Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

Please revert this page

Where is all of this information coming from? So far as I know, the plot hasn't been released. Sounds like speculation to me. -- Zoe

Appears to be a verbatim copy from this page. Poorly written, probably completely inaccurate, and possibly copyright violation. (I've removed said text from the article, which itself may merit deletion as there's not a whole lot valid to say on the subject...) --Brion VIBBER
I think that the facts stated here are clearly imaginable from what we know from the old trilogy. Laz 12:01 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Didn't George Lucas originally envisage 9 films to tell the whole Star Wars saga (3 more films set after the time covered in Star Wars- return of Jedi)? that's what i grew up believing anyway... quercus robur 17:18, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Nope. Or at least Lucas now denies and says it's always been only six. Whether he changed his mind or what, I don't know, but I remember reading an old biography of him (before ROTJ) saying that the movies would have been 6 in total, so if he really changed his mind he did it a long ago. Lazarus Long 14:35, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Even that 6 thing is complete retconning. A complete bullshit. He originally wrote one movie, which was complex and contained elements that were split off somewhat to create the original trilogy. Somewhere in writing episode 4, he decided to call it the 4th episode to give room to write a prequel and a sequel.

That's closer to the truth, but still not what Lucas says in the Episode IV DVD commentary. He claims that his reasoning behind making the originals episodes 4-6 was that he wanted this to be like part of a space-opera serial that you would catch on TV. Everyone had walked in on episode 4 and missed last week's episode where everything was explained about how Darth Vader came to be. It gave the audience the thought that there had been a lot that had happened prior to the film (the Clone wars, fall of Anakin, etc.), but they had missed that part. At least that's what he says himself in the commentary.-GamblinMonkey 12:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove the reference to R2-D2's ability to fly. Firstly, I doubt that it will be resolved in the film. Secondly, it isn't really a very big problem in terms of continuity. Thirdly, is it really relevant? -- 20 May 2003.

Since there have been no objections, I've removed the reference and replaced it with something more likely to be in the film. HWelles 07:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Again, I object to whoever put the R2-D2 reference back in. 1) There is no continuity problem with R2 and his jets. There is no reason why R2 should "lose the ability to fly". There's no conflict there. Thus 2) It is very unlikely that this will be touched on in the film. With everything that has to happen in E3, this is surely not deserving of time in the film. If it does get touched on (which I don't think it even needs to be) it will probably be done in some Expanded Universe literature. So, the sentence referring to in the main article is unnecessary and misleading. I won't remove the reference yet, but I'd appreciate it if whoever put it back in would explain why they did so. If nobody tells me otherwise, I'll remove the reference again, because I can't see a good argument for why it should be in there. HWelles 05:37, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with removing the R2 reference, that's really no big deal. I also wonder... what about Lucas "not producing an unlikely Episode VII"? There can be no Episode VII if Lucas won't produce it of course, that doesn't make much sense.Lazarus Long 07:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Continuity is still intact. It's stated in the novels multiple times that R2's could be configured for various functions. Evidently between Episode II and Episode IV, they take them out. Simple enough.

Recent changes

What the hell is with revisions made by 67.171.180.209? Can someone revert to before then as well as include the additions made since then.

AFAIK, Mace Windu is killed by Sidious using force lightning, and Anakin just stands there watching. But this is just another rumor of course, so I won't "correct" the page.

Samuel L Jackson himself has said that Mace falls out of a window (probably after being stabbed or blasted or lightninged)

No, Anakin delivers the fatal blow to Mace, sending him off the ledge outside the window of Palpatine's office.M412k 01:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, incorrect. Anakin cuts of Mace's hand, and Sidious shocks him and throws him out of the window.

Where on earth is this stuff coming from?

Has Supershadow been working overtime? This stuff can't possibly 'official'.

Hahaha! I hope you don't believe that SuperShadow is actually who he says he is!

Where all this stuff is coming from

Everything here is simply a coherant amalgamation of all the spoilers that have been floating around for months. Not much is 'official', but most of it comes from many sources, not to mention StarWars.com Hyperspace subscription owners who get web documentaries and on-set webcams and all that fun stuff.

Opening crawl

Is this official or just speculation? Cbarbry 08:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing to indicate that this is anything other than speculation. I don't know how much is known, but my propasal is to delete everything from "Opening Crawl" down. Comments? DJ Clayworth 22:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I recommend we do something like what is being done with Casino Royale -- a section for officially released information, and section for speculation. I will go ahead and make these sections, and change it if you like. Cbarbry 04:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's official:

http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/production/f20050126/indexp2.html Cornince 02:21 AM (CST), 3 Mar 2005

I put up the opening crawl, it's from the official Star Wars site. Is anyone opposed to me putting it back up? Shadowtrooper 03:22, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Jedi ghosts

Why is it mentioned that it will need to be resolved why some jedis become ghosts when they die and others do not? I was under the impression that jedis become ghosts if and only if they die peacefully. --elpenmaster

The disappearing act is something Qui-Gon learns after his death. It is a way of becoming one with the Force yet retain consciousness and physical form. At the end of Episode III, he informs Yoda and Obi-Wan of his discovery, and they become his students. This is revealed in Episode III. Connor Hill
Actually, Yoda reveals this to Kenobi. There is, in the movie, no sequence of You and the voice of Qui-Gon coversing -- unfortunatly. Robeykr 02:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
how could yo be under that impression, as Obi-Wan in a New Hope is struck down by a lightsaber, wich is needless to say non to peacfull.
The thing is, if you read the actual script for Episode III (it can be found easily by searching for it at google.com), you will see a scene where Qui-Gon talks to Yoda and tells him the secret. I read the script months ago, and when I saw the movie, George Lucas did tons of editing.

The Fate of Jar Jar

"The explanation of why Jar Jar Binks is present in Episodes I & II but not included in IV-VI. " Yousa theenkin he gonna die? Sorry, had to be done.

Jar Jar is heard in Episode VI DVD during the celebration over Naboo. There is no need for an explanation as to why he's not in the "sequels", as more than likely he was serving in the Imperial Senate which of course we see no member of that. --guest

--cuiusquemodi 02:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • It's confirmed that he does not die in Episode III. In fact, no information about Jar Jar's role in the film is known at all. TheCoffee 14:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Jar-Jar makes a couple of back-ground cameos on Corusant. He has no dialouge throughout the movie -- and plays no role at all. He makes his final appearance at the end of the film when he is alongside Boss Nass at the funeral procession for Padme on Naboo. Robeykr 02:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Classic trilogy scenes in Episode III

Are there going to be scenes from the Star Wars classic trilogy because there were scenes from Star Wars A New Hope in the Revenge of the Sith trailer where Obi-Wan is talking to Luke about the prequel trilogy. If so, then i'll add it to the main article. - John-1107

Yes, I heard a very strong rumour that the final scene of ROTS is actually the scene that started it all: the boarding party smashing through the blast doors of the Tantive IV, with Vader in tow. This is likely to be true, as Wedge Antilles is in the cast and even has an action figure for Episode III.

    • Wow, you two are way way in the dark. NO, the final scene is the construction of the Death Star. And the Antilles character is NOT Wedge....it is Captain Antilles, the captain of the alderaan cruiser. Wow!<<Coburn_Pharr>> 04:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Wowsee wowsee woo woo, you three are way in the dark. NO, the last final scene is at the Lars homestead where Kenobi entrusts baby Luke to Owen Lars and his wife Beru. The final shot is of Owen with Beru holding the baby, looking at the setting twin-suns just as Luke will do 19 years later in episode IV. Robeykr 02:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Conjecture

Conjecture doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. It's no different than original research. RickK 23:27, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Except we're reporting on the conjecture. --Phil | Talk 18:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Poster change

I've changed the main picture to the release poster. Personally I think it looks misaligned, but this is the one they've shipped to cinemas around the world... Rje 16:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Cast

Just curious if someone can answer a question I've had about the articles for the SW movies on the Wikipedia. Why isn't the cast listed for any of the movies except for a scant few of them in the info boxes? Dismas

Novelization

Well I just picked up the Novel by Matthew Stover and will be posting Episode III Novel spoilers in the various sub-articles. These will be clearly marked for those who wish to wait (unlike me). Ravenhull

Cool, but the novel isn't really a spoiler. In the novel of Return of the Jedi, it was said that Obi-Wan Kenobi and Owen Lars are brothers. George Lucas has also said that the books aren't canon, only the movies are. Maybe you should make a little note of that.
Actually, I belive he was refering to the original trilogy novels. I seem to remember Lucasfilm indicating that the novelizations of TPM, ATOTC, and ROTS are canon. When Lucas aproved the cretion of the Expanded Universe, it has always been his stated position that all printed Star Wars novels and comics published after 1992 are canon. Lucas said he was not going to let the STAR WARS universe become as conflicting as the STAR TREK universe. Robeykr 02:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
The general plot will not change. So long as immense detail is avoided, there should be no problems. RW
The script has leaked out, so you might as well make a synopsis based on that. The novel does not differ much from the script. TheCoffee 18:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Homophobic C3PO Edits

Are back. Can't see how to revert it, so could someone who does know do it please? Daveryan 18:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Spoilers

Almost all the Star Wars articles contain Revenge of the Sith spoilers, they are really annoying. Can't we wait the Ep3 spoilers until at least May 19? It's just... annoying

Well, the books on Episode III were released a few weeks ago, so it seems that many die hard fans here want to post stuff about them. Zzyzx11 | Talk 07:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the spoilers, don't read them- that's why we have the spoiler warnings. M412k 01:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I feel the spoiler system on Wiki is broken and needs to be improved. I need to take this to the village pump. Samboy 02:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The transformation of an organic being into a cyborg as in the case of Grievous and Anakin Skywalker becoming Vader--Ed Telerionus 14:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certificates

Go look at Star Wars III's certificates for yourselves! --Ryanasaurus0077 00:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Opening Crawl Added

I see no reason the opening crawl shouldn't be here. For one, it is listed on all the other Star Wars movie pages. Also, books and scripts were published weeks ago that clearly detail the crawl. Perhaps a spoiler warning is needed, but regardless... the crawl should be included.

Cast

I really don't think we need a list of every single person (especially uncredited people) who was shown in this movie. Half of the list are people who appear for less than 30 seconds

I added some back in. Not the uncredited people. Most of them at least have a page for the character if not the actor. And I split it into two columns. I had to mess with the spacing of the opening crawl to get the info box to keep from intruding on the cast section. Thoughts? Dismas 01:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Thoughts? Good work - I saw the previous layout, where just about every actor known to be in the film was listed and wondered where it was going to end. Much tidier (and legible) now, thanks for your work. sheridan 21:09, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Should we remove from the cast the characters that were cut from the film, such as Mon Mothma? Ben W Bell 11:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Quotation edit

The Emperor does not say in the film “you killed her, don’t you remember?” but something more along the lines of “I am afraid that in your anger you killed her” --- Iorek Brynson

Bush links

This is just stupid liberal/anti-Bush crap. It has no place here. The line about "you're with or against me" was not invented by Bush. (unsigned)

I was amused when it was pointed out that this dates at least as far back as Jesus: "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30). - Nunh-huh 02:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
why was the politica thing put back? There are no Bush connections as I said earlier here. Take a look at this link: http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/05/20/build/nation/65-star-wars_v.inc
It's been observed by many fans and critics. Even in the link you gave, Lucas says that although the script wasn't written with today's situation in mind, he gives a somewhat ambiguous answer and suggests that it can be applied to the world today. (And personally, I think it's a clear jab at the Bush administration. Well done, George ;) ) TheCoffee 23:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Trouble is, no one claimed he did. Bush just likes to cling to it in a particularly notable fashion. Not most people are such blatent practicioners of a dualist train of thought. Thus, I suggest you re-evaluate your appraisal. Furthermore, the ad hominem that is the juxtapositioning of "liberal," "anti-Bush," and "stupid" does naught to support your assertion. --Cgranade 04:47, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

If Anakin is George Bush, does that mean Palpatine is Dick Cheney? Seriously, the debate is real, and deserves mention. The movie itself spends half its time on fictional politics, so a paragraph on possible comparisons to the real thing makes sense.

Emperor Palpatine could represent Hitler? So what? It was written before Bush was even elected, or before it was even predictable that he would be elected. Potential application is the key word that you gave away. It isn't neccessarily automatic, its just your interpretation, which is not wrong in the fact that its your opinion. But this is an encyclopedia, and not a joint for far-out interpretations. It is not really a direct statement from George Lucas that he wanted to criticize Bush, its merely subjunctive to what people such as you want it to be. I am fairly annoyed with Bush, but when it comes to philosophy or interpretations of George Lucas, I'll save that for forums. If it is basic, introductory facts about something, I'll present it here.

Plot Summary

The current dot-point-esque summary is almost un-readable. Surely there's a star wars fan or 500 here who can write a more readable take on the movie that that? Anyone? Psychobabble 04:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I made that summary a few months ago. :/ Feel free to change it as you wish... TheCoffee 23:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Australian Rating

It seems someone is constnatly editing the correct Australian Rating of M to the incorrect PG. Their reason for this is that IMDB says so. However, IMDB is incorrect. Check any Australian Cinema site and you will see it as M. Such as Villiage Cinemas. Aas an Australian myself, I can bet my life that it is M.

It was debated for a short period of time, but the outcome was that it was too violent to be PG (even though the marketing such as toys etc is aimed at children).

Please do not change it anymore, and I will try to get IMDB to change it to M. Thanks. Shazza 11:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added a link to the correct http://www.villagecinemas.com.au/ web page in an edit summary. Samboy 02:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Need to Colomnize the Ratings List

The ratings list seems to be getting longer and longer, much like the cast list did a while back. Can somebody more experienced than me colomnize it so that it looks better? I tried, but showed that even by trying to cut and paste what I thought was the formatting in the cast list, I wasn't able to pull it off. Thanks. Donovan Ravenhull 12:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Critical reaction

I have temporarily edited out the comments made by Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, and A.O. Scott that are listed on the "Critical reaction" section until specific references and sources have been cited. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Too much plot

Hi. I had to wait until I had seen the movie before actually daring to read this article. And I was right, it pretty much gives away the entire thing. My point here is: is there an actual need to tell the entire plot of the movie in the article? That's not a "plot summary", that's the entire movie plot! Having spoilers is normal, I'm not saying this should be abolished, but I do feel it's way over the top to have the article go through the entire movie as it does right now. This is an encyclopedia, not a movie digest. I was about to add a cleanup tag to the article, but I thought that, since it was certain to stir polemics, I'd bring it up here first. What I propose is that we make the "plot summary" an actual summary, restricting it to the essentials of the plot: there's a war, Palpatine is Darth Sidious (what a surprise...), Anakin turns evil (duh!), the Empire wins in the end, the Jedi are wiped and Padmé dies giving birth to you-know-who. I would also suggest that we fill the space that would be vacated (since the narration of the plot is more than 50% of the article as it is now) with technical info (for instance, those spectacular special effects) and some other intel (we must be mindful of NPOV, but did anybody else feel that those lightsaber fights were not so well choreographed??). Regards, Redux 19:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Redux, while I too remained wary of looking up the wiki for the third installment of the star wars prequels, I also believe that the fact it details the entire film is an asset to the overall completeness and usefulness of the article. I know several people (myself included) who engage in regular star wars debates and write critical essays and i have to say that it is terribly inconvenient to have watch the entire movie over again to prove a point, and being able to look up the specifics of said fictional event on wiki is much more favorable. I suggest you write a summary as you say and insert it above the current plot synopsis. As for the technical aspects, I believe that would fit more under an article about ILM and Skywalker sound.

Also, I am disinclined to agree with you pertaining to the choreography of the light saber duels, I thought they where well thought out and wonderfully preformed.Iorek 18:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Humm, but if we are to keep the complete description of the movie plot (I can see your point...), I'd have to suggest a change in the article structure. As I have said, what's in there in not a "summary", or even a "synopsis", but rather the entire movie plot. So I was thinking we could change the subheader to "Plot", and then first insert an actual summary (as you suggested it, I could write it myself) as a sub-subheader, followed by another sub-subheader, which would contain the present text, but which should read "Plot Layout", or "Complete Plot", to let the reader know that in there will be the complete story of the movie, and if he/she wants to get just a summary, he/she should refer to the previous subcategory.
About the technical stuff, I disagree. I believe that what would go in a ILM or Skywalker Sound article would be stuff on the the technology itself that happened to have been used in the movie (how it was developed, how it works in general, etc.), but the specific things that were done in ROTS should definately go in this article. Regards, Redux 14:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I actully like the sound of this plan, and should you require any help id be glad to offer my assictence. As per the Technical things, i was confused at exaclty what you ment, and youve made it clearer to me, i agree, certain things belong in this article about the technical and special effects advancements in this film, beacuse these things also mark a movies place in historyIorek 17:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Scene of the "births"

When the children were born and the mask was placed on the body, I had the greatest cry I ever had in watching film. I say this as a male. What has our world come to? :-( -Amit

I experienced the moment of the mask installation as a very strong one, too, maybe the most grim and memorable in the whole movie. I believe the sadness of it is not particularly related to our times, though... Conf 15:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


"Inconsistencies / Unresolved Issues"

A number of the so called "Inconsitencies / Unresolved Issues" are at best irrelevent, and at worst pure nonsense with no evidence, so I removed most of the worst ones, which in fact was about 2/3 of them, Ill go into detail:

In Episode IV, Leia says she barely remembers her mother, but in Episode III, it is revealed her mother died soon after childbirth, so how could Leia remember her mother at all? Perhaps the power of the Force gives her this ability to recall her mother?

-This is perfectly acceptable, and offers at least a suggestion.

"If Leia is strong in the power of the Force like Luke, why does Vader not sense this when he is near her on Cloud City?"

Strong in the force is not just inherited, it is built up in a jedi through training, and through enthusiasm, as well as knowledge of the force. Leia goes the way of her mother, Padmé, in politics more than the mystic arts, so the reason why she may not seem so powerful is that she does not yet have a knowledge of the force, and is not yet well-trained in it, as Luke was. It is quite simple that Vader was monomaniacally focused on Luke because Luke was the more enthusiastic and believing in the force, thus making his presence known.

-no relevance to Revenge of the sith specifically

"When Luke and Leia are taken from Padmé, why is Luke taken to live with family and allowed to keep the name Skywalker? Wouldn't that make him relatively conspicuous, especially given the fame his father is gaining throughtout the galaxy?"

-I edited this one to include the possible explanation many fans have suggested.

"Why is pre-natal health care so poor that even a Senator such as Padmé is not aware that she is carrying twins until the moment of her delivery?"

-Not exactly made clear in the film, but Padme choose not to know, as shown in he novel, it doesnt take a genius to figure that out.

"Why does Padmé become so passive in Episode III compared to her active leadership style in Episode I and II?"

I'll leave this, but I think her pregnancy could be offered as an explanation, however I really dont know anything about pregnancy.

"If Jedi are aligned with the forces of good, why does Obiwan leave Anakin to (presumably) die a horrible death?"

Because "I will not kill Anakin...He is like my brother ... I cannot do it." this is more of a plot point than an "incosistency," so doesnt belong here.

"Since the Extended Universe reveals additional Jedi survive the purge besides Obiwan and Yoda, why do none of them appear in any of the original movies?"

Thats so irrelevent its stupid, nothing to do with the film.

"Why is the technology of the future (the original movies) seemingly less advanced that the prequels (clearly the realities of movie technology have created this discrepency). Lucas has gone some way to explaining this by adding additional footage into the original movies and by explaining that much of the action in the original movies occurs on more remote planets. Still, how remote can a planet be when hyperspace allows a traveler to journey there in hours?"

What technology is seemingly less advanced? Unless some proof besides "its not as shiny" is offered this point doesnt really belong here.

"Near the end of Episode III, a rebel commander orders C3PO's memory to be wiped, which explains why he does not seem to remember much when he appears in Episode IV. However, R2D2 is not mentioned in the command. Was his memory wiped as well?"

That was the whole point of that, R2's mind isnt wiped, he knows everything, Ill edit this to be an unresolved issue.

"R2D2 has the ability to jump out of spaceships in Episode III, but in the original movies he is far less mobile, needing help to get out. Similarly, it seems he would have had occassion in the original movies to repeat his Episode III performance with the grease that tripped up the enemy robots."

He doesnt jump out, Anakin presses a button and he is launched out, something that couldnt be done with an X wing because it would have broken him.

"What is the advantage of growing a clone army when they are seemingly no more effective than the robots they replace?"

The clones are clearly far more effective than the droid army.

"Why does lightsaber fighting get less active in the original movies?"

An incositency, but which everyone knows the answer to, so theres not much need for it here.

"In the whole prequel trilogy Anakin never wore the Jedi robes he appears wearing as a ghost in the new ending of the DVD of Episode VI from Star Wars Trilogy, unlike Obi-Wan and Yoda, who appear wearing the robes they had on when they died. Anakin, following Lucas’s explanation for him being young in this new ending, that he “died” when he turned to the Dark Side, should have appeared using the outfit he had on in Episode III."

Complaining about the "clothes" a ghost wears? Doesnt belong here anyway, should be in the rotj article if anywhere.

"In Episode IV, why do both Han Solo and an Imperial commander speak of the Force as if it is an unproved religion or a long-dead devotion, when the events of the Jedi purge are only history by about 18 years, when the Emporer himself is a practicioner of the Force, and when the Extended Universe reveals that many Jedi are still alive as well?"

Once again the EU has no relevance, and that would be a combination of Imperial propoganda and the fact that 99.999% of people in the galaxy will never have met a Jedi.

I can understand people have complaints and dislikes, but I hardly see how such nitpicking belongs in an already overlong article. I imagine there are other more important and more reasonable subjects that could be viewed as unresolved issues (lack of explanation for Qui Gon and thos force ghost issue possibly) that could be added in the place of those removed. Qu_klaani

OK, here's another one: how come it apparently takes 18 or so years to complete the fist Death Star, and only 5 or 6 at most to (almost) complete the second?
Having worked in fabrication jobs/shops I can tell you that making a second or third etc. of anything is generally faster than the manufacture of the original. One table structure that was built by the company that I worked for took ~6 months to make originally. Along the way changes were made and the drawings updated to reflect those changes. The second table took ~2-3 months. The third and final, even less. It's a common enough thing that I didn't question it when I saw the movies. Dismas 15:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although the plans for the 2nd Death Star did change significantly. It was much larger than the orgiinal. Still, I agree with Dismas that it is easy to think of explanations for why version 1 would have taken longer (budget reasons, worker strike, solar flare interference, etc). Johntex 16:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"With me or against me"

The sentence is not just echoing Bush, it is originally a fascist motto (Italian: O con noi o contro di noi), created in 1925 by Curzio Suckert in an article in which Benito Mussolini was attacked for not being determined enough to pursue the "fascist revolution". In those times, Mussolini had had to arrest some fascists who had committed some political crimes (remember, the fascist regime was not yet solid in 1925), and Suckert was a fascist extremist who wanted more tolerance for political violence. [http://www.cronologia.it/storia/a1925c.htm]

I would have added this myself, but there is an edit war on something else. I'll keep this here as a reminder. --Orzetto 11:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV: Political connotations.

There are some very serious NPOV transgressions in the section Political connotations. One of the most striking is the assertion that Anakin's quote, "from my point of view, the Jedi are evil" contradicts Obi-Wan's earlier assertion. Obi-Wan did not say that "Sith deal only in absolutes," but rather "Only Sith deal in absolutes." The difference here is profound, and the assertion that there is a contradiction is a charged statement at best, and is very disingenuous. May I recommend a complete scrapping of this section, pending a suitable rewrite? It is disappointing to me to see this kind of charged, factually inaccurate drivel survive a process of open critique. --Cgranade 04:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I never was thrilled with that section myself, but... Donovan Ravenhull 08:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Considering the overwhelming lack of response, I think that it's fair to make a couple of edits in the interest of toning down the section a bit. --Cgranade 07:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
how is that line about Sith and absolutes a political connotation, there's no analogy given that relates it to anything political, past or present?
I agree in toning this section down. I have taken the liberty of removing that paragraph concerning the "from my point of view, the Jedi are evil" quote because I do not see any political connotations there. I would prefer to revert this entire section to back to the 15:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC) version [1]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it seems lighter on content, and a little bit less grammatically correct. Furthermore, the "absolutes" line is still there. I think that paring down what we've got is probably going to be more productive. That's just my two cents, though, so whatever... I am just glad it isn't so charged anymore. --Cgranade 01:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I added the Great Purge from Stalin's era as a reference to the Great Jedi Purge. Both were ways of eliminating competition for political power. Please feel free to reword my description and someone deleted it and I would like to know why. --Marvelvsdc 03:20, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. If you can come up with an outside source that's fine, but if it's your own insight you can't add it. — Phil Welch 07:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"The Invisible Hand"

I always assumed that the name referenced the "invisible hand" of Chancellor Palpatine, secetly controlling everything on both sides of the war.Kuralyov 03:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly a clever double entendre. It is the Trade Federation we're talking about 65.167.23.134 19:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I personally find the hand of Palpatine being behind every action in the first trilogy more than a little absurd. In truth most countries stumble ass backwards into empire, or governments become vulnerable to being taken over by meglomaniacs through mismanagement or extended economic depression. It would have been cool if it was made clear that Palpatine really didn't care which side won the war because he positioned himself to win either way... ej 0617 2005

Uh. I'm not quite sure I follow you. Palpatine did manuver himself into a position where by he could become the galaxy's head-of-state. He did plan events and influence others to advance his agenda, However, he was able to do all of this because of the very things you cite in your message, Example: "extended economic depression" is implied by the trade-route debate that preceeded the first episode. The TRADE FEDERATION was an economic orgaization; as were the BANKING CLAN and COMMERCE GUILD. These organizations and others made up a significant amount of the Seperatist organization. And if the bureaucracy of the Repulic was NOT being mismanaged at that time -- could you please tell me how that could be the case? The Senate's solution to the Naboo crisis was to appoint a special committee to talk about it! -- Jason Palpatine 29 June 2005 07:10 (UTC)

Lucas' cameo role

Wasn't he in the background of a Senate scene in The Phantom Menace, also?Kuralyov 03:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Nope. TheCoffee 12:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The only cameo Lucas had in EP3 was a voice synthesis, where he recorded his cough during the filming and gave it to General Grievous. --Cioxx 15:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, he also played Baron Papanoida at the opera scene... *anonymous!*

Future Plans

Ratings

Is the list of ratings for each country really necessary? Most film entries don't have such a list, because it's unreliastic to include a ratings for every country, we should stick to US ratings or internation ratings (if there are any) because most ratings are similar. Can we delete the list since it clutters up the page and only confuses the reader? Switcher (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Many people contributed to that section. I think it may well stay as long as, say, the movie is screened in cinemas? It can't really confuse anyone anyhow, and it's not a lot of code. Conf 19:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the ratings list should stay. Wikimedia tries very hard to not be tied to a specific language or nation, and things like this ratings list are concrete evidence of that effort. In fact, I think that this should be encoded as a general policy. --Cgranade 07:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Future paring down

While there is very high interest in this movie right now (including by me), this is going to fade away over the next year. It seems to me that when that time comes, this article could be edited down to less than half its size. The only question then would be when, which in my opinion would be about 3 months after the DVD release. Thoughts? Flames? Death threats? Donovan Ravenhull 11:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I think we should not destroy information; eventually, this article should be split up in to several articles, but all of the information in the article right now is notable and encyclopedic. Samboy 06:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Now, young Skywalker … you will die. The Emperor 15:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thats a relief, I thought I would have to host the Ewok Celebrity Roast of Jar Jar Binks. Death is far kinder. Donovan Ravenhull 19:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh my God! Certainly it is! :-)) The Emperor 22:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think no movie article should be longer than any factual article. This should be probably no more than a paragraph or two of plot, and a drastic reduction in all the other areas. Why do you need a complete casting list, and why is a critic review relevant? Tell the movie, who made it, a VERY concise plot of what happens, and let anyone wanting to read more about it consult the available link. My apologies, I don't know how to post my username to sign this...

Disambig

Should there be a disambiguation to the video game, considering the titles are the same? 216.186.51.2 18:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added the disambiguation to the top of the article, though I never played the game, so I did not create the article. --Admiral Roo 18:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Jedi = Pinochet ?

I'm removing that out of context line. Chilean democracy was indeed destroyed by Pinochet and his band of thugs. Messhermit 02:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Character Importance Indication

A lot of the characters in the "Cast" list are nonspeaking roles,or very close to it...I think these should be indicated as such.Also,neither here not at IMDb does there appear to be an identification of a one-line character,the boy who addresses Anakin/Darth Vader at the Jedi Temple before getting slaughtered.If seen-but-not-heard characters rate mention,why doesn't he?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 22:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, we should add as much as possible to the list. Anyone else who agrees with us or with Copperchair please say so here so we can stop wasting time editing back and forth. Sahriar 28 June 2005 20:37 (UTC)

I also think it's quite nonsensical to copy other sources' shortcomings (like Padme without any second name, or Beru without "Lars"). Just let's not make it like "if you are not with me, you are my enemy". Conf 29 June 2005 11:49 (UTC)

I think that, being this an encyclopedia, it should have the most accurate information possible regarding the film credits. After all, this is not a "fan boy" page, it is a serious one. Copperchair 1 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)

Your reasoning is fine, but the section is "Cast", not "Credits". We know you believe that only credits that appear in the official credits should be listed, but then we are leaving out a lot of characters and actors that are important to the film. You should be happy we're not including every single extra, only people who have some signifigance to the film. KramarDanIkabu 1 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
Actually,his reasoning is flawed.We are trying to introduce greater accuracy than the official credits contain,and he keeps removing it (and doesn't care that he's the only one who does that).--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 1 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Accuracy = "invented"?! In order to be accurate you have to take your information from the official source, in this case, the movie's end credits. Copperchair 2 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

Copperchair, what you appear to be saying is that people who aren't officially credited weren't actually involved in the movie. Who, would you say, provided the voice of Darth Vader, considering that he's not in official credits? KramarDanIkabu 3 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

No, I'm not, but they were not credited for some reason. Period. Copperchair 4 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)

Judging from our discussion on his talk page, the only way to resolve this is to ban him. But I'm new around here so I'm not really sure how to report him to the authorities, so one of you should probably do it. Sahriar 1 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
What I meant was that I understand his reasoning but disagree with it. I agree with you that we are trying to provide an accurate cast listing. KramarDanIkabu 2 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)

Accurate as in "invented"?! Copperchair 2 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

If you don't like my updates, then submit the conflict to a Mediation Committee. They will settle the conflict. Copperchair 2 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

Copperchair, are you suggesting that no wikipedia page should ever list uncredited cast-members? john k 2 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)

Of course they should be listed, but in a separate section (not Cast). It could be under Trivia. Copperchair 2 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

And what about uncredited directors? They're not in official credits listings, either. john k 2 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)

The same goes for directors. Copperchair 2 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

In some movies, fairly prominent cameos are often uncredited. Do you really think that Sean Connery was not part of the cast of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves? john k 3 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

So put it in the Trivia! Copperchair 4 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Why is it trivia? If it is a fact that a particular actor played a particular role, but it is uncredited, how is he not part of the cast? A cast list is not the same thing as a credits list. BTW, I agree that it's stupid to list characters where the actor is unknown. john k 4 July 2005 06:04 (UTC)

Its Trivia because it is not mentioned on the credits. Copperchair 4 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)

The only thing that's trivial about it is their omission from the official credits.Which trivializes the official credits!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 5 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

So you're saying that if the actual director of a movie gives credit to Alan Smithee, or a main character is uncredited for some reason, that it is not of any interest who that character is played by, or who the real director is. For Alan Smithee movies, should we just say that the director is Alan Smithee, and only note in a special trivia section who the real director is? The fact that George Cukor and Sam Wood between them directed probably more than half of Gone with the Wind is unimportant - we should just list Victor Fleming as the director and have done with it? I truly don't understand your perspective at all. Who is credited is obviously a fact worth noting, and uncredited actors and other people involved with a movie should be noted to be uncredited. But that is the only difference I see between a credited and an uncredited performance. Why is it untrivial to note that Sarah Alexandra played the highly memorable character "Little Girl" in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, but trivial to note that Sean Connery played King Richard? john k 5 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)

With KramarDanIkabu's proposal now the uncredited cast can be listed, yet preserving the movie's credits. Copperchair 6 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

Alright Copperchair, I understand why you're taking things like voice of Darth Vader, voice of Commander Gree out, but why are you taking the Amidala out of Padme or the Lars out of Beru? In addition, why do you keep changing the link to Apailana to a link to Queen instead? KramarDanIkabu 5 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)

Because that's how the names appear in the end credits. Copperchair 6 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)

Copperchair, we strive for accuracy, not necessarily officiality. We want to represent the cast of this movie in the most complete way as possible, by giving proper names to characters and by listing those who play an important role, but were uncredited. It doesn't really matter that certain people were uncredited in a movie. If they were their acting, then they were in the movie, and thus must be considered part of the cast. All we ask is to be able to list important roles that were uncredited. All other roles will go in other sections, such as the "cameos" section. George Lucas' character in the opera was not an important character so we put it in a section separate from the main roles. Luke, Leia, and the voice of Darth Vader are very important and noteworthy roles to this article, and the star wars saga in general. 5 July 07:27

Please stop reverting the cast list as it says in the editing conflict template. Copperchair has not relented in his position so at this point either he has to give up or get banned or something. In the meantime, we have to keep the page as it was when the edit conflict message was put up there, even if it is to Copperchair's liking. If you want to have it the right way, then get mediation on it. KramarDanIkabu 6 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

Copperchair, I have a new suggestion. How about rather than incorporating the unofficial credits into the credits, we split them into two sections labeled Offical Credits and Non-credited, respectively? That way we can keep your insistance on having offical credits there, but also have the non-credited actors and actresses listed under Cast as well? KramarDanIkabu 6 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

I just added an uncredited role myself to prove I agree with KramarDanIkabu's proposal. Copperchair 6 July 2005 06:12 (UTC)

I regret to inform that people keep adding uncredited roles to the Offcial Cast. I have had to revert it three times now. I have kept my word, and have even added uncredited roles to its section, but it seems some people just don't get it. Copperchair 7 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)

Mabye thats because pretty much everyone doesn't want the cast section to be the way you want it.--LlamaMan 7 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

This is not about me, it is about observing the division KramarDanIkabu proposed, which I have done. Copperchair 7 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Papal Election Reference

I've cut the following sentence fragment out of the end of the article:

"The election of Pope Benedict XVI had also been a very popular subject at the time of the movie release and the new(..)" my ellipsis

Looks like someone forgot to finish a thought when they published it. I don't object in any way, I'm just removing the sentence fragment; feel free to fix it and put it back in. Fernando Rizo 01:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This fragment was left when someone (user had only an IP address) cut half of this article out. I don't understand why that was done with little or no discussion. boloboffin 11:23, 21 Jun 2005 (CST)

3D release?

What this about a 3D release? I mean the movie uses 3D effects already. -- User:Psi edit

there is a different version: digital 3D edition, which is only available in the cinemas which hv suitable equipment. Episode IV - VI will re-release in digital 3D in a few years. Darth Kevinmhk 10:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mirroring from other films

I think this section should be shortened to only relevent similarities that aren't just coincidences or things that are necessary for the story to work. In particular, these should definately be removed:

  • Anakin and Obi-Wan fly their fighter craft through tight obstacles in an enemy ship, similar to Episodes I, IV and VI.
  • Anakin and Obi-Wan are sent on a daring rescue mission against an enemy fortress but all is not as it appears (Episode IV).
  • The planet name Utapau was Lucas's original name for Tatooine.
  • Anakin's arm is cut off by Obi-Wan. Also, in III, Mace Windu and Count Dooku both get one or both hands cut off. A character has an arm or a portion of an arm cut off in each of Episodes II, IV, V and VI. (come on, is there any star wars movie where someone's arm doesn't get cut off?))
  • During the rescue of Palpatine Anakin dangles perilously over a seemingly endless chasm, foreshadowing the death of Palpatine in Episode VI. (Anakin hanging in an elevator shaft foreshadows Palpatine's death 3 movies later?)
  • The attack of the droid starfighters is similar to the scene in Return of the Jedi when hundreds of TIE squadrons attack the Rebel fleet.

And maybe these should also be removed:

  • After fighting and defeating Anakin, Obi-Wan picks up Anakin's lightsaber before leaving. This lightsaber is later given to Luke in Episode IV, "Your father's lightsaber". (or at least, remove the last comment)
  • When Obi-Wan and Yoda return to the Jedi Temple and discover the corpses of their fellow Jedi, closer inspection of the bodies reveals that not all of them were killed by Clone stormtroopers, that a lightsaber was used as well, implicating one of the Jedi as a betrayer. Obi-Wan decides to look at the security holograms despite Yoda's warning that he will find it painful, and he is dumbstruck to find Anakin led the massacre. This is paralleled in Episode IV when Luke, Obi-Wan and the droids come upon the ruins of the Jawas' sandcrawler and find all of them slaughtered. Luke at first suspects the Sandpeople, but Obi-Wan's closer inspection shows that Imperial stormtroopers were actually responsible. Luke realizes what this means and races home, despite Obi-Wan's warning that he might not like what he finds ... the family farm sacked, and the charred bodies of his aunt and uncle. (this ones too long, so if its not removed, it should atleast be shortened)
  • Obi-Wan and Anakin duel in front of a window with a striking resemblance to the window seen behind Luke and Vader in their duel on Cloud City (Episode V). (I'm not sure about this one, but I don't remember this window from either movie) (It's similar, because that window is red that it makes the room enclosed, like the one in Empire Strike Back.)
  • When Obi-Wan makes his rendezvous with the Tantive IV, the ship he is flying is swallowed up by the Tantive IV's underbelly. This echoes the ultimate fate of the Tantive IV itself (Episode IV)

Please let me know what you think. Sahriar 00:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I agree with all of those being deleted, except for:

  • The planet name Utapau was Lucas's original name for Tatooine.
  • After fighting and defeating Anakin, Obi-Wan picks up Anakin's lightsaber before leaving. This lightsaber is later given to Luke in Episode IV, "Your father's lightsaber".

...because i think both of these are notable. The first because it shows George Lucas re-using left over parts from the old movies, and teh second because it's something not alot of people will catch, and it shows connections to the old movies and shows how hard those working on Revenge of the Sith were working on continuity. --Quadraxis 02:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Credits

People need to get a grip. I don't see why some fanboys are so incessant about ninserting their own trivial pet theory in here. Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader; hence they arte the same person. Palpatine, I don't see how anyone can argue the point that he's a different character just because he switched his title. Tell me - in Ep. I, did he bcome a different character when he rose from senator to chancellor? You're all ridiculous. Kuralyov 8 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

The article will soon be protected if this edit war continues. Furthermore, anyone violating the WP:3RR will receive a block (the "vandalism" clause does not apply here as it is a content dispute, not vandalism). violet/riga (t) 9 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)

I agree with Kuralyov and have been reverting fanboys' edits for weeks... Copperchair 07:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Coppercahir, one thing that you cannot deny about us fanboys, though, is that we love to add details to the articles. I, myself in the last few days have spent much time, in fact a little too much time, working on the star wars articles (particularly the spin-offs). As far as the character of Anakin goes in the cast listing, he is an individual character. He was a completely different character than Darth Vader. Just because they are physically the same character doesn't mean they are mentally or philosophically. Yes, my ideas may be a little too fanboyish, but, that is how many of us fanboys see Anakin/Vader. We don't mind you keeping an official cast list, as long as we can give uncredited characters mention in the uncredited list, such as Luke, Leia, Vader, Voice of Vader. Now, on the issue of Palpatine. He was listed as Supreme Chancellor Palpatine in the official credits, and I agree that it should be left that way, in the official credits. However, I feel that when he became Emperor, this gave Ian McDiarmid an additional role, because an Emperor is different than a Chancellor. He has different characteristics. The same with listing Darth Sidious. He also has different characteristics. We will allow you to keep your official credits list, as long as we can keep our nonofficial credits list.

You're both wrong.
To include "Darth Vader" in the credits makes sense ONLY as an addition to a SINGLE credit line for Hayden Christensen,and to add "Emperor" or "Darth Sidious" makes sense ONLY as an addition to a SINGLE credit line for Ian McDiarmid.That a character has multiple names or jobs or undergoes life changes does NOT add up to creating an additional role,but it does NEED to be mentioned regardless of the official credits.
I realize this doesn't fit with the desire to separate the official credits worshipped in all their deliberate incompleteness by Copperchair from the "Uncredited roles",but the latter should include only those roles not credited by any name to any performer.
I continue to maintain that there should be one list augmenting and expanding upon the official credits,which is explicitly introduced as such and as not being the official credits but something better for reasons stated.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Alright, just to add my two cents, it would be fair to give him 2 credits iff he played 2 distincitve characters. As an example, see the Austin Powers series where Mike Myers plays multiple roles that are completely different (and a lot of the time on screen and the same time). However, it is not so, you can argue that Anakin changes as he turns to the dark side, but he is still the same character. Look up dynamic character in a dictionary. They are still the same character, though his emotions/feelings have changed, he is still Anakin. Plus, you have absolutely no sources that list Darth Vader/Emperor Palpatine while IMDB, Yahoo, The Official Star Wars site all give them just one listing. Until you can find some source that lists them seperate, I am inclined to give them both only one credit. Sasquatch′TalkContributions 23:40, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I have a suggestion. We can keep the official credits list complete and unedited, and the way Copperchair wants them. I will allow that. The non-credited roles, however, can list Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine and credit the roles to the actors, but indicate that that is a differentr name for that character, or alter ego of the character, but is still the same character. I'm open to some sort of compromise along those lines. Another suggestion is that we could make a third and final category called "SAlternate Character Names" and credit the characters to have those names, as well as the ones in the official credits. Question? Comments? Adamwankenobi, 20 July 2005

I agrre with Adamwankenobi, on this one. Copperchair 06:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Still doesn't warrent a seperate entry, how about we just write Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader and Supreme Chancellor Palatine/Darth Sidious? Sasquatch′TalkContributions 05:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Well, as long as you two agree, let's get some other input from other users then so we can reach a consensus and get this over with. Sasquatch′TalkContributions 21:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
As an outsider who came from the RfC page, I think Adamwankenobi's suggestion is the best path towards a compromise. - Gauge 03:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I say let's stick to Adamwankenobi's suggestion that we make a third category called "Alternate Character Names" and credit the characters to have those names. Copperchair 06:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

that being said, I will request page unprotection at WP:AN per usual. Sasquatch′TC 22:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I've unprotected the page. However for future reference, WP:RFPP is the place to request both protection and unprotection. Thryduulf 23:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Sasquatch′TC 00:45, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oy!

Hate to be semantic, but Darth Vader's rather vocal scream of "NOOOOOO!!" upon learning of Padme's death has been widely lampooned and criticised as campy and inappropriate following the release of the film. Luke's rather vocal scream of "NOOOOO!!" upon learning that Darth Vader is his father was also similarly lampooned and poorly received during its release in 1980. This style of scream is found in every Star Wars movie, and mentioned at least once in each of the films. isn't true...the scream wasn't even *in* the original release, muchless poorly received ;)

Look, the "NO" SCREAM is found in every Star Wars movie, it's just because you weren't paying attention to the other films, other than Episodes III and V. Sure, the screams of both Vader and Luke in such films were the most prominent and the most lampooned, but these are basically irrelevant.

WP:LAME

I've added this page to the list of the lamest edit wars ever. It's in the "Miscellaneous lameness" section. Borisblue 11:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mirroring from other Star Wars films

Whe Obi-wan jumps in the middle of the droid army in Utapau, he says "Hello there" to Grievous. This is the first line Obi-wan says in Episode IV, to R2, after he scares the sand people. Daniduc 03:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Parallel to the shuttle disaster?

I thought of one more thing to add to the section that has the parallels to post 9/11 stuff: every time I see the Invisible Hand reenter and breakup into Coruscant's atmosphere, I can't help but thinking that it is very close to footage of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Is this something that should be added? --Ctachme 05:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it's original research. — Phil Welch 05:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary currently isn't a summary; it's 44 paragraphs long. I think that real summary should be created and integrated into the lead section of the article. The 'plot summary' section should probably be left as is, but retitled 'plot'.

(I'd do it myself, but I sense there is some hypersensitivity concerning this article.) ike9898 15:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I originally created the summary around April, when everybody was clamoring for details about the plot. Admittedly, it's too long for an encyclopedia article. It's currently at about 2500 words, I'll try to trim it down to 500 to 1000 words. Coffee 17:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Episode VII

Are there any official quotes where Lucas says there will absolutely never ever be an Episode 7, 8 and 9? Skeeter08865 21:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. See Sequel trilogy (Star Wars). The Wookieepedian 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Biblical allusions

I was thinking of putting this into the liteary allusions sections, but I'd like some comments and a quote check first.

"The film makes a number of seemingly biblical references, intrestingly it is mostly the Sith who make them. These possible references include: "It is done" "I do not know you anymore" "If you are not with us, you are against us" ( Though the last one might be more of a political reference to George Bushes use of the same quote)."


Original Trilogy vs. original trilogy

I've noticed that there is some dispute as to whether "original trilogy" is a noun (thus indicating it should be typed in lowercase) or a proper noun (thus indicating it should be capitalized). Is there any consensus as to how the term should be used? I personally feel it is not a proper noun, but I'm not sure if that's a majority or minority opinion. At any rate, we should try to be consistent across pages. – Mipadi 20:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT a proper noun. I'm going to go through the other five movies' pages here in a minute and fix any references I find there as well.—chris.lawson (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Conflicting info in Trivia section

I've removed the following because it seems the two "facts" contradict each other:

  • Being six-foot-one or 1.85 metres (compared to David Prowse, who is six-foot-seven or 2 metres), Hayden Christensen had to look through the mouthpiece of the Darth Vader costume, which itself featured shoe lifts and muscle suit. "Being inside makes you feel powerful and strong — it's absolutely incredible", he recalls.
  • The Darth Vader costumes used in the film were created specifically to fit Hayden Christensen, rather than use the old costumes from the original trilogy. Camera tricks are used to make it appear Christensen is as tall as David Prowse, who played Vader in the Original Trilogy.

They can't both be true as written. Either the costume fit Hayden Christensen, or it didn't. Which was it?—chris.lawson (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they should be merged, but they are both completely alright. The Christensen's costume was made in this way, because he is shorter than Prowse. From the outside, it had to look like the original; however it needed certain enhancements to fit Christensen inside. Conf 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
My problem with it lies mostly in this phrasing: "Camera tricks are used to make it appear Christensen is as tall as David Prowse" If Hayden was wearing a suit that was deliberately larger than he is, why bother with camera tricks at all? If the suit is the same size as David Prowse, you don't need camera tricks. I still don't buy it.—chris.lawson (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so that leaves us with:

  • The Darth Vader costumes used in the film were created specifically to fit Hayden Christensen, rather than use the old costumes from the original trilogy. The new costumes featured shoe lifts and a muscle suit. Being six-foot-one or 1.85 metres (compared to David Prowse, who is six-foot-seven or 2 metres), Hayden Christensen had to look through the mouthpiece of the Darth Vader costume. "Being inside makes you feel powerful and strong — it's absolutely incredible", he recalls.

Is everyone cool with that? — Phil Welch 01:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Is that even true? It seems rather ridiculous to build a custom suit for the guy and not give him a proper eye hole. It's not as though he does much in the Vader suit, so it seems more likely that camera tricks and/or Lucas's love of CG played a role here, much more so than some prosthetic suit. The point, though, is that clearly someone who added this didn't cite a source, which is why no one has any idea what the real story is.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure there's some data on it somewhere, if anyone wants to do a 30 minute research project. But yeah, they actually did build a suit and put Hayden in it, according to a featurette on the Star Wars DVD box set. — Phil Welch 03:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

A big goofy prosthetic suit, or a properly fitted suit? If it's the former, I see no reason to suspect camera trickery at all. Seems the DVD is authoritative enough, so absent a mention of camera trickery specifically, we should probably go with the option that is explained.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't noticed this "camera tricks" part, it doesn't make sense indeed. The way Phil has rewritten it above seems right to me. We may also restore the quote reference (http://www.thefreeman.com/entertainment/story-20050521-30725.html). However, are you sure about "costumes" (plural)? I've been thinking there was just one. Conf 21:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

ME AGAIN: The article on starwars.com reads:

When I walked past in full costume, the crew's eyes would light up, but a few of them had a glimmer of fear in their eyes as well," Christensen chuckles. They would take two steps back and lower their heads a bit."
However while wearing the intimidating outfit, Christensen told the Celebration III audience that seeing through the eyes of a fallen hero wasn't easy, in fact he had trouble seeing much at all.

I believe the phrasing "seeing through the eyes of a fallen hero" is solely a metaphor... what a mess :-)

"I had limited vision through the mask," Christensen admits. "I sat higher up in the costume due to the shoe lifts, so I had to look through the mouthpiece instead of the eyes. I didn't see much as Vader."

I think he says "so" ("so I had to look") when he means "and". However, it's clear that he indeed had to look through the mouthpiece. I've inserted a slightly modified Phil's version with two references. Conf 15:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing things up. — Phil Welch 18:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice to know I did! Conf 19:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes to this article

I think this article has beome too long and ungainly for its own good. Bigger does not mean better — there's a difference between data and knowledge. I'd like to propose that we cut down on some unencyclopedic sections of the article.

  1. Remove ratings section entirely. It was created in the euphoria leading up to the film's release where every tiny bit of official information was a big deal. No other film article has nor needs such a section like this.
  2. Cut down on cast section. It should be reduced to the major and somewhat-major characters. Perhaps we can change the section to "Casting" and change it from list to paragraph form.
  3. Remove opening crawl. That should be summaried in the plot section.
  4. Rewrite excessively long plot summary. The current one is too detailed. The guideline at Wikipedia:Fiction says to keep it reasonably short.

I just wanted people's opinions before changing. We should emulate the style of the film-related featured articles like Casablanca (film) and Sunset Boulevard (film). Heck, maybe we can even make this a featured article. :) Coffee 19:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that only the plot summary should be changed. It is much too long. The ratings section, though, was contributed by many people leading up to the release, as someone pointed out earlier, and should be kept. The opening crawl section gives unity to all the star wars film articles. This is what makes them so unique. Jusr because there is a specific style to other film articles, doesn't mean the star wars articles should be changed. Adamwankenobi 19:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I realized that the other Star Wars articles have that "opening crawl" section too... that's something I don't agree with either. I mean, that's well and good for Star Wars fans, but when a casual reader wants to find information about the movie and sees and "Opening crawl" section (before any other section, and without explanation), it can make the article seem a bit daunting and confusing.
As for the ratings, I don't think there was really proper consensus to keep in the discussion above. One person proposed removing it, a second person seemed to be alright with removing it once the film was out of theaters, and the third person was more opposed to keeping only the US rating. Coffee 20:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, as far as the ratings go, A New Hope actually also has a section for ratings. Removing the Revenge of the Sith ratings would bring up the importance or place for the ratings in that article. The opening crawl, I believe, is something that definately should stay. The Star Wars series was a unique set of movies. As you know, they have an opening very different than that of most other films in that they do not list actors' names or have anything but an opening crawl. And that leads directly into the movie. Most who will come to this page, fan or not, will have likely had knowledge of the series in some form or another, and recognize the idea of an opening crawl. Adamwankenobi 20:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
We at least agree on shortening the plot summary. I've brought it down to a relatively lean 1000 words (down from the previous 2600 word "summary"). I actually hoped to get it down to about 500 words or so, but I found that there's a lot of detail I couldn't left out. Coffee 11:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
In addition to the revised summary, I think that the first paragraph should have a very short plot summary. The lead section is supposed to give a rapid overview introducing the basic facts of the subject. ike9898 15:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. I agree that all the articles should not have rediculousluy long "summaries" like this one had, which actually told you a short story form of the movie! I do feel, though, that eventually, all the star wars films (including the spin-off films) should be placed into a certain format. Adamwankenobi 15:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I considered putting a one-sentence synopsis in the lead section ("The film revolves around the seduction of Anakin Skywalker to the Dark Side of the Force, culminating in his transformation into Darth Vader"), but even that might be considered a major spoiler by some. Coffee 16:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that is too bad. You pretty much find out that much from the advertisements. If people are going to be that sensitive to spoiling, I'd say the burden is on them to isolate themselves from any infomation about the plot (by for example, not reading encyclopedia articles on the subject!) ike9898 13:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
How about we move the cast section to after the plot section (in all 6 movie pages)? "Opening crawl - plot - cast" makes more sense to me than having the cast section divide the opening crawl from the plot. Coffee 16:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. The only weakness is that this order it would put spoiler info (plot) earlier in the article than non-spoiler info (cast). ike9898 13:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

What's everyone's opinion on the opening crawl? I don't have one but I think it deserves more discussion until it's removed from the article. (We should also be consistent across all six articles, so let's centralize discussion here to take effect on all articles.) — Phil Welch 01:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


Mention should be made that McDiarmid and Oz were the actors most praised by critics. Current article puts all focus on Christensen and Portman.

Cast list dispute

In an attempt to head off yet another ridiculous, embarassing, and childish edit war over the content (or, more importantly, the amount of content) of this page's cast list, I think that the issue should first be discussed here, so we can get a variety of opinions, and reach a consensus, rather than watching the opinions of two or three users get edited in and out of the article. – Mipadi 20:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to make the same argument on this talk page. Qaz 20:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.
Fact: Wikipedia =/= IMDB. No dispute there. So, 'kay, we don't need their cast list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
OK, so, Wikipedia is not the IMDB. True. Wikipedia is more than the IMDB. Adamwankenobi 20:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Or, we could consider NOT filling it with any information, regardless of how notable it is. Fact of the Day: A list of Ewokian actors =/= encyclopediatic. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The ewok actors still acted in ROTJ, and deserve the credit. Adamwankenobi 20:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Why? Are you telling me that we must list every single person in the movies? So go ahead. It's a small list or no list, because I have a feeling you CAN'T get the names of everyone in the crowd at the funeral in Ep. III. And, let me remind you we're NOT trying to be IMDB, who lists this information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
We can only give credit to all who we can confirm. That is the best we can do. Take this star wars article for example. It is made from all actors who were in the movie. In that case all involved were documented and credited. Adamwankenobi 21:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with Adamwankenobi. As an encyclopedia, it should contain all the cast featured in the films. And the cast already was the subject of a discussion (about credited/uncredited roles [[2]]), and we determined to have the cast as it appears in the movies, plus non-credited roles. Copperchair 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


Summary of arguments so far (if you think I'm misrepresenting you go ahead and correct me:

For complete cast list (arguments by User:Adamwankenobi)

  • The articles should include every member of the cast, major and minor.
  • "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is made up of content, including both major and minor details." edit summary for this diff
  • "All cast members hold an equal importance." edit summary for this diff
  • If the cast list is abridged, "we should call the cast list, "cast summary" or something similar saying that the list is not that of a complete cast." edit summary for this diff

For abridged cast list (arguments by User:A Link to the Past and User:Philwelch)

  • An unabridged cast list is primary source material, which Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not IMDB. [3], [4], [5]
  • "Just as we have a plot summary instead of a longer accounting of the plot we should have a shorter cast listing." edit summary for this diff
  • Rebuttal to the notion that "all cast members hold an equal importance": This argument is ridiculous. Bobo the extra, playing Jawa #7, is not as important as Mark Hamill. Guard Getting Thrown Against The Wall By Yoda #2 is not as important a role as Palpatine. [6]
  • Rebuttal to the notion that we should indicate that the cast list is incomplete: This argument is similarly fallacious. It would insult the intelligence of our readers to tell them, in effect, "there are more than sixteen characters in Revenge of the Sith". [7]

As you can see a great bit of discussion has already occurred through the edit summaries, which is a big reason I hold the (heretical) view that revert wars can be friendly and constructive. Indeed, they are the first stage in resolving a conflict—by introducing opening arguments and affirming that a dispute of some weight and substance exists. This isn't to say that there are never aggressive edit wars out of bad faith, but I don't think this is an example of that. That said, I think it's more productive to take the discussion to a talk page when edit summaries cease to be a useful forum for them. Anyway, if anyone wants to add arguments I'd be pleased to continue this discussion here. I'd also like to centralize discussion here, with the intent that it applies to all six Star Wars articles. — Phil Welch 20:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Extras are generally not credited, but if they are, they were for some reason, and that is the way the filmmaker wanted the film to be. Thereby, if a "Jawa #7"-like credit appears in the film, we should respect that it was included. Copperchair 00:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Support abridged cast listing

  • For the record, User:Qaz has expressed support for the abridged cast list. [8] I moved that down here because I wanted the above refactoring to remain a summary of arguments instead of a vote. — Phil Welch 21:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I support a short cast list of only important characters. And I will bet my left arm that anyone who isn't biased towards Star Wars will agree. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to throw in my support for an abridged cast list as well. Admittedly, I can see both sides of the argument here, and I can understand Adamwankenobi's view that everyone deserves credit. However, I feel that a list of many of the extras and "less important" characters is not encyclopedic; I haven't been convinced that anyone, especially non-Star Wars fans, will come to this page (or the article for any of the movies) looking for the names of all the Ewoks at the "destruction of the Death Star" celebration, or for the name of a bunch of clone troopers who were standing around in the background. I especially feel that extras who were not credited in the film itself warrant being credited on this page. Leave that sort of thing to a Star Wars fansite. – Mipadi 21:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to reiterate that we're trying to create consensus here and not just vote. However, in practice, "consensus" means "supermajority" here on Wikipedia, and four to one is and 80% supermajority—much more than has been required in the past to, say, change significant Wikipedia policies. — Phil Welch 22:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Me too, abridge the cast listing. I pray we don't have to have a discussion like this every time Adamwankenobi insists on his version of the article. Coffee 02:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the abridged version. The other version is way too friggin long, period. Put it up on a Web site and link to it if you must, but I see no reason to expand on the official listing here.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as well. I'm a Star Wars fan, but there's a reason why there's a Star Wars Wiki... let's keep it trimmed. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support this is an encyclopedia, not imdb. --Phroziac (talk) 01:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Support full cast listing

  • I (Adamwankenobi) support that the most complete list available be created on the page. What I mean is, I don't want it just copied and pasted from IMDB.com OR to be shortened. I want the list to include all known actors who has a part in the movie. This is what we have done, by giving an officially given list, then added on to the list with any information we could confirm elsewhere. We have given credit to actors such as who played Luke and Leia in Ep3, or the fact that Ian McDirmis Plays the Emperor in the revised 2004 version of Empire. Adamwankenobi 21:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You can still give credit to Ian McDiarmid in ESB, with a footnote that says he's only in the DVD version. Coffee 03:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Copperchair has recently reverted to the full cast listing [9], however, his edit summary labeled the abridgment as "vandalism". Whether he was truly mistaken or is simply continuing his practice of writing deceptive edit summaries is unknown. — Phil Welch 03:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Always attacking me, don't you? If information is deleted without a consensus it is vandalism, even you should know that. And I wasn't aware a discussion existed until Mipadi was kind enough to send me a message. Copperchair 00:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, not vandalism. --Phroziac (talk) 01:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Phroziac's right. It's a true statement that Copperchair often writes deceptive edit summaries. I wasn't attacking you for the sake of attacking you, I was explaining the context of your edit summary. If you don't want to be accused of writing deceptive edit summaries, cease writing deceptive edit summaries. — Phil Welch 01:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue is settled

With an apparent vote of 6 to 2, or 75% assent, the clear consensus is to leave the cast listing in its abridged form. Those in disagreement are always free to re-open this discussion again, but it will be a waste of time unless they can get a couple more people on their side. — Phil Welch 03:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I feel like we should give it some more time for discussion. When I opened up discussion in the talk page, I hadn't meant for it to be declared over and done with by a single person after an arbitrary amount of time decided upon solely by that single person. – Mipadi 05:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we've had a number of people comment and a pretty clear consensus emerge. If there were more than a couple people disagreeing it would be one thing and warrant more discussion, but I think it's obvious to everyone where the consensus is. I don't think there's any need to belabor the issue any further. — Phil Welch 05:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

As always, I disagree with Phil. There is no rush to take a final decision. Copperchair 00:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not generally, but if there's an obvious consensus there's nothing wrong with saying so. I wasn't declaring the discussion over by any means—I don't have that authority—I was simply stating the obvious, namely that there was a clear consensus. Since right now the supermajority has risen to 80% (which is 10% more than has been required, historically, to make significant policy changes). — Phil Welch 01:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I'm finding it hard to believe that Copperchair has become the hero. KramarDanIkabu 01:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for deciding who's in

It seems pretty much settled that we'll use an abridged cast list. I think I have a good idea for a guideline as to who's "major" enough to be included... In each of the films major acting and production credits (just before the main crawl of closing credits), a bunch of cast members are named as "starring" or "co-starring". For all of the films', this is just about 13-15 people. We could use that as a guideline to hopefully lessen future debate. Coffee 12:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as long as we list such uncredited actors as Ian McDiarmid in Empire as The Emperor in the DVD version. Adamwankenobi 13:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we should only put what Coffee suggested, otherwise, the list will begin to grow again. Copperchair 08:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify... I meant all the acting credits that come before "scrolling" closing credits. In A New Hope for instance, aside from the main "starring" credits (Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing, and Alec Guinness), it includes co-stars Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew, David Prowse, Jack Purvis, Eddie Byrne, and James Earl Jones. Coffee 19:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

A Link to the Past keeps adding Wedge, despite the consensus reached here. Copperchair 00:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no consensus here, and I agree with Link that Wedge should be added. — Phil Welch 01:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, at no point was there any form of consensus on who shouldn't be added. You took "include these characters" as "only include these characters". - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Coffee said "all the acting credits that come before "scrolling" closing credits" should be included, and Wedge is not one of them.Copperchair 01:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that because Coffee didn't list Wedge, the articles can't use it? There is NOT a consensus as you said. It's two to three if you even want to count Adamwankenobi, and along with that, assume that Coffee doesn't think Wedge belongs. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Wedge is pretty darned important. He should be in there.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not about importance, it is about order. There has to be a pattern to follow when we decide who's in. In this case, that pattern is the acting credits that come before "scrolling" closing credits. Copperchair 08:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No original research

In the "political comparisons" section, the last five paragraphs following paragraphs (about military coup, Colin Powell, Knights Templar, Pope Sidious, and The Invisible Hand) are unsourced, and appear to violate the no original research rule. If they can't be backed up by sources that prove they're notable for inclusion, they should be deleted. Coffee 09:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, the enire "Cinematic and literary allusions" section seems to be unsorced original research. Saying that the film alludes or references certain things is subjective, and absolutely needs to be backed up by a credible source. That section also says that Lucas edited scenes in The Godfather... I doubt that's true. Coffee 07:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Opening crawl

Since the cast listing issue seems settled for the time being, let's discuss the opening crawl. I, for one, have no opinion—I think it counts as fair use as far as copyright goes but I really don't care whether the opening crawls belong in the articles or not. What do you people think? — Phil Welch 02:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm in support of keeping the opening crawl. Using the crawl seems to be just the same as using a DVD image. Adamwankenobi 03:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's unnecessary cruft, delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. It's unnecessary source material, and it should be summarized in the plot section. Coffee 04:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. We should usually summarize or quote, avoiding long tracts of source material. The article on Romeo and Juliet does not reprint the prologue but just summarizes it in the plot section. What is good enough for The Bard is good enough for Lucas. Qaz 13:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, copyvio and cruft. It's annoying enough in the movie, anyway. --04:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's been a whole week and consensus seems to be clear. I've removed the opening crawl from the six articles. Also, I put the spoilers tag at the top of the plot section -- ideally, that should be the only section that contains plot details or spoilers. Coffee 16:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It's OK with me that you are keeping it off. It's really not that bad the way you have it. I understand why you did whatr you did. Keep up the good work. Adamwankenobi 22:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the opening crawl should be included. When will you stop butchering the Star Wars articles? First the cast, now this... Copperchair 04:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not butchering if the majority doesn't think it is. It's called cleanup. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Better listen to him Copperchair, he won't give up. Trust me. I want the opening crawl as well, but the majority won't allow it. The Wookieepedian 23:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I am in no position to give up. As you point out, I'm in the majority, and if you're so horrified at democracy, you could do well to check out other web sites. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
I just pointed that out to him to show him what the results of a dispute like this would be. The Wookieepedian 11:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
A dispute like this? Is it THAT horrifying that people have a differing opinion on the matter, to the point where you have to act as if people are persecuting you and your friends? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Link, do you really have to get into these arguments? You're coming across as a jerk. — Phil Welch 19:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much to me. Some people here are just way too defensive in regard to these arguments, so they should expect that kind of response. They treat the "bashing" of certain contents in Star Wars articles as bashing them. There's too much receptiveness to deleted content, treating people like they're out to get them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I digress. The Wookieepedian 23:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Why include the opening crawl? I am not trying to add fire to an argument but instead of just boasting about who has more people on their side, I am trying to understand why the crawl is so important. Since this has less of a space crunch as a print edition, maybe the coders could make a box that would open up with the crawl and things like it (prologues and the ilk) for those who would like to see them but the box would be closed by default for people who do not want the clutter. Or maybe the crawls of all the movies could be on their own page so as to not bother the coders... Qaz 05:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The ANH credits argument

Not to start something, but, by the removal of the complete official credits, this entire argument was started. Who is and is not important in the story is a subjective stand. We could restore the original complete credits to the page. Thoughts? Comments? The Wookieepedian 02:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop dragging this out, Adam. People voted on the issue already, it's over. The majority doesn't want a full cast list, and using the "it won't cause a dispute over who should be in" isn't a viable argument. Disputes like this happen everywhere, and it's hardly a dispute; it's more of a few fanboys hanging onto their ideal article style with dear life. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter to me whether Wedge is in or out. I just noticed that Copperchair keeps removing the credit for Wedge, and had a suggestion to settle this dispute. The Wookieepedian 02:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Your suggestion was to nullify the past consensus because you and a couple other fanboys don't like how it came out? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair is violating a well-known guideline from meta and violating another well-known guideline on Wikipedia. This is not surprising. The correct thing to do is to revert and otherwise ignore his childish behavior. — Phil Welch 05:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No, am I doing what Coffee suggested. If noboby is going to respect that and everyone is going to do it their way, then I will add the complete cast list. There has to be a pattern to follow when we decide who's in. In this case, that pattern is the acting credits that come before "scrolling" closing credits. And Phil you are a behaving like a jerk, following me at every page just to attack me. This is just because you had to accept I was right about Anakin in Episode VI, right? Copperchair 08:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I became involved in the cast list discussion long before you did, Copperchair. Just because we tend to edit some of the same articles doesn't mean I'm following you. In any case, taking a suggestion from one person and pretending that it's a consensus is…well, it certainly fits into your previous patterns of behavior. — Phil Welch 16:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Propose a logical solution, make sure it is accepted by enough people in order for you to consider it consensus, and I will stick to it. Copperchair 23:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It would help if YOU tried following consensus. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Which in this case is? Copperchair 04:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It is what these Wikipedians have been constantly reverting to. ie, the consensus is towards the opposite of what you want. Now that I've made it apparent, will you give up your little crusade? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why no VHS release?

That's really odd that it won't be released on VHS. Anyone know why? -- Wikipedian2005 05:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Jim Ward explained that the market is really moving away from VHS, and it wouldn't sell well. Plus, many stores noted that they were ending up with way too many extra VHS copies becuase no one was buying them. Also, Lucas is dead-set on making Digital media the only type of media on which films are prented. The Wookieepedian 07:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected due to edit war

All 6 Star Wars film are protected from editing. This bickering is pointless. I find your lack of good faith disturbing. For the sake of unifying discussion, please try to settle the dispute at Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Coffee 06:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There are also spelling and grammatical flaws that need to be corrected throughout this article.--unsigned comment by [[User:67.2.15.122]|67.2.15.122]
No constructive discussion is taking place, so I'm unprotecting the article. Please try to work together and reach a compromise rather than simply reverting each other's edits every day and hoping one of you gets tired. Coffee 12:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Title

I'm haven't edited anything and don't plan to. I just want to ask about the title. Why is it that way? At the official site (and many other websites), the colon goes before Episode III (i.e. Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith). --Dara 03:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've always wondered the same thing. I've always thought it should technically be "Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith." Though it looks better as it is. The Wookieepedian 04:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
On rottentomatoes.com it's Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. This image on starwars.com also calls it Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith. But on IMDB it's Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith. Coffee 05:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, that image places the colon after "Star Wars" as Dara noted, not after "Episode III". Did you mean to link a different image?--chris.lawson 05:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Whoops, my mistake. :"> My eyes see what they want to... Coffee 06:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides, the way it is now lets us do this: Revenge of the Sith (coded as [[Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith|]]— Phil Welch 06:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Political comparisons

Could the fight scene between Palpatine and Yoda represent the Reichstag fire, as it destroys the Senate chamber? In the DVD commentary, they say it is suppose to represent the destruction of democracy, but I thought that it could also represent the fire.- JustPhil 21:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but heed NOR. — Phil Welch 21:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There WAS one slight change...

OK, I thought I would explain here before I go and add it to the page. Basically, in the theatrical version (which leaked out), there is a wipe from the shot of Obi-Wan and Threepio in the cockpit of Padme's ship leaving Mustafar to Anakin's mechanical hand grasping at the volcanic soil. The DVD has a straight cut instead. I have heard this from several sources, including MillenniumFalcon.com. The ones who have compared the DVD to the leaked theatrical cut say they have seen this difference. The Wookieepedian 10:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

References to the OT

Are they really references or just some one pointing similarities. One example: "Obi-Wan says the traditional "I have a bad feeling about this!" just before Anakin enters the hangar of General Grievous' battlecruiser.". The bad feeling quote is in every movie and it's not a "reference", just a catch line. I believe all of them are people(or perhaps just one person) pointing out whatever similarity he/she/they could find. It should be removed.

Most of them are. But some, like the one you pointed out, go too far. The Wookieepedian 17:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


My Apologies

Whilst I was on RC patrol I reverted an edit by User:86.131.135.156 as vandalism, which in hindsight it clearly was not. I don't know if the statement about the piracy is true or not, so I won't revert back to it now. But either way, my apologies for calling it vandalism. - Akamad 12:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I believe what User:86.131.135.156 inserted into the article had some truth to it. I'll add a mention of it back into the page. The Wookieepedian 19:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Bonus Disc

Unlike the "Story Of Star Wars" disc that was packaged with ROTS, the "Star Wait" DVD that was offered at Target could only be purchased separately, so it's not a "bonus disc". The only relation to ROTS is that it was released the same day as the DVD. It is an not an official Lucasfilm product. I also wonder if the "Story Of Star Wars" section should be moved to it's own seperate page. Packratshow 14:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, both discs "Star Wait" and "The Story of Star Wars" were additional; costs to the regular DVD, so neither could be considered "bonus" in the sense that you get it for free with your purchase. But since both were released with the ROTS DVD, and each was exclusive to a store, they both can technically be called "bonus discs." Now, I don't think "The Story of Star Wars" disc should be moved to its own page, simply because, as C-3PO says "There's not much to tell." It would end up being merged with the ROTS article again, likely, anyway. So, I'm going to revert. The Wookieepedian 15:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand why Star Wait is in the ROTS article other than it is Star Wars related and was released the same day as the DVD. The same could be said for The Story Of Star Wars since it has no ROTS footage, but at least it is an official product physically attached and only obtainable by purchasing the ROTS DVD. One did not have to buy ROTS to be able to buy Star Wait. There were other official Lucasfilm premiums only available with the purchase of the ROTS disc at various stores such as coins, patches, and lithographs, why not include those? Packratshow 18:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Because they are not as notable as DVD's are. And there are too many individual bonuses. The Wookieepedian 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Spielberg's Direction

Just because Spielberg played around with a few animatics does not warrant the credit of co-director. A co-director is a specific title for two directors or more directors who collaborate for the majority of the filmmaking process, i.e. the Wachowski Brothers or the Coen brothers. Spielberg came in and threw out some ideas for day or two when it came to the animatics or, by what the featurettes on the DVD imply, he simply told Lucas his ideas who then relayed them back to the conceptual artists. If as you (Wookieepedian) that the fact that he directed anything makes him a co-director, then Bryan Singer and Frank Darabont are both co-directors or King Kong along with Peter Jackson. Both directed a shot or two of the movie. So they're co-directors? No. Same goes for Gore Verbinski directing the last week of shooting for The Time Machine (2002) after Simon Wells fell ill. He is not the co-director but he did direct yes. At the very least Spielberg should have an "(uncredited)" title next to his credit in the same way the Kevin Costner has a uncredited directing credit on the Waterworld page. The point being that the title "co-director" is not a casual title or nickname. It is a specific title reserved for directors who officially collaborate together throughout most if not all of the filmmaking process. Spielberg was not involved nearly long enough to be considered a "co-director". The_Filmaker 7 December 2005

Very well. I will insert "uncredited" next to Spielberg"s name. The Wookieepedian 07:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No, "uncredited" implies he did enough work to deserve a credit. Listing him in the first place implies he did enough work to deserve a credit. He didn't. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 07:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Spielberg's contribution to the film is not nearly significant enough to warrant putting him in the infobox, even with "uncredited" beside his name. All he did, according to the article, was some tinkering with the animatics of an action sequence. If anything, I'd call that editing, not directing. A mention of it in the "production" or "trivia" section should be sufficient. Coffee 07:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?

What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia

OK, if Star wars is a fa than wikipedia is sooooooo nerdy. Richardkselby 02:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You say it like it is a good thing. Richardkselby 21:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Does it matter what the topic is if its treatment is detailed and balanced? -Toptomcat 21:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

== ? I thought the Union

Purple Lightsaber

The article states that "Palpatine's lightsaber was the only one never seen in contact with a purple lightsaber. It was also the only one to come in contact with Mace Windu's lightsaber". As Mace Windu has a purple lightsaber this is contradictory. I will change it to the only lightsaber seen in contact with a purple lightsaber, but there may a better way of putting this. Any ideas? Wheatleya 20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable Firsts

This seems to just reiterate a few things mentioned above in the article and bring forward nothing new. Maybe it should be removed? Wheatleya 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

To the Wookipedian, my image was better than the one now in use. The current one looks like Obi and Vader are doing some kind of dance. The other one actually showed them locked in mortal combat.--Codenamecuckoo 10:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

But the one I have up there makes the scene look more epic. :D The Wookieepedian 11:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

To the Wookieepedian, why did you take my image of Anakin off? Jadzia1 19:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Title differences

I've seen several different versions of the titles for the film series, IMDB example "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith", I took the time to find the different articles on the Star Wars official website that announce each title in full, the official site refers to the films as "Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith" note the placement of the dots. Personally, I think the IMDB usuage is best since it clarifys each point, i.e. This movie is a Star Wars movie. It's Episode III. The title of the episode is Revenge of the Sith. But my main point here is that I do not believe that the current title is correct. The Filmaker 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I have found various other sites that refer to the film as "Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith". The Filmaker 02:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, that's it, the Academy Award nominees list has refered to it as "Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith". So I am going to move this title and the rest of the titles to follow suit. The Filmaker 02:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, it looks like we'll have a ba-jillion redirects to fix. ;) The Wookieepedian 06:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And a bajllion articles links to fix. ;) The Filmaker 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Shouldn't the articles be named with a dash between the episode number and the subtitle? Ex. Star Wars: Episode IV - A New HopeThe Wookieepedian 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I did point that out above, IMDB lists it that way. But the official site and the Oscar nomination ballets refer to it without the dash. Personally I like the dash. But it's not about what I like. It's about fact. The Filmaker 04:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
              • The official site refers to the films as Star Wars: Episode No. Episode Title (no italics for "Episode No."). So should we follow that too? Chris1219 10:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't think so, but could you provide a link? The Filmaker 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Here's one link [10], you can see it on the first line.Chris1219 12:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
                • I see, I looked up a few more articles on the site and you're right, they refer to it with the italics. I'm not sure why that is, frankly it looks a little weird. But I don't think we're allowed to do that with titles, and we should just stick with the current title. The Filmaker 22:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The links are now all screwed up. Why change over trivial mattar such as hyphens?--PatCheng 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not that trivial. This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to state the facts. Would it be trivial if someone added another L to Michael Keaton's name? The Filmaker 07:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia titles may not be perfect for some titles because of restrictions, like ipod is at IPod. Jedi6-(need help?) 17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but that's for technical reasons, the correct title is iPod. But Wikipedia won't allow the the inital letter be a lower case I. The Filmaker 03:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have brought up the issue of the movie titles once again at the Star Wars WikiProject discussion page. All interested participants are invited to make their views known there. -- wacko2 04:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"ROTS"

Uh.. just a suggestions.. maybe it should be changed to RoTS? ROTS is a bit negative ;-) Dan 18:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Nah, that's the way everyone (including diehard fans) refer to it. Only now have I actually realized that it's the plural version of rot, as in rotting corpse. But still, that's the facts, ma'am. The Filmaker 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dan, ROTS is a bit negative.

        Ciao,
         Adolph172

P.S. Visit my page sometime, if you have a question.

"Vandalism Alert"

Someone put this in:

Meanwhile, General Grievous goes into hiding in an apple pie and gets burned by the filling so goes to Utapau, where he makes contact with Darth Sidious who tells Grievous to relocate the the pie to the Mustafar system so he can torch it. As Sidious tells Grievous about that the war is nearing its end, he too claims that the pie's death was a necessary loss, and that Sidious himself will soon have a new pie, "one far tastier and made with a cherry filling."

Amusing, yes, but let's keep that out of the main article. I have removed it, but there may be additional vandalism in here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCoffee (talkcontribs) 16:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

You say that as if it isn't an appropriate moniker for this movie...205.188.116.202 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on that one is one of the best i've ever seen.

        Ciao,
         Adolph172

Plot question

I know this talk page is supposed to be for discussing the article, not the movie, but still I'm asking this question. Why did Dooku kidnap Palpatine/Sidious, his own Sith master? Did he not know Palpatine was Sidious? That seems hard to believe. Was it a plot they hatched together to trap Obi-Wan and Anakin? If so, I assume Dooku understood the point of the trap was to kill the two Jedi, but what was Palpatine's real motivation? To have Anakin kill Dooku? To let Anakin and Dooku duel to see which of them was really worthy of being his apprentice? I guess that seems most likely, but the movie doesn't make it clear at all. Anything about this in the Expanded Universe? Angr (talkcontribs) 10:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Grievous kidnapped Palpatine, not Dooku (though he was probably ordered to do so at Dooku's urging, who was in turn being instructed by Sidious). The entire purpose was to (a) garner further support in the Senate ("aww, he got kidnapped... he obviously needs more powers!") and to draw in the Jedi, both to test Anakin versus Dooku, but to also appeal to Anakin's ego (he defeats Dooku, a legendary swordsman, and still isn't a Jedi Master). EVula 14:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. They definitely could have made more out of that in the movie. But Dooku did know that Sidious was Palpatine, didn't he? Because when Palpatine told Anakin to kill Dooku, Dooku didn't react with the astonishment one would expect from someone who realized his own master had just betrayed him. Angr (talkcontribs) 14:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm 99% sure that Dooku did know that Palpatine is Sidious, though I just realized that I don't have any evidence to support it. As for why Dooku didn't react more... well, it's the Sith way. It's just what they do, and have for centuries. There was actually very little reason for him to act surprised. Plus, he may have thought (or hoped) that it was just a ploy, thinking that Anakin wasn't as close to the Dark Side as he was; bad call, Dooku. :) EVula 14:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
My explanation is OR, but I figured it was obvious. As established by The Clone Wars TV series, Grievous operates under the orders of Count Dooku. The apparent plan was to allow Grievous to kidnap Palpatine in order to garner sympathy from the Senate and draw out Obi-Wan and Anakin. Anakin namely. At his point it would appear that Dooku was working with/for General Grievous. Dooku's orders were most likely to kill both Jedi, which in turn completes the first objective: Gain sympathy for Palpatine. If Obi-Wan dies, then a well respected Jedi Master of the Council has been killed, meaning that Palpatine was right and he requires more powers to keep something such as this from happening again. It should be noted that as they are leaving Palpatine is quick to leave Obi-Wan to die. If Anakin died, it would be equally if not more upsetting to the Republic because of his supposed Chosen One status. Resulting in more powers to Palpatine. The Filmaker 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
However if you're wondering the behind the scenes idea, i.e. what Palpatine was really planning. Not only was he looking for more power, but he was laying the seeds for his new apperentice. He knew that Anakin could now best Dooku in a lightsaber battle, he had said in a transmission that Dooku's death was "neccesary". The Filmaker 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


It was a plot to kill Obi-Wan to bring Anakin to the dark side of the force.

       Ciao,
        Adolph172

Nazi Germany Parallels

I know there are also parallels to the Roman and British empires but Palpatine IS Adolf Hitler. The Republic is the Weimar Republic the "...first Galactic Empire" is the Third Reich the Jedi are the SA and the clone/stormtroopers are the SS. Order 66 is the Night of the Long Knives. Windu's attempt to take Palaptine down could be the Reichstag Fire but Palpatine's declaration is clearly the Enabling Act Or at least thats what I see. LCpl 1628,18 April 2006

In reference to Hitler being Palpatine: was Adolph Hitler secretly commanding the Allied troops? No. I think that this is a major point with Palpatine, and if you're going to draw a direct comparison, it should match.
Also, if you're going to draw parallels, the Reighstag Fire is (in my opinion) akin to the beginning of the Clone Wars, not Windu attempting to arrest Palpatine. EVula 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with EVula's idea on the Reighstag Fire, but on Hitler and the allies what about the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the joint German/Soviet invasion of Poland? Hitler played off Stalin as Palpatine did with the Trade Federation LCpl, 18 April 1900 (EST)

I wasn't actually aware of the specifics of the pact, but I still think its different. Hitler merely back-stabbed the Russians. Palpatine didn't betray the Trade Federation; he completely controlled them, and used his control over them to establish himself as leader of the Republic (and grossly increase the powers that his office had). He specifically controlled both groups to eliminate a third group (the Jedi), then disbanded the lesser of the two remaining organizations and emerged as the supreme power. Hitler... not so much with the playing of sides. EVula 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Section Format

Sorry for reverting your edits. But I've been reorganizing the sections in according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. I think it looks best the way it is. The Filmaker 22:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to present the production background of a film before it's plot, story elements, etc. are presented. The Manual of Style seems to be more of a suggestion, as far as the order of sections goes. As long as the suggested sections are covered in the article, I don't think order matters as much. The Blade Runner article is the perfect example of how I think a film article should be organized. The Wookieepedian 23:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Duel" merge

  • Merge I think The Duel is a sub-par article that holds zero weight outside of the film that it happened in. If anything, that should be a disambig page, since "the duel" could have multiple uses outside of this one movie (ie: mention "the duel" in Raiders of the Lost Ark and people will probably think of Indy vs. the swordsman, ending with an anti-climactic gunshot). Plus, is there any substantial evidence of the final fight being called "The Duel"? EVula 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. The Wookieepedian 21:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge While I think that the subject could make an interesting article all by it self. This article doesn't bring enough to the table. In addition, I haven't heard of anyone specifically refer to the Obi-Wan vs. Anakin duel as "The Duel" and expect me to know exactly what they are talking about. The Filmaker 21:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mergey mergey mergey! :p Grymsqueaker 10:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've run over the article and decided to instead to nominate it for straight up deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Duel The Filmaker 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cinematic and literary allusions references

Can anyone find any articles or sources for this section? I'm aware that a lot of this well established as being true, such as the Order 66 sequence and the Godfather parallels. And Anakin making a pact with the devil (Palpatine). But I've only been able to find a few message boards that discuss, no link to an news article of some kind. We definetly need these sources if the article would ever be able to get to FA status. The Filmaker 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

On the new cast list

I'm thinking we should discuss how the new cast list (with descriptions) should be formatted. I'm thinking that we should try to keep it relatively spoiler free. Mostly for the fact that the only reason you would most likely need descriptions is if you haven't seen the film or read the synopsis. We should probably keep the descriptions down to what we know about the characters within the first thirty minutes of the Episode III. This does however present a problem with James Earl Jones credit (which I think we should keep), I'm going to revert it back to simply "voice of suited Darth Vader" since if someone should stumble upon the credit, having not read or seen the other films, then they would have no idea what it means. The Filmaker 18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Section Format Deux

Currently we're putting the sections in the sequence of, more or less, the way the featured article on Blade Runner is setup. Namely, I don't like putting the plot first, because the infobox extends into it and pushes the opening photo down to a weird place, pushing the text into all different directions. If I/we can solve that. Then I'd be fine with putting the plot at the top. The Filmaker 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section deleted

I've just about gotten rid of the trivia section and for anyone who is passing by, please do not try to create it again. Trivia sections are pretty much the death of featured articles. I've deleted a lot of stuff I didn't want to. But in the end it comes down to "What of this is useful?" not so much what is interesting, I've tried to save as much I can, but some of it just isn't worth keeping. The Filmaker 05:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles looking really good, keep it up, you could have a very strong contender for FA soon, and amaze the people at Wikiproject Star Wars LOL :) Judgesurreal777 05:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
True. It looks like it could become a FA soon. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Then where do we find Star Wars (or, indeed, any trivia) trivia? There is a place in Americana for "little known facts" whether attached to articles regarding the subject or in seperate articles.12.107.188.130 21:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You should see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The Filmaker 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that (and sorry I didn't sign-in before). I did not see trivia presented as something Wikipedia is not. I ask, not out of a desire to annoy but I am thinking of championing a GA status for a movie (Still Crazy and was going to solicit your help and expertise) and I want to make sure that I know what goes and what stays and, indeed, what I'm doing in the first place. So the argument goes against trivia? Even when presented as a simple fact?Padillah 11:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I could give you my long argument. However, I'm pressed for time at the moment. So I'm sorry, but I'll have to just through some other policy pages at you. WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV. The Filmaker 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On the caption

Do we even have to put a caption down? I mean it is quite obviously the poster for the film, no caption is needed. The IMDB ratings have recently been "outlawed", I personally see no reason for these. Anyone agree? The Filmaker 16:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the IMDb rating shouldn't be used, but other than that I don't really care if there is a caption or not. It is indeed pretty obvious that it's the movie poster. --16:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

HOORAY!

Featured article at long last!.......... I am NEVER doing that again! :) :P The Filmaker 06:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Congratulations on your success! :) The Wookieepedian 06:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow. Congrats to all the people who contributed to the article. But don't retire! Do AOTC! Cvene64 07:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll do AOTC. But I'm going to take it slow. I'll get every last detail down before I bring up for FAC. The Filmaker 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
        • W00T, nice job guys! I'm pleasently surprised that it passed so soon :) I didn't even get to swing my vote from neutral to support! Sorry =D — Deckiller 20:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Congratulations Filmmaker, for bringing the first Star Wars topic to FA status :) Judgesurreal777 20:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
            • WOOHOO! STAR WARZ IS TEH R0XR--Greasysteve13 08:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Great article, reads well with lots of good information. Congrats. -- Ari 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary

Today(5/19) is the first anniversary of ROTS. Dudtz5/19/06 3:29 PM EST

  • And the seventh anniversary of TPM, might I add! The Wookieepedian 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Han Solo

His role in this movie wou;d've been performed by Skandar Keynes if it had been included in RoTS. --Ryanasaurus0077 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If you can provide a credible source than the information will be added. The Filmaker 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Original Theatrical Ending Compared to the DVD Ending

Taken from the article- "Unlike any other films directed by Lucas, Revenge of the Sith was released on DVD without any noticeable alterations from the film's original theatrical cut." There was one major difference I noticed in the theatrical version of the film and the DVD version. The endings were not the same! It is surprising that no one has caught this yet, but as I remember, the theatrical version of the film ended with Vader staring off into space, his head moving from right to left, and then the credits rolling. However, the DVD ended with Kenobi delivering Luke to his Aunt and Uncle on Tattoine, then the Aunt and Uncle looking into the desert sun. Once again, it is surprising that no one noticed this. ::—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamecheater2009 (talkcontribs)

  • Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Not only do I personally remember the film ending with the twin suns portrait, but there are several bootleg communities (people who own camcorder tapings of the theatrical cut) who have studied the differences between the theatrical cut and the DVD version who have reported there being no differences except for the wipe being replaced by the cut. So frankly, I think that the reason no one else has noticed.... is because it never really happened. The Filmaker 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto! I too remember the twin sunset scene. Nothing about this film changed really from the theather to the DVD. I guess it just shows either that they were really satisfied with their final product, and being digital, they could transfer to DVD immediately...or in a mad dash for more money they just slapped on the theather version as soon as they could. Either case, you must have gotten up or left early b/c that last scene was very prominent right before the credits rolled.--LifeStar 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I must have been mistaken. But I do distinctly remember seeing Vader looking out of an Imperial ship at the unfinished death star, and I did watch the end credits. Could that have been before the twin suns? ::—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamecheater2009 (talkcontribs)

  • Yes, Vader does look out of the Star Destroyer at the unfinished Death Star in the theatrical version and the DVD version. This happens before Obi-Wan brings Luke to Tatooine. The Filmaker 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cast Section

I think that the cast section is really well formatted, but I just think that the description of each person should be about the actor themselves at the time of the film, rather than the character. If we wanted to know about the character, well, that's in the plot summary, and on their respective page. I just think it should be more like Casablanca (film or Richard III (1955 film) ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The plot summary is to summarize the plot, not the characters. Think of the cast section as one giant hub for what actors and corresponding characters were in the film. Notice with the Soundtrack and Novelization sections, how they have their brief descriptions and then have those tabs on top specfiying to go to the main article. That's what cast section is for, a general list, main article tabs and brief descriptions. I do not believe there is much to be said about the actors "at the time" they were cast or filmed the movie. The Filmaker 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

external links section

I have no skill myself in Wikipedia formatting, but the external links section of this article really looks pretty thrown together. If anybody knows more than I do how to fix this, that'd be awesome -MBlume 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Orpheus?

It's sourced- so I didn't remove it, rather commented here- but the reference to Orpheus is so unbelievably flimsy that I just can't see why it's in there.

We'll start with the fact that Eurydice is already dead, whereas Padme is alive at the start of their journeys- Orpheus' a literal journey into the underworld, Anakin's a more metaphorical one down the path to the "Dark side".

After a difficult journey- the journies here can't be compared, since Orpheus' journey starts with a set goal (Bring is wife back to life), whereas Anakin's journey doesn't really start until he speaks to Palpatine- they both do reach an agreement with a nasty, powerful figure. There's a similarity there, I'll admit.

Except, the similarity ends there. Orpheus can't bring himself to keep looking ahead, and eventually looks back on his wife's shade, who vanishes. He doesn't have the strength of will to walk out of the underworld not knowing whether she's following.

Anakin? Well, he just keeps on going down the dark path (Or whatever you'd call it), does some nasty things, and ends up thinking he killed his wife, thus being consumed.

Orpheus is eventually killed after wandering around singing of his lost love, and dies with her name on his lips. Anakin? Well, there's no similarity with what happens to Anakin there, is there? Except maybe that he's hugely remorseful that he killed his wife, when he actually didn't, and she dies after giving birth.

I've tried to keep it brief, but even though it's source, it's an utterly ludicrous comparisson. There's just no parrallel between the two stories.

If he really must be compared to a Greek character, well, just off the top of my head Achilles might be more appropriate (Immensely skilled warrior who's consumed by his anger), possibly Ajax-the-greater (Goes mad and starts killing goats-that-he-thinks-are-people when things don't go his way, somewhat similar to Anakin's rampages).

Well, those arn't any better than the Orpheus comparrison, I guess. But, even though it is sourced, I just don't think that comparrison works at all.

(Oh, and great article. I'm not a huge fan of the films, but it's a really good article, kudos to the editors who put it together) Barnas 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that completely; I was coming to this page to note much the same problem. The comparison just doesn't hold up, and I'm not sure that a single critic having mentioned it makes it worth including in the article. --71.10.173.77 20:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed this, because after a day, it still grates on me that it's in there. In my humble opinion, based on having studied the story of Orpehus in Virgil's Georgics and seen the film, there simply isn't a comparrison, and one person having written a paragraph saying that there is doesn't mean it should be in the article.

If anyone disgarees, feel free to put it back in. I've said my piece. Barnas 15:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Two Swift Cuts

I've changed "Obi-Wan slices off both of his legs and his left arm in one swift cut" to "Obi-Wan slices off both of his legs and his left arm in two swift cuts" in the plot synopsis. If you watch the scene in slow motion you can see that Obi-Wan takes two seperate swings, a first for the arm and a second for the two legs. It looks very convincing even in slow motion.Evilrodhull 12:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Massacre of the Innocents

When Anakin drew his lightsaber to kill the Jedi children, I started to go into shock. Lost circulation to my hands and feet. If the scene had not shifted, I would have had to be rushed to the hospital in an ambulance. Was this just me, or did other people have a similar reaction? 66.99.0.162 16:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It was just you.

I did too

       Ciao,
        Adolph172

You should see a doctor

Videogame

Regarding the text about the the game featuring "cut scenes from the movie" as well as new scenes; is "cut scenes" meant to mean scenes which had been cut from the movie but feaure in the game, or is it meant to mean "cut-scenes" (sections of video shown between gameplay) which are taken from (and feature in) the released film? Twilo 17:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Can we do something about the missing bracket at the right end of that link at the end of the Intro? Nightscream 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous Synopsis

It seems to me that the section titled "Synopsis" is a little excessive. It basically tells the entire story without detail as opposed to highlighting the key plot points that give the major concflict and introduce some characters. Should this be changed? Some changes I would suggest are to, as mentioned, limit detail to the key plot points, possibly ones that influence the rest of the saga, and keep spoilers to a minimum. Also, it seems that the Synopsis sections for the other Star Wars movie pages have the same quality of dragging on with every plot development. Those pages should be considered for revision as well. The Editor 21:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • You should have seen them before... The Wookieepedian 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Be carefful. Limiting spoilers and glossing over major story arcs can violate the comprehensiveness requirement of the feature article criteria. Some articles do go overboard with plot; however, I don't think that this is one of them. — TKD::Talk 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

T-shirt

Once i saw a T-shirt that said "Come to the dark side. Small print'We Have Cookies' "

        Ciao,
         Adolph172
Good for you. Now what the hell does this have to do with ROTS? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, it was just something funny adolph 172

Too much irrelevant data

There is a lot of info here. See the box office section, for exemple. I cleared "only" one banal line and it was reverted. Cleared again, because the hughe small data not follows the usual wiki scheme. Kim FOR sure 02:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that the film was the third-fastest to reach that sales level is irrelevant. A source foundi t worth mentioning. — TKD::Talk 06:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong image comment for the Battle of Coruscant

While the comment (Two Jedi Fighters in the middle of starships) is true in the movie, the image depicts two ARC-170 starfighters...

Sources : http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/ARC-170_starfighter http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Eta-2_Actis-class_light_interceptor

(Paercebal, 22:36, 7 October 2006, GMT+1)

  • This a bit tough, the Jedi Fighters are in the photo, they're just smaller and harder to see. I'm changing it to ARC-170 starfighters unless someone objects to it. The Filmaker 22:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

REACTION SECTION needs re-written

It's nice that the reaction section of this article has box office records seperated, but the entire main article for this section looks like it was written by a fanboy and contains many biased, POV statements.

I got dizzy trying to read it. "Some people thought this, other people thought that." "Some agree that this was the best of the prequels, others think it was not as good as blah blah blah."

This needs to be fixed. I will begin working on it soon if it isn't resolved.

Venom-smasher 00:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It seems perfectly fine to me, and the dozens of other experienced editors who have read/worked/critiqued this article. Your arguements suggest overreading into POV, overanalyzing, or pushing a personal POV. — Deckiller 01:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't start here, with what you did with the TPM article. The articles are not POV, many veteran users have agreed so. You, on the other hand, have less then 100 edits. While it is possible for a new user to know more than a veteran, you have made it clear that this is not the case. The Filmaker 02:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


      • Where to begin???


"Critical reaction towards the film was largely enthusiastic, especially in comparison to the two previous prequels."

POV STATEMENT. Similar statement was removed from The Phantom Menace article, citing no sources. But, here we are making a bold statement like this, also without a source. Like I said, FAN BOY POV. You have done it in all 3 prequel articles (haven't even looked at the original trilogy). You have somehow snuck your fan boy opinion into these articles.


"Critics and fans alike were quick to jump on such lines of Anakin or Padmé including "Hold me, Ani. Hold me, like you did by the lake on Naboo."

This is just unprofessional and fan boy sounding. Fine if you want to mention the reaction to dialog, but don't single out cheesy lines in an article like this.


"It is often said the film contains a number of plot holes, although this claim is widely disputed and debated by fans.[21]"

Again, by who? Your source is an internet site with a review from a guy who is hardly a respected reviewer.

"Though many critics and fans saw it as one of the best of the series, or at least, the strongest of the three prequels, others saw it as more or less on par with The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones."

POV Statement and another of many sloppy flip flops. You keep doing this "One side said this, while the other said this" crap and I don't know why.


Overall, you seem to be so obsessive with your "sources" that you will find any website, anywhere, that supports your POV, just so you can keep it in your article. As I had mentioned on The Phantom Menace discussion, many of your so called sources were FAN reviews and FAN forums. I could just as easily find another fan site, reviewer, whatever, that are saying the opposite.

You would still revert those edits, because you want to control these articles.


Now, clean it up, or I will be forced to dispute the neutrality of this article. Venom-smasher 03:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, please point to places where a Star Wars fan site is being cited in the reaction section. The least well-known of the sources seems to be a fairly stable general science fiction review site. Now, a couple of paragraphs could use explicit citations (the second paragraph, for example), but that's a bit different from claiming that fan sites are cited.
"Neutrality" refers to Wikipedia's neutral point of view, which means that articles need to represent fairly what has been written in verifiable, reliable sources, without giving undue weight to one specific perspective. So going back and forth between one perspective and another is actually the correct way to present material when there is siginificant disagreement, so that Wikipedia doesn't actually take sides. On the other hand, if there is a prevailing consensus, Wikipedia should present that opinion as such.
If you think that the article is biased, you should find reliable sources to show that the article's presentation of opinions is out of balance. Claiming that it's out of balance without providing other sources doesn't really help much. — TKD::Talk 06:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Venom, please read WP:POV before claiming articles are biased. Many forms of writing have things called introduction sentences, which display what will be supported or discussed in the paragraph or section. The reception sections are fine; they have a "back and forth" flow which is required by NPOV AND they are supported by sources. You are arguing against several experienced Wikipedians, each of which has actually written at least two featured articles, not to mention copyedited and critiqued numerous others. We know what we are talking about. Please realize this and please stop, or try to find experienced Wikipedians who agree with you. — Deckiller 14:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


You should read this section: Wikipedia:Words to avoid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#However.2C_although.2C_whereas

However, although, whereas

It clearly states not to use these words :)

Venom-smasher 16:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that the should never be used under any circumstances; that section even notes where "however" would be acceptable. I currently note a whopping three instances of "however" in the reaction section, with one "although" and no "whereas". Hardly worth getting all worked up over. EVula // talk // // 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed two of the instances. The third "however" worked exceedingly well where it was, and removing it would have made the sentence awkward. EVula // talk // // 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this article

To User:The Filmaker

What I don't get is why you insist on adding references to this article that refer to which movie was better than the other. You seem to be hiding behind the fact that you cited these statements, but as I have mentioned before, one could easily find another website claiming the opposite.

At best, you should have one, maybe two lines discussing the critical reaction and that is enough. If someone would like to read a review of said movie, then they would. It's the same with the Jar Jar Binks stuff. Yes, he should be mentioned as being controversial, but why is there a need to embelish the truth or add questionable references to something that is really not that big of a deal to begin with.

Overall, if you read the reaction sections from Episode 1 to Episode 3, you have clearly worded it so that Episode 1 is the weakest film, Episode 2 is "a marked improvement over The Phantom Menace," and Revenge Of The Sith is the best of the prequels.

You have snuck in some references supporting the other side, but you clearly have it worded as I have written above.

Which again goes back to the question. Why is it neccessary to even try to clarify which movie was better than the other? I don't see how it helps the article at all.

Even on the episode 2 page, you got burned with the 3 revert rule by refusing to remove the simple line claiming the movie was "a marked improvement over The Phantom Menace."

So, I question your neutrality of these articles when I see that stuff, especially when you go out of your way to keep it in there.

Venom-smasher 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can find reviews from reliable sources, please do, in fact, bring them up specifically. The question is not whether the point of view is present, but whether it is representative and given proper weight. This is what is meant by Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The article does not need to be absolutely devoid of opinions, but should not itself be tipping the scale out of synch with what has actually been verifiably stated in reliable sources.
It is a long-standing practice and consensus interpretation of encyclopedic comprehensiveness that specific representative points of criticism, positive and negative, of works of art, literature, and popular culture be presented in the article. In fact, that is part of Wikipedia's mission as a tertiary source to summarize these sources which add analysis and opinions about a work. Most people prefer more than a one- or two-sentence treatment here. — TKD::Talk 05:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you claim that a website can be easily found that presents the opposite of opinion of what is stated in the article. If this is true, please provide and it can be taken into consideration. TKD pretty much summed up why a one or two sentence treatment is the opposite of Wikipedia's mission and purpose. Please don't bring up my 24 blocking because of violating the 3RR, especially since you fail to point out that you were burned just as bad as me for refusing to engage in a discussion at the time. Comparison between films is necessary because of the natural reaction among fans and critics of sequels and adaptations. A common criticism is someone walking out of a cinema after seeing a sequel saying "Eh, it wasn't as good as the first one." or "The book was better." Comparisons are common when it comes to franchises especially film franchises. The Filmaker 06:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)



Neutral POV is not writing a large paragraph at the start of a section boasting about the movies positive reviews, specifically pointing out that it received higher reviews from critics than the previous 2 films, then going into the criticism of the film, and then later in the paragraph having a line saying "Some fans thought it was more or less on par with the previous two films."

Thats not neutral. The articles are clearly leaning in the direction the writer wants them to. And no people don't prefer to have more than a couple of sentences if they are talking about fan opinion and information that can't be proved.

It has no place in these articles. It's like if you were reading an article about potatoes and it says, "Potatoes are very healthy. The skin actually contains many nutrients, however most people don't like the taste of potatoe skins, and some people just don't like potatoes at all."

Who cares??? Even if you find some CNN poll that says 25% of all people don't like potatoes, how is this helpful to the article?

Venom-smasher 06:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In and of itself, the tone is fine. There may be a couple overgeneralizations, particularly when one review is supplied to support a general statement casted in the plural. However, this is corrected by tweaking the current wording to be more specific or by adding more sources. You are somewhat overstating your case, in that well-known sites and publications are cited. Regardless, the solution is not to pare down the reaction section to an overgeneral statement that is fundamentally unverifiable. Verifiability is generally improved by moving toward more specific cases and avoiding general statements. Again, if the ratings are such and such, or if revirewer so-and-so said something, it is not non-neutral to state so. Your general conception of the reaction section is not supported by large swaths of precedent, in the form of dozens of featured articles whose sections have been read over and vetted by many users. Now, specific sentences may need to be more strongly supported or softened, but that's a more localized issue that doesn't really warrant starting over on the reaction section. — TKD::Talk 12:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Ok, here are some edits I think should be made. I will not make these edits, I am discussing them with you. I do feel strongly about these edits however. So here we go...

(edit recommendations in bold)


Critical reaction towards the film was largely enthusiastic, especially in comparison to the two previous prequels. Film review site Rotten Tomatoes calculated a rating of 82% based on 229 reviews, compared to the 63% and 66% received by Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones respectively.[21] Some critics noted that they view it to be the best of the prequels, while other reviewers judged it to be the best Star Wars film since Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. A. O. Scott of The New York Times concluded that it was "the best of the four episodes Mr. Lucas has directed," and equal to The Empire Strikes Back as "the richest and most challenging movie in the cycle."


If you are going to say "some critics and other reviewers," I think it should mention the name of said critic, otherwise, it looks like POV or forcing opinion. Like, it's fine to say "Roger Ebert said it was the best of the prequels," but when you just say some, it comes off as POV, even if it has been cited, which it hasn't. Also, even if you add reference, you should still mention the critic or reviewers name in the sentence. Again, it looks like whoever wrote this, is trying to force opinion without having a reliable source. For example, you say Roger Ebert and people know who that is, but if you say "Joe Movie Fan," noone knows who that is, so you just say "Some" and then add reference sites. I don't think that is very good for an article. The only reason you would do it is because you know your source is questionable. "Some Critics" are never "Roger Ebert," they are usually an unknown.

A new ref has been added from The New Yorker to clarify. The Filmaker 15:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of the criticism for the film was directed towards the dialogue of Revenge of the Sith, particularly the film's romantic scenes. Critics and fans alike were quick to jump on such lines of Anakin or Padmé including "Hold me, Ani. Hold me, like you did by the lake on Naboo." Critics have claimed this demonstrated Lucas' weakness as a writer of dialouge, though these scenes nevertheless attracted far less ire than their counterparts in Attack of the Clones.[21]


Here, this entire paragraph sounds cheesy and fan written, especially the mocking of lines from the movie. Even if they are cheesy, they make the article look even worse. Again, you also have no critics name mentioned, you just say "Critics and fans." Which critic said this demonstrated Lucas' weaknesses?

I honestly don't care who it "sounds like" wrote the paragraph, provided that it is written in the proper prose and properly sourced (which it is). I've added a new reference that incidentally has new information and is also more specific about the criticism of Lucas' dialogue. The Filmaker 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Other criticisms included previously raised issues with the prequels: "wooden" acting, overuse of flashy and colorful computer-generated special effects, and attempts to be both childish and mature at the same time. It is often said the film contains a number of plot holes, although this claim is widely disputed and debated by fans.[22] Though many critics and fans saw it as one of the best of the series, or at least, the strongest of the three prequels, others saw it as more or less on par with The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.

And again, it shows here too, with more "Critics and fans" said this or that. Again, there is no way to prove the number of fans or critics who said this. It could be 1, 2, 3, whatever. So, you need to add the persons name who said this, for it to remain neutral and as stated many many times, it looks as if you are pushing your opinion without having a reliable source.

Venom-smasher 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue with the reference in that paragraph has already been brought up by Evula and working on finding some new reference(s). The last sentence is cited with a source to the New Yorker. The Filmaker 16:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pic caption

"Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader duel on Mustafar." Wouldn't it be more correct to say Anakin as he had not yet fully undergone the transformation yet at this point? I'm sure given the die-hard fans here, this has already been discussed and there is some technical reason to list him as Darth Vader. Most fans recognize Vader as the chsracter in the dark space suit however (by fans, I don't mean die hard fans. I mean the majority of the population who has seen the series). Quadzilla99 14:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well he has already been given the title of Darth Vader before the fight on Mustafar so it is quite correct to call him this in my opinion. Ben W Bell talk 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The transformation of Skywalker into Vader has nothing to do with the black suit; the transformation itself was when Sidious christened him Vader. So, the caption is right, though I will agree that most fans think of the black suited figure when they think "Darth Vader" (it just happens to not matter in this case). EVula // talk // // 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Most Conservative Film

A letter to a website? Is anyone seriously considering a letter to a website as an important information that should be included in an encyclopedia? Besides, the whole paragraph is about the many comparisons between the Bush administration and Palpatine, and then it ends saying that a LETTER TO A WEBSITE says it's the most conservative film of the year. Can anyone explain that to me? Is anyone trying to even the odds between conservatism and liberalism in this website? Lucas himself is a liberal who dislikes conservatism... 201.9.107.10 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read the source you will see that the letter is not a simply "I think ROTS is the most conservative film of the year!" It is a detailed essay on why the said reader feels that the film, in contrast to the media hype, is actually very conservative. It was deemed well-written and poignant enough by Jim Emerson (and probably by proxy Roger Ebert since it is his website), to be shown to those that are interested. This elevates it above "Just another fan opinion." The Filmaker 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've read the source, and the argumentation for this INTERPRETATION doesn't make the slightest sense. So, because the movie is pro-constitucionalism, it's conservative? Conservatives defend the constitution and liberals don't? Did I miss something in the last 70 years? The movie presents a clear comparison between Palpatine and the War in Vietnam, which Lucas himself stated that parallels Iraq; George Lucas dislikes conservatism; many conservatives didn't like the movie because of these comparisons... and a reader writes an e-mail showing HIS interpretation of the movie, an interpretation that doesn't even make sense ("conservatives are constitucionalists, liberals aren't", it might as well be: the movie defends justice and freedom, therefore it's conservative...), and you publish here as a relevant information. It's not: it's a fan's opinion, it's biased, it shows no facts, and it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. I'm going to pretend this is not just something that conservatives are putting here to even the odds... 201.9.107.10 19:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What you just stated yourself is original research. "It doesn't make sense because of my interpretation." Obviously since the letter was published by Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, it must make some sense in some people's eyes. As soon as you get published, than your opinion might matter. The Filmaker 20:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to get childish just because you don't agree with my opinion, mate... my opinion doesn't matter because I don't have a Pulitzer? Grow up, okay?
Your answer is interesting for two reason: first of all, there's no indication that "Pulitzer Prize winner" Roger Ebert was responsible for publishing that letter. Even if there was, it wouldn't mean that Ebert himself agrees with the FAN'S OPINION (I find that highly unlikely), it would just mean that he thought this interpretation interesting enough to publish in his website (which he didn't, since it was published by Jim Emerson). I've seem examples of editors publishing letters that they didnd't agree with and sometimes even thought it had no reasonable argument, but thought it relevant that other readers would see it. Second, you didn't even bother to counter any of my arguments regarding the fact that just because the movie favors constutionalism, that doesn't make it conservative, which is the main argument for calling the movie "conservative movie of the year" (something the writer of the letter doesn't do, he just shows some conservative qualities he saw on the film).
Don't bother to write unless you have a reasonable counter-arguments instead of the usual "you have no authority to speak here". 201.9.107.10 20:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
First, you are correct in that I forgot that Ebert himself had not published it (if he had, it would show that he felt that it was relevant side of the argument), however it was Jim Emerson, who is Ebert's editor. Not exactly the man himself, but still much more relevant than any other fan opinion. Jim Emerson also took over Ebert's spot of reviewing films while Ebert was hospitalized.
Second, I did not counter your argument, because your argument is original research vs. published research. One body of work is from a website of a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, submitted by the writer's editor who himself is published author. The other body of work is posted on an open forum website from an anynounmous editor who hasn't even posted on the site before then. One doesn't hold a candle to the other. The Filmaker 20:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Again with the "you have no authority to speak here" crap. Thought this was supossed to be a public encyclopedia, where everyone could be heard. If you have a relevant argument to counter my explanations, by god, write it down. If you don't... well, there really isn't much I can do for you... by the way, I've noticed you are anonymous too, since I can't see your name anywhere... funny isn't it?
You're making it sound like Jim Emerson AGREED with the FAN'S OPINION. He didn't express anything remotely like that, in fact, he called it exactly what it was: an INTERPRETATION. Besides, does every single fan letter that is published in a website constitutes something relevant to be added in an ENCYCLOPEDIA? I have a magazine here with a letter from a fan who said Revenge of the Sith is crap... should I publish that too? Imagine if every article in Wikipedia had that kind of information... If Ebert or Emerson had written that letter, or agreed with the contents in it, I'd have no complaints about this information being shown here, but they didn't, Emerson just published it, and he called it an INTERPRETATION. Besides, let's not forget that there isn't a single place in that letter where the fan refers to Revenge of the Sith as "Conservative Movie of the Year".
My name is George Pedrosa, by the way. Happy? 201.9.46.237 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What does my being anonymous have anything to do with this discussion? I'm not trying to make a case against this letter. In addition, I was more referring to the fact that you are unregistered. You also might want to read WP:CIVIL before you post again as you're beginning to edge into personal attacks.
Again, you are not seeing the irrelevance of your opinion. In your interpretation, the letter is wrong. However your interpretation holds no weight against a letter that is published work. Granted it is just "one fan's opinion" however Jim Emerson felt it to be a relevant side of the story. Now whether he agreed with it or not does not matter. They felt it was a well constructed point, whether it be correct or incorrect. The fact that you disagree with it, doesn't make it less notable. The Filmaker 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)



My problems with this article

I have added a weasel words tag to the reaction section. I suggest looking at The Spider-Man movie articles to see how a reaction section should be done (although with hopefully less critic's sources). This is in response to all of The Star Wars movie articles, which seem to be trolled by the same users.

The fact is, if you read all of the articles from A New Hope to Revenge of The Sith, you can see a number of individual Star Wars Fans have made sure that anyone reading the article will read that The Original Trilogy is superior to the Prequel Trilogy, and that nobody liked The Phantom Menace.

Actually, I myself was the prime editor of these articles when bringing them up to featured status. And I actually liked the prequel trilogy. This goes the same for majority of the prolific editors of these articles, I believe. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No professional writer would ever put anything even resembling opinions such as that in a real encyclopedia article.

Nearly every single good article on Wikipedia features some sort of Reception or Reaction section. The reaction of the public, especially with media related articles is extremely important. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of IMDB as a credible source is atrocious, though it hasn't stopped anyone on wikipedia from using it as a safety net. Again, with IMDB, their ratings for movies are irrelevant because of the millions who saw said movie, how many of them actually are members and voted on these polls? Just looking at The Phantom Menace, it says 133,791 votes. How many of those are double registered users? And thats still a fraction of how many people actually saw the film.

From what I am told now, IMDB is only a credible source when sourcing IMDB related information. A high number of people use IMDB as their film outlet, more so than any other film database. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly only being used to weasel an opinion into the article, by circumventing the rules, because in "wiki-land," apparently if you cite a source, no matter how ridiculous, it's concrete. Those aren't the rules, it's just a way that users have been able to weasel their opinions into an article (hence the term "weasel words").

Wikipedia is devoted to reliable sources. IMDB is only one you have cited so far as an unreliable source, however you are mistaken as it is citing IMDB related information. Also, that is not the definition of weasel words. Please read, WP:AWT. Because of that, I am going to remove the tags. If you still wish for the tags to be readded, please state why in the talk page and I will readd them myself. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Infact, the whole forced opinion thing on Wikipedia is completely out of control. I for one am tired of reading articles and seeing an entire section devoted to "Some people didn't like the cute fuzzy creatures in the movie" and then citing a source where somebody said they didn't like the cute fuzzy creatures because they reminded them of a dog they used to have that chewed up their favorite pair of socks.

An encyclopedia article should be in depth, but I don't care who liked this or that, even if you have proof, which you don't. It's irrelevant and you know it. The Revenge of The Sith article actually reads amateurishly like that, saying something to the effect of "Some people thought it was the best of the three prequels, some people thought it was just better than The Phantom Menace, some other guy said it was the best film since The Empire Strikes back, and still some people thought it was on par with the other two movies."

I mean, come on, if an article can make it to featured with that in it, then obviously your article isn't 100% error proof.

You know, I'm sure that if I polled a bunch of people, I could find many people who didn't like "New York styled Pizza" because the crust was too thin and they liked more toppings. But, who cares? If I am curious about New York style Pizza and I feel like reading an article about it, why would I need to know that "some" people thought Deep Dish was superior?

Now, if thin crust pizza was found to lower your cholesterol and a certain age group liked it because of this, then that is relevant to the article. movieguy999 August 16 2007

I don't care if you don't care. Wikipedia is not here to please you and you alone. If you can explain exactly why the reception of...... well...... anything is irrelevant to a subject, than you might have a case. Despite what you may think of Wikipedia, just because you say something is irrelevant, doesn't make it true. I'm unsure of why you even want the information removed. At times you seem to want it removed for inaccuracy and other times it's because you think it is irrelevant. However, the citations are from notable media outlets. Hence it is not inaccurate. And you would be hard pressed to find anyone on Wikipedia that would agree with you that the reception to a film is irrelevant. The Filmaker 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Movie guy, please do not be disruptive, and putting tags like POV on actively maintained Featured articles without any warning or discussion could be considered disruptive. Lets talk things out, and follow article guidelines. Judgesurreal777 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


I have made many attempts at resolving this. You can check the talk pages, the discussion has been completely one-sided. I have made my case, the article clearly has issues, and noone has made an attempt to resolve them. I have given exact details of what is wrong and The Filmaker has done nothing but point to other articles and his own fan opinion.

movieguy999 August 29 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieguy999 (talkcontribs) 12:49, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

If the removal continues to happen once again, I will report this conduct to the Wikipedia administrators. Greg Jones II 13:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am really getting sick and tired of Movieguy999's actions to the three prequel articles. This is a problem that needs to be fixed. Featured articles must be stabled. Greg Jones II 14:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am so close to leaving this place. Greg Jones II 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I will ask an advice from a Wikipedia administrator, and I will rely on what the administrator says, not by what Movieguy999 says. Greg Jones II 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Now, I am getting really upset about the repeated removal of the information for what Movieguy999 says. We need to ask someone to stop this issue as soon as possible. Greg Jones II 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


The admin needs to be impartial. There are several admins who are friends to editors of this article and this can be substantiated by checking their talk pages. movieguy999 August 29 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieguy999 (talkcontribs) 14:28, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Please abide by consensus. You are completely ignoring consensus, it does not need your demands, nor your threats. I do not lie. Greg Jones II 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I will now report this incident at WP:ANI as soon as possible. Greg Jones II 14:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


This situation has now been reported at WP:ANI. Comments there should be appreciated. Greg Jones II 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


DVD Release

Regarding this section of the article: "This release is notable because, due to marketing issues, it was the first Star Wars film never to be released on VHS in the United States." I think that this can be eliminated. First of all, this doesn't really make the release notable. Most films released at the same time were not released on VHS. Also, the fact that it WAS released on VHS in other countries makes it even less notable. It also does not have anything to do with the "DVD" release, but rather the "home video" release. Mcgonigle 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yoda & Palpatine

Hmph, is there some reason for NOT including a short explanation about Yoda's attempts to stop Palpatine? Not to sound whiny about it but I've tried incl it at least once & it keeps being taken out. This is an important part of the plot, it explains why Yoda went into exile & the future of the Jedi order. I know this isn't Wookiepedia but it should be in here. Also, anywhere in the discussion of the article where this was debated previously? Oh yeah, almost forgot: WHINE! WHINE! WHINE! Tommyt 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil in discussion, the reason why the explanation of Yoda's attempts on Palpatine is not included is because the plot section is a summary of the plot of the film, not the plot of Yoda or Palpatine or the entire saga. This film alone. And while it does take up a large amount of the runtime, it is not essential to understand the plot coherently. The Filmaker 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I added few details --Blain Toddi 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the article it states that Yoda and Darth Sidious are equally matched. Does anyone have any references that support that claim. IMHO Darth Sidious at least at the point in the film has a slight advantage over Master Yoda. Here is my reasoning, at that point in the movie the separatist are killed and the only remaining Sith's are Vader and Sidious, so if Yoda defeats Sidious he would overturn the empire and the Sith would be destroyed (seeing as Vader is defeated by Obi-Wan). Yes I understand that at that point Yoda does not yet have knowledge that Obi-Wan had bested Vader, however, he sent Obi-Wan because he had full confidence that he would succeed. My point is that if Yoda were indeed more powerful than Sidious he would have killed him during the dual instead of running away. The reason being, the immediate overthrowing of the Sith's and the empire (which was their goal from the beginning) but he does not (even though he is technicily not defeated), instead he chooses to run away (because he knows he is outmatched), and even states "Into exile, I must go, failed, I have" (I think those are his exact words). If anyone could clarify that point it would be great. I am open to discussion. Ryulen1325 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick!

"Grauman's Chinese Theatre, a traditional venue for the Star Wars films, did not show it. However, a line of people stood there for more than a month hoping to convince someone to change this. Most of them took advantage of an offer to see the film at a nearby cinema, ArcLight Cinemas (formerly the "Cinerama Dome")."

is this notable? why is it in parenthesis? these sentences are not very well written.--Keerllston 11:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Despite being the best reviewed and most well received film in the prequel trilogy, Revenge of the Sith received the smallest number of award nominations in comparison to the previous films (35 categories in total, compared to The Phantom Menace's 55 and Attack of the Clones' 38 category nominations)."

are the parenthesis necessary? wouldn't it be better "previous films, with 35 categories in total, compared to The Phantom Menace's" or "It received nominations in 35 categories in total compared to [...]"--Keerllston 11:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits to 'Cinematic and Literary Allusions'??

Given the name of the heading, and the previous discussion of it in the article, is there a good reason to include the following from the first paragraph of the section:

Perhaps the most media coverage was given to a particular exchange between Anakin and Ob-Wan, which led to the aforementioned controversy: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," Anakin declares, to which Obi-Wan responds, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." In the novelization, Mace Windu says that the new laws decrease liberty in the name of security, but he doesn't feel safer. Despite Lucas' insistence to the contrary, The Seattle Times concluded, "Without naming Bush or the Patriot Act, it's all unmistakable no matter what your own politics may be."[39]

Seems like these allusions are neither cinematic nor literary, but rather political. (Which is pointed out in the the sentence I did not quote, because it otherwise seems like a good introduction to the section.Quine (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot confusions

For less familiar readers, the plot could be confusing. We've got Palpatine and Darth Sidieous being used interchangalbe; Anakein and Darth Vader aswell. I'm gonna try and make it clearer. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

Why were almost all the images removed? I understand that fir use prevents Wikiedia from going overboard, but a FA should have more than a single screenshot, correct? Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Deleted roles" section

I personally find that the sub-section of "Deleted roles" is not very fitting under the section of "Reaction". The materals in "Deleted roles" have little relations to the reaction of viewers/fans/general public. I suggest moving "Deleted roles" to "Cast" or "Production". It will be more fitting in those two sections because, well, that section is about roles of certain casts being deleted, and that the deletion of scenes/roles is decided and carried out during production. Oidia (talkcontribs) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding IMDb and Newsday "misquote"

There's no misquote. Go read the interview -- his quote was copied and pasted word for word. Ask yourself: How does one "know" something? I haven't seen a single direct, eyewitness account from anyone involved in the film's production that confirms Jones' involvement. Have you? Secondhand "reporting" and blogging and forums are rife with unverified rumors and, more significantly, assumptions

As for IMDb, Wikipedia: Reliable sources - Are wikis reliable sources specifies that wikis are not allowed as reference sources. IMDb falls under that definition as it has solely user-generated content, and, as noted elsewhere at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, IMDb does not "have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence."

Newsday is a major newspaper with a direct quote from Jones. There's no justification for removing a reliable, direct citation with IMDb rumors. Where did IMDb get that information? IT IS UNSOURCED.--24.215.162.198 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Everybody seems to have missed the fact that most of the IMDb footnotes in this article refer to stories from the Studio Briefing and WENN sections of IMDb, which are provided by third-party news agencies, not IMDb itself. Green451 (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Three years?

You know, I'm quite sure that Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith takes place two years since Attack of the Clones. Ewan McGregor says this in the 'Becoming Obi-Wan' feature on the Special Features disc when he's talking to his make-up lady. (Archwarrior) 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to complain about the part where it talks about the DVD movie being the exac t same as the theatrical cut apart from the last scene being a straight cut rather than a wipe. Oh come ON! Do you really remember that far back? Also nobody actually takes notice of such things especially when you've seen it only once (I assume you've only seen it in the cinema once). It's impossible to remember a tiny bit like a cut. Ishould be deleted unless evidence is provided, which I can only imagine can come from Lucas himself, unless you nerds have gotten hold of a pirate copy of the film.

Something not mentioned in this page?

Look-alike#film - The 2005 film Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith features actor Wayne Pygram, who, in the film, looks remarkably like Peter Cushing. Through stock footage, the film's producers wanted Cushing to reprise his role of Grand Moff Tarkin from Star Wars. However, the footage was deemed unusable. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Windu -vs- Palpatine

Perhaps we should point out, Palpatine was letting Windu get the upper hand in their fight, in order to get Anakin to defend him & wound Windu. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Release Date

It wasn't just release in the USA on May 19. I'm pretty sure it was worldwide. It was release on May 19th in Ireland and the UK anyway Kanjo Kotr (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"do not want" redirects here.

Apparently, someone hates this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.196.146 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the section it redirects to. Dp76764 (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion: Comments are appreciated. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 10:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

we need to mention format

for example we need to mention it was filmed in 1080p Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot section far too long

The plot section is far too long at over 4,700 words, where WP:FILMPLOT says that it should be between 400 and 700 words. This is completely inappropriate, and the film article should not achieve Good Article status without addressing this at the very least. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Ok, my first reviewing GA. Honestly, I wish GA were like FA consensus, but ah well. Tomorrow morning(its 10:00 PM when I'm writing this), I'll start the review process. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 01:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilikepie's comments

Ok, here it goes. Here are some issues I'd like the editors of the article to address.

Also, I'd like to note that you are allowed to cross out my comments if they're fixed, then sign each point.

Constructive Criticism

  • In my opinion, don't use redlinks unless your sure that they'd warrant a different article. I was looking at WP:VAND version. It this continues, I might fail it under criteria 5. The vandalism stopped.
  • Not enough cites for Soundtrack(crossed by reviewer), and Cameo appearances section.
  • Many Order 66 scenes were cut. I don't understand this.
  • Per my first point at comments that won't blablabla, choose one, no space(e.g. ==ABC==) or with one space (e.g. == ABC == as Notes has no spaces and the rest do.
  • At the end of the article, change the order of the sections so that it meets the last criteria here.
  • Be sure to use non-breaking spaces. One particular section offender is the Box office performance section, use them for things like $55.5 million per WP:MOS#Non-breaking spaces.
  • Per WP:ELLIPSES, such as Hold me, like you did by the lake on Naboo.... Change to 3 periods.
  • In my opinion When the sinister Sith Lord, Darth Sidious, unveils a plot to take over the galaxy, the fate of Anakin, the Jedi order, and the entire galaxy is at stake. seems a little dramatic. Reword it.
  • Sith holds the world record for most special effects used in a single film: 2,151 shots. Prose the last bit e.g. Sith used 2,151 special effects on a single film, a world record.

Like I said, first time reviewing, if you disagree about something, let me know. More will come under this siggy. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 16:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Note:Below are suggestions to fix some things up from here.

  • Don't use sources such as IMDb per this. Try a Google search to look for other things. Like the thing says though, you can use it for ...certain film authorship (screenwriting) credits on IMDb... Those I can let slide.
  • Cite this paragraph: The post-production department began work during filming and continued until weeks before the film was released in 2005. Special effects were created using almost all formats, including model work, CGI and practical effects. The same department later composited all such work into the filmed scenes—both processes taking nearly two years to complete. Sith holds the world record for most special effects used in a single film: 2,151 shots.

Pie is good (Apple is the best) 19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Cite 2 doesn't say he accepted, only that talks are underway. Misunderstood the cited text.
  • According to him, Oldman is a friend of Rick McCallum's... Who's that? Make sure even if the reader knows nothing about this particular movie knows who everyone is in the prose. You mention him as producer later, but you can mention him now.

Thats all for now. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 14:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • As of this revision, ref 50 is needs fixing.
  • Many scenes Jedi deaths during the execution of Order 66 were cut. Still don't understand it. Are you trying to say that Many scenes concerning Jedi deaths during the execution of Order 66 were cut.?
    • Those two were because I submitted the way it was to let the computer be used... fixed.
  • Awards and nominations section is also cite-less.
  • The audition was never chosen. A bit choppy. Recommend combining with another sentence.

Pie is good (Apple is the best) 14:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Per WP:LAY#First paragraph, If the subject is normally italicized...its first mention should be both bold and italic. Star Wars is normally used italicized? 
  • Per here, it says that paragraphs become hard to read once they exceed a certain length. The 3rd paragraph in the plot is rather long. Please divide. Same for 1st and paragraph of Production.
  • Anakin and Obi-Wan manage to break free, but Grievous escapes... Uh, whos escaping? Grievous or Anakin and Obi-wan?
  • Per WP:WTA#Point out, note, observe, don't use it here: Some critics noted that they view it to be the best of the prequels... There may be other uses I may have missed.

Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here are some issues that you still haven't addressed, igordebraga.

  • Be sure to use non-breaking spaces throughout such as where there's a space between a number nad a unit like $55.5 million. The &nbsp ; would go after the 55.5 and before the million.
    • Done.
Sorry for the confusion, non-breaking spaces arent created by a double space, they're created by typing in &nbsp ; without the space and the p. To make up for the trouble, right after I fix it up for you, PASS!Pie is good (Apple is the best) 17:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:LAY#First paragraph, If the subject is normally italicized...its first mention should be both bold and italic. Star Wars is normally used italicized?

Pie is good (Apple is the best) 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This section is close to gibberish. How about removing all the crossed over stuff, and make it more clear what is use signature and what isn't. The constant spamming of "apple is the best" looks rather stupid.
--IceHunter (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments that won't affect my passing/failing of the article

  • Per WP:HEAD, Spaces between the == and the heading text are optional. You can removed the spaces just to remove the size of the article to help old browsers, but I don't really care.

Like I said, first time reviewing, if you disagree about something, let me know. More will come under this siggy. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 16:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC) What the hell is this? Who would dare ruin the good name of PiE by making this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CPO Pieman (talkcontribs) 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Passing comments

Great article that meets all the critera. A bit long, but doesnt blatantly fail 3.a., but it gets an A+ for 3.b. It has excellent prose and meets 1.b. No vands around and meets WP:NPOV. Few images can be used. Excellent job to all contributers. Pass. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 17:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nehrams2020's comments

At the request of Ilikepie2221, I've added a few comments on a few more issues.

  • Image:EP3 Poster.jpg needs a source for the image. I also touched this up a bit, and expanded the FUR. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There are multiple occurrences where the inline citation is not directly after the punctuation (such as ". [1]" or ") [2]"), make sure that that it follows directly after the period (".[1]").
  • "...and midnight screening gross was broken by The Dark Knight on July 18, 2008 with $18.5 million." Add a wikilink for the full date. I added the wikilink myself. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of the smaller paragraphs in the box office section should be merged together.
  • "Its total of $380,270,577 ranks it 8th all-time in the United States..." According to this, the film is now ranked 9th due to Dark Knight. Update this and make sure to update the access date as well.
  • For the "References to the original trilogy" section, I think that either more information should be included (possibly information from reviews of the film), or that it should be removed and the information incorporated into other parts of the article. It seems too brief to remain as is.

Altogether I think Ilikepie2221 did a good job, and the article itself is well-sourced. If you have any questions concerning the above points, please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My issues have been addressed, and it looks like just the remaining comments by Ilikepie2221 need to be addressed before it is ready to be passed. Good work. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Boxoffice sales

Didn't the Dark Knight beat this film recently? Might wanna change a few things, assuming it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.81.222 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)