Talk:Return of the Jedi/Archive 1

Revenge of the Jedi working title

I thought the Revenge of the Jedi bit was an urban legend? Something about misinformation they were producing, but somebody believed it and printed up the advertising posters... obviously I'm not too clear on this, perhaps somebody with a better idea of how to check can do so. -Anonymous

No, I think it's true, it's also on the first page of the only script available that I know of. What I'm not sure of is the reason for changing it. Laz 11:16 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No. It was on the DVD special features. 147.222.21.119

It was indeed going to be Revenge of the Jedi, but Lucas thought that "Revenge" was too harsh of a word when it came to the Jedi. An homage, if you will, to that original title was paid with the new film "Revenge of the Sith" Spencer 16:29 Nov. 2005 (EST)

I also heard it was fool counterfeiters into to producing fake merchandise with "Revenge" instead of "return" written on it in the run up to the films release. I think there's still examples out there of fake toys that bear the "Revenge of the Jedi" title. Monkeyspearfish 14:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In a way...

Actually, as far as I'm concerned (at least in the movie canon), the Galactic Civil War was over and peace returned to the galaxy at the end of the movie. If you didn't catch the disclaimer I added at the beginning of the synopsis, the story summary is based on the 1983 theatrical release version, and not upon the later special editions, and certainly not the Star Wars expanded universe. -Anonymous

I'm sure Lucas himself would agree the story ended with Episode VI...over, done with, kaput. -Anonymous

The Force will be with you, whoever wrote the previous post. Hiphats 23:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The various books were authorized by George Lucas, so I don't think Lucas would nessecarily agree with the statement that Return of the Jedi was the absolute end of the story. So I changed the wording slightly, and added a section on the movie in the context of the Expanded Universe. For one thing, I changed the end of the civil war statement to say the Rebellion's triumph in the war. Then I removed the peace reigns in the galaxy, and left the statement about the force being brought back into balance in the summary. I would hope this would be enough to satisfy both parties in this discussion. JesseG 18:06, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it was entirely accurate to say that the civil war was finally over at the end of the film and the galaxy was at peace. Even if none of the following Expanded Universe literature is included, I don't beleive the Imperial forces would all roll over and die just because the Emperor and Vader were gone. JesseG

That's the beauty of the Thrawn trilogy! Son of Jadoja 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

18:59, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

It was indeed going to be Revenge of the Jedi, but Lucas thought that "Revenge" was too harsh of a word when it came to the Jedi. An homage, if you will, to that original title was paid with the new film "Revenge of the Sith"

It is true. I myself have a press kit that reads Revenge of the Jedi :D

Shorter plot summary

The article's plot summary should be much shorter, similar to The Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones plot summaries. Not Cliff's Notes. TheCoffee 09:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMO they should only be a couple of paragraphs max, The details of these plot summeries on wikipedia is rediculous, and unneeded. Reub2000 13:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

New headers

I added some new headers because the 'Overview' section seemed a bit vague for some of the information it contained. It is still rather disjointed and possibly needs rewriting. clare

A Note About the Actors Section

I just checked the names under the heading 'Ewoks' that link to other pages in Wikipedia. Of the six names that are in blue only Kiran Shah is someone who was actually in the movie. Some of these names may have been little people or children for whom this may have been the only movie they were ever in so the usual actor tag may not be appropriate. Since I am not sure how the wiki members who oversee this page might wish to proceed I am posting this here to make them aware of the situation.MarnetteD | Talk 16:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The cast list seems a bit bloated anyway. Is it really necessary to list every Ewok?! This is the kind of thing that IMDb is for. JW 13:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary for the sake of completeness.Copperchair 10:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, complete credits are what IMDb is for. I doubt if any other films on WP list the bit part actors. JW 10:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Credits correction

I saw the credit for Yoda in the movie, and it says "Frank Oz Performing Yoda", so I will correct it, but leaving the link for "Yoda". -Anonymous

Also, James Earl Jones IS credited in this movie. -Anonymous

I strongly disagree with this edit. Yes, at the time of their release, Frank Oz and James Earl Jones were uncredited. But its hardly some big secret anymore. Those men contributed to the movie and should be credited. I would propose that you leave their names in and then put in captions "uncredited in initial releases."

Spookyadler 12:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed "opposite reaction" content

I have twice removed the "Opposite Reaction" section. It is poorly written, full of spelling errors making it sound as if the author isn't well-versed with the subject (hint: you spelled almost every single character name wrong; try using Google), is not encyclopedic in tone, seems borderline POV in that it seems to assert that one could ultimately come to a factual conclusion on the pure opinion matter of which movie is best, expresses definite POV in the later part, uses the phrase "opposite reaction" as if the word "critical" in "critical reaction" meant "negatively criticizing the movie" rather than "reaction of critics, i.e. movie critics," includes items that don't even belong in this list, fails to observe why some items in the list relate, jumps from movie to movie without letting you know what it's talking about, and brings up alleged "contradictions" in other movies that are easily explained, elsewhere. (Wow; didn't expect that list to get so long.)

After the first time, 139.55.55.134, who I suspect may be the original author, added the material back in, claiming to have corrected the spelling errors. I'm not sure what few words he or she thinks were fixed, but as I said, nearly every character's name or movie-specific term is still misspelled. Plus the tone isn't fixed at all.

139.55.55.134 went on to vandalize the George W. Bush article with silly pictures including Jar-Jar Binks not just once but six times, showing he or she is not interested in building an encyclopedia.

While I personally think Return of the Jedi is a great movie (my wife ranks it as one of the best of the six) and would love to see more material giving reasons why some people like the movie and do not accept the POV that it wasn't very good, I don't think there's very much redeeming content in this section. Unless someone wants to discuss it here on the talk page with a view toward coming to consensus, I'll continue to delete it if it keeps surfacing. 199.176.87.2 8 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

This is 139.55.55.134. Yes, I did vandalize the Bush page, I do nearly every day. Not because I don't wish for building a complete encylopedia, but because I feel that the man simply doesn't deserve a section, let alone such a large section devoted to him, as I feel he is a sad excuse for a human being. -139.55.55.134

Your personal opinion about Bush has zero bearing. If you are unwilling to adhere to NPOV, you don't belong here, and every edit you make that does not adhere to it will be reverted -199.176.87.2

Let the pictures speak for themselves. Enough said there. -139.55.55.134

You're right. The pictures say far more about you than about Bush. 199.176.87.2

As far as his article, I want the section on "oposite reaction" included because I feel that the movie has many redeeming points that are too many times overlooked. -139.55.55.134

Did you even read what I wrote? I think the movie is great, too, and I would like those redeeming points included, but we must put them in adhering to NPOV. Plus, the thing has to be readable. For one thing, I suggest making it clear in each item exactly which movie you are referring to. Most of your "redeeming points" of Return of the Jedi are actually criticisms of the other movies. It's very confusing.

I agree the material belongs, but the form you are inserting it in just doesn't fly. And since you show yourself willing to be a vandal and unwilling to adhere to NPOV, I don't feel any obligation to clean up your section. I'd rather just remove it and come back in a few weeks and try to do something more encyclopedic and NPOV on the subject. If you'd quit vandalizing, start discussing, and start adhering to NPOV, I think we could work together instead of just having a pointless edit war. -199.176.87.2

An article can be whatever you want it to be as long as it is informative. -139.55.55.134

All articles must adhere to NPOV, and all articles should be written with encyclopedic tone. And articles must be what all of us want them to be, not just whatever you want it to be, particularly if what you want is not NPOV. 69.148.79.218 9 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

I, myself, have spent quite a bit of time working on the star wars articles, particularly the star wars spin-offs articles, if you'll look at my history, as you seem to enjoy talking about. I want the reader to get more than the "critical reaction" view than is commonly presented in movie articles. -139.55.55.134

Although it is often ranked as the 'worst' of the original three. arguments can be made.

• A New Hope didn't go in as much depth as it could have with developing characters, and their relations with eachother.
• Luke in one scene thinks of Obi Won as a crazy old man, then next thing you know he's traveling with him, admiring him, and being mentored by him.
• Luke seemed to be heartbroken after seeing his Aunt and Uncle killed, but in the next scene he's off with Obi Won basically just forgeting the whole thing
• Hon Solo says that he wouldn't stay to help destroy the Death Star, and he doesn't have much reason too. But for basically no reason at all he comes back to save the day.
• Empire Strikes Back has some of the same problems.
• Han Solo and Leia go from hating eachother to loving eachother in no time.
• At the beginning of the movie Luke's jedai powers have improved nicely so his jedai training seems to be coming along nicely, despite the fact the Obi Won's dead, and there are no other living jedai to train him (until Yoda).
• For some reason Yoda's dumb and a little nutty, even though in episodes I, II, and III he's wise, smart, and not in anyway goofy.

Despite some 'flaws' in th first two films. It is hard to find anything wrong with Return of the Jedi. Here's a list of things that make Episode VI so great.

• In the first two films there wasn't much action, but Luke is a full jedai master in VI, so there's more (better) action.
• Introduction of popular characters like Jabba the Hutt and the cute, lovable Ewoks mad this movie great.
• Anakin (Darth Vader) finally turning back to the light sight and killing the evil dictator who ruled for two generations is quite possibly the greatest single event in movie history.
• Finally seeing Vader's face, seeing him looking into the eyes of his son was very touching.
• The great celebration for the return of the republic.
• Another popular thing was Leia in the gold bikini

Look, OK, we can work together to get the "opposite reactions" section the way it should be. I agree that it should be presented in that format. However, I will not cease my vandalising of the Bush page. Because of the fact that I am trying to build a good encylopedia, I want it to be as bad of a page as possible, so it can represent the man much better. I put the Palpatine and Jar Jar pictures on there to represent him in a more correct way than his portrait-like picture. He's as evil as Palpatine, and as stupid as Jar Jar Binks. Myself, the pictures are a far cry from. Now, what do you suggest I do to make the "opposite reaction" section better. I will change it. I give vandalism only where it's due. -139.55.55.134

Alright, let's ignore your self-confessed vandalism of other articles for the moment and assume good faith in this case (although I must admit it is rather hard to do that...). The reason I removed the section is that it is pure POV material (meaning it gives a personal opinion of the movies, not a single thing that can be stated as an undisputed fact) and thus is in contradiction with our neutral point of view policy. I frankly don't think it is possible to rephrase the section without violating the NPOV policy, and I don't see a real need to incorporate it into the article at all...you are of course free to have an opinion about the movie, and I actually even agree with most of your opinion, but Wikipedia articles are not a place to publish your persnal opinions. -- Ferkelparade π 00:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to chime in here. I hate Bush, but love wikipedia. And I don't support any vandalizing or screwing around with the pages. The great thing about this site is that it strives for neutral-and factual-entries. If you don't like Bush then do some research and make a NPOV addition to the controversy/scandal section of the page. If you want to include something on this movie, then do some research and make sure its relevant and has that wonderful NPOV feeling.

Spookyadler 12:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Work

I have noticed that there is a clear difference in presentation and order between the Episodes IV and VI articles, and the articles of the other films. I, myself think that all six should have the information contained in their articles, organized in the same way. Although Episode Iv was a landmark movie, the sections on its inspiration, i feel need to be moved to the trivia section. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Trivia sections are worthless. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't be difficult. These articles should be as self-consistent as possible. I'm not saying I endorse moving everything dealing with inspiration to the Trivia section, but whatever is decided, it should be applied to each of the six films' respective articles.--chris.lawson 20:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I do not like trivia sections. The word "trivia" itself implies that it is insignificant (perhaps "worthless"), and Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I believe all "trivia" information that is worth keeping in the article can be accomodated in appropriate sections. Coffee 20:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, many articles on wikipedia have trivia sections, which serve as a place to learn small, usually unknown things about the subject of the article. That's what makes trivia relevant, that it is a small collection of things that are not normally knoiwn, but are small things about the movie you might be interested in. I think they should be kept in the articles. Actually, though, since my initial post on this, I believe that the inspirations section should be included, but only in the main Star Wars article, not in the individual movie articles. The individual articles should have a certain format to them, which, in some ways, they lack. The Wookieepedian 20:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Before anyone is too quick to dismiss Adam's commentary above as fanboyism, remember that a great deal of articles, even a significant number of featured articles, have Trivia sections. This is very common in biographical articles, and as long as we don't let it become an "indiscriminate collection of information", I see no problem with retaining such a section. Working a lot of the trivia into the main article text is much more difficult than it might sound at first blush.--chris.lawson 20:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what I said above, but you translated it for me, apparently. The Wookieepedian 20:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comments seemed to be more focused on movie articles specifically, so I figured I'd point out that it's a general practise on Wikipedia as a whole to have Trivia sections in articles. :)--chris.lawson 21:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. That's what I was trying to communicate, but I seem to communicate better about movies than anything else. The Wookieepedian 23:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm more knowledgeable with cinema. :o

Anyway, trivia sections are silly and I hate them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, as to your first comment, what about it? And for the second remark, what's so bad about small, unknown facts? The Wookieepedian 00:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

They're small, insigificant details that boil down to a big list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit war over Emperor Palpatine and The Emperor

IMDB lists him as Emperor Palpatine whil Star Wars official site lists him as The Emperor. Based on this, I am more inclined to belive the official site and suggest just making a footnote about the naming, again, you guys have to realize this is absolutely silly =P. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ian McDiarmid is credited as "The Emperor" in the official site AND in the film. Copperchair 06:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, lets just leave as is. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

2004 DVD Non-Credited roles question

Did Boba Fett actually talk in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi?! When was that? Thank you. Copperchair 03:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the only time he talked in the original trilogy was in Empire. ~

Endorian Holocaust

Added a reference to the much-debated possible extermination of the Ewoks--Maxie Maxwell

Departing

I am departing from the editing of Star Wars articles. It seems that in my editing of these articles, I have come across many users that have gotten on my bad side (Clawson, Adam, Copperchair). It would be better for me to leave to keep my temper intact. Before I leav, I wish to remind you to remain civil, respect consensus and to make the best edits you can. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected due to edit war

All 6 Star Wars film are protected from editing. This bickering is pointless. I find your lack of good faith disturbing. For the sake of unifying discussion, please try to settle the dispute at Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Coffee 06:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No constructive discussion is taking place, so I'm unprotecting the article. Please try to work together and reach a compromise rather than simply reverting each other's edits every day and hoping one of you gets tired. Coffee 12:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?

What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)