Talk:Return of the Jedi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Return of the Jedi has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Return of the Jedi:

See below

Priority 1 (top)

Problem[edit]

Oh man. Somethings gone wrong on this page. Someone vandalized the cast section adding a random fake actor to the list and when I fixed it everything got messed up. Also we should change the B.O number to the box office mojo one because many articles I have read say 475 million. None say 572. Broncosman12 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. Italia2006 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes, different sources can say different things regarding a film's budget/gross. TheNumbers.com is an approved site on Wikipedia, as is BOM, and so when this happens we can simply state what each source says without giving either one of them more prominence than the other. 2A02:C7D:2B99:DF00:F55B:AF45:B9EC:2536 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The Numbers may be reliable but all sources make mistakes from time to time. There is almost a $100 million difference between the two figures so is there any corroboration for the higher figure? The George Lucas Blockbusting book (published by George Lucas Books also goes with "nearly $476 million"). If there is a legitimate disagreement then both figures should be included but at the same time we need to make sure we are not perpetuating a data entry error. Betty Logan (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The Numbers is as reliable as BOM, though either can make mistakes as you say. This isn't the first film where there's a difference of $100m either. If you look at Alien, BOM states it made $100m less than The Numbers, though I would be far more inclined to believe that BOM was wrong in that particular case because their international figure is basically little more than what Alien made just in the UK alone. It gets tricky when dealing with older films because box office tracking was far less sophisticated than it is now (and in some countries, virtually non-existent). It's just a theory, but I wonder if some sources are reporting Jedi's gross pre-Special Edition, and The Numbers is reporting all of it together. Betty, why don't you e-mail The Numbers and query their figure. Ask them how they came to it, tell them what you think is evidence to the contrary (the book, with the page number) and see what they say. If they revise their figure down on their website, we can change the article to reflect that. If they don't, then it can simply stay as an alternative figure/source alongside the other. 2A02:C7D:2B99:DF00:AD05:151A:22BB:C551 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Luke's lightsaber[edit]

An anon clarified that Luke constructed a new lightsaber in the film, but it keeps getting removed for being "unnecessary". Have you forgotten that Luke lost his lightsaber in the previous film? The clarification certainly is needed for readers who aren't experts and it's not like that sentence fragment is overflowing the plot section. DarkKnight2149 15:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Readers who aren't experts will not be wondering what weapon Luke is using because of what happened in the previous film. The point of a plot summary is to convey the main lines of the plot, and not to provide random details that a hypothetical reader who has never seen the films but is somehow obsessing over them anyway might be wondering about. Mezigue (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, readers who are experts will already know that and these articles are meant to be accessible to the non-expert. Luke constructing a new lightsaber is an important plot point, as he lost his lightsaber in the previous film. There isn't much of a reason to not include it, aside from you labeling it as trivia (which I disagree with in this instance). Why does he have a lightsaber if he lost it in the previous film? Did he buy it on eBay? It's just illogical. DarkKnight2149 14:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I also think, it is an important detail and since only two little words are dedicated to it, it doesn't clutter up the summary in any way.91.23.174.157 (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not an important detail and was in fact confusing as it refers to something that happened in a previous film. The plot is over-detailed as it is. Mezigue (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It's minutiae. How Luke obtains a new light saber has no bearing on the story. Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Return of the Jedi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)