Star Wars by itself links to the franchise as a whole. JOJ Hutton 03:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure people of today's generation understand that the original was, for a time, simply called Star Wars. Anybody born with the prequels, and some time before that, probably identifies this film under the title A New Hope or something similar. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 03:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
You've got to think long-term. Right now, referring to Star Wars could possibly mean The Force Awakens, since it was just released. However, years from now, that won't likely be the case, especially after the next release in the series. The accepted long-term view is that Star Wars refers to the franchise as a whole, and that Star Wars (film) will be recognized as the first release from 1977. Any belief to the contrary should provide evidence to back it up, and the request to change the article title should wait at least another 6 months or so, since the last move discussion on this occurred less than a year ago. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The reason why people are shortening the new film's title is because they're lazy, really. It is in no way an official or even unofficial title. The article is titled "Star Wars" because this is the original official title from 1977, and that is how the article's name should remain. All SW films articles are titled as they were originally titled and marketed at their respective releases, in fact. Like Jojhutton said, readers probably won't make a confusion since the article's title is followed by "(film)". So, I think it's best all the films are titled here in WP as they already are. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 19:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with "Star Wars (film)" being the name of the article, but could we please dispense with "later retitled" in front of the full title and just replace it with the "also known as" as with the other trilogy films. We all know Lucas wanted that as the official title, Fox didn't and that Lucas was able to reinsert it after the film became a success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.163.17 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Given that moving the article was recently discussed in the #Requested move 05 December 2015 section above, I don't see the need for another discussion about moving the article this soon or even a year from now; I do stand by what I stated in that discussion, though: The first film is the WP:Primary topic for the "Star Wars" name. Just by looking over many recent sources, I see that the first film is still mainly called Star Wars. The new film is usually called The Force Awakens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just like how there is a Hunger Games franchise but everyone understands that there is The Hunger Games (film) and then the franchise. Same thing for Mad Max, X-Men, Highlander, Resident Evil, and various others. Walterego (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Film theory observes films as texts. To texts, we can apply the rules of philology (even if it has a living history). There is a principle in philology called ultima manus i.e. last hand, which means that the version philologists try to recreate for the public is the last version by the author, that is the 'ultimate version'. Now, we have a hard time defining who is the author of a film, but probably the blu-ray version is our (current) ultima manus. Of course, there are many other factors at play, but one may consider this too. (Btw, why doesn't WP:NCF have anything on cases like this?) – Máté (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

TRON movie poster related?

When I first saw the poster for ANH, I had to think of TRON's movie poster: http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/tron/images/2/28/Tron_poster1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090111000833

Are they related in any way? --84.105.83.223 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not remove the date

Unless you have a reliable source that says it was NOT retitled in 1981, don't remove it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss rather than edit warring or making demands. Consensus seems to be for it not to be there. See WP:BRD & WP:3RR. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not a question of sourcing. The details go in the course of the article but the first sentence is for the identification of the subject. Mezigue (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Why does even need to say, "Later retooled....", anyway? And as far as the 1981 date is concerned, Lucasfilm was stil releasing the films on VHS as Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi, as late as 1995. Nowhere on the Star Wars box does it refer to the first film as A New Hope. JOJ Hutton 13:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It needs to be there to account for the two different titles right from the go. But you are correct of course that the date 1981 is dubious as that's when the opening crawl was changed but the film was pretty much still known as Star Wars until, what, the late 90s or something? Mezigue (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it needs to be there. Maybe a vote is in order? Amccann421 (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. It never ceases to amaze me the minutiae that trigger edit wars! My own preference would be for the intro sentence to have in parentheses "later retitled Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope". The intro is supposed to be very top-level summary information - to add in unnecessary detail interrupts the flow and begins to over-complicate this summary of the article. If the date of renaming is a significant or controversial topic (supported by references of course), maybe it merits its own "Title" section further down, with text lifted from the "Later releases" section and expanded. It could actually make interesting reading. But there is really no need for an edit war here. "There are alternatives to fighting." - Obi-Wan Kenobi. Cnbrb (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: This article is only going to attract all sorts of edit wars from various people and often did ever since it was titled alternatively from it's original, official title. There have been repeated discussions on the same thing again and again. It's not going to get a satisfactory consensus as long as the fanboy title stays over the official title that has been on it over thirty years which fits with WP:COMMONNAME. I would suggest a neutral group of editors evaluate the dispute, but I doubt the fanboys will accept that. And no the films were always introduced by their proper titles, save for Episode IV until 1981. And remember film posters are NOT reliable sources.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a satisfying consensus. The reason there have been "repeated discussions on the same thing again and again" is because you keep restarting them because they don't satisfy you. As you bring the matter up again, I can only assume this obsession with adding a - dubious - date in the first sentence is part of your crusade to get the pages moved again. Forget it! Mezigue (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a very strong feeling either way on that dusty old debate. There is a logic to consistently using Episode numbers in titles, but it's done and dusted and and I am happy to go along with the consensus (which is actually more in line with WP:COMMONNAME). However, I guarantee that deriding other editors as "fanboys" will do nothing help your cause. Move on, and do think of a way of editing constructively. Cnbrb (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Mezigue, no it is not "me." There are a number of threads started by different users who have questioned this absurd fan imposed POV over reliable sources. And yeah these remarks are the typical ones from the group of hardcore fans trying to impose their viewpoint on all the contributors who questioned this- and rightfully so.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Problem with that assessment is that there is no proof that the films were ever "retitled" prior to the release of the special editions in 1997. It doesn't take a fanboy to see that every VHS release of this film prior to 1997 was released as just Star Wars.JOJ Hutton 17:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
So anyway, returning to the original issue, there are some uncertainties as to the precise date when the Episode subtitle was added to the re-releases. There seems no good reason to add detail to the introduction when it deserves more detailed discussion in the article body itself. The sentence in brackets "later retitled..." (or equivalent wording) is perfectly adequate without specifying the date at this point. Cnbrb (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

– I think that since Disney is going to be making a lot more Star Wars movies, including Rouge One, I think that "Star Wars" should refer to the franchise itself, rather than the just the 1977 original. If we do this, we would also have to change the titles of the other articles to match. 67.166.200.75 (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is has been hashed out in depth multiple times now. "Star Wars (film)" for A New Hope is in no way interfering with the franchise, which is at simply Star Wars (though a hatnote could potentially be helpful directing readers). Additionally, "we would also have to change the titles of the other articles to match" is a very poor argument, because while some uniformity is nice, each film article should be titled for the actual film name. What we now know as Episodes 4-6 were retitled to include those after the original release, so they should be in the article titles here. Additionally, "Episode VII" was never part of The Force Awakens title, so that would be highly inappropriate to rename it to include it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Favre's right here (although a disambiguated article like Star Wars (film) doesn't need a hatnote to point to Star Wars, it would instead be the other way around). GRAPPLE X 08:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Argh, isn't there a limit on how often the same move can be proposed? (However, I must say I am intrigued by Rouge One as Leia's make-up in the original now looks quite dated.) Mezigue (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Star Wars" already refers to the franchise, "Star Wars (film)" refers to the original film. You even pointed this out yourself lol - adamstom97 (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Favre1fan93. The article titles are conistent with COMMONNAME and no evidence of confusion has been presented. Betty Logan (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:SNOW. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Articles are using the common name.--JOJ Hutton 10:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, saw this bandwagon passing by and jumped on to play the cello. Randy Kryn 10:54, 6 June 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Computer graphics

I thought that this reversion was perhaps a little harsh - was it really a violation of WP:SPS? I don't see any evidence of that. The information about early CGI and this video are actually really interesting. Could we not include this short section about the computer graphics, perhaps cite some better sources? I'm happy to try and help. Cnbrb (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Jack Purvis and Eddie Byrne

@Canterbury Tail: In the film's credits, after the five main actors, it says "With Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew, David Prowse, Jack Purvis, Eddie Byrne, James Earl Jones as the voice of Darth Vader". So they did get billing in the credits. CamelCase (MyTalk | ConTribs) 00:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Impending image deletion

The copyright police are determined to delete the image File:Leiadeathstar.jpg, the only still from the movie in this article. In anybody can think of a reason why the presence of this image in the article "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" and why "its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding" then please suggest this. Otherwise, the image will be deleted. Cnbrb (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's because it no longer meets fair use policies. The image originally was only 300x400 resolution or similar and therefore as a low res image met fair use. However recently someone decided to overwrite the image with a very high resolution version and it is that that is being nominated for deletion as it no longer meets the fair use that the image was tagged under. Restoration back to the lower res version should eliminate the problem. Canterbury Tail talk 16:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've tried that already but the deleter is not satisfied. It is now back to only 360px but we now have to demonstrate how the image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic".
The image has survived for over 10 years on Wikipedia without causing any problems, but as soon as some bright spark uploaded a hi-res version, it's attracted attention and is now scheduled for termination! Cnbrb (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I've discussed it with the deletion proposer and he's relented, as the fair use rationale that I update appears to be sufficient. You can all relax now. Cnbrb (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

European Release

When was the film first released in Europe? This would include the UK. There is always a delay in an American film being released in Europe, to allow for the dubbing to be made. So the release is later in the UK (because it's part of Europe)(at the moment) than in America. ixo (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually in the UK movies usually come out at the same as the US. However this wasn't always the case. Either way IMDB has the release dates. Canterbury Tail talk 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
That's quite a modern development - I think it was Attack of the Clones which really brought it into standard practice. Just to add to the confusion, in those days films began in London's West End and only subsequently rolled out to other cities, suburbs and small towns over the following weeks. This says the West End debut was 27 December 1977 but because of the rollout you often see January 1978 given. Timrollpickering 18:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_(film)/Archive_8&oldid=1146535888"