Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I'm not sure if mixed is the right word, especially considering immediately after it says that they criticized everything except for the special effects, which is really inconsequential compared to things like story and characterization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
They are mixed because of the scores given, not the things they said. A 63% on RT and a 52% on Metacritic are considered mixed.22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I have never seen a positive film response from any other professionell film critic than Roger Ebert (the very same man who praised Gigli and The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle). I have read so many reviews from critics (even from different countries outside the US, like England, France and Germany), and not ONE critic gave this movie a good or okay rating. How can this movie be called "mixed" if there are nearly no positive reactions? From what I can tell, the only positive reviews this movie received were from like hardcore fans. What comes next, do we have to talk about the cultural influence of Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2?--126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the "mixed rating" sounds like a joke to me. I have tried to find a good review of the movie online. I failed. Most were written by star wars fans, not professionell critics.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
While this is my favorite of the Prequels, I see a lot of bad reviews. So yeah, people may want to look into that. But honestly, not trying to say it was good or anything, but how can people look at this as the worst of the trilogy? When in reality, if you compare it to episodes 2 and 3, it's almost, if not as good as the original trilogy. Is it because of the huge disappointment it brought afterwards upon release? If so, then yes, it's the most disappointing, but in no way the worst. But we all agree it's the most disappointing. Episode 2 was worse by a million times, but we all knew it was going to be terrible, so there was nothing to be disappointed with. Episode 3 was bad to the point it made Phantom Menace look like Empire Strikes Back, but people call it the best because it's darker. But we knew it was going to be terrible, and people only like it because it was "Slightly" (very that word very loosely) better than we thought it would be. Episode 3 was the worst, it made even episode 2 look like a oscar winner, it was that bad. IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2014
The Jedi, meanwhile, encounter Darth Maul once more and engage him in a two-on-one lightsaber duel. Qui-Gon is mortally wounded in the battle, but Obi-Wan manages to kill the Sith once and for all.
I'm given to understand that many Star Wars materials resurrect or otherwise bring back Maul in further stories. Should the latter sentence be adjusted somehow to reflect this? — pd_THOR| =/\= | 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What other 'material' is this? I would suspect that if it is not considered 'canon', then it shouldn't be accommodated. But the sentence could be changed to something more neutral, as in: remove the 'once and for all'. That would indicate neither the death being final, nor any possible resurrection. DP76764 (Talk) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I really would like to help out here but where do we need more work on the article. Should I get another peer review here soon. I have looked at Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope which is fa already and it looks like this article a lot already. Any help is appreciated.--team6and7 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This movie uses a great deal of the Huttese language. While a constructed language, Huttese is in many ways a real language. I feel that if Italian is listed as a language of the movie The Godfather, then Huttese should be listed as a language in this movie.220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
As I recall, the amount of Huttese in the movie is about on par with the amount of German in Saving Private Ryan, and that is not listed on the infobox on that page. Since nobody (at least that I know of) speaks Huttese regularly, it doesn't seem like it is a very helpful additional for readers. –CWenger (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Box Office Mojo has made an error in calculating the 3D re-release amount of the film
It seems that Box Office Mojo has made an error in calculating the 3D re-release earnings of the film. The 3D version's data, shows the earnings as $100.5 million, but now if we subtract the original old amount ($924,317,558), from the new amount, the earnings show as $101.8 million. We are keeping the subtracted amount because, according to the "Box Office" section of this article, it is correct. To calculate the amount, we are using the system, and not determining it on our own. This is for people to be able to understand the error. Darkdefenderyuki (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Whatever discrepancy there may have been has now been rectified by Box Office Mojo and the original amount the film made along with the 3D release now tally correctly. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
more information should be added about changes in the blu-ray release
I have added a "clarification needed" tag to the statement that it received initially mixed reviews. I think we should probably give the RT score for the film before 2012 as well, as it seems likely given the abysmal reputation the film received over the intervening 13 years that it may have got much more negative reviews from mainstream critics the second time it was released to theaters. I have no evidence of this -- I'm not a regular RT user, so I don't know if there's a way to check what a film's score used to be, but if I as a reader noticed this others probably will too. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I actually kind of like what Never Say Never Again has, with "contemporary" and "reflective" reviews giver separate sub-sections. Since the film is technically still "new" compared to that film, it's not quite the same case, but I imagine opinions have still soured toward this film over the years where initial reviews were more positive. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Elvenscout742 - with films such as this where reviewers' opinions change significantly over time, I feel the separate sections would be appropriate. Crashdown13 (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I just found a magazine article from August 1997 which says that as of press time, the rumored title for the then-upcoming movie was "Star Wars: Balance of the Force". I'm not sure where the best place to put this info into the article would be, so I'll leave it to this article's regular editors to add it in. Here's the citation, minus the "ref" code:
Allstetter, Rob (August 1997). "Short Takes". Wizard (72). p. 120. --NukeofEarl (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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: No consensus. I don't see overwhelming support for either the originally proposed form "Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace" or the alternative double colon "Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace" form. Regarding the new proposal introduced yesterday, @Kamek98: I think you should add that as a new RM if you wish to do so. This one needs to be closed to avoid confusion. Thanks. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Eric. I would hold these proposals off for now. This looks like a plan B if the originals don't have their proper titles restored. I think we should worry about getting the originals to their proper titles, and if that doesn't work, we should look at this as an alternate, even if temporary.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the most common is with the episode title. Ngram stats for "The Empire Strikes Back", and "Return of the Jedi" have been in great decline for over a decade but Star Wars Episode IV, V, and VI alone as titles have been increasing greatly for over a decade. I doubt with the prequels it is any different. And I agree there are alternate ways to write the title, but double colons look damn odd and weak compared to the : and en dash. Plus, the movie are sold under that format so it is the most accurate style for the name. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, often referred to as simply The Phantom Menace or Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, is a 1999 American epicspace opera film written and directed by George Lucas. It is the fourth film in the Star Wars saga to be released, the first of a three-part prequel to the original Star Wars trilogy, and the first film in the story chronology. The film was Lucas' first production as a film director after a 22-year hiatus following the original Star Wars film, and his fourth film overall.
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, often referred to as simply The Empire Strikes Back or Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, is a 1980 American epicspace opera film directed by Irvin Kershner and produced by Gary Kurtz. Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan wrote the screenplay, with George Lucas writing the film's story and serving as executive producer. Of the Star Wars films, it was the second to be released and the fifth in terms of internal chronology.
Support The reason I came up with this idea is because we clearly have done this sort of thing with other pages such as The Avengers (2012 film) where the actual name, Marvel's The Avengers is followed by its other common name The Avengers. In this Star Wars case, people who believe the common name is not with the episode title are satisfied, and the people who believe the full title is the common name are satisfied because the articles introduce the topic by the official name (which again, people would argue is also the common name) and says the shorter "common" names in the same introduction sentence.
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.