Talk:The Empire Strikes Back/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Grimes, Caleb; Winship, George (2006). "Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back". Star Wars Jesus: A spiritual commentary on the reality of the Force. WinePress Publishing. ISBN 1579218849.

Requested move (2009)

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.

The result of the move request was page not moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 02:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back → The Empire Strikes Back — I understand wanting to create consistency with the other Star Wars film articles, but there are important user concerns to consider. The Empire Strikes Back is the common name of the film, and the one people are most likely to search for in the search engine. The whole "Star Wars: Episode V" prefix is a recent invention, and certainly the film wasn't called that when it was initially released. As a related aside, I'm curious as to what the copyright entry on the film actually is. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. The proposed title is the common name for the film. Jafeluv (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose First, The Empire Strikes Back, and it's variants, immediately link to this page so there should be no concern there. The prefix of "Episode V" was in the film upon it's initial release. By using this same argument, one could argue that Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith should be titled simply Episode III or Revenge of the Sith since no one actually speaks the full title. Most people are familiar with the Episodic nature of the Star Wars films and are aware that Empire is the fifth in the series. Remember there is a difference between what is spoken and what is known. The title as it is right now avoids the most confusion. The Filmaker (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. The article itself says the film was released under the name The Empire Strikes Back. The other Star Wars films might need to be renamed, too. I simply listed these ones first because they sure as hell weren't promoted and widely recognized as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and so forth, while the prequels spelled out the full titles right from the first trailers through all the promotional material. And, quite honestly, not everyone is familiar with Star Wars. I have a friend who had not seen any of the movies until 2006. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, as recently as the remastered VHS releases from 1995, the film was still labeled simply The Empire Strikes Back. The prefix came along with the advent of the prequel trilogy, but even then, it's primarily referred to by its original name. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It is true that the film was promoted under the title of The Empire Strikes Back, but even then there has been debate over the actual title of the film. This is because in 1980, the film itself, not the promotional material, not the DVD or VHS covers, but the film itself features the title of "STAR WARS Episode V The Empire Strikes Back" in the opening crawl. I agree that it is more widely recognized under the name Empire Strikes Back, but it is not as if the current title causes confusion. It is also a safer title since it covers the three bases of it being Star Wars, which episode, and the subtitle/title. The only reason mentioned to perform this move was that it is the title people are more likely to search for. Yet The Empire Strikes Back does link to this page. I'm just not sure what the issue is here. The Filmaker (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
None of the films have proper opening credits. Specifically, you see the STAR WARS logo in all caps receeding into the distance, then it says "Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back" over a brief intro. Sure it's intended to be the fifth film in the series, but The Empire Strikes Back is the widely recognized common name. That's not even getting into the fact that disregarding the internal fictional chronology, it's actually the second film and would've remained so had they not gotten round to making the prequels. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
None of the films have proper marketing in the most true sense either. The film was titled within the film as "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" from the very beginning. If you really want to split hairs you'll see that in a lot of the marketing the film is depicted as "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back" including the main posters. Also, the matter of it being the second film in the series has no bearing on the title itself since it was never officially considered to be "Episode II" or what have you. The fact is that the title of "Episode V" is not a recent thing has said. It was not invented for the DVD release or because of the prequel trilogy but has been around since the original release of the film. I don't really care what the marketing of the film demonstrated back then since the judgment on the title of a film should be based off..... the film itself! The film has never been titled simply as "The Empire Strikes Back". The Filmaker (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No, as I said, it displays the Star Wars logo, then states "Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back", which is quite a different thing than explicitly naming it Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. You're inferring what it's title based on the film titles, when those aren't explicit. The film was not widely marketed as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back until recently. Even in the 80s, the most you would get is, as you mentioned, was Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. It's not the main title people would be looking for in Wikipedia. Going back to rationale behind the move suggestion, Frankenstein's full title is Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus, but the article is not located there, because Frankenstein is the common name. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, Frankenstein is so named because we have a guideline that advises not to use subtitles in article titles except for disambiguation purposes. (That only explicitly applies for literary works, though.) Jafeluv (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason for referring to the film as "The Empire Strikes Back" may have it's basis in the marketing of the film from the 80s. However the use of it today is only because the film's title is overly long. No one will take the time to say "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back", but this shortening is not grounds for it being "the common name". By the same reasoning, we should retitle "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" as just "Episode II" since that is how I've most commonly referred to it as. A lot of people simply refer to the films by their subtitles, or by their abbreviation "AOTC or ESB", or by the Episode title, or even by one word of the subtitle such as "Empire" or "Jedi". I've heard all four of those consistently through the years. We cannot assume how everyone is going to refer to the film. With the current title we are able to cover all of these bases and have sublinks to the article just in case. If anything we are alienating people who refer to these films differently. The Filmaker (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen any major secondary sources that refer to the films by acronyms. Nonetheless, we need to to apply the common name not only to facilitate searches by unfamiliar readers, but also to make wikilinking in various articles more concise. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why? And how for that matter, does renaming the article make the wikilinking "more concise". We can have one title that represents "the common name" which cannot be proven to be "the common name". Or we can have the current title that represents the majority of the different versions of title itself, lowering the possibility of confusion. I believe we have the requisite redirects to avoid any problems with wikilinking. The redirects are what make the wikilinking "concise". The Filmaker (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the most common name for Episode II is probably just "Episode II". However, our articles are supposed to use the name the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. An article titled "Episode II" could be about the second episode of any series, so it's not really an option. Also, I have trouble believing that most of our readers would recognize the acronyms "AOTC or ESB" at all. Jafeluv (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
And the most recognized name by English speakers is clearly covered by the current title. There is no moment of confusion when you first read the article title. The Filmaker (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Not being even remotely a fan of star wars I mainlyy know of these films just by the 'name' part of the title - I certainly couldn't link the name to eposide number. Google and google news results also suggest that just the name is the more common usage even allowing for the fact that one is a 'sub-name' of the other. Dpmuk (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi was listed as a separate move request. I've listed it here as well because the same arguments apply to both films really. Jafeluv (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. And add that Star Wars was only known as that for millions and millions of viewers. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree with including A New Hope here. "Star Wars" is an ambiguous term, and the article will have to be distinguished from the other articles with that title anyway. I would suggest starting a separate discussion for that one. Jafeluv (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It already is. Star Wars is the entire franchise, for the series of films. That is why (film) is added. No one is going to type in "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope", when looking for the film, but they could type in "Star Wars (film)". 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't disagree with renaming the film. What I disagree is including that article here as if all the same arguments applied there. They don't, because before moving A New Hope we need to decide which is the best of several possible ways of disambiguation. Jafeluv (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I also don't disagree with renaming of episode IV but I do disagree with including it in this move request as the issues are significantly different and so, in my opinion, require their own discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. That's why I didn't include it with the original renaming nomination (personally, I wouldn't mind just going with "Star Wars (film)", but it's not as simple as that. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it for now. Feel free to list a separate request for that one. Jafeluv (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Done, but it is counterproductive to fragment discussion about the same topic. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose This is probably one of the worst ideas I've seen for a move. It makes no sense at all to move the article.『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』¤ 19:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • What? All three movies are primarily known simply as suggested. Makes perfect sense to move all three of them. As to the prequels, though, they are lesser known, and it does not matter what they are called. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
And why is that? The prequels don't matter? If you're going to apply the logic of the subtitle being the most well-known to the original trilogy, then you should apply it to the prequel trilogy. Yet no one is going to argue that Attack of the Clones is known as simply that. Yet the episodic nature of Star Wars has been established well enough that nothing is gained by moving these articles. The Filmaker (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The prequels are completely different, they were never released as anything but episode such and such of the Star Wars trilogy. Their name is Star Wars Episode II:, etc. Not so with Star Wars, Return of the Jedi, and The Empire Strikes Back, all of which were released, and primarily known, just under those names, and that is what all three articles should be titled. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed With the prequel trilogy, each episode was advertised as Star Wars Episode I, Star Wars Episode II & Star Wars Episode III, not generally by their subtext title. With the titles having the entire name, it covers all bases. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』¤ 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose If it can be encyclopedic, let it be; no reason to devolve everything on Wikipedia to the most common denominator. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you give a rationale based on Wikipedia policy? WesleyDodds (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposed titles are both the movie's original titles and their common names. — AjaxSmack 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The correct names of the movies include "Star Wars Episode #", so it would be factually incorrect to list them otherwise. Redirects already exist for those that type in the subtitles. TJ Spyke 23:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The "correct" names for these films is debatable, hence why we should go with the common names. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
No, we should go with the title with the most clarity, and the least amount of confusion, which the current title holds. The Filmaker (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Common names, and original names. --hippo43 (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This is just silly. The full title of the film should be the article name, the most common short form is already a redirect. The claim that the "Star Wars #" was only added after the advent of the most recent slew of films is incorrect & I invite the claimant to watch the films from the beginning. Also, the packaging on all the merchandise from both TESB and ROTJ had the title Star Wars framing the individual episode titles. L0b0t (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Whatever some editors may mistakenly believe about the title of the film based on past marketing and advertising materials, the name of the film, as shown on-screen since it was originally release, is and always has been "Star Wars Episode V: The Empre Strikes Back". TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Some data: The official website uses "Star Wars: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back", IMDB uses "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back", Amazon.com uses "Star Wars Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back", and Rotten Tomatoes uses "The Empire Strikes Back". Difficult to get an estimate from a Google search as to what is the most common name (most results mention all terms in some way), but these authoritative (and semi-authoritative) sources might inform. -kotra (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (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.

Image issue(s)

The fair use of image:Empire-AlWilliamson.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:
• Significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase, or its lack would significantly hinder, understanding the topic of the article. Full policy

Spotimage that tagentaly relates to the topic but is not really discussed in the article.

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

The issue with Empire-AlWilliamson.jpg has been addressed.

- J Greb (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Image removed as only decorative. - J Greb (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I scored the Jackpot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.207.20 (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Great secrecy?

The article states that "During production, great secrecy surrounded the fact that Darth Vader was Luke's father... Until the film premiered, only George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Mark Hamill, and James Earl Jones knew what would really be said." How can it be true if the movie was premiered on May 21, 1980, and the novellization was released on April 12, 1980, thus more than a month before the film? Arctifox (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well then those who read the book the month before would know the secret, however, a month before the movie premired filming was wrapped up, so its still true that all the cast did not know about it. There are also sources that say that this is true, I think its actually in the bonus footage of the film as well. 97.126.59.26 (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

30 years later

I wonder if any info can come from this article: Hanks, Henry. "30 years later, 'Empire' left a lasting mark." CNN. May 21, 2010 WhisperToMe (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Protected?

Its been awhile since I have been logged off and looking at a featured article (or bothered to read one at all), however, isn't it customary to at least simi-protect a featured article, that way we don't get crappy edits that people see?

We surely don't want some guy to sneak in that Chewbacca was gay with Han, and someone not catch it for 10-20 minutes or more. If its at least simi-protected we can limit the amount of vandalism. :) 97.126.59.26 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:TFAP --Siradia (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How on earth did that make it to the front page?

"While patrolling near the base, Luke tells Han Solo that he is going to be late returning to base camp because he is going to investigate a meteor that had crashed nearby (really an Imperial probe droid)". The rest of the article is not much better. How did that make it to the front page? I can only infer that nobody with a decent command of English reads such nominations. Embarassing. 192.44.242.18 (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. Whoever gave this FA status clearly didn't read the article. The introduction to the article sounds like it was ripped right out of a theatrical trailer. Vrinan (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Why you do not fix it? TbhotchTalk C. 19:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Because we have better things to do, but at a quick glance it is clear this isn't something we should showcase. I'm starting a featured article review, this was promoted 3 years ago. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Cast" section is all about the characters, not the actors

Would it be appropriate to focus more on information about the actors? The Cast section in this article currently contains items such as this:

Harrison Ford as Han Solo: A smuggler who aided the Rebellion in exchange for money. Han has since accepted a place as a Captain in the rebel alliance. However, he is in debt to Jabba the Hutt. Intending to pay off Jabba, Solo is trapped on Hoth by the Imperial blockade.

In contrast, other film articles (like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)) give real-world information about the actors:

Rupert Grint plays Ron Weasley, a red-haired wizarding boy, the youngest boy of seven children from a disadvantaged family, who develops a long standing friendship with Harry. At thirteen years old, Grint was the oldest actor of the trio. He decided he would be perfect for the part "because [he has got] ginger hair," and was a fan of the series. Having seen a Newsround report about the open casting he sent in a video of himself rapping about how he wished to receive the part. His attempt was successful as the casting team asked for a meeting with him.

--Doradus (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Many movies have both a Cast section and a Characters section. In the case of Star Wars, there are character articles, so I'd suggest following suit with Harry Potter. Link to the character, but explain the real-life situation of how the actor/actress came to be that character. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Odd sentence

"For the original viewers of the film, this scene made it clear that Vader is not a shablabchabfabkab nob wanted the screen credits to come at the end of the films." - Is this vandalism or something? What does "shablabchabfabkab nob" mean? 74.69.251.170 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism, and it has been reverted.Guy546(Talk) 20:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sixth, Not Fifth?

The article currently states that Empire was the second Star Wars film released, and the fifth by internal chronology. However, as the Clone Wars movie was a full-fledged theatrical release, wouldn't it be more correct to say that Empire is the sixth film (out of seven) by internal chronology? 12.45.255.66 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The retun of Jedi is the sixth, like title says "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. TbhotchTalk C. 20:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If you mean the animated movie The clone wars, it is not inlcluded. TbhotchTalk C. 20:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is correct to say it is the 6th film/theatrical release in chronological story order, but the 5th "episode". The former refers to the number of releases, the latter to the canonical labeling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.210 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that the article now calls it the fifth main film, which satisfies my concerns. 12.45.255.66 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Details in the plot that need sources

I know the accepted practise is not to source the plot, as the subject itself is the source. However, several plot details are simply not in the film. For example, the probe droid self destructing. Do we know that from watching the movie? How about Luke seeng his own face under Vader's mask? Can we safely say, having only watched the movie, that this is him previsioning his turn to the dark side?

I'd like citations and fixes on the following details. There is a million dollars worth of franchised crap that details everything down to R2D2's circuits, so this shouldn't be difficult Star Wars nerds:

  • Despite their victory over the Galactic Empire with the destruction of the Death Star, the Rebel Alliance has suffered setbacks; the Empire's forces have driven the rebels into hiding, forcing some of them to establish a hidden base on the remote ice planet Hoth.
Isn't this the first part of the text that drifts through space? Word for word?
  • Luke tells Han Solo that he is going to be late returning to base camp because he is going to investigate a meteor that had crashed nearby (really the Imperial probe droid).
I don't remember that. Special edition perhaps? Novel? Extended universe books?

Nope, this is directly from the movie. As per the script, "LUKE (into comlink)'Right. I'll see you shortly. There's a meteorite that hit the ground near here. I want to check it out. It won't take long.'"

  • He has a vision of his late mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi, who instructs him to go to the planet Dagobah to train under Jedi Master Yoda.
Is it a vision or is he speaking to him through the force. The movie generally makes it apparent that the latter is the case with the ghosts.
  • They evade pursuit in an asteroid field, where Han and Leia begin to grow closer to each other.
Too general, and their attraction towards one-another is gradual over the course of the film.
  • After a relatively brief period of intensive training, Luke has premonitions of Han and Leia in pain and of his possible fall to the dark side of the Force.
Who made that interpretation?
  • As they watch Luke depart, the spirit of Obi-Wan laments that Luke is their last hope. Yoda disagrees and reminds Obi-Wan that there is another.
What does this mean? I'm not sure if this refers to Leia or Vader. This isn't an essay, explain the concept after building it up.

-The "no, there is another" line is directly from the film. The assumption after the fact was that it referred to Leia. I recal reading somewhere that the original intent was for there to be another jedi, other than Leia, who was not originally intended to be a sister. But that's anecdotal. There is no direct clarification of that line in the movie.

  • Vader intends to hold Luke in suspended animation via carbon freezing, and selects Han as a test subject for the process.
Maybe I missed this part or something... I just remember that Vader wants to capture them, and freezes Han to give him to Boba Fett as a reward.

No, he freezes Han to test the process. This is explicitly stated in the film. Boba is less than happy about it, stating "he's no good to me dead" or something to that affect.

There was one more sentence at the end mentioning that Lando and Chewbacca are off to save Han. I removed that. Again, I do not remember any mention of this in TESB.

That is all for now :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Some questions answered in italics Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.210 (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You've made some good points, Floydian, but I think I can help out with a few more of these:
Bullet #1: It does sound a bit like a Star Wars crawl, but it's not exactly the same. Wikiquote has the full crawl text, if you'd like to compare.
Bullet #3: I agree that "speaking through the force" would be more accurate, but I think that would be too much detail for someone who is unfamiliar with the film. We could link to Force (Star Wars)#Force Ghost, but we really shouldn't make people bounce around between so many pages in order to understand the plot. I think "has a vision" is good enough for this plot summary.
Brian the Editor (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, for number three (taking this from a later sentence) it would make more sense to say "The spirit of his late mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi, appears before him and..."? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
That sounds okay to me. Brian the Editor (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

'Plot' and 'Cinematic and literary allusions' should be separate sections?

Hi there, just wanted to clarify if the plot section should also contain the sub-section on cinematic and literary allusions (as you can see in the article proper). I believe the two areas serve different purposes (allusions refer to referential mention; while plot refers to the development of a story), so perhaps it would be a better idea to create a new section to host content on allusions. I'm not an expert on Star Wars, nor on film articles, so I'll just like to raise this point for consideration here. Thanks, AngChenrui (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and separated the two. Thanks for the heads-up! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

GAN

I removed the GAN because this article has just been delisted following a FAR, whose issues nobody has addressed yet. Until the improvements have been made, I do not believe this article to be of GA quality. There is far too much work to be done.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments about the article

I noticed that this article is nominated for GA status. A couple of things that probably need to be addressed before anyone reviews the page are the cinematic allusions and the reception section. The first seems out of place right after the plot section. Normally, you have production right after the plot section. Secondly, you might want a bit more of a "summary" of what that entails before sending a reader off to another page. Otherwise, why bother having it when you can just put it in a "See also" section. Next, you need to clean up the reception page. If I was reviewing this for GA, I'd be forced to fail it instantly because it would meet the criteria for instant fail with all of the clean up tags and unsourced content riddled throughout the page (see all the "citation needed" tags). In addition, the Darth Vader image fails WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE. There is no critical commentary on the image itself. The information about him in this film is about the character, not about the appearance. Thus, a non-free image here doesn't meet the necessary requirements for use. Also, you may not want Rotten Tomatoes precentage so close to the top and used as if it represents the views of critics from when the film was released, because it doesn't. It actually represents the views of critics within the past 10 years, which is not the same as those from 30 years ago. Also not seeing where the " also one of the highest rated science fiction films of all time" is being appropriately sourced. All I get is another page of RT reviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed it per the FAR concerns.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I would probably make a recommendation to remove any sentence that is tagged with [citation needed]. − Jhenderson 777 16:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, It's not GA yet, the article still needs improvements before it is ready for GA. JJ98 (Talk) 20:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Hey why isn`t Lucas mentiobed as co-director and co wroiiter, he wa uncredited for both bu he i fact dd most of the writing and directing, also it should be nmetntioned he was creative omsiltant. 62.45.84.2 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki articles always mention an artists oficiall but uncredited part in the making of a film, so why does this articl;e deny Lucas his involment, are you people Lucas bashers or something??????????? 62.45.80.100 (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you are engaging in adding original research, which will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Aparently ther e are rules on English wiki, there aren`t on Durch wiki, but thn I`d like to now what I mneed yo do, and hoew I need to cite sources too add this info, also how can you justify putting wron info on here and what are your sources for thises, I fo think this should be correced, and I think you should then tell me how to ciote sources cause your guides are very cionfusing. 62.45.80.100 (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I added George Lucas and writer of he screenplay, ucredited, because the production section and the Leight Bracket articale on wiki both mention him as having written the second and third draft in between Bracket and Kasdan, and should`t wiki be concistent in order not to confuse people??????? Whatever source counts for that production part it automaticly aplies here if this isn`t true and Lucas didn`t co-write the screenplay just remove that but please be consistent, oke????????? Sanakara (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment that "Empire Strikes Back" is 12th-highest grossing as of 2010 is now very dated, as it is now lower than 50th place. Unclemikejb (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Vader severs Luke's right hand, disarming him, and..." Really? REALLY? Worst pun ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.160.1 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

George Lucas vs. Irvin Kershner

Did George Lucas tell Irvin Kershner that he made Empire Strikes Back "too good" and "didn't need to spend as much money" on it? Are there any sources on this?--87.178.98.25 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Reyes

Somebody has once again added the name of Hugo Reyes as the writer of ESB. This time it's on the side box, and I'm unable to edit that. Lost ended a long time ago, folks. I once thought it was funny too, but it's time to move on. Could somebody with access please fix it?Wyldstaar (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Ckruschke (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Budget again

What was the budget? This is all currently in the article:

  • $18 million, per IMDb and Box Office Mojo.
  • $18.5 million, increasing to $22 million after the January 1979 Stage 3 fire, then increasing "$3 million more" by July. So, $25 million. This is apparently attributed to Marcus Hearn's The Cinema of George Lucas, p. 122–127.
  • $33 million, according to the Empire of Dreams documentary. This is mentioned twice in the article.

So what do we do about these conflicts, and what do we put in the infobox? —mjb (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just pick one. We can't have three different budgets proposed in the article. ~WB Wesbrooks (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to give a budget range. Maybe it could be "between $25 million and $33 million" with both of the last two references. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Erik's suggestion. It can be quite difficult with an "Pre-Internet" film to find cited sources. So a range, with sources, would be appropriate. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Time Magazine Cover

Consideration should be given to the Time Magazine Cover at the time of the Falklands War- which used the film title as it's headline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.43 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That is very trivial.Mezigue (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with that. I think that it fails the WP:GNG and is basically not notable enough to be included in the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in second paragraph

The second paragraph includes the sentence "The Galactic Empire, under the leadership of the villainous Darth Vader, is in pursuit of Luke Skywalker and the rest of the Rebel Alliance." Throughout the film, the Galactic Empire is ruled by the Emperor (Darth Vader is his subordinate). While technically accurate (because "lead by" doesn't necessarily mean that person is the supreme commander) the sentence is deceptive to someone unfamiliar with the film. Maybe change it to "The Galactic Empire is in pursuit of Luke Skywalker and the rest of the Rebel Alliance. While the villainous Darth Vader chases..." Sephalon1 (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a difference between the running times of the original version and the special edition?

The running time of the original version is 124 minutes, while the running time of the special edition is 127 minutes. Is there a difference? AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe to add some new scenes, maybe? 202.160.16.80 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Later released as?

Why does the article say "later released as"? This film has always had in its opening crawl as "Star Wars Episode V The Empire Strikes Back." The promotional posters read "Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back." Why on earth were all the original trilogy films moved? All six Star Wars movies should be "Star Wars Episode (number of episode): Specific movie subtitle." Lucas officially changed the title of the 1977 movie within a year of releasing it and Empire and Jedi were released under their full titles. I propose that these changes be done immediately. All three articles were at their full titles for years. All modern fans know them by their full titles. The only people I've seen that refer to the original trilogy as "Star Wars", "Empire Strikes Back", and "Return of the Jedi" are people who watched the movies in the 1970s and 80s. Today people refer to them by their full titles, or for short, their respective episode numbers or subtitles. Emperor001 (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (October 2014)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. (While respecting the thoughts of the editor who requested that the discussion be given more time, it is clear that the current discussion will not result in a consensus to move the page, and I would add that these discussions are not votes and that canvassing is frowned upon.) If there is evidence that consensus has changed or new evidence is introduced that is relevant to naming policies and guidelines, please initiate a new request at that time. A multimove request would also be advisable in that case. Dekimasuよ! 00:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Empire Strikes Back → Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back – The second film is commonly referred to by this title in official media. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the rename as well. However, you falsely claimed it was originally titled without the episode number, that is not true. It always had the episode number in its title. S806 (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, i.e. WP:UCN. This proposal is as clumsy as it is stupid. —  AjaxSmack  02:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per official names vs common names. current article name is the common name, and is A valid name for the movie.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as that's the current title. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It was never "retitled" and always known as it's title episode. I have copies of the original theatrical editions on DVD and the screen crawls refer to them by their episodes. Even Star Wars Episode IV was known as "Star Wars" only till 1979. If it's not possible to change them to their official names, I support adding what their official names are.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Star Wars Episode V thing is fairly new. It was never commonly known as that on its release and I doubt whether it is even today. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Motion to postpone poll closing date I am requesting this poll closing date be postponed by another ten days from now since this issue seems to be raised a number of users on talk pages regarding the dubious claims that these movies were "later released as.." but seem to unaware of this poll. if it's closed within the next few days, it would not be considered a fair vote. Thanks.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title and infobox name

There is currently a debate about whether the original title should be first in the lead, or it's shortened title. I think it is inappropriate for the shortened title to be first, as the title is the title. Not only is "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" the current title of the movie, it is also the original title. S806 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Under WP:BRD, you discuss a change on the Talk page, not put in what you want. You have been given a WP:3RR warning. I'm restoring the page to the agreed upon version, arrived at through long discussion last January. Read WP:CONSENSUS. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Return_of_the_Jedi#Article_name_in_lead This is your "long" discussion? S806 (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The link to the discussion is right there in the first sentence. Here it is again: Talk:Star Wars (film)#Requested move. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This is NOT a discussion about moving the page. Your 'consensus' doesn't count here. This is a discussion about the lead. S806 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to match the title of the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Tell that to Borat. S806 (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose we have the lead read as "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (also known as The Empire Strikes Back)". S806 (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The current lead

The Empire Strikes Back (later released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)

is the most accurate. It was agreed to in long discussions in January 2014. "Later released as" refers to trailers, posters and all other promotional material, not the film itself. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The movie was always named "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" S806 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That was not on its trailers, posters or any other promotional material when it was released in 1980. Thus it is not its WP:COMMONNAME. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME doesn't reference leads, only page names. Please, please stop being so dishonest. S806 (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to match the name of the article. Try reading WP:AGF. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Many leads don't match the article title, see Borat. S806 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That's an issue with that page. Hardly a model to follow here. See WP:Other stuff exists. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
You still haven't given a valid reason why the movie title shouldn't be first in the lead based on wiki policy. S806 (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Already debunked as a valid reason, only applies to article names. S806 (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though we do have examples, such as Pancho Villa, where the first name given is the full legal name. however, it was also his original name, and pancho villa is both his commonly known name and ONLY a nickname. if this movie was very commonly known as "TESB" or "Empstri", they would never go first, but second or third, as nicknames. Empire Strikes Back is (or was) a valid name for the film, and the most commonly used, so it can go first, with the full official name second. perhaps When the Pawn... is an example that applies here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
In every single example given in WP:COMMONNAME, the lead always starts with the real name, not the article title. This is exactly like all those examples, and should follow the same format. S806 (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Support It was never "retitled" and always known as it's title episode. I have copies of the original theatrical editions on DVD and the screen crawls refer to them by their episodes. Even Star Wars Episode IV was known as "Star Wars" only till 1979. If it's not possible to change them to their official names, I support adding what their official names are.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As can be seen just above, the full title is and always has been in the lead, in bold. And it doesn't say it was "retitled". - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Obviously what I meant was that the first statement on the article says retitled. As for the infobox it should still keep the official names. And that goes not only for films but official names in general per say.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the first statement on the article does not say "retitled". It means something when you put a word in quotes. And is it really that difficult to avoid putting your response inside someone else's signature? - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
What is "a DVD of the original theatrical editions"? DVDs weren't invented until long after The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were released! Are these pirate editions basically? Mezigue (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Umm are you not aware that the original theatrical editions of Star Wars were were released on DVD by Lucasfilms in 2006? See this commercial I am referring to those and they are not considered "pirated" if the company released them despite being copied from laserdisc. I do have the 1997 editions of Episode V & VI on DVD, also copied from laserdisc but those are considered "pirated" simply because the company did not release them.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Suppport: Use the full title. That has always been the official title; the opening crawl has always had it. If anything at least changed the wording from "later rereleased" to something like "also known by its full title" since unlike A New Hope Lucas never changed this title. Emperor001 (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current lead is accurate. The words Star Wars Episode V were incorporated in the title long after the initial release, as vastly documented. Mezigue (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No the words "Star Wars Episode V" were not incorporated into the title. The opening crawl has always said "Star Wars Episode V The Empire Strikes Back." Marketing ads always had "Star Wars" in them. "Episode V" was not mentioned in marketing until the prequels came out but it was always in the opening crawl. Last time I checked X2 was still at X2 as that was what was (and still is) in the opening credits even though the marketing ads said "X2: X-Men United." As the opening to this movie said "Star Wars Episode V The Empire Strikes Back" that is and has always been the title. People just ignored the "Episode V" until the prequels. Emperor001 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It was in the crawl but not in the title. Mezigue (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The first part of the crawl is the title. All six movies contain "Star Wars Episode..." then the individual number and title. All six are Star Wars. All have their own numbers and subtitles. Under that logic the prequels should be under just their subtitles (e.g. The Phantom Menace) but all are at their full titles, so the originals should be that way too. Emperor001 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
That was not on the trailers, posters or any other promotional material when the original three films were released in 1977-1983. Thus it is not their WP:COMMONNAME. The prequel episodes did use the numbers in their promotional materials. So stop saying both series are the same. They're not. This has been explained repeatedly. You're just making the same point and refusing to accept WP policy. Read WP:OFFICIALNAMES. The voting period is over. Time to move on. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I will make one final comment before signing off (it looks like I'm outnumbered here). Re marketing materials: based on what I've heard about George Lucas he always considered Star Wars one movie divided into six chapters (now with a 7th on the way). As to the marketing materials, it would look kind of awkward to advertise the second movie as Episode V, so while he considered the official title "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" he only advertised it under the short title because it was a good marketing strategy but still slipped the full title into the movie. When the prequels came out it was then feasible to market the original trilogy films under their full titles. I also checked over WP:Commonname and found this quote: "it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Marketing materials would be reliable sources for the film's common name in the 1970s and 80s but today's marketing sources as well as other official sources use the full titles. I recognize that WP is not to always use the official title (unless that is the most commonly used name) and in this case there is a some-what generational dispute: older fans know these films by one title and younger fans know them by another. Emperor001 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This has been resolved above, there needs to be a ban on opening the same discussion within a few weeks of the previous. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The problem with your proposed rule on a ban is that some of us missed the previous discussion. I don't sign onto Wikipedia as frequently as I used to so I did not notice the proposed change to the short title until it was already made. People had debated using the short titles and until this past year the full titles vote always won so I didn't bother checking. Then when I randomly saw the changes made I wished to make my views known. Emperor001 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Your one movie of six chapters reference can be found in Disc two of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I just add that the original registered trademark for the film was Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, per the U.S. Copyright Office See here --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Er, that page states that the title is "The Empire Strikes Back"... Mezigue (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: The current lead is misleading, the film was not "later" released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, it was originally released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Stating that the film was "later released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" is simply not accurate. Yes, some promotional material simplified the title to just "The Empire Strikes Back" (or Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back") and the "commonly recognizable name" may very well be the shortened "The Empire Strikes Back" (arguably it's just as commonly recognized as referring to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace as "The Phantom Menace" or simply "Episode I," which remains under it's full extended title) but the full title upon it's release was Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (it was not later released as such, it was originally released as such). I was there on opening day in 1980 and it was "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back." Saying that it was "later released" under that title is not accurate, it was "originally released" under that title. Even if the page title stays as the common name of "The Empire Strikes Back," the lead should be rewritten to avoid confusion as to what title the film was released under (unlike 1977's "Star Wars," which was later re-released with the title changed to "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope," this film was originally released with the full title.). Statler&Waldorf (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This has already been said and answered above. The trailers, posters and other promotional material used The Empire Strikes Back when it was originally released in May 1980. Thus that is its WP:COMMONNAME. Read WP:OFFICIALNAMES. And the voting period is over. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The common name is not in dispute. I don't think anyone questions the common name of the films. What is questionable is whether or not the lead is accurate in saying the Episodic titles were later added. In Return of the Jedi, Episode VI was most definitely part of the registered title with the U.S. Copyright Office, whereas a case could be made for Empire, whose application listed both The Empire Strikes Back and the full Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back title.--Tærkast (Discuss) 23:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't go by that. The Episodic titles were later added to the trailers, posters and other promotional material when the film was re-released. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Once again, the common name is not in dispute. For the episodic titles, you can make a case for Empire but not for Jedi. According to the BBFC, Jedi was indeed originally released as Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, See this link and the US Copyright Office link [1]. To suggest that it was later released under the full title is misleading, that's the inaccuracy being referred to. It's a misstatement. The article titles can stay as they were, however, they need to accurately reflect the information of their release.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't go by that. And the BBFC link you give is not even referring to the film's original release, but the 1997 release. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it indeed refers to the original release if you click under details. Jedi was always known under its full title. --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No it wasn't. Virtually no one in the public is aware of it's copyright title, etc., which is disputed anyway. The film is known to the public by the title on the trailers, posters and other promotional material when the film is released. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that the common name is "The Empire Strikes Back." I'm disputing the phrasing in the lead, which is misleading. The franchise name and episodic number may have been added later to supporting promotional materials (trailers, posters, merchandise, etc.), but they were not later added to the film itself. The film was not "later released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back," the film was originally released with that title (even if the accompanying trailers, poster, and promotional material used the shorter title). Statler&Waldorf (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As stated near the top of this thread, "Later released as" refers to trailers, posters and all other promotional material, not the film itself. This is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and it works best for the lead. We're not going to describe the details of the Star Wars crawl in the opening sentence of the article (though it should be in the article itself). - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The current lead reads as follows:

  • "The Empire Strikes Back (later released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."

I think the phrase "later released as" is misleading, as it could be misinterpreted to imply that the title was changed after it was originally released (which is something that happened with 1977's "Star Wars"). I think a more accurate lead would be one of the following:

  • "The Empire Strikes Back (also known as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."
  • "The Empire Strikes Back (released under the full title Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."
  • "The Empire Strikes Back (released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."
  • "The Empire Strikes Back (titled on-screen and in subsequent promotion as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."
  • "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (commonly referred to as The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."
  • "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (original promoted as The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."

- Statler&Waldorf (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not saying anything new here. All of those have problems. It was only known to the public in 1980 as The Empire Strikes Back. Many of your suggestions would imply otherwise. The public only became aware of Episode V as part of the title upon later re-releases. This subject has been covered from every angle. The 1977 Star Wars article lead says "retitled" instead of "later released as", so there's no confusion - at least not for anyone who looks further into it. We're not going to put a more verbose version in the opening sentence. The current lead is most accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The public became aware of Episode V as part of the title upon it's initial release (as soon as the title scrolled across the screen on opening day in 1980...and even in some pre-release material). They did not become aware of Episode V as part of the title upon later re-releases. It was not "later" that I became aware of Episode V, I was aware it was part of the title since day 1.
I also don't think "also known as" is any more or less verbose than "later released as" and is less confusing, more accurate and avoids any potential misinterpretations or inferences. Statler&Waldorf (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It was not "also known as" Episode V to the public in 1980, so that would not be more accurate. Seeing Episode V as part of the scroll did not make 99.99 percent of the public think the title of the film was anything more than The Empire Strikes Back, as those four words were the full title seen on the trailers, posters and other promotional material when the film was originally released. It was also the title used in the reviews of the film at that time. That is what WP goes by. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not arguing to change the article title; I am arguing to drop the vague and misleading term "later" used to describe the fuller title as something that was released "later." If it wasn't part of the title in 1980, then when exactly was the "Episode V" added? (Should I slap the {{when}} tag on there?) Using "also" in place of "later" is still accurate and avoids an unnecessary and somewhat confusing unsupported attribution (which is against Wikipedia's manual of style) that is given with the vague and unsupported use of the word "later" in the lead. Statler&Waldorf (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It was not "also" known as Episode V to the public in 1980, so that would not be accurate. And WP leads only give the year of original release. We're not going to put the re-release history in the opening sentence. That belongs in the article body, in the Release section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, it was also known as Episode V to the public in 1980. Maybe not widely or even commonly referred to as such, but it was known... it was in the opening crawl in 1980, it was on the US copyright application in 1980, it was on the script prior to 1980. I was there on opening day in 1980 and I knew it as Episode V that day, not "later" as you imply. Yes, the "Episode V" wasn't widely known or commonly used until later episodes were released and the films re-branded and re-marketed, but it was always there, it wasn't a "later" addition; it was just later emphasized.
Secondly, saying "also released as" Episode V is still accurate even if it wasn't known as such in 1980. It was clearly released as The Empire Strikes Back in 1980 and it was "also released as" Episode V subsequently. So it is 100% accurate to say that "The Empire Strikes Backs" was also released as "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back."
We can say "Star Wars" was later released as "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" because the renaming did in fact take place later (on April 10, 1981 upon its theatrical re-release, to be exact). If you want to say "The Empire Strikes Backs" was later released as "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" then we should back that up with when that occurred (maybe not in the lead, but somewhere in the article or a footnote). But we can't because there isn't a specific pinpoint-able time the name changed, it was always there, the emphasis on it just changed as the marketing and support material evolved. Statler&Waldorf (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
You're just repeating the same things. As you say, the "Episode V" wasn't widely known or commonly used until later episodes were released. That is what we go by for the lead. What was widely known and commonly used in the year of original release. The re-release history belongs in the Release section. And guess what - it's already there, along with an explanation of Episode V being in the opening crawl but not the film's publicity in 1980. So all this is addressed in the article, but it's not going to be forced into the lead. That's it. Time to move on. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Why does it matter if it was commonly known as "Episode V" in 1980 or not? That's an argument for changing the article title, not for listing an aka. The fact is it's very commonly known as that now and it has always been the onscreen title, just not the promotional one. Saying it was "later released as" that is at best incredibly misleading and at worst just a flat out lie. Not even the Special Editions were promoted that way if that's what you're going by (for example). Changing it to say "also known as" would be much more accurate. --DocNox (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The more I think about it the more I think "titled onscreen as" would actually be best, since that really is the main issue here. Simply "The Empire Strikes Back" is undoubtedly the common name and has been used as the promotional title in every single theatrical release, including the Special Editions. But the full actual onscreen title is just as notable and important. Now, that might not necessarily be the case with every film out there, but it definitely is with this one and other Star Wars films. Especially with how common the full titles have become lately. It completely avoids any confusion about when "Episode V" was added to the title and just gets to the point. --DocNox (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree; the phrase "later released as" is very misleading, if not completely inaccurate. The common name was (and still is) "The Empire Strikes Back." However "Star Wars Episode V:" was always part of the on-screen titles, it was not added later; it was just emphasized more often on the later promotional materials and home video releases and whatnot. But the film itself was never re-titled nor was it re-released under a "new" name at a later point in time -- the name has always been the same. I think saying "titled onscreen as" or "also known as" is much more accurate than saying "later released as." Statler&Waldorf (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Any change to the current wording. The release of the film was under its shortened title, per reliable sources. It was on retitled later for the special editions.--JOJ Hutton 21:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"It was on retitled later for the special editions". That is simply not true, for which several sources have been provided. This just further proves the spread of misinformation with the current wording. In fact the article itself needs to be edited to correct this in the Special Edition "releases" section. --DocNox (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The original posters, trailers and promotional material in 1980 simply referred to the film as "The Empire Strikes Back." But it was NOT retitled for the special editions; the poster, the trailers and the promotional materials for the re-release in 1997 also all referred to the film as simply "The Empire Strikes Back" with no emphasis or even mention on the episode number. The "Episode V" was always a part of the film's title; it was on the film in 1980 (not added later). The film was never retitled or re-released with a new name adding the number in. The "Star Wars Episode V:" part of the title (which was on the film since day #1) was simply emphasized more in some of the marketing, packaging and support materials later on as the saga grew. But the title was never changed from "The Empire Strikes Back" to "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back;" the film has always held by both titles - the shorter common name and the longer full name. The longer one didn't come later, it just became a little more common later on. But "Star Wars Episode V" has been in the full official title since the day the film was originally released in May 1980... it's not a "later" addition. Statler&Waldorf (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the "Releases" section of the article to reflect this, however I'm still a little wary of editing the lead without further consensus. However it seems to me that Gothicfilm was simply operating under the misconception that "Episode V" was added to the promo title for the Special Editions, which we've now established was not the case. It's the on-screen title, period, and the lead should tell us that. --DocNox (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to add that posters, trailers or reports are not defined as a release of the film. I remember in 2002 a CNN reporter referring to episode 2 as simply "Attack of the Clones" which doesn't mean it's not the official name, it' just a shortened form of the movie. Same thing for all the episodes. They are known in long form by their proper numerical names as they should be known in the articles as.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The title of the article should reflect the common name (which is "The Empire Strikes Back") but the article text, particularly the lead, should accurately reflect the film's full and proper name (which is, and always has been, "Star Wars: Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back"). The "Star Wars: Episode V" part was not something added later, it was just emphasized in support materials more often later on and thus became a more commonly used name for the film later on.
Wikipedia has dealt with works where the common name is not the same as the full official title (see "Moby-Dick", "Gulliver's Travels", "Borat" or "Dr. Strangelove" for examples).
This is not a situation like 1977's Star Wars where the "Episode IV: A New Hope" was not a part of the film or its titling until several years later. In this case, the "Star Wars Episode V:" has always been part of the full on-screen title of The Empire Strikes Back. The common name(s) may have evolved over the years, however the actual title of the film has never changed! -- Statler&Waldorf (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Guys, just because no one is bothered arguing this again and again and again and again and again and again doesn't mean you can then ignore the recent discussion. Mezigue (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It also doesn't mean you can ignore our arguments. I have yet to see someone post a valid reason why "later released as" is at all appropriate. It's all seems to be based on the special editions being promoted by that name or something which is NOT true as the more recent discussion have proven. --DocNox (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm agreeable to the opening sentence change to
The Empire Strikes Back (also known as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)
under the condition that it stay strictly with that wording. "Also known as" is the most commonly used term for alternate titles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That wording is perfectly acceptable to me so long as we keep the full explanation of what actually appears on-screen in the "Releases" section. The only reason why I gravitated towards "titled on-screen as" is because the film technically has other common AKAs. Some of the posters and VHS tapes called it Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back and the final VHS and DVDs called it Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back without the word "Episode". Come to think of it, I don't think a single release has ever used the complete on-screen title (I could be wrong). But that's the reason why it's the only one actually notable. --DocNox (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"One of the six main films"

When are we changing this? Should we do it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.72.152 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

When another film is released. Mezigue (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course, who knows when that'll happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.7.37 (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I've edited the article to remove the reference. There's little point stating the number of films, because this information can be found in the main Star Wars franchise article. After all, you wouldn't describe Thunderball saying "one of the 23 films" Mrstonky (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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 02:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Titles Issues

Umm, I'm pretty sure this was released in theaters as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and not just The Empire Strikes Back. The same goes for "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi". Also the claim "The title, number and episode never actually appeared until after the release of "The Phantom Menace" is incorrect. Despite popular belief, the films were not given numbers for the 1997 Special Editions, nor the 2004 DVD releases. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was just called Star Wars in 1977, but was given its number and subtitle for it's 1981 re-release. Empire and Jedi were originally released with their respective numbers and subtitles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is correct. The original movie didn't have an episode or the subtitle "A New Hope". The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were both released with the episode number. S806 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that is correct. The vintage poster on IMDB for instance just reads The Empire Strikes Back, with Star Wars sort of wrapped around but not mention of episode. EDIT: heh, it's the same poster used on this page. Mezigue (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
But it is true. I have the original theatrical release movie, it says Episode 5 in the movie. Empire and Return both had the episode number in the original release. S806 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you talking about the scrolling text at the beginning or what's written on the box?Mezigue (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The original title of the movie [2] IMDB says "Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi" (original title). It has always been that. S806 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
As well as Empire strikes back. S806 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not just about using the official title for the article title. WP:CRITERIA comes into play as well. For example, Borat is officially a much longer title, but it is simple and doable to render it in the current state. Similarly, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are universally recognized in their concise states; additional detail is just extraneous and can be mentioned in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the page be moved to "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back", however the actual title needs to be the first thing in the header lead, and at the top of the info box. Those have always been the official titles, and the page needs to reflect that. S806 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the infobox, but I think it is appropriate for the opening sentence of the lead section. (Think about actors' Wikipedia articles; full names in the opening sentences, but common names in infoboxes.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The full title and the four word title have both been in the lead, in bold, all along. What's changed is which one is first and which one is second. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we put the true title first, and what it's also known as second. It's the way titles work.S806 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
They were released as The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi and the episodes numbers were incorporated into the titles much later. I have no idea why you claim otherwise when all the posters, trailers, VHS sleeves and reviews of the time document this! Mezigue (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
This isn't true. The only one that was released without an episode number is the original star wars. Evidence "With this new backstory in place, Lucas decided that the series would be a trilogy, changing Empire Strikes Back from Episode II to Episode V in the next draft." Star Wars S806 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
What is that sentence and how does it prove anything? And what is this "original theatrical release movie" you claimed to have yesterday? What format is it and what does it say on the packaging? Mezigue (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with S806, Empire and Jedi were originally, theatrically released into theaters with their Episode numbers and subtitles, regardless of what the posters, trailers, VHS sleeves, reviews etc. say. The only film, in all of Star Wars, that wasn't released with a number was the original Star Wars, which was given its number and subtitle for the 1981 re-release. From May 21, 1980 to May 19, 2005 all Star Wars films were released with a Title, Number, and Subtitle. Saying "The Empire Strikes Back (later released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)" is like saying "The Phantom Menace (later released As Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace)"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 04:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't, because The Phantom Menace had Episode I on the posters, trailers, etc., at the time of its first release, and The Empire Strikes Back did not. A film is known by the title used in the promotional materials. That is the WP:COMMONNAME. Very few in the public notice if the title on the film itself is different. So the lead is quite accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
"Empire and Jedi were originally, theatrically released into theaters with their Episode numbers and subtitles, regardless of what the posters, trailers, VHS sleeves, reviews etc. say." Are you actually serious? They were secretly called something else than what they were called? Mezigue (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Both of you aren't listening. It doesn't matter what the posters, trailers, etc., call it. They were both released into theaters as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi. You want proof? Go to any thrift shop and pull out a VHS from the 80s. The number and subtitle will be there, I promise. They weren't released just as The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi. And yes Mezigue I am dead serious. And no they weren't "secretly called something else". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It's you who isn't listening. You need to read WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Like this VHs from the 80s of The Empire Strikes Back or this VHS from the 80s of Return of the Jedi you mean? Mezigue (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if you buy then play those home vidoes, the opening crawls will clearly say "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" and "Star Wars Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi". I bet my bank account on it. And no Gothicfilm, I don't care what the rules say, the official titles of these films are in the opening crawls in their original releases! Bite it!00717F (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, it says the episode number before the title in the crawl, but it wasn't part of the title back then. Hence not appearing anywhere else until the 90s. Mezigue (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Given that a number of the people posting here were not alive when the films were released, as a primary witness I can confirm that the phrase "Episode V" was NOT used in promotion for the film back in the 1980s. Despite "Episode V" appearing in the crawl -- confusing a whole load of cinema-goers in the process, who were not aware of the re-numbering/re-titling of the first movie -- all posters and merchandise referred to it only as either "The Empire Strikes Back" or "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back". (You can see this clearly in these images from the period: London Evening News front page Cinema hoarding) (Indeed, much of the mainstream media of the day referred to it as "Star Wars 2".) Mrstonky (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I know this conversation is seemingly over and done with, but just in case this was still bothering you (or anyone else), I thought I'd help set your mind at ease by explaining the episode number designations. The number designations are direct homages to space fantasy pulp serials from decades prior, a la Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. These short serials, which lasted for many years, were screened before main features. People didn't go to the movies every week, so they didn't catch every serial short. Therefore, there was an opening scroll that was list of the episode number and provide a quick blurb to catch the audience members up so that they could jump in the middle and still understand what was going on for the next fifteen minutes or so. The contents of the opening scroll are Lucas' direct homage to the space fantasy pulp serial subgenre. However, until the prequels, the episode numbers were merely INTERNAL designations, NOT titles of the films in and of themselves. That titling scheme was not used until the prequels, which was an intention move to quickly, easily, and directly tell the general audience (who, for the most part, don't follow movie news online) that these are prequels and not sequels. The Empire Strikes Back IS the fifth episode of the Star Wars saga, however the original title of the film is still The Empire Strikes Back. The opening scroll is a non-diagetic mechanism within the narrative to serve a purpose to the audience, but there has not and has never been any indication that this has anything to do with the title of the film. Otherwise, why wouldn't the film's title include the rest of the scrolling text? Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom IS the second Indiana Jones film, but nobody is insisting on calling it Indiana Jones 2. Some may argue from a perspective involving internal chronology, given the fact that Temple of Doom came first... why, then, wouldn't it be re-named Indiana Jones 2: Raiders of the Lost Ark? My point is this: there is a very, very clear distinction between a film's title and a film's role in the franchise at large. Alternate titles can be tacked on later, and that's all well and good, but for the purposes of identifying a film's original debut title, nothing can be taken into consideration beyond the title as registered in the paperwork. Everything else is internal material (scrolling text/thematic content/etc.) as opposed to external (film's title/running time/cast-crew list). Also worth noting is an apparently updated naming scheme for the sequel trilogy. The new film appears to be titled "Star Wars: The Force Awakens". It IS Episode VII, and will reflect this designation in the scrolling text, but as opposed to the original trilogy (in which each film's title was unique) and the prequel trilogy (in which each film's title included "Star Wars Episode __:" before a subtitle, the sequel trilogy films appear to follow the structure of "Star Wars:" followed by the subtitle. Also interesting to note is an apparent new method of referring all past movies from official sources after the EPVII announcement. Official Star Wars, Lucasfilm, and Disney materials have listed older films with the EPVII naming scheme: "Star Wars: A New Hope", "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back", etc. It's certain nothing to get stressed about though. It's all just colloquialisms and ease-of-access in terms of inter-franchise communicability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.129.170 (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Empire Strikes Back. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Darth Sidious" versus "Emperor Palpatine"

There seems to be a bit of an edit disagreement between user:Robynthehode and an anonymous IP concerning whether the Emperor is to be referred to as "Darth Sidious" or "Emperor Palpatine", so I thought I'd throw in my two cents. I am not a Star Wars aficionado, having seen the trilogy fewer than a dozen times, none of the prequels, and maybe only a couple of the (non-canon) books that have come out. My only contributions to the Star Wars articles have been the inclusion of alt text for the benefit of visually impaired users of this encyclopedia who use screen readers.

As a non-expert in Star Wars, I had never heard of "Darth Sidious" until now. From my non-expert point of view, calling the Emperor "the Emperor" is to be preferred. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have also reverted that user numerous times over this. They come back every few days and make the same incompetent edits on the same bunch of articles again and again. This is a real-world versus fictional perspective issue really. The name Sidious was invented for the prequel trilogy long after this film came out. Mezigue (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. I have been reverting the edits because: one, the facts regarding the 'Darth Sidious' inclusion are on the side of non-inclusion (unless I am mistaken and another editor can provide sources) and a non visible note asking for the Darth Sidious text to be excluded is repeatedly being ignored and often the note is also being removed. Such anonymous editors are essentially vandals. They don't have the decency to take their argument to the talk page or to make any comments when they make their edits. I for one will keep reverting such edits (as I do in other articles) on principle although I do regularly politely ask them in my reverts to take their challenge to the talk page - although this is ignored Robynthehode (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


Time Magazine Cover

Should there be reference to the famous Time Magazine Cover during the Falklands Crisis, (soon to be Falklands War), in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.88.20 (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Genre classification

There is a discussion in progress concerning the "epic space opera" label being used throughout the Star Wars film articles. Both epic and space opera are being questioned in the lead. Please voice your opinion on the matter at: Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Empire Strikes Back. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

How did Luke know...

When Luke flies from Dagobah to Cloud City to help Leia and Han, there's no explanation of how he knows they are supposed to be there.

Whether he knows for some reason or just senses it or is told by the Force or the spirit of Obi Wan Kenobi or whatever, it should be mentioned. And if the movie itself doesn't explain it, it's also worth mentioning. Teo8976 (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • No Wikipedia is not a place for speculation unless reliable sources can be found for this information and it is also notable. Not everything has to be included in Wikipedia articles and this is of minor interest to general readers. And that is whom an encylopaedia article is aimed at. Robynthehode (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Plus, you know, the movie DOES explain it anyway. "I saw a city in the clouds." (L) "Friends you have there." (Y) DP76764 (Talk) 20:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes thanks DP76764 (Talk) I'd forgotten about that but my general point still stands - an encyclopeadia article does not have to contain every piece of minor information about the article's subject Robynthehode (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the OP's point was not that it be included as a piece of trivia or anything like that, but that it's a pretty significant plot point, without which the last part of the plot summary makes no sense. (and if it makes no sense there's no point in having a plot summary). Since it is explained in the movie as you say, I don't see the harm in adding in a few words to connect the dots for those reading the plot summary (something like "After seeing a vision of his friends in danger, Luke travels to Bespin..."). I don't see it as a piece of meaningless trivia (and we all agree that those should not be included, this plot summary reads quite nicely), but a key facet of the plot. After all, the whole premise of the second part of the movie is that Luke was lured into a trap...it's why Vader is there at all, it's why Han, Leia, et al are captured, etc. etc. By omitting the explanation of why Luke goes there in the first place makes it nonsensical (right now it doesn't make sense). And the fact that it is explained in the movie takes it out of the realm of fan speculation, so no violation of those principles in including here?70.91.35.27 (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Tim

Perhaps to put this into context, the current plot summary says: "The spirit of his late mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi, instructs him to go to the Dagobah system to train under Jedi Master Yoda." This could just as easily have been simplified to read "Luke then goes to the Dogabah system..." but that would of course beg the question "why?" Jumping ahead to where Luke goes to Bespin, one would similarly like to know "why?"...even for a basic understanding of the plot (which is the purpose of the summary). So a very very brief "non-speculation" addition seems like it would make as much sense here is it did earlier in the plot summary. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Tim

Move discussion in progress

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)

Issues in the "Writing" Section

The second to last paragraph has some weird and anachronistic descriptions of events from prequels, with an incorrect citation (#27) to Kaminski's book. I'm not sure why such a specific description of prequel events, starting with the parenthetical comment about Sith Lords is part of this section. What does it contribute to an understanding of the writing process of Empire? Also, I can't even verify that it is accurate -- those ideas are not in Kaminski's book. I propose that the extra descriptions be deleted, and instead end the discussion with the act of combining Anakin and Vader into the same character, as that is the only supported claim from the citation. Thekappen (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

quote confusion

Many people incorrectly remember a famous quote from the movie as"Luke,I am your father" when it is really "No, i am your father" This confusion has generated multiple theories to explain the memories, including a change made for the special edition version, time travel, or parallel universes and has been described as an instance of the Mandela effect. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:841:4100:8319:25b9:485d:9513:9e0f (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://mandelaeffect.com/visual-cues-and-the-mandela-effect/
  2. ^ https://verumetinventa.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/mandela-effect-star-wars-time-shift-luke-i-am-your-father-proof/
  3. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/4pc1ly/james_earl_jones_confirms_luke_i_am_your_father/
  4. ^ http://paranormalglobe.com/2015/09/27/the-madela-effect/
  5. ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2131689/do-you-quote-the-luke-i-am-your-father-line-from-star-wars-if-so-youre-getting-it-wrong-and-this-is-the-reason-why/

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Empire Strikes Back. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Empire Strikes Back. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Empire Strikes Back. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Empire Strikes Back. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. WP:SNOW by consensus per WP:COMMONNAME. The nom is urged to read COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 23:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


The Empire Strikes Back → Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back – [Minus "Episode V",] this is the title given in the film. The marketing (posters) originally included "Star Wars" in a rectangle around the stylized subtitle. Since the prequels, it has been released on video with "Episode V" in the title to match the other episodes. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. How many times does this have to come up with the various SW films?!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively [to including "Episode V"] I'd propose "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back", as that's how it appears on the poster. This is simple & brings it into line with Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The shortened title without "Star Wars" is mostly colloquial. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
But not with Return of the Jedi. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Not all this again! There have been many, many discussions in many different place and the consensus is reflected in the current article titles as they are now. Unfortunately it is very difficult to refer to this consensus because there is no central point of discussion to link to. Furthermore, the WikiProject Star Wars Manual of style is wrong as it does not reflect the consensus. It would help if editors could update this style guide and offer a "single source of truth" about what has been agreed across the whole SW article range.Cnbrb (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Cnbrb: I've just updated the Star Wars MOS. Let me know what you think of what I did. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: thanks - I didn't feel brave enough to update it myself! Will take a look. Cnbrb (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Return of the Jedi also has Star Wars above the subtitle on the poster. Whatever the consensus here should apply to the other article. No need for a separate discussion. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. The current title is more concise than other variations and is still recognizable. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the previous discussions on this, IJBall, and Erik. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME and consensus already reachd at previous discussions already linked at top of this talk page; suggest WP:SNOWBALL may apply here was SW article titles have been done to death. Cnbrb (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

C-3PO & R2-D2

The plot section seems to do a good job of following the activities of most characters, save for C-3PO and R2-D2. It makes no mention of C-3PO after the droid's escape from Hoth. C-3PO did not stay on-board the Millenium Falcon the whole time after that, and the droid's exploration of Cloud City was key to revealing the Imperial presence there to viewers. C-3PO was carried on Chewbacca's back and even helped the band escape Cloud City by pointing out the presence of Stormtroopers on their heels.

Likewise, the plot section fails to indicate how R2-D2 came to be onboard the Millenium Falcon before the droid reactivated its hyperdrive in the final few scenes. Last we saw R2-D2, the droid had been on its way to Dagobah with Luke. Did R2 sink into the swamp? No.

This plot summary seems to dismiss the importance of these droids to the film's plot. Nothing new. Though, I believe, Lucas had a different vision for them in the saga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.184.249 (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Academic source/analysis gathering

Thread to add academic sources when we come across 'em:

JOEBRO64 02:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"albeit the fifth chronologically"

Joe, I totally understand why you want to include the bolded part:

Produced by Lucasfilm, it is the second film in the Star Wars film series (albeit the fifth chronologically) and the sequel to Star Wars (1977)

I agree that it's worth mentioning in the lead. BUT I think there are a few problems with this construction.

First, if this information is important, it shouldn't be explained by embedding it in another sentence. Every clause or subclause you add to a sentence adds complexity and cognitive load on the reader and makes information harder to absorb. This is why I avoid parentheses in Wikipedia articles generally - information is either worth including or not, and if it's worth including, it's not worth burying. The "albeit" doesn't help.

Second, is it actually technically true? If you include the prequel trilogy and the more recent Solo and Rogue One spin-offs, isn't it actually the seventh chronologically? What if we include the Clone Wars movie (which I know nothing about)? In that case, the argument that this helps explain the confusing Episode V subtitle doesn't really hold up.

There has to be a better way to cover this information. It might need to be spelled out explicitly in a sentence or two, covering Lucas's intentions for a bigger saga etc. Popcornduff (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I second this. Not only is the comment arguably unnecessary there, it's also poorly worded. However, there is an alternative: the term "Skywalker Saga" more accurately refers to the trilogy of trilogies, but you could also say "the second film in the Star Wars trilogy" or "the second film in the original Star Wars trilogy". Toa Nidhiki05 02:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Valid points. I'm not too keen on the "Skywalker saga" wording—I personally consider it too promotional—but I will try to come up with a solution, maybe explaining it when the original trilogy is brought up in the fourth paragraph. JOEBRO64 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The best way to communicate this information is the "Episode V" part of the title. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

plot twist

Is it necessary to include in the lead what twist the talk is about? Or include the sentence in another part of the article, e.g. Reception? 37.252.82.120 (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope. I've tried a slight rephrase. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's very significant and a milestone in cinema history. Plus it's 40 years old, and see WP:SPOILERS. Canterbury Tail talk 14:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
+1 JOEBRO64 15:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"Do or do not, there is no try" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Do or do not, there is no try. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Do or do not, there is no try until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ad Lib During Filming

The story that Irvin Kershner told Harrison Ford to "improvise on the spot" and then he changed his line from "I love you too" to "I know" appears to be false. There's a transcript of an audiotape made at the time that has them discussing the scene before shooting, and that's where Ford comes up with the line. Also, the original line being replaced had Han promising Leia that he'd be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.64.228 (talk • contribs)

This is correct. An excerpt from the transcript of the on-set recording:
Ford: And as I turn, she can say, sotto voce … “I love you.”

Kershner: [continues to speak slowly what he’s writing down] Leia: “I love you.” And Han says, “I know.”

Ford: Yeah.

Kershner: “Yeah, I know. I’ll be back."
— J.W. Rinzler , The Making of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
The original line was "I'll be back," not "I love you too" as Kershner always tells it. Kershner and Ford talked extensively in between takes trying to work out an alternative line. Kershner is actually the first one to suggest Han respond with, "I know." The story Kershner has always told appears to be an embellishment.2601:14C:8300:2C3B:98B1:C9D0:3985:31B7 (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hamill's scar

The "Writing" section states that the Wampa scene was added to explain Hamill's face scar, while the "Filming" section debukes that statement. One of the two must be true, but the article should not contradict itself. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Who's Watts?

The name "Watts" appear three times but never reveal his (or her?) full name and identity.--Jarodalien (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Another name need clarify: "Sutton, Varney, and Burtt", who's Burtt?--Jarodalien (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 FA on main page in 2010???

How is it that this page has only gained Featured Article status this month (January 2022) despite appearing on the main page as early as 2010 according to this page?

Thanks YappityYapp (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Because it was Demoted that year Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Would look forward to have it refeatured on May 4th. ZKang123 (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@ZKang123: Well it has. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR Any mention of John Barry's demise?

Forgive the seemingly banal inquiry but scrolling sections, using page search - this page offers quite a lot to unpack.

Does the production/filming/any section cover John Barry's unfortune and why he was replaced as second unit director?

Arcsoda (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as stated in the Filming at Elstree Studios section, "Second unit director John Barry died suddenly in early June; Harley Cokeliss replaced him a week later."$chnauzer 20:26, 3 November 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. As while "polarized" tells a part of the story it seems more leaning to what the older generation of fans thought of them. Joe12Hawk (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This content was already in the article prior to its FA assessment and was removed as a result of that assessment because this isn't an article about the prequels and it isn't the place to go into detail about it, nor is Star Wars or Return of the Jedi. The content previously in there was also less bias and not added with an agenda, as it discusses that the difference is which trilogy people watched first dictates their preference, not just being "older". I was 13 when the Phantom Menace came out and thought it was terrible, so to try and write it as if anyone young just automatically liked it and its just those old people who liked the original trilogy are down on it is false. I will be redirecting the conversations at ROTJ and Star Wars here because you shouldn't be spreading a discussion over 3 pages. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The prequels didn't exist in 1980, so are out of scope for this article about a 1980 film, and for the 1977 film too. There might be value in adding your points to the main Star Wars article instead, which discusses the franchise as a whole. 21:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the above about scope and accuracy, but what do you mean by "I tried adding with a source"? Recent edits of yours don't appear to be adding a source. Did I miss it? I hope the source you are referring to is highly reputable and not some anecdotal account from some random critic or journalist. They need to back up that kind of analysis with some hard facts/evidence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
They did add this reference from Nerdist in their 2nd to last edit (you are right they added no source originally), deleting 5 references in the process. The Nerdist article makes the comment "The Star Wars prequels, released between 1999 and 2005, didn’t get much love from critics or adult fans," but the fans part is subjective at best and anecdotal, as since I mentioned above, I wasn't an adult and didn't like it, and it's contrary to the sourced content in the version of the article I linked above which appears in the sequel section. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, kind of what I was expecting, thanks. It's always possible to find someone, somewhere writing something we agree with, but that doesn't make an opinion fact. Did they discover this through their own research (primary source)? Are they analyzing someone else's research (secondary source)? Or was it simply an anecdotal opinion like we suspect? Sounds like the latter to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I also said "generally speaking younger fans were positive" in my edit as generally we were the positive ones but we didn't have a voice in the media. I was also part of the younger crowd when they came out and those my age at the time were all positive in experience. So I tried to give both sides of the story in my edit with the "generally positive" as I know it would've been too broad without it. Joe12Hawk (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

All positive in my experience I should say. Joe12Hawk (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to give the full scope of opinion across the board on the critical reception and not just the loudest voice in the room. Original fans, critics, and younger fans. As it stands now it seems more about how older fans and critics see them with little to say for the younger generation who indeed "generally" speaking were positive. Joe12Hawk (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

we didn't have a voice in the media
See WP:DUE. Wikipedia works by citing what reliable sources say. If the reliable sources aren't talking about it, it won't be reflected here. Also, anecdotes isn't data, so that's acadamically and scientifically a non-starter. DonQuixote (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Aren't reviews also anecdotes though as they're subjective? Just as Ewan McGregor giving a voice to the younger generation that grew up with them. It's more or less the same thing with critics. I think it's only right to include both sides of the story. Joe12Hawk (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I can include a different source though.
Like this one:
https://www.cultureslate.com/news/how-the-prequels-went-from-hated-to-loved-in-10-years Joe12Hawk (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Aren't reviews also anecdotes though as they're subjective?
There are so few critics that we can assess their published works and get a fair idea of their reactions. On the other hand, there are so many people in the general audience that extrapolating anectdotes to anything representative of the wider audience is statistically inaccurate and dishonest.
As to Culture Slate, again see WP:DUE. You would need a sizeable number of those types of sources saying about the same thing in order to hold any weight. Or you would need a handful of academic journals or scholarly books on the subject. DonQuixote (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I can certainly provide more than one example. No problem there. Joe12Hawk (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Joe12Hawk: Please use colons (:) to indent your responses as we have all done here. If you can provide at least three highly-reputable sources analyzing the demographics of the audience response in detail (age, sex, etc.), then I'd think you'd have a decent argument on your hands, or at least one that is good enough to start the conversation at the right page (this article talk page is not the right place). For reputable, think Variety, Deadline, LA Times, or any print publication that was authored by an industry expert.
The more it focuses on breaking down the audience back then, the better. If it only mentions "adult fans" or "children" in passing, that's not good enough. It needs to delve into this hardcore providing numbers, or alternatively, quote the data or study it is basing the analysis on. That Culture Slate article is simply speculating on possible reasons. We need more than just conjecture, speculation, and opinions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm on my phone. So it's difficult to use colons at this time. Unfortunately the mainstream "insider" media still likes to portray these things as black and white. So there's little room for the younger generation to have a voice as there hasn't been a wide spread critical retrospect that gives credit to the younger generation. So I think it's a little unfair to not be able to use just as valid lesser known sources. Joe12Hawk (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The theory of relativity didn't make it into encyclopaedias for decades until secondary sources started talking about it. That's how tertiary sources work. Can't bypass that, unfortunately. DonQuixote (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Great example! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The LA Times is "insider media"? Please. It's clear you have an agenda when you attack sources like that. Lesser-known sources are fine when they publish something of relevance, but the only way we know it's relevant (and accurate) is when more reputable sources pick up on it. Our hands are tied until that happens. In the meantime, you might want to review WP:FRINGE and WP:BESTSOURCES. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I have no agenda or bias against the LA Times. I'm only interested in giving the factual information that the younger generation generally was positive about the Prequels from the beginning. It just hasn't been discussed in great detail by the mainstream media as they still have an agenda that doesn't fully give them their due respect as the older generation still controls the narrative and paints it as more black and white than it actually is. That is all. Joe12Hawk (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm just going to be blunt. When you start whinging about the "mainstream media" or about "factual information" for which you cannot provide any evidence (other than personal anecdotes), you start painting yourself as a crackpot. Look, this tact never works: see flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, creationists and other conspiracy theorists. The best way to avoid this is to cite reliable sources with due weight. DonQuixote (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm just speaking the truth. There's no need to gaslight me and put me in categories such as these. Thank you very much. Joe12Hawk (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Yet, when asked how you know, you point to an opinion: either a published opinion or one based on personal experiences. That does not make something true, not the kind of true that Wikipedia needs. Good excerpt from WP:TRUTH:
One meaning of truth is "something believed to be true ... used in religion, moral philosophy, and many everyday matters, such as when you genuinely believe that you turned off the oven after taking out the pie, but you decide against getting up to verify your belief".
That's the problem with your position in a nutshell. Truth can be a belief that cannot be verified, for whatever reason. Sounds like you are aware that Wikipedia relies on verifiability, a different form of truth. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
There's plenty of sources like George Lucas and Ewan McGregor saying the same things I did. There's many sources out there with them saying so. It's just they're not in the mainstream media in the way you describe. Let's not forget these same mainstream sources are the ones that pushed vendetta against George and the actors during the time they were being released and it pushed some of them over the edge. Just because something can't be sourced in exact wording doesn't mean it isn't factually correct. The younger generation was indeed more positive regarding the Prequels but the mainstream media hasn't gone back to revisit them except in a matter of speaking tone. Joe12Hawk (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I do think this discussion should come to a close now, regardless of if you had a source from the Pope saying a poll of 3 billion young people suggested 51% held favorable opinions of the prequel trilogy, the sequel section of the original trilogy would not be the place to put it because these aren't the prequel films. Also divided audiences already covers it, some people liked them, some people didn't. Lucas and McGregor also have incentive to say things that make those films look better so they're hardly neutral sources. I've also already mentioned that there was previously content that was well sourced which stated people who liked the prequel trilogy were more likely to have watched it before watching the Original Trilogy, and vice versa, nothing to do with age. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Palpatine / the Emperor

As far as I know, the Emperor in Episode 5 was Marjorie Eaton, not Elaine Baker. JuleCA2021 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The book by JW Rinzler is pretty clear it's not that way around, and the only evidence to the contrary is a tweet. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 00:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The Marjorie Eaton article cites a later edition of Rinzler's book.

It was widely and incorrectly reported that Elaine Baker had appeared on screen, while in reality she was only used for makeup tests and it is Eaton who appears in the final film.[1]... As a result, Eaton's role in the film was unconfirmed until 2016.

Does the later edition of the book change the story? Anyone have access to a copy?--Srleffler (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rinzler, J.W. (22 Oct 2013). The Making of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Enhanced ed.). Ballantine Group. ISBN 9780345543363.

A+ CinemaScore?

What about adding Empire's A+ CinemaScore to the critical reception section? I have 6 original news clippings of the A+ score in 1980 papers. [3]https://i.imgur.com/fOSuTJT.jpg [4]https://i.imgur.com/RY8KUyc.jpg [5]https://i.imgur.com/Ef1kBBT.jpg [6]https://i.imgur.com/9J9fohi.jpg [7]https://i.imgur.com/kblPdnE.jpg [8]https://i.imgur.com/Bp0u33e.jpg --Egoshoppe (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Weather at Finse

The description of the weather sounds a bit extreme, it is usually pretty still when it is really cold. Finse has a meteorological station, and I found the official records at https://seklima.met.no/days/min(air_temperature%20P1D),max(wind_speed_of_gust%20P1D),max(max(wind_speed%20PT1H)%20P1D),surface_snow_thickness/custom_period/SN25840/nb/1979-03-05T00:00:00+01:00;1979-04-01T23:59:59+01:00 and indeed, the lowest temperature was -32 deg C on the 18th of March, but then, the winds were just at 6.7 m/s. The temperature fell the next day, and the wind picked up, so that storm would have been pretty extreme, but not as extreme as the text makes it seems. I have myself been skiing in conditions with -12 degC and 20 m/s at that time of the year at Finse, and that can be pretty terrifying if you're not equipped for it.

I'll leave it to others to add this to the text if it is interesting. Kjetil Kjernsmo (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes Finse has a weather station, however the filming was on the glacier, not in Finse. It's much higher, more exposed and colder than in the town of Finse where the weather station is, so I'd fully expect the weather to be much worse during the winter. Canterbury Tail talk 02:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Empire_Strikes_Back/Archive_3&oldid=1210790141"