Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Star Wars (film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Changed his rank in the summary text, from Jedi Knight to the correct one, which is Jedi Master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.207.51 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Critical Response section contains excerpts of two positive reviews. It then states "However, there were a few negative responses." and proceeds to list four excerpts of negative reviews. Finally it states "94% of 66 reviews assessed are favorable". As a neutral reader, I find it unbalanced that the article quotes twice as many negative reviews as it does positive reviews. That grossly misrepresents the true ratio of positive to negative reviews the film received. I am removing one of the negative reviews (the most generic), and I suggest that either a few more positive reviews be added, or additional negative reviews be removed. --Dan East (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have issues with this particular source being used as evidence regards to Star Wars' conception. According to its website[1], it's apparently a self publisher book by a Star Wars fan which has not underwent peer review. I have no problem with it's usage as a source, but I think there should be more due weight.--220.245.207.26 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This film is very sci-fi, from laser beams in the form of swords to spaceships that use protons as weapons. And yet it is credited as "epic space opera". I would call this a science fiction action film. Can anybody support me with this? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Space Opera is a sub-genre of sci-fi so it's implied at the same time. Dancindazed (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars' genre isn't actually straightforward. IMDB categorize it as "Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi", the AFI have it down as "Adventure/Science Fiction", whereas the New York Times list it as "Action/Adventure/Fantasy" and Allmovie as "science fiction". Basically the sources are saying genre-wise it is a blend of science-fiction and adventure, so space opera does seem to best capture this distinction. Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Cinematic and literary allusions" it surpises me that Casablanca is not mentioned: Han is the copy of Nick: Charming loner, thinking only of his own good, avoiding politics, but finally doing "the right thing", for the greater cause, and this is also inspired by a woman which is central for "the good guys". Also scenes from the bar in "a new hope" resemble scenes from Ricks bar, esecially the "wierd charachters" glance. Omri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.27.253 (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can find an independent reliable source with such an analysis, it may be worth mentioning. As-is, it appears to be original research. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the official film posters, the starring credits are listed in this order: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing and Alec Guiness. However, the posters do not include David Prowse, the actor who played Darth Vader (a major character from the series). Should we just remove him from the infobox starring credits or keep it? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, both him and James Earl Jones(Uncredited I think) should be mentioned. But I don't know the criteria for the infobox so i am unsure whether they should be mentioned.--212.12.183.130 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Upon the Falcon's arrival at Alderaan, they find that it has been destroyed..."

it's not clear what was destroyed. "it" should probably be changed to "the planet" ... Hope it helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.39.94 (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it can only be the Falcon or Alderaan since under the rules of English grammar "it" operates on one of the nouns in the sentence, and it is obvious from the preceding sentence that the Falcon is what they're travelling on so logic dictates the ship wasn't destroyed if they arrived on it, so that only leaves Alderaan. I have no objections to the alteration as suggested, but at the same time I think we need to have a bit of faith that the readership doesn't have sub-moronic comprehension levels. Betty Logan (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Modified it to read "Upon the Falcon's arrival at Alderaan, they find that the planet has been destroyed...".Hope no one has any issues.--212.12.183.130 (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this belongs in the article or if it's just a fun thing for fans to know, but in May 2012 a group of Star Wars fans restored the Tunisian house that served as the Lars Homestead. You can see the project at the Save the Lars Homestead website. I'd think this kind of story could be added to a section on Star Wars fans and fandom on either this page or the main Star Wars page, but I'm not sure where the best place to put it would be. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jennie--x (talk · contribs) 22:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The Star Wars universe is known for its complexity and detail; this article's editors have done well to ensure that the prose remains concise and simple throughout. Both spelling and grammar raise no concerns.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article's lead is well-structured and is the appropriate length in terms of the overall article length. It uses correct headings, titles and paragraphing, following a logical structure - the article excels particularly in its precise referencing structure. There are no concerns with the article lapsing into an in-universe perspective and a good balance is achieved between the use of primary and secondary sources. Unsupported attributions feature slightly within the article; the Critical reception section states that the film was received "very positively" yet gives only 3 sources - this could be expanded significantly to support this. Furthermore, claims under the Releases section are often unsupported; "at the height of the film's popularity" and "Within three weeks of the film's release, 20th Century Fox's stock price doubled to a record high." need removing or sourcing. No concerns in terms of list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The References section is excellently organised into Annotations, Footnotes, Bibliography and Further Reading headings. Readers can navigate this with ease and simplicity. References are used in all sections of the article and are generally well annotated.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article does this generally well at critical points, e.g. counter-intuitive/opinion/statistical information. It does fall down on some points in the History section - specifically Writing and Post-production. Editors need to go through these sections and ensure that claims made about the writing process are supported by reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Editors have at times lapsed into making unsupported assumptions about sources, for example, "During the chaos of production and post-production" (Post-production) and "Lucas grew distracted by other projects, but he would return to complete a second draft of The Star Wars" (Writing). Editors need to go through these sections and ensure that information can be verified.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers all relevant aspects of the topic in considerable depth and the editors have included a broad range of information, including the various releases and novelization.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article uses summary-style well and information is organised into simple and effective prose. The Soundtrack, Novelization, Radio drama sections have been summarised to include the most signficant and relevant facts/opinions, with links to other articles that expand on the issues raised.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The editors have created an overall factual article which uses secondary sources well. The article does not give undue weight to any particular viewpoint, nor does it seek to encourage or discourage a viewpoint on anything in connection with the article, allowing any reader to form their own conclusions about information presented.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article has no current protection status of any kind. Looking over the recent page history, statistics and talk page, it seems that there has been no indication of edit-warring or any contentious issue raised. When deciding to sort the Star Wars film series chronologically, in-Universe or to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, the editors did well to reach a judgment fairly and respectfully. There are no stability concerns.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images have valid fair use rationales from their respective Flickr owners.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are of good quality, informative and are captioned well. For example, locations used in the production of the film have been used in the Production section of the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is an informative and factual article that, as I expected before beginning the review, would contain references to a variety of detailed sources. The editors excelled in making a simple, concise article from a complex and detailed universe and have refrained from lapsing into an in-Universe perspective or adding confusing/irrelevant content into the article. The article does well in terms of style, images, order and neutrality and its editors should be proud of their efforts. There are some issues with original research, verifiability and use of reliable sources, specifically in (3) History, the editors have gone to lengths to make this section and its sub-sections incredibly detailed (probably the most detailed and informative of all), but have provided no sources for often factual information, description or narrative - almost as if the statements are common sense. I have had to fail the article because of these issues and editors need to make sure (as said above) that all of the history of this article is supported and can be verified. Improvements need to be made in the followng criteria, 1(b), 2(b) and 2(c).

Instead of Obi Wan losing in a light saber battle, it points out he sacrificed himself. Also I removed the word weaponized, and updated Han's description to include the fact he is a murderer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.23.137 (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Editors

I am Jennie and I have been reviewing this article (Star Wars IV: A New Hope) you can find my review here. The article is On hold at the moment, but will be passed on the basis that some changes have been made (see below).

Thanks. Jennie | ☎ 22:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Critical reception section states that the film was received "very positively" yet gives only 3 sources - this could be expanded significantly to support this.
  • This looks like something I could do. I will probably see if I can work on that tomorrow. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Doing my research on Rotten Tomatoes etc. It seems that the problem is that the majority of initial reviews are old and are probably archived since there is quite a few dead links. That's probably why there is a lack of reviews on here. Some people are good at finding archived links so there could be hope for them to be added in the near future. I also helped out at adding a Variety review. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I've added a Guardian review. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
        • If you're got a book that deals with the film from a historical perspective and summarizes critical consensus, that's all you need. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Claims under the Releases section are often unsupported; "at the height of the film's popularity" and "Within three weeks of the film's release, 20th Century Fox's stock price doubled to a record high." need removing or sourcing.
• Editors have at times lapsed into making unsupported assumptions about sources, for example, "During the chaos of production and post-production" (Post-production) and "Lucas grew distracted by other projects, but he would return to complete a second draft of The Star Wars" (Writing). Editors need to go through these sections and ensure that information can be verified.
• Editors need to go over the History section completely and either remove or source information, as it needs citing.

Calling Taxi Driver and The Godfather "sophisticated" and "relevant" as though that were an unbiased, neutral assessment (more like trashy, but that is MHO) is quite a stretch and certainly not encyclopedic. (The words are not rendered as quotations; the section is "Cinematic influence", last paragraph.)

71.173.2.234 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I see David Prowse as the cast member for Vader but no major mentions of James Earl Jones as the voice for Vader. I don't really want to get into a discussion of whether or not the voice or the physical presence of the actor were primary but I think both should be mentioned. Thoughts? I'll go ahead and make changes if no one has an objection. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Jones received no credit on the original release of the film. AFAICR, Jones is credited on the Special Edition release.

71.173.2.234 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

When this film was released in 1977 it was under the plain and simple name Star Wars and that name still remained in 1983, when the last of the three original films was released in 1983. That George Lucas and 20th Century Fox decades later makes three new films cannot change that fact ! All article names (of film and other stuff) should be labeled as it was chronological. And by "chronological" I do certainly not mean "George Lucas' own chronology". As the article, in its present version, is just like 20th Century Fox and Mr Lucas would have written it. Or is this article perhaps only written by very young fans of Lucas's films, who do not know the background ? I strongly urge the Wikipedia-community to use article names as they were when the events (like film releases) became well-known. In this case "Star Wars", "The Empire strikes back" , "Return of the Jedi" - and then "Episode I - (whatever)", "Episode II - (whatever)" and "Episode III - (whatever)". Renaming a film that has been known under a different name for twenty years is just too silly for Wikipedian standard, I think. Please do take this in concideration. /Pontus (who saw "Star Wars" in -77) 83.249.161.132 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've raised this point on the Empire and Jedi talk pages years ago. In light of WP:COMMONNAME, I'd say the article might be most reasonably named "Star Wars (1977 film)"; consistency between the names of the franchise films is not necessarily the chief consideration in regards to naming these pages. Of course, there's always the ability to invoke WP:IAR if consensus deems it justifiable, but I do think a reexamination of the article name wouldn't hurt. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm supportive of this naming idea, but even more supportive of using Star Wars as the film's name in other articles, with piping to this article, whatever name it has. i find it really weird to read an article on the Star Destroyer, and have it mention the ship first appeared in STE4ANH, which of course is not true. it first appeared in Star Wars. The only things which first appeared in STE4ANH were the added scenes. (ps dont get me started on that)User:Mercurywoodrose99.35.50.206 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed whole-heartedly. "Star Wars (1977)" or "Star Wars (movie)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.223.11.197 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm extremely supportive of renaming all of the articles by their original titles. --Angry Dad (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In absence of reliable sources supporting a change in name, there is no justifiable reason for a change in names. However, a mention wouldn't go a miss...providing a reliable source could be found to support said changes. MisterShiney ✉ 01:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, keep all articles at their current names. Hate to break it to you, but Lucas changed the names of the movies, and today's fans know all six movies by their episode number and caption. The phrase "Episode IV: A New Hope" was added as early as 1978 for the television airing of the movie. V and VI were released with the episode numbers in the titles even if they were not advertised as such, then when the prequels came out everyone began referring to the films by their episode numbers. Wikipedia policy for names is to use the most common names of something, and today the most common names of these films are the full titles including episode numbers and captions. Emperor001 (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't even aired on TV in 1978. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, no... to my recollection (and my fathers') the movies weren't known by their retrospective Episode titles until they were released on home video, and my dad had seen the posters, films, etc. numerous times when they first came out, saying he never once heard it or anyone else call them Episode until it was released on VHS. --Angry Dad (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's nice. But your memory isn't a reliable source. It also doesn't stop that they are listed by their common name - the name that they are commonly known as - on Wikipedia. Lucas may well have changed their name after they were released, but their common name now is the one that is listed as therefore the name that is and shall remain to be listed as such. MisterShiney ✉ 00:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the article name should really reflect the original release. The current title would still redirect to Star Wars (1977 film). It's kinda like if they re-released Die Hard to Fluffer Nutter, if they maintained it was called Fluffer Nutter for the next 26 years, it'd still have been released, and become famous as Die Hard. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't care what the article's title is, but I would point out that the article about Raiders of the Lost Ark is still under that title, rather than under Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, its current official title. ^{[1] [2]} John (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As it should be. And most people alive today do not refer to this film as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, so that is not its WP:COMMONNAME. Article names should refer to the title under its original release. No one ever heard that long title until three years after its first release, when Empire came out and the Episode V in the opening crawl had to be explained. This article should be renamed Star Wars (1977 film). - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gothic. Page title should be restored to it's WP:COMMONNAME. For those of us alive at the time who saw it in the theaters, this is it's ONLY name and every print reference up until at least the late 80's referred to it as "Star Wars". Heck, Reagan's anti-missile program was (somewhat derisively) coined "Star Wars" because of the movie. Of course this will set off it's own mini-controversy from the "uniformity" crowd who will want all the SW pages under same naming critera, but I think that's a minor issue. Ckruschke (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

So should we do a straw poll to gauge support for this, because discussion hasn't moved forward since May, and it is hard to argue against it. I particularly like the Indiana Jones angle. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't there a section on this page that discusses the basic differences in A New Hope's general plot interpretation, depending on whether people saw it in its original release order, or chronological order, starting with Episode I???. For example: Most ALL Star Wars fans know that Obi-Wan was lying big-time to Luke about his father, not only that he was seduced to the Dark Side, but how he even calls Darth Vader a 'young jedi', mixing the two. Especially the part where he says "Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it.", when he hands Luke Anakin's lightsaber. ANYONE who has seen Revenge of the Sith will know full-well, beyond the need for online verification, that Obi-Wan just handed Luke the lightsaber Obi-Wan took from Anakin after brutally maiming him on Mustafar. What about the film's internal foreshadowings of Darth Vader being Luke's father, like when Aunt Beru says to Uncle Owen "He has too much of his father in him.", and Owen gravely replies "That's what I'm afraid of."? Or when Obi-Wan smiles at Anakin... then Luke... before allowing himself to be killed? If you've seen the prequel trilogy prior to viewing this scene, what you learn is that Obi-Wan somehow still believes in the good in Anakin, and that it was simply not his fight anymore. It as if he's thinking: "I will leave this between father and son...".

Granted, before Episode III came out, nobody knew that stuff, but I would say that by now, millions and millions of new-generation Star Wars fans have been introduced to the story, beginning with Episode I: The Phantom Menace, and when they reach Episode IV: A New Hope, they're bound to view the film in this light, knowing all the unresolved issues at hand, in terms of the story's place in the overall saga.

Would you consider allowing a 'past vs. present' Episode IV plot-perception comparison section, based on whether or not the viewer has watched Episodes I, II, and III beforehand? I am not talking about altering any of the already-established articles and facts on the page, I am merely proposing that the page acknowledges the drastic change in perception of A New Hope's story, comparing what viewers initially saw in 1977 with what everybody now sees and knows since Episode III's release in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.200.162 (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Prequels are always made with the assumption the audience will have seen the previously produced work - be it films, novels, etc. This article should focus on the original film. The issues you bring up may be addressed in the franchise article or the prequel articles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. This page is - only - about the Ep IV. Any discussion about any of the other movies, the Star Wars movies overall, or the Star Wars Universe in general can be found on other Wiki pages and has no place here. Ckruschke (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Could someone please check the source on the sales figures for the novelization? This article claims that the book had sold half a million by February, but the article specifically on the novelization only lays claim to having sold an initial print run of 125,000 in that time; half a million sounds unlikely. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In the info box under studio, it states that Lucasfilm was the sole studio, which if my memory serves is not true. For the first film, I believe that 20th Century Fox was the studio which made the film. Subsequent films were not because Lucas wanted sole creative control. JOJ ^Hutton 23:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Think you are right. Ckruschke (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Now that the pages have been moved, how should the films be mentioned in Wikipedia articles? For example, should any prose mention of this film, if talking before the episode subtitle addition, just be Star Wars and then anything after Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope? And what about tables, or in the nav box? Just throwing this out there, because now that the move occurred, I believe there should be some consistency. I see that in the Star War WikiProject MOS, they have something, but maybe that needs an update now... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the films with subtitles can be referred to as just that, even with updated titles we wouldn't refer to Raiders by the full thing including Indiana Jones. Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith? (I don't know, i don't pay attention to these films), The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. Only hard one is the 1977 film because casually you'd refer to the later existing series as Star Wars too, so in that scenario for simplicity using it's subtitle might be beneficial and provide consistency. I don't think they should be referred to by Episode X, it requires the user to possess more knowledge than should be expected about which episode is what, where as if you have seen or heard about The Empire Strikes Back and read "Empire Strikes Back" in prose, the association is easier to make. In my opinion at least.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

KISS Keep It Simple Stupid. Theres no reason to have the long drawn out title appear everywhere just so along as the meaning is understood.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Since it is common practice to give the year in film articles even when disambiguation is unnecessary, it should be "Star Wars (1977)". Second choice would be "the original Star Wars". But we should not use "A New Hope", as that did not exist in 1977. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have concerns about the wording "of all time". I think it's redundant and the sentence reads just fine without it. With that said, should we keep the wording or just leave it out altogether. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "of all time" is a bit of a misnomer anyway. Technically it also encompasses the future too in a literal reading (which makes it bad writing). The problem with omitting the phrase could lead to confusion about whether it was the highest grossing film of the week, the year, or of "all time". Personally I would go with "one of the most financially successful films ever made" or "highest grossing film made up to that point", something along those lines. Betty Logan (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC) EDIT: I see the phrase is also used in the Awards section such as: "Empire magazine ranked Star Wars #22 on its list of the 500 Greatest Movies of All Time in 2008." Obviously in that case, that is name of the article so it would have to be retained in that instance. Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The highest-grossing of it's time until ET. Still the third highest-grossing when it comes to inflation. The movie is always on a greatest movie list. Almost always. Usually in audience polls it usually #1 or close to it. Forgive me if I think that is accurate and going to stay that way. Although I can see the concern of that statement being on there. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Betty Logan, "of all time" needs to go. Ckruschke (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Not sure if that phrase should be in any movie. If it does. This is actually one of the more legit examples of a film article. But it's one of those phrases best left out on multiple article mostly. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The running time of the original version is 121 minutes, while the running time of the special edition is 124 minutes. Is there a difference? AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean other than 3 minutes or what is in those three minutes? The extra length probably comes from more establishing shots of Mos Eisley and the encounter between Han and Jabba in the hangar bay before Luke and Obi-Wan arrive. Canterbury Tail talk 14:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The first film, Star Wars, was solely produced in its original release by 20th Century Fox. I am not sure why someone keeps removing that fact from the info box. Lucasfilm produced all the others, but the first film was a sole production of 20th CF. This needs to stay in the infobox and not be removed. If anyone needs any proof, I will link the Youtube video of Jack Nicholson reading the list of "Best Picture" nominees at the 1978 Academy Awards. Each film is read with its production company and producers. If there were multiple production companies, Nicholson reads them. You will notice that when he comes to Star Wars, 20th Century Fox and not Lucasfilm is listed as the production company. [2].--JOJ ^Hutton 19:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Academy evidently made a mistake. To quote from the original credits, and even the original first release poster (which is linked in the infobox if you wish to check) "Twentieth Century-Fox presents a Lucasfilm LTD. Production." And considering Lucasfilm was set up as a Lucas's production house from 1971, why would 20th Century Fox be the production company? Canterbury Tail talk 21:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

They don't usually make this kind of a mistake. Its not a tongue in cheek remark, its a well thought out part of the night.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a better source than the Academy, a source removed from the production process. Also please respect WP:BRD. You were bold, have been reverted, now it time to discuss not simple revert and saying "it's a fact." I've provided you with a source stating it's a Lucasfilm production. Canterbury Tail talk 21:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Additionally check the Academy website, they list it as a "Lucasfilm, Ltd. Production." See [3] for details. It seems they did indeed make a mistake, which isn't actually that uncommon. The small production houses often get replaced with larger distributors in the film listings on the night, it's pretty commonplace (guess who pays for these things, not the small production houses.) Canterbury Tail talk 22:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree but I won't revert until the winds of change come around like they always do. A few years ago I once fought just to get it mentioned in the article that The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were originally released by those titles to no avail, now the articles use those titles as their names. I'm patient and I'm right.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidence suggests otherwise. 20th Century held the copyright and ownership of it, but Lucasfilm was the production company. Big studios are very very rarely the production company, generally haven't been since the 50s. Most films are made by smaller production companies, often set up just for the film, and the studios are just distribution. For instance E.T. is generally considered a Universal production even though it was made by Amblin. This is just the way it is, the distributor and money providers often get the credit and the big callouts at the Academy and the like, even though they didn't make the movies. I have plenty of original Star Wars items, posters, books etc, and they all say a Lucasfilm Production. Even the Academy website says it's a Lucasfilm production, it seems only you personally disagree with this. Canterbury Tail talk 00:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've still got some stuff (booklets sold at the cinemas, posters etc) from when this and other films were released and it's all fairly consistent along the lines of "A Lucasfilm Ltd. Production - A Twentieth Century-Fox Release", which supports what's in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In the releases section we have the following lines "Within three weeks of the film's release, 20th Century Fox's stock price doubled to a record high. Before 1977, 20th Century Fox's greatest annual profits were $37,000,000; in 1977, the company earned $79,000,000." What is this trying to tell us? There is a severe dimensional flaw with these lines, one line states Fox's greatest profits were X and the next that they earned Y. Obviously the reader is supposed to look at this and go "Oh they doubled" or something like that, but that's not what it's telling us. It's comparing two incomparable dimensions, profit and revenue (earnings). If there is a comparison to be made they should be in the same dimension, both profit or both revenue (earnings). It may just be a wording issue but I don't know Fox's finances well enough to determine which is correct and what wording should be changed to meet with the right figures. Canterbury Tail talk 11:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the incorrect comparison (profit ≠ revenue), we would need a source comparing the figures in direct relationship to Star Wars. The assumption that the change is entirely/mostly/significantly due to Star Wars is unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the wording doesn't implicitly cite a comparison. Two sentences citing two (presumably) correct statistics, although there definitely should be a citation. However, inherently, a reader is drawn into a comparison, so I agree it should be reworded so as to avoid any confusion. Have re-worded, hopefully it works to correctly relate the two. Onel5969 (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to restoring unsourced material making a flawed comparison, you've made the WP:OR more explicit.[4] I don't see that as an improvement. We need several things here, some of which we will not find:

• A reliable source discussing the stock price and relating it directly to Star Wars.
• A reliable source connecting an increase in profits and/or an increase in revenue to Star Wars.
• You will not find a reliable source comparing profit one year with earnings the next. It's equivalent to saying my inseam was 32 inches in 2013, while in 2014 my height was 68 inches. Assuming Star Wars increased revenue (which, yeah, it did), the prior year's profits have nothing to do with the statement. Stating 1977's revenue in isolation is similarly meaningless. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It is not WP:OR. It is sourced, however, the tag was located somewhere not near those "dimensionally flawed lines". It was supported by the Empire of Dreams doc: Fox exec Gareth Wigan said, "The greatest profit that 20th Century Fox had even made in a single year was $37,000,000. And in 19[77] they made a profit of $79,000,000. That was Star Wars." That $79 million is not the revenue, it's the profit the company made because of the film. Helpful? — Mediran [talk] 00:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Very, especially the repair of profit vs. revenue. (Given that the source is not as accessible to me, I'm taking it on faith.) Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

At least this is now resolved. Thanks SummerPhd and Canterbury Tail for looking this up. — Mediran [talk] 11:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's no discussion of the iconic Star Wars logo, designed by Suzy Rice. Unfortunately, her website is presently under construction, but this fine article [5] describes the development of the logo. I'd add this information as a new section myself (though it's potentially enough for an article of its own) but I suspect the regular contributors to this article could do a better job. -ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I think this should have an article of its own (Wow! I didn't know many things happened before they came up with the right perfect logo). And this should be mentioned in the film's development or somewhere. I'll try to add this soon. Thanks! — Mediran [talk] 09:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

i'm a little struck by this absolutely useless quotation from so notable an authority as a Chronicle staffer who remains nameless: "A San Francisco Chronicle staff member described the film as '... a thrilling experience.'" this serves no purpose. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.50.225 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're wondering about that scene, it can be found in the official script and the Behind the Magic CD.

The script

If you're looking for the scene, it appears after the lifepod falls into Tatooine.

Another scene with Luke and Biggs can be found after Threepio yells "Over here!"

Another one, with Luke only, happens before the introduction of Darth Vader.

If you got the CD, check the scene out!

202.160.16.186 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)