Talk:The Empire Strikes Back/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

LOTR + Star Wars???

If this is a 'brilliant' rated article then the claim that LOTR influenced Star Wars (SW) should be taken down. I could make equally convincing arguments about SW was influenced by The Bible but they wouldn't be true.

Have you ever heard of reverse engineering? It is where you start with a conclusion then work backwards, cherry-picking things. It is EXACTLY what the author of the SW/LOTR section did. They wanted the link to be true and searched for evidence to prove it. (quoting another fanzine website that explores this silly idea is NOT a reference).

Reverse Engineering is a piece of cake... watch... I will give 10 proofs that Gandalf was the inspiration for Obi-Wan...

1) Gandalf and Obi are both old guys with grey beards

2) Gandalf and Obi both wear scruffy monkish robes and are very wise

3) Gandalf and Obi are both warm, lovable and spiritual, but hard as nails in a fight

4) They are both keepers of secret arcane knowledge

5) They are both members of a quasi-religious secret order.

6) They both lead a small party of desperadoes in a perilous quest against Evil.

7) They both die in the attempt of their quest, but come back after death

8) They are both very humane, incorruptable liberals who never panic or get scared and they are both rock-solid Father figures for their young inexperienced heroes.

9) Both face grave, continous temptation from evil but never waiver(the ring/the dark side) and both must defeat enemies who have fallen to that evil temptation (Sauron/Darth)

10) Gandalf's staff is Obi's light-sabre and they both are only available to members of their Order.

There, not bad, even if I say so myself! And I could give you ten more. Reverse Engineering is SIMPLE. This LOTR /SW claim is obviously the untested theories of a young, over-imaginative SF/Fantasy fan. No offense, but Wiki is not the site for such THC-fuelled inspiration.

The reason LOTR and SW contain similarities is they are both modern versions of medieval European mythology. Stories of monsters and magic and strange lands where reluctant heroes must face terrible dangers etc etc. Of course you can find similarities if you look, because they are both rooted in King Arthur, The Crusades, Beowulf, Robin Hood, Legends, Myths, Bible stories and so on.

Basically, my 10 links work because Gandalf and Obi Wan are both modern versions of Merlin! (Obvious really when you think about it!) There is no LOTR / SW link. It spoils an otherwise solid article. Come on! ... Remove it.

I agree. Ditto the bit where Vader tempts Luke with power ("Together we will rule the Galaxy as Father and Son") in return for evil, like when Satan took Jesus into the Wilderness and showed him the Kingdoms of the Earth. Once again appealing to European mythology.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Development description 95% similar to Empire...

Look I have the documentary, and what i've read on the page is very, very similar to what Lucas, Kershner and the cast and crew said in Empire of Dreams! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Best sources aren't they?

Video Games

There should be some mention of video games based on or utilizing the events in the movie itself. Off the top of my mind, some would be these from GameFAQs [1]. Some games involving the entire original trilogy, such as Star Wars Trilogy Arcade and Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy should also be given mention. In addition, I do remember some missions in X-Wing and Rebel Assault that mirror the events in the movie. Shrumster 08:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I've added a section dealing with the games that were specifically based on the film. There have been so many games released that weave in and out of the Star Wars films or deal with the entire trilogy, that if they should be mentioned anywhere it should be in the main Star Wars article. The Filmaker 15:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot Incoherence

The "Plot" section has been written by someone who can't imagine people who don't know the plot of "Empire Strikes Back" perfectly. What on Earth is a "Wampa cave"? What is "the scene where Luke gets hit by the Wampa"? What is "the Wampa"? Why is it "the" Wampa? None of this is explained in the slightest and if you've forgotten every 'intricate' detail of the Empire Strikes Back you're left knowing little more than you did when you started. 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why the word Wampa, is wikilinked within the article. The Filmaker 14:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the Wampa is given a description "an indigenous predator". That is what a Wampa is. The Filmaker 14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
How bizarre. Somehow I read that sentence and missed both "an indigenous predator" and the link, both of which are in the history before the 2nd July. My apologies, feel free to wipe this section. I would but it seems better to leave this acknowledgement there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Under one section?

The Novelization, Video games, and Radio drama sections seem rather short to have their own sections. Is there any chance they could be placed as subsections under some kind of Marketing-esque section? Maybe the same could be done for the Soundtrack as well. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; perhaps a "marketing" section is called for. — Deckiller 16:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The only small qualm I have with the change is that "marketing" traditionally is characterized by posters, TV spots, and trailers, i.e. publicity. Where as these are actual works based on the film. While, yes, they do hold some advertisement value, they were not created solely for that purpose. The Filmaker 04:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"Marketing" is the only major title I could think of in my previous work for supplementary material like this. I used to keep information under "Promotion" and "Merchandise", but it became clear that the two were intertwined. If you can give a better title than Marketing, feel free to do so. I just didn't consider the sections large enough to stand on their own. Might take some creative wording to pull off an appropriately descriptive title overview. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 13:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


While I highly disagree with the sentiment; does anyone think it's relevant to add Lucas's comment that Empire is the worst of the Star Wars films. Quote "Sid is the reason why The Empire Strikes Back is always written about as the best of the films, when it actually was the worst one."[2]--RWgirl 17:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard about that situation, and I also heard mixed stories as to whether he was joking or not. I really don't think it's a major fact to include because it seems like an offhand comment. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Box office figures

"becoming the 39th highest grossing film of all time" There is nothing in this article of the one to which that sentence links to back up this claim. 20:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


The film's most famous line "No, I am your father" is often misquoted as "Luke, I am your father" (see List of famous misquotations). Many Star Wars purists are quick to point out the error

Its worth mentioning that this is deliberate. Even people who have not seen the films are aware of the vader/luke connection due to its massive use in tv/film/popular culture, "No, im your father" is nowhere as clear as "luke, i am your father"

I've never heard of it as deliberate change. If you provide a reliable source it can be included. The Filmaker 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

duration paradox

I think it would be worth mentioning the following duration paradox of the movie, which has always puzzled me:

At the beginning of the movie, all characters leave Hoth at the same time. Then their stories diverge, and the movie switches between the two storylines, until the characters reunite on Bespin for the final showdown. The flight and escape of Han and Leia does not seem to last more than a couple of days, until they are arrested on Bespin. However, the trip of Luke to Dagobah and its training must have lasted weeks or even months, until he frees his friends on Bespin. It seems highly unlikely that everything shown in Luke's narration in the movie happen on a timespan as short as the one described in the alternate (Han & Leia) narration.

Someone care to mention or explain this plot hole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One possible explanation is a disparate chronology between Dagobah, which has its own time system, and the rest of the galaxy, which for the sake of this explanation follows a hypothetical galactic "real time." Thus, an extensive course of Jedi training on Dagobah, consuming a signfiicant amount of time on Dagobah, would consume only a small segment of galactic "real time."

Other explanations are welcome. Bigturtle 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I always just assumed Han and Leia's trip to Bespin took a really long time. I mean, you have to remember that the Falcon's hyperdrive is busted and they had to fly there completely at sublight speeds. And although we don't actually see any of this trip in the movie, it would have taken a lot longer than a few days. Possibly months. Hell, realistically it would've taken years. --DocNox 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR The Filmaker 22:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"It's only a movie for God's sake." Alientraveller 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To fly between stars without lightspeed would indeed take years if not decades. A magically slow passage of time on Dagobah seems the most likely explanation.

Ok, according to "Stars Wars: The New Official Chronology", after floating away with the imperial garbage (which was in the Anoat System, very near the Hoth System), Han "limped along the Ison corridor with a patched-together backup hyperdrive" and used short hops to arrive at Bespin. And though the edits in the film make it seem Lando turns on them very quickly, it seems quite possible that they spent several peaceful days on Bespin, if not a week or two.

Also, when Luke sees Han and Leia in pain, he had already been on Dagobah for at least a week or so. He had arrived around the time Han and Leia were hiding in the asteroid, and they may have been hiding for several days. Also, Luke was seeing the future, and we can only guess he spent another week or so on Dagobah before giving into empathy and leaving. In other words, Vader may have been torturing Han for some time, perhaps a week or two.

Now while we now from Episode I that travel from Naboo to Tatooine takes less than a day, and the distance from Dagobah to Bespin is slightly greater, the route to Bespin from Dagobah does not run along any of the major galactic hyperlanes. So Luke must have made the trip in short hops with local course corrections, much like early hyperspace explorers. This would've taken more time, and probably a few stops.

So, in other words, the whole affair takes place in about a month, which seems to me totally plausible. But I do understand the concern that the editing conveys a sense of time that the extended universe took great pains to correct. But since it all works in the end, I personally don't think it needs to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A casual impression

I just happened to be reading this article for no particular reason, as reader rather than editor, and wasn't finding the lead and the plot section particularly compelling. Then I reached the paragraph beginning "Meanwhile, Luke and his astro-droid R2-D2 escape Hoth in Luke's X-wing fighter. After a crash landing on Dagobah, Luke meets a wizened, green little creature who reveals himself to be Yoda. Meanwhile, inside the asteroid cave, Han Solo and Princess Leia argue while repairing the ship, eventually leading to a tender kiss." My immediate thought was "Oh dear, I hope this is not a good article", as my editor mode kicked in and I wasn't in the mood to initiate a delisting discussion. Then I scrolled to the top of the page and discovered the article is featured!

Okay, don't get me wrong: I read some more, and a lot of this article is really good. However, the plot section is a bit weak, and, at least for my take on featured quality, the article is just a touch too in-universe in places (for instance, using in-universe language, such as "astro-droid" above). The cast section is also in-universe, which I personally don't like, but I'm happy to be corrected if this is within guidelines.

Additionally, there are places where claims needing reliable sources don't appear to be very well supported. I spotted three in particular.

  1. "George Lucas' 1977 film Star Wars exceeded all expectations — in terms of profit, its revolutionary impact on the movie industry, and its unexpected resonance as a cultural phenomenon." I don't disagree, but sourcing this to a documentary on the Star Wars trilogy DvD does not seem particularly independent to me.
  2. "The film's most famous line "No, I am your father" is often misquoted as "Luke, I am your father" (see List of famous misquotations)." This contains several statements of opinion, which are supported only by an article on Indiana Jones, on, which (in passing) makes the unsupported assertion that "The most famous misquoted line in history is "Luke, I am your father"". Wow, quite a claim!
  3. "Empire is now considered the most morally and emotionally complex of the Star Wars trilogy." By whom? Well, by, which I admit is a great site for collecting lots of different reviews of a film to provide an overall picture, but perhaps not so great to use for opinion statements such as this. At the very least, the fact that this is opinion should be made explicit.

The "reaction" section might benefit from some rewriting: the first "Although" subclause could be removed, and the section in general has problems with words to avoid. Finally, the lead seems a bit short for such a detailed and quite subtle article. I hope these observations are helpful. Geometry guy 21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Original title

AFAIK the name of this movie is The Empire Strikes Back, or judging by the official posters, maybe Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. The article should note what the name of the movie originally was before its re-release was named "Episode V". The same applies to Episode VI. Mstuomel (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Only the original Star Wars was retitled upon re-release, once the sequel had entered production. The on-screen title of this film was always Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Look on IMDb (who are very strict about first-used, on-screen titles as being the 'official' ones). Chris 42 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

the plot

it looks more like a very vague script.

" Meanwhile, Vader and Luke's fierce lightsaber duel brings them to a narrow platform above the city's central air shaft. After gaining the advantage, Vader cuts off Luke's dueling hand along with his lightsaber. With Luke cornered and defenseless, Vader informs Luke that he does not yet know the truth about his father. Luke claims that Vader killed him. Vader answers:" so, anybody want to make it look more out of universe and less, script like?--Jakezing (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Treat Williams

In his wikipedia biog Treat Williams is listed in being in this film. What part did he play? Doubtless a minor one.

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "DVDcom" :
    • ''Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back'' DVD commentary featuring George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Ben Burtt, Dennis Muren and Carrie Fisher, [2004]
    • ''Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back'' DVD commentary featuring George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Ben Burtt, Dennis Muren, and Carrie Fisher, [2004]
    • ''Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back'' DVD commentary featuring George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Ben Burtt, Dennis Muren and Carrie Fisher, [2001]
  • "Changes" :
    • {{cite web | work=dvdactive | title=Star Wars: The Changes|url=| accessdate=January 13 | accessyear=2007}}
    • {{cite web | work=dvdactive | title=Star Wars: The Changes|url=| accessdate=August 14 | accessyear=2006}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)