Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HWelles (talk | contribs) at 05:30, 10 June 2004 (further explanations...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

It is beginning to seem like people are . . . er . . . contributing to this page in ways that do not enhance the overall content of the article. For example, why do we have a link to the stormtrooper article? And why do we have a single book highlighted as being included in the EU? I think this is worth pondering.

This article probably could use some archiving.

good vs. evil

Hello Lir,


I'm not sure how NPOV applies to fiction but Good and Evil in Star Wars are a (somewhat heavy handed) plot device and I don't think that an article about this topic would be complete without referring to them somehow.


-- v

I haven't read a piece of fiction in my life that doesn't seem to touch upon good vs. evil. I think it would be fair to say that good vs. evil is pretty prevalent no matter where you look. It would probably be fine to say that the movie uses the Empire as the stereotypical bad guys and the rebels as the stereotypical good guys-i just thought it was cluttering up the opening paragraph a bit too much. Lir 06:56 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

Star Wars is notable in being very simplistic and heavy handed in it's approach to the topic. There's plenty of fiction that avoids good and evil, for example Existentialist novels, Thus Spake Zarasthustra by Nietzsche, most poetry. But anyway I'll try to work it back in making it clear that it's a plot device, stereotypical depictions etc, when I have a bit more time to word it properly. -- v

"changed it so Leia wasn't listed as Luke's BROTHER"

Jeez. Picky, picky, picky ...  :-)

Shoudn't we change all the ugly subpage edit links listed here into regular links to articles? The subpage functionality no longer works with wikipedia so there is no real reason why they should still extist. How many other instances of the term X-wing or Boba Fett are likely to crop up in any context other than Star Wars? If this does occur we can create disambiguation pages on a case by case basis and turn Star Wars term X into X (Star Wars) if another term is at least equally used in English. However, if the non-Star Wars term is not nearly as widely known in English than the Star Wars one, then the text of the article should be about the Star Wars term with a link at the bottom to the non-Star Wars term. See Paris for an example. Either way, we sould try to make linking to Star Wars terms easly and natural within edit windows -- I for one would not enjoy having to write [[Star Wars/Boba Fett|Boba Fett]] each time I wanted to link to that article and not expose the ugliness of the subpage link. --maveric149

Done. I did preemptivly disambiguate some of the edit links and will take a look at some of the minor characters and potentially ambiguous terms later to see if they also need preemptive

disambiguation. --maveric149, Sunday, April 28, 2002

Disambiguation

Shouldn't the movie-series be listed first? I mean, the project's nickname was (presumably) given after the first movie was released. jheijmans

Yes it should, but not because one usage is derived from another, but becasue one usage is far and away the one most widely used in the English language (you first have to establish context for the minor usage to be understood). Because there is an ambiguity issue here and one usage is far more widely understood, I would even suggest moving the space defense content to Strategic Defense Initiative, simply placing a link at the bottom of the Star Wars page to SDI and fixing any links in other articles that are trying to link to Star Wars as th space defense term. Star Wars was a nickname that was applied by the popular media for the SDI anyway so it doesn't make sense to have the content separate. The only reason why I suggest this is because of the ambiguity issue -- I am not advocating always using the most proper and correct name for things (which violates the wikipedia naming convention on use of common names that are easy to remember or link). Exceptions to this rule arise when there is an ambiguity - such as exists here (this is also why the asteroid articles are given their more technical names rather than their most common names -- 433 Eros for example -- so as to naturally disambiguate the term from the god Eros and avoid the use of parenthesis). I will do this myslef in a day or two if nobody beats me to it. --maveric149, Monday, May 27, 2002

Epic

epic 

    adj 1: surpassing the ordinary especially in size or scale; "an
           epic voyage"; "of heroic proportions"; "heroic
           sculpture" [syn: heroic, larger-than-life]
    2: constituting or having to do with or suggestive of a
       literary epic; "epic tradition" [syn: epical]
    n : a long narrative poem telling of a hero's deeds [syn: epic
        poem, epos]

I used it as an adjective so linking to the article was incorrect but the usage is correct. --mav

Vaders

I saw an edit war going on with links to people like Good Vader and Bad Vader and a some other people I had never heard of. The links were added and then deleted (both by non-logged in editors). Are these real characters (perhaps from the Marvel Star Wars universe)? If they are, I think the links should be left in and it should be noted in their entries that they are characters are from Marvel's Star Wars comics. -Frecklefoot

The "Wikipedia:Google Test" refers to looking something up on Google: even minor comic book characters tend to be listed on multiple webpages. These characters apparently do not. I vote for their deletion until evidence is supplied that these are "real" characters in the Star Wars fictional universe, rather than an attempt at a rather lame practical joke. The Anome
Sounds good to me! -Frecklefoot

Lucas and Campbell

Is there actually any record of Lucas talking to Campbell at all before third-parties began to link Star Wars to Campbell's "Hero With a Thousand Faces"? I'm old enough to actually remember all the press and hype that surrounded Star Wars' initial release and post-release mania. I don't remember Lucas ever mentioning Campbell's name at the time. In fact I don't recall him mentioning Campbell's name until well after a decade had passed -- long after many pundits started to make the link.

Six movies or Nine?

I remember reading an old issue of TIME Magazine from 1980 which featured an article on Star Wars and Lucas' work on The Empire Strikes Back. The article said that Lucas had started telling his story in the middle, where the first movie was to be part four in a series that would feature a grand total of nine films. It explained that parts 4-6 would tell the story of the rebellion against the empire, parts 1-3, designated as "Clone Wars" would outline the fall of the republic, and the finale, parts 7-9, would be about the rebuilding of the republic. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

Taken that it took a few years before Lucas eventually got around to making The Phantom Menace after The Return of the Jedi, it might only be natural to perceive the series concluded with the six films less than hoping, possibly in vain, for the final three. Are there any recent sources that disclose more information on this, whether it should be regarded as a six part or as it at least once was stated a nine part series?

I can't recall which issue of TIME it was, but it featured the burial of Marshal Tito on the cover. -- Mic 23:05, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Lucas did a talk with journalists before the release of Episode II, and he said: "The challenge for me is telling a six-part story: so in Episode I there are things that I have to get in that refer to Episode VII... no, hang on, we're not there yet. I mean Episode IV." He then hastily added, "The next film completes the saga as originally written." This either means that there will not be any extra movies, or that there will. No one from LucasFilm is willing to speak on this subject very much, but the rumors are getting more believable.
I believe Lucas originally envisioned nine episodes, but only actually wrote six. After the first three movies, they started writing novels in the Star Wars universe, and I suspect those novels have more than covered what would have been in the last three movies. I don't think Lucas in his wildest imagination could have predicted the Star Wars literature explosion when he wrote the first six! Of course, this is not to say that Lucas couldn't come up with another three movies' worth of original material, or that he couldn't pick any three of the third party novels already extant and turn them into movies. I'm sure this is why the studio won't give a non-squishy answer. The real question is if Lucas will feel like making three more movies after he finishes Episode III or if he will finally retire from authoring movies rather than just doing the effects. --ssd

Open SW wikipedia tasks

Do you think that I should put this in the article? It seems logical to do so, but I am not sure about it. Maybe I should put it in one of the other minor articles like Yuuzhan Vong? BTW, I made it myself.


Also, if anyone needs some good boilerplate or article text effects (i.e. background color, borders, etc.) all you have to do is point me to the article. ;)


JediMaster16 02:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No. That boiler plate isn't encyclopediatic (sp?). If anything, it should go here in discussion where things are significantly more informal. Oberiko 02:48, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put in in here. :JediMaster16 12:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Super Shadow

http://www.SuperShadow.com

My friends and I go there a lot, and as far as we can see, it is a legitimate website. I mean, the guy knows George Lucas, he's going to star in Episode 3, and all his predictions about Episode 1 and 2 turned out to be accurate. I fail to see how this constitutes a "known fraud".

Ok, now I'm really mad. You guys had to delete it too. It's a perfectly legitimate site as far as I can see. If it really is a bad site, perhaps you could enlighten me on some of its faults.

I removed the SuperShadow link. Anybody taking a look around the site for 10 minutes could see that it is obviously bogus. Notably: SS has 'plot scripts' for Episodes 7, 8 and 9 when Lucas has time and again stated he's not going to make them, let alone has scripted them; SS's so called 'filmography' is laughable and consists of film's which don't exist (check IMDB); the picture of SS's 'girlfriend' is a hoot. We're not here to link to every single Star Wars site in existence. The links are to notable sites. SuperShadow's is notable only for its dishonesty. In fact, the Natalie Portman Empire link isn't appropriate either. HWelles 05:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually the plot scripts just give the general storyline. Even if Lucas decided not to make them, he could still have an idea for a storyline in his head. Also, look at all the information it provides such as a detailed map of the star wars galaxy, a list of the midichlorian counts of various Jedi and Sith, a detailed history of the dealings of the Jedi and the Sith. This site has so many resources that other sites don't have. My friend and I went there over a year before episode 2 and read the predictions and printed them out. We went to the movie, and they were legitimate (we did it a year early so he couldn't change them after seeing the movie). With this many Star War-based resources, I still fail to see how you can see it as fraudent. Maybe it isn't official, but it DID accuratly predict what would happen in the movies and the guy DOES know George Lucas. (forgot to sign)

I don't know if the site is accurate or bogus (fraudulent is a bit strong), because the fonts were too ugly and style to cramped for me to stay long enough to judge. It did seem to have a lot of stuff. Why not leave the link? There really aren't that many there now. --ssd 05:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have no objection to the link. People can make up their own minds. I just don't agree to editorializing the link summary. - Tεxτurε 05:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The site has 'resources' that other sites don't have because he makes them up. There's a lot of material on the site because a lot of it made up. Everything not made up is available on other sites. It's not difficult to 'predict' what's going to happen if you follow leaks. Visit his site all you want, but a link to it doesn't belong in the main article here due to there being so much unsourced and objectionable content at his site. The only proof that he knows George Lucas is this message on his site: "As you would expect, all information regarding SuperShadow is above top secret (classified at the highest level). Currently, nothing is known about SuperShadow except that SS is very close, personal friends with George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars." Clearly, the creator of the site has delusions of grandeur. Information about him is classified? It's an obvious lie, to go along with the other lies on his site. Again, I don't care if you go to the site. A link to it doesn't belong on Wikipedia because the information on SuperShadow's site is not sourced, and any reasonable knowledgable Star Wars fan would have grave doubts about its veracity. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Linking to sites with material that is widely regarded to be untrue is thus inappropriate. HWelles 05:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars&oldid=4012018"