Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Governor Tarkin

Since it’s happened a couple of times here I wanted to start a talk thread. We refer to Tarkin as Grand Moff Tarkin which is how the character is credited. However Grand Moff is never mentioned in the film, the only title he’s ever given in the movie actually is Governor (Leia calls him Governor Tarkin) so I can see where that edit is coming from. Canterbury Tail talk 22:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess just go with the credits. MOS:FILM: "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." AFAIK the character is commonly referred to as the Grand Moff Tarkin. Princess Leia's "Governor" line is a slightly informal mode of address, not a character naming. Cnbrb (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure who else has tried it, but the user that just did it most recently is a sockpuppet of the account that was blocked two years ago for changing "Palpatine" to "Sidious" without explanation, discussion, or stopping when told. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I must admit I've been wondering which account they are. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maxikelley62063 – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"Space opera film" v "Space-opera film"

I'm in disagreement with user Canterbury Tail on my talk page, about whether the phrase "space opera film" should have a hyphen or not. I've tried to explain that a compund modifier must have a hyphen. But he seems to think I claim the genre name "space opera" should have hyphen, which I don't. A "space opera film", without the hyphen, is an opera film set in space. So it must be spelled "space-opera film". I've already had this discussion a few years back, and those few who opposed me changed their minds after reading the article on compund modifiers and educating themselves. Consensus was reached, 100%. Aikclaes (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You should bring this up at space opera and start the ball rolling over there. DonQuixote (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Like Canterbury Tail, you don't understand. I don't have a problem with the genre name "space opera" not being hyphenated. But in this article, "space opera", in the phrase "space opera film", acts as a compound modifier, and must be hyphenated. Aikclaes (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

All sources I can find, including the appropriate Wikipedia article on compound modifiers, and the source, state that when the two words are nouns it's not hyphenated and that's an exception. So that would make "space-opera" incorrect and an exception to the rule. Canterbury Tail talk 16:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Granted, that one source states that when the modifiers are nouns, hyphens are not needed. But it always depends on whether it can be misinterpreted or not. The phrase "a high school student" doesn't need a hyphen. But someone reading the phrase "a space opera film" might well think it's an opera film set in space. Aikclaes (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's either a reliable source or it's not, and others are saying the same thing, and since it's part of the article you keep sending people to to support your perspective I think we're good. It would take some deliberate misinterpretation to think it's an opera set in space, just like with the previous example to deliberately think you were talking about school students with access to pharmaceuticals. Canterbury Tail talk 17:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence describing a film must be very clear, and it must be also for people with no idea about what type of film it is. For me the phrase "space opera film" is ambiguous. I can't find any other sources claiming that noun+noun compound modifiers should not be hyphenated. Aikclaes (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately it's how reliable sources describe it, not what our thoughts are. As noted below it seems most reliable sources describe it as a "space opera film" not a "space-opera film". Canterbury Tail talk 11:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Space-opera film is a compound modifier, but space opera film is a single modifier. That is to say, a film can be an opera that takes place in space or a film can be part of the genre called space opera. Context matters. DonQuixote (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

While I understand the reason for hyphenating, in the real world, it appears that many reliable sources write "space opera film" (in general, not just with Star Wars) without the hyphen. I don't think we should argue that it must be with a hyphen or must be without one. I cannot determine a clear preference either way and would suggest some form of MOS:RETAIN to stick whatever has been established for the longest. (If there's not much establishment in that regard, then I don't know what else to consider.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely, the funny thing here to me is the attempt to make it clearer by hyphenating it only makes it seem like it is simply an opera in space. Seeing "space-opera film" suggests it is a film of an opera in space as opposed to being in the genre of space opera, since the general usage of it is as Don says. The hyphen actually creates the suggestoin you're trying to avoid. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The phrase actually has three modifiers: epic, space, and opera. For someone with no knowledge of Star Wars, opera films, or space operas, hyphenating the compound modifier "space opera" makes the phrase much clearer and less ambiguous. Another of the approved sources (Grammar Monster) uses this example: "You call this silver service? She's not a trained silver-service waitress." and recommends hyphenating. Note that the words silver and service are nouns. And let me remind you that we already had this discussion a few years back, and reached total consensus around hyphenating this compund modifier. Aikclaes (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC).

Can you point us to this consensus discussion? Also do note that WP:Consensus can change. General usage of the term as a modifier rarely seem to use a hyphen in other reliable sources that use space opera as a genre modifier in writing. Space opera film or space opera movie seems to be the commonplace usage. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but "epic space opera" should be challenged per WP:FILMLEAD. It's easy for editors to mash up genres because they sound good, even though there is not due weight in reliable sources supporting that. For example, using New York Times as one source, there are 59 results using just "space opera" for Star Wars and just one using "epic space opera". Variety has "space opera" 117 times and "epic space opera" 0 times, similarly with The Hollywood Reporter. Similarly with Los Angeles Times. I suggest we trim the fat and drop "epic" and have just "space opera", whether hyphenated or not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have zero objections to dropping epic. We state what reliable sources say, not what we want. Canterbury Tail talk 14:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I would support the removal of "epic" too. It is almost becoming commonplace these days in film article. IMO "epic" shouldn't be deployed as an adjective in the lead, only as a genre i.e. historical epic, epic fantasy etc. Betty Logan (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Ralph McQuarrie paintings vs photographs

In Writing, it says:

During the writing of the third draft, Lucas hired conceptual artist Ralph McQuarrie to create paintings of certain scenes, several of which Lucas included with his screenplay when he delivered it to 20th Century-Fox.

The caption for the photo in Design says:

Ralph McQuarrie in 2008. Lucas commissioned him to create conceptual photographs for the film, which visualized the characters, costumes, props, and scenery.

The second one should be paintings, not photographs? Mattack (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, paintings is correct. Maybe a vandal edit that was missed? Cnbrb (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Psychological underpinnings of Mythology/The Hero with a Thousand Faces counter evidence.

Hello, I was just about to make edits to my work to provide information that showcases Lucas stating that Flash Gordon was one of his main inspirations for Star Wars In the 21st century today. So, I was shocked and admittedly frustrated when over 1 hour and 30 minutes of citing sources and supporting Lucas’s statements about mythological motifs and the psychology of mythology were all deleted. You could have made edits that would’ve fixed my source citations but instead you decide to delete all my sources and all of the hard work I had to do to restructure those sentences. This wasn’t the deny that Flash Gordon wasn’t a main influence, but to counter to accusations that none of Lucas’s work nor does anyone else support his statements regarding mythological motifs and such. So I ask of you guys, can you tell me how to improve my citing in the future or fixing those errors so I don’t have to go through this again? I also greatly ask that you allow me to revert your changes so that I’m able to fix the problems without starting from scratch. Thank you so much- Mobfighter63. Mobfighter63 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"counter to accusations" is the beginning of the problem, Wikipedia is not a soapbox where you try to counter anything. I pointed you to MOS:EDITORIAL as well, your writing style is a persuasive writing approach ("Despite this", "were also claimed", WP:WEASEL "which a few people support while a few deny", first person WP:OR "This would make sense in this case because Lucas was in debt at the time." ). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that's the case, but from what I've seen something similar seems to have happened with sources regarding Kaminski and Gary Kurtz. The point of Wikipedia is to paint of picture of what happened as factually as possible which would mean questioning sources who say certain things when there's evidence to the contrary. I see a lot of Lucas's statements being questioned (sometimes it can be valid) but none of Kaminski/Kurtz's statements are questioned it seems. I'll make my sentence structure more neutral however I think I should be allowed to doubt other people's claims when Lucas's statements have been doubted before in my opinion. I apologize if I'm wrong, but I could've sworn that I've seen someone make an "This would make sense in this case because Lucas was in debt at the time" structured sentence before, so I just thought it was alright. I'm sorry if you disagree and I'm taking your advice into consideration, but I think fellow Star Wars fans and other users should not blindly listen to a few of these claims, just because there's no evidence that's contrary that's listed. I'll make my sentences more neutral, but I still think my contributions help paint a more factual picture though. Mobfighter63 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not to mention that J.W and Campbell himself have supported Lucas's statements too. Mobfighter63 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

'Original Research'? What are you talking about? That comes directly from 'The Making of Star Wars' by J.W Rinzler, which I cited. Mobfighter63 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: Original Research - "This arguably could've been the case because Lucas was in debt at the time", "This would make sense in this case because Lucas was in debt at the time" - these are not the sources words, they are yours. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok then I'll change that. My comment regarding Lucas's debt wasn't original research though, as it's said directly in 'The Making of Star Wars' that he was in debt at the time. What about my 'Power of Myth' and 'Making of Star Wars citations though, they provide an argument for Lucas factually taking inspiration from 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces'? If you insist, I'll leave out 'The Star Wars Archives' source where Lucas claims that he read the piece in college though?

Thanks for the advice and suggestions. Mobfighter63 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Critical Response

I tried adding with a source that clarifies the critical response for the Prequels was more mixed amongst fans as it tended to be the older generation of fans and critics that were more polarized but the younger generation even as kids tended to be more positive of them but it got edited out. I think it's necessary to tell this side of the story as it's part of history. Joe12Hawk (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• This conversation is taking place at Talk:The_Empire_Strikes_Back#Critical_Response to avoid spreading it over 3 articles. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move (January 2023)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time, and closer to a clear consensus against the proposed move. There is no reasonable basis to expect that extending this discussion would lead to any different outcome. BD2412 T 03:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Star Wars (film) → Star Wars: A New Hope – I think that it's time to use WP:NATURAL disambiguation here. This is a more concise title than has been used before and it is natural disambiguation. After the name was introduced, it certainly became common and I think it's well-established by this point. We don't need the "official" title or the original title--we can have a happy medium. Red Slash 18:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: For reference, here's the RM discussion that dropped A New Hope from the title: Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 5#Requested move, proposed by Darkwarriorblake. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I would mention that that RM also dropped the completely superfluous "Episode IV" from the title, which I'm not suggesting we reinstate Red Slash 23:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I would actually lean towards including "Episode IV" in the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment – I'm not an experienced Ngram user, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the results seem to look at the frequency of "A New Hope" without comparing to Star Wars: A New Hope, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, or simply Star Wars (where A New Hope does not immediately follow). Just trying to understand the justification further before weighing in, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  That is correct; I'm showing that the phrase "A New Hope" essentially didn't exist before the mid 1990s (and therefore can be attributed entirely to this movie) and gradually increased from that point on in books. Per WP:NATURAL, we don't need to prove that this is the most common name, just that it's neither obscure nor made-up. Red Slash 23:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Gosh has it been 8 years? The last move had pretty substantial support and I don't see any argument for why the reasons it was moved then have changed now. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  The title I proposed has never been proposed before. Red Slash 23:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRECISE, WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, and WP:COMMONNAME. "Star Wars" unqualified is no longer the most common way that this movie is referred to. I'm not sure if the proposed title is better than "Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope", but it is certainly an improvement over the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME (outside fandom circles, nobody casually refers to this film as anything other than "Star Wars"). This article is generally written from the perspective of the film at its original 1977 release — the subsequent episodic retitling in 1980 is discussed at length in the Theatrical re-releases section, but this should have no bearing on the article title. If there is an issue about disambiguation, there may be a strong case for renaming the article Star Wars (1977 film). And also, WP:SNOW — this argument has been done to death; it ain't gonna happen. Cnbrb (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That may have been true a few years ago before the Disney purchase and the sequel trilogy, but that is no longer the case. And it has been many years since this article title has been discussed, so a WP:SNOW closure would be improper at this point. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:FILM has been notified of this discussion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support per NATURAL. Any random film in the series could be Star Wars (film) to the layperson.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:MOSFILM, naming conventions, "the item itself (e.g., the title frames)". "Star Wars", and WP:NAMECHANGES - reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name - quick Google search seems to show that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:AT, which contains WP:NATURAL, is policy; an MOS guideline can't override it Red Slash 07:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:TITLEDAB has many suggested methods, not just WP:NATURAL. Parenthetical leads to an optimal article title. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - "Star Wars" is now mostly used when citing the franchise and "A New Hope" is the title the film has gone by since '97. A quick google search of "Star Wars 1977" will show a majority of sources referencing the film either as "Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope" or "Star Wars: A New Hope". Nonetheless, the subtitle remains and is consistent with the film in these results. Armegon (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. My opinion hasn't changed from previous RMs. The film, which was revolutionary in its day, is still usually referred to simply as Star Wars. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose It is the longstanding convention on film articles to use the title used in the original theatrical release. A New Hope is a retroactively-established subtitle. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title should not confuse anyone as it's still commonly referred to as Star Wars. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Darkwarriorblake and InfiniteNexus. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the name of the 1977 film is Star Wars. Per common name, historic name, long term significance, and above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose While I find myself referring the movie as "A New Hope" more than I do as "Star Wars," this article rename would be inconsistent throughout the Wikipedia pages for its sequels, "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchu90 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – Just a couple of observations. While Star Wars may more commonly denote the franchise, that doesn't necessarily preclude it from being the common name here. This is often the case with many franchises e.g. Batman, Rocky, Transformers etc. Obviously, given the commonalities between the names it is difficult to build a statistical overview, but by just looking through some of the sites we regularly source on film pages, we have the following: "Star Wars" at AFI, BFI and IMDB (I appreciate the latter is not a reliable source, but the titles are not user generated content); you have "Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope" at Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo; and "Star Wars: A New Hope" at Allmovie. So there really isn't a lot of consistency here. None of them dominate, but I'm not sure an evidence based argument exists for moving the article from the existing name to the proposed name. I would have supported the move if there were a dominant title in there, but there isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – I agree with the other points made about how we should apply to the original title standards. I personally always refer to the original film as A New Hope, as much as I always refer to Empire as Empire (and not Episode V) and RotJ as RotJ (and not Episode 6), but we follow standards set by MOS rules. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• "Star Wars" unqualified is no longer the most common way that this movie is referred to.

Rreagan007: Are you able to show this? I think the difficulty in doing so is that occurrences of Star Wars can refer to the franchise, universe, merchandise, etc., and not necessarily the film. So it would be difficult to draw a conclusion from a simple search; we would need to examine context. Interested to understand the claim of COMMONNAME. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I can tell you that the current owner of this film and franchise (Disney) does not refer to this film simply as "Star Wars". Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Nitpick, Disney doesn't strictly own Star Wars, it owns Lucasfilm which owns Star Wars. So yes they do kinda, but Lucasfilm as an entity is the legal owner. Canterbury Tail talk 22:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That wouldn't retroactively alter the title (of this article) even if they decided to call it Skywalker Saga Part 2.1 - The Luke SkyWalker Chronicles: The Fantabulous Emancipation of Princess Leia by the Bird of Prey (Millennium Falcon) - The War in the StarsDarkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed, they bill it as Star Wars: A New Hope (Episode IV), so this move request isn't strictly accurate if Disney's current naming convention is now the guideline. Disney now market each of the theatrical film with the episode number in parentheses, so although the 1999 prequel was released with the title Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, the Wikipedia article would now have to be retitled Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (Episode I) — and so on for each of the articles. To date, the title at theatrical release date has been the guide on Wikipedia, and I would advocate that the historically accurate title is retained in preference to later changes. Cnbrb (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I don't really agree with the way you are reading that graphic on Disney Plus. I would read it as "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope", which is how IMDB has it. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Not the graphic, the actual details clearly put the episode number in brackets. Canterbury Tail talk 00:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok I think I see what you're talking about in the details section, but it literally has it both ways: "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" and "Star Wars: A New Hope (Episode IV)". But nowhere does it simply call this film "Star Wars". Rreagan007 (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

...which rather suggests that if Disney can't make up its mind, it's not a reliable source for renaming this article.Cnbrb (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources that call this film "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope", but I doubt that any other sources call it "Star Wars: A New Hope (Episode IV)". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Starwars.com, which is Lucasfilm's official Star Wars site, does. Canterbury Tail talk 02:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Star Wars has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.