Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

POV and needing citation

The entire section "reaction" is in extreme need of citation. Randomly coming up with "fan opinions" does not belong. ::—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98percenthuman (talk • contribs)

  • Please sign your posts as customary. Also, please do not immediately remove information that is not cited, simply put up a citation tag at the end of the sentence or paragraph that needs to be cited. These "fan opinions" may also be "general opinions" and if they are citable then they do belong. The Filmaker 04:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

When you include "general opinions" without citation they ARE indeed POV. All of the entries on the prequels read like fan-boy cites, not encyclopedia entries. Talking about what fight scene was the coolest is NOT something that goes in an encyclopedia entry. You, or anyone else editing, liking or not liking a particular film should not be evident in your edits. This, and the other prequel cites are NOT neutral. User:98percenthuman

  • Opinions is not the best word. As they say, everyone has an opinion. So there are no "general opinions" only "frequent opinions" meaning a pattern is seen within a large number of opinions. These opinions are encyclopedic, such as frequent statements over the audience's distaste for Jar Jar Binks. Also, the Revenge of the Sith article is a featured article, and the Attack of the Clones is currently an FAC. These Reaction sections are not POV, you simply have found a paragraph or two that are not cited and have been overlooked by others. The Filmaker 23:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can't cite reliable, peer reviewed sources for what is a "frequent opinion" then it is a meaningless statement and doesn't belong in a reference. There are more than one or two uncited opinions (both favorable and unfavorable to the movie) in this and the other prequel entries. There are plenty of cites dedicated to uncited opinions of Star Wars films - Wikipedia shouldn't be oneof them. I think that a disservice is being done to these entries by keeping POV in without citation. If you can't find a citation, then the statements should be removed until a reliable source can be found. Until then this is not a NPOV article. 98percenthuman

  • But these "frequent opinions" can be cited. That's the whole point. Instead of attempting to find sources you are simply removing the information. If you put up citation tags then people will find their sources. The Filmaker 15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem hostile, please don't be. On Wikipedia we always assume good faith, those of us who work on these articles are not simply fanboys trying to take out our frustration or love for the movies using the articles. The Filmaker 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of my posts seem hostile - just concerned that something like the Star Wars saga deserves an unbiased reference section. I will give it time for citations (which I'm not entirely sure all of can be found). Please don't confuse dissent with hostility. --4.234.84.130 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)98percenthuman

I think the section on the reaction to the film is currently biased towards being positive, when in reality one rarely hears a good word about this film anymore - it's become something of a laughingstock. While I don't think it was as terrible as many people seem to, I think the very strong, very negative fan reaction in particular should be acknowledged. I've now added back a paragraph that refers to some very specific sources, so hopefully it won't get removed again.Multiverse 13:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I keep having my latest edit removed because I'm not using references - when the paragraph is actually nothing BUT references: I refer to Spaced, This American Life and The Phantom Edit as examples where fans made it clear they were very disappointed in the film. I think adding still more references would just be excessive, frankly.Multiverse 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a better term would be a lack of "proper citation". A proper citation would be a source that is widely available, hence why the synopsis and the novelization sections do not feature many/if any references, because the obvious citation is the film or novel which can be easily found by either buying or renting the film or book. The only suitable reference in your paragraph is the Spaced television show, although I am only assuming that it has been released on DVD. Whereas This American Life is a radio show, radio broadcasts cannot normally be rented and if they are archived on the web somewhere than that would be the proper citation. Finally, The Phantom Edit is on the bootleg market therefore is barely available to users. If you were to use this as a reference, you would have to find an article in an online news source that deals with this subject. The Filmaker 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh c'mon. The Phantom Edit article has plenty of sources and online links. --maru (talk) contribs 01:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Then provide them and use them, i.e. instead of doing things the wrong way, do them the right way. The Filmaker 02:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

BIG Mistake

I was watching the movies, when I noticed a HUGE mistake. Okay, in all honesty, it wasn't HUGE, but you get the picture... When one of the Naboo soldiers were talking to Queen Amidala and telling her about Palpatine's nomination for Supreme Chancellor, he listed names and the planet they're from. Well, he got to a name and said, "Bail Antilles, of Alderaan" It's supposed to be Bail Organa. He's Leia's adopted father. Starwarsnerd 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not an error. They are supposed to be two completely different characters. See Bail Antilles and Bail Organa for the differences in the two. The Wookieepedian 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

seriously? wow... lol... but, are they both from alderaan? Starwarsnerd 02:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC) wow, i read it, that clarifies things... thanks :) Starwarsnerd 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Bail Antilles is related to Wedge Antilles but on Wedge's wiki it says he's Corellian..... Does anyone else think this is a possibility?

Phantom Menace = Anakin

I thought the "Phantom Menace" was Anakin...Kuralyov 05:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a reference to Palpatine, whose true manipulation has not come to light yet. Cbarbry 00:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, it was in reference to Darth Maul who was phantom-like in that nobody knew who or what he was, where he came from, etc. and he was a menace in that he somewhat harrasses the jedi.
I always had the impression that "the Phantom Menace" was the mysterious Sith Master whom the Jedi failed to catch ("but which one was slain, the master or the apprentice")? And "phantom" can also allude the fact that Darth Sidious mostly appears as a hologram in the film. - Sikon 16:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, y'all are wrong- the Phantom Menance, the Menance which appeared to be, but was not actually- was the Trade Federation. The real threat was Sidious, natch. --Maru (talk) Contribs 20:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course it was Sidious. It would be foolish to think otherwise. The Wookieepedian 20:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sidous being the Phantom Menance, but it could be Anakin too... his future was very clouded... Starwarsnerd 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Phantom Menace refers to the Sith in general. The Sith have been the "menace" of the Jedi since the Jedi cast out the "dark" Jedi. It referes to the fact that the Sith have been hiding for thousands of years. -Spartan Joe

LOL! That's one funny thread. Obviously it's suppose to be ambiguous and left as an prelude for things to come. So you're all right!!!! Congratulations!--P-Chan 04:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No, they're not "all right," that would just be ridiculous... the phrase "Phantom Menace" has a definite, intended meaning, which, to borrow your phrasing, should be "obvious". The very nature of the phrase implies that it is referring to something. Throughout the film, the viewer is aware that events are being manipulated, but neither the Jedi, the Naboo, the Senate, nor the Trade Federation, is aware of it. So, Senator Palpatine--Darth Sidious--, along with the Sith (seeing as how Palpatine comprises 1/2 of the Sith) are the unseen, or "phantom" menace. To clarify, it wouldn't be the Trade Federation because, to the Jedi and Naboo, they would seem to be the obvious menace. It's a little more hazy when it comes to Anakin, but considering that he's not really manipulating any events here, and how he eventually comes to be manipulated, I think it pretty safe to say that Senator Palpatine--and hence the Sith--are, in fact, the phantom menace. --Johnny Panic 10:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You guys are misinterpreting the word. Using Google's handy define: keyword, one can find these following definitions:
  1. apparition: something existing in perception only; "a ghostly apparition at midnight"; something apparently sensed but having no physical reality;
  2. An apparition or specter. Existing only as an energy form.
  3. A ghost with an identifiable form, such as that of a human, animals, ships, etc.
Now, doesn't that sound like a reference to a "threat" that only appears to be a threat? One without physical substance? Palpatine's threat to the Old Republic certainly didn't appear to be a menace, and it was very real and substanial; compare with the Trade Federation's threat, and you can clearly discern which of the two is a phantom. --maru (talk) contribs 00:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cast

Just curious if someone can answer a question I've had about the articles for the SW movies on the Wikipedia. Why isn't the cast listed for any of the movies except for a scant few of them in the info boxes? Dismas

I don't know.... If you go to turnerclassicmovies.com (or something like that) you can find the cast for each one Starwarsnerd 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening Crawl copyright?

Is the opening crawl text copyrighted? I doubt that the full text is covered by fair use; is it? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The films show us (the?) thee stages of a good persons fall to the darkside

Yoda says "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

In the first movie Akakin fears losing his mother more than anything else.

In the second movie Anakin loses his mother and his fear turns to anger.

In the thid movie so fearfuly is he of losing his wife and angery that the Jedi would allow her death that he hates all Jedi.

In the end his hate turns him into Darth Vader who is suffering incarnated. 

     Whoa, cool, I never noticed the pattern... Starwarsnerd 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A POV comment.

"The much-hyped special effects were groundbreaking in their sheer scope (roughly 2,000 effects shots) and in their quality and innovation, such as co-starring computer graphics characters, completely computer-generated environments, and entire armies of characters existing only on computer hard drives."

That's one way to put it. Large parts of the movie gave me the impression: "Hey, it's a computer game. Except I don't get to control it." I'm thinking particularly of the battle scenes with large numbers of identical droids, and of the podracing.

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)
The following article has a good discussion of the difficulties of establishing 'truth' in matters like this. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Canon.html Regards, Ben Aveling 21:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Excellent article! Described me exactly! The Wookieepedian 21:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Screenshots

Can someone please create about 5 screenshots for this article in the same format that someone has for the other five film articles? The Wookieepedian 00:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Racial stereotypes

At the time of its release, there was some criticism of how characters seem to be based upon racial stereotypes eg:

  • Neimodians = Japanese
  • Watto = Jew

Could someone write something more detailed about this?

You forgot the Jar Jar = Jamaican/black dude. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this was a pretty big topic when the movie came out. The Boondocks comic strip even had to (hillarious) bits regarding Jar-Jar Binks. I'll add a brief sentence, but it should be expanded a little. Bobak 17:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that when the film was being made, the decision wasn't made that Jar Jar should be Jamaican. They had already designed the character and everything and then George Lucas met Amhed Best and loved his portrayal of the character. THe decision to make him Jamaican was on the part of Ahmed, NOT George.--70.119.237.64 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

One. Starwarsnerd 00:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Phantom Menace

The Phantom Menace is Lord Sidious.

Yep. The Wookieepedian 08:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Arrghh! No, no, the "Phantom Menace" refers to a menace which does not actually exist- Sidious is the true menace, but the phantom one is the Trade Federation/the Separatists. Good grief, why is this so hard to understand? --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. The Wookieepedian 17:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That depends on which way you choose to interpret the use of the word "Phantom." True, the word can be used to indicate that the "Menace" is not real. Though I'm sure the Noobians found the threat of the Trade Federation real enough. But the word "Phantom" can also mean something dreaded or despised. Furthermore "phantom" can also be used as an adjective to mean resembling, characteristic of, or being a phantom; illusive. This is what makes deciding who or what the actual Phantom Menace is open to interpretation. I personally think it fits Palapatine/Sidious a little better than the Neiomodians. Sidious is wraith-like in his countance, also as he appears as a ghost-like hologram in all but one of his apearances. The fact that he has two personas, one of them being an illusion that of a mild mannered senator. None of the heros actually see him (well, as Sidious at any rate.) And lastly, he is the true villain of the series, in keeping with a Flash Gordonesque feel George Lucas' grandious title would surely reflect the true enemy of the Star Wars universe rather than the bumbling heads of the Trade Federation. -- Kikiman 01/04/2006

Like I said above The Phantom Menace is the Sith. They have been in hiding for thoudands of years, and create sublte conflicts that fit into a larger picture. That makes the Sith the "Phantom Menace" ---Spartan Joe 4/12/06

Midi-clorians vs. midi-chlorians (spelling discussion)

The current WP article on this topic is found at midi-clorians (sic) at the insistence of a user with an early edition of the novelization of The Phantom Menace where the word is supposedly spelled that way. Requesting input in the discussion over what is actually the canonical spelling. Thank you. Rcharman 21:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Maul as Christ?

The following passage struck me as odd, out of place, and not particularly well-grounded:

The appearance of Sith Lord Darth Maul draws heavily from traditional depictions of the Judeo/Christian Devil, complete with red skins and horns. These aspects, however, also slyly refer to Jesus. Maul's red and black face bears a strong resemblance to the abstract opening sequence of Martin Scorcese's film adaptation of The Last Temptation of Christ, whose red and black images are evocative of Christ's crown of thorns. Similarly, the arrangement of horns around Maul's head can be seen as analogous to a crown, creating a dark mirror image of Christ's crown of thorns to Maul's crown of horns. These references are especially meaningful, as The Last Temptation of Christ tells an alternate, speculative history of Jesus in which the Devil tempts him to give up his duty as messiah to die upon the cross in order to live out his life with the love of Mary Magdelene. The Star Wars film cycle features a similar narrative with Anakin, a virgin-birth messiah who is tempted out of fulfilling his duty as "The Chosen One" to destroy the Sith in order to save the life of his love, Padme. In both cases, the love for whom the tempted messiah abandoned his responsibilities winds up dead, and the messiah must eventually reclaim his destiny in self-sacrifice.

Is there precedent for these views? Is it something some guy just made up? This should at any rate be examined, and I'd like to see references and even citations. Albrecht 03:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I smell original research. The Wookieepedian 04:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The diabolical element's of Maul's character strike me as worth mentioning, but the comparison to Jesus? Risible. --maru (talk) contribs 00:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

DIRECTOR

For some reason people think David Boreanaz, an actor who would have been 27 years old at the time, directed this movie. This movie was, of course, directed by George Lucas. I have had my ip address blocked trying to rectify this. And I am not even a Star Wars fan. George Lucas directed 4 of the Star Wars movies, II, III, IV, and even I: The Phantom Menace. He is listed on DVD cases as the director, and every other website apart from Wikipedia. Here are a few reptuable ones: 1 2 3. I am now going to change the page back to support George Lucas as Director. And I will probably got blocked again for "vandalism". for christs sake. --Nambio 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not that; we recently had a vandal who changed all the actors and directors in an attempt to sneak in misinformation; as a result, there was a web of reverts and screwed things up, and ultimately, you were mistakenly thrown into it. The block should no longer apply though. — Deckiller 00:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
See your talk page, sorry about the block, it was a goof. I zapped you instead of the vandal. Note that the vandal is changing more than just "David Boreanaz", so when you revert it's important to revert all the other nonsensical information as well (by going back to an earlier version instead of just editing out "David Boreanaz" in one or two places). -- Curps 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
ok. thanks for the explanation guys. -- Nambio 01:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Two Jedi Knights

Concerning the opening crawl. The opening crawl says "Two Jedi Knights" although this statement is technicaly incorrect it is partially correct. Qui-gon is a Jedi Knight. A Jedi master refers to a council member or when a padawan speaks to his "master".

True, but who cares? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

End Fight Scene Music

During the fight scene between, Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Darth Maul, what piece of music is playing in the background???? Its very famous, but i can't think of the title. Any help would be appreciated.-Dylan Bradbury 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

ET and Terminator

During the film, one may spot a Terminator Skeleton in Watto's Junkyard and also a group of ET aliens from ET in the imperial senate approaching the end.

You guys probably know this already

This article should include a picture of Anakin and the Princess somewhere. (Anakin more so). --P-Chan 05:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. The queen? You know what I mean!  :) --P-Chan 15:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
You wanna see the queen? Buckingham Palace my friend. As for the image, to my knowledge it's the best for including the most principal characters at once. And the queen is in that image, she's one of the handmaidens. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I must have missed her the first time.  :) --P-Chan 06:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already decided (in me mind, matey) how Anakin will be pictured. But I haven't found the photo and would like to wait till everything is expanded.

Trailer

Hey, does anyone know what film the teaser trailer was released with? When everybody infamously went to see the trailer, and left for the feature? That needs to be in the article as well. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning?

Just noticed that in the very first section, there's a spoiler. Sure, if you've seen all the movies you'll know anyways, but I still think it should be reworked to NOT say that "Palpatine was the true menace to the Republic". What do they call him in the movie before you realize who it is? I guess you know anyways, I still think it should be corrected for people who don't know. Just putting this out there Atrivedi

Personally, I feel that warning and bypassing spoilers is unencyclopedic, as it gets in the way of the encyclopedia's purpose, which is to inform about the main points of a subject and its surrounding issues. — Deckiller 00:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack Edits

I was curious why the edits I've been placing the soundtack section have been removed.

They are all true and verifyable. I tried to go to the mod who removed the edits and do it in their talk, but they removed their edit from the history... so I'm placing it here.

What am I doing that is wrong?

I can proove to you everything I stated. --Voyager1 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its because there is already a whole article devoted to the soundtrack, and about two paragraphs is probably enough for this article on that topic :) Judgesurreal777 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've not seen any article, but I will look. I still think it's worth while to eaither have a link to said article or to say what I said which wasn't much.

I also must say that one of the edits is a correction of a fasle statement made in the paragraph. "The 2 disk Ultimate Edition sountrack presents all the music heard in the film." This is incorrect. As much as I hate the UE for it's lie on the back cover, claiming to have all the music recorded for the film, to say it has all the music in the film is another lie. It doesn't have the film version of Augies Great Municipal band, and it also neglects some small moments here and there. Also, the end credits are different in the film than on the UE or Album release.

The inclusion of the word "almost" in your paragraphs should be at least allowed. --Voyager1 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Visit the Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (soundtrack) article if you wish to add more info on the soundtrack. The sentence you pointed out has been corrected tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_Episode_I:_The_Phantom_Menace&action=edit&section=22 include your "almost all music" addition. But the rest of your edits were removed because first, they did not cite any sources (which you apparently have, but should have posted in the article when you first posted the information), and second because this article is on the film itself and not the soundtrack. We want to keep it pretty basic around here and if you want to go into detail over the Ultimate Edition, you should do so in the corresponding article. :) The Filmaker 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused on where I should post information there as there seems to be a lack of any real article past track listings. I tried editing it and it says "This article doesn't exist."

I'm sorry for posting it here... I just thought since you had a soundtrack section you might want to protray accurately the status of the score release.

As far as citing, how do I cite something that's unused. Like, your second paragraph is misleading. The track called "The Great Duel" is a different recording than the commonly known "Duel of the Fates." True that "The Great Duel" uses a section of DOTF, but the real "The Great Duel" can only be heard in the DVD feturettes that lay unused in the final film. Instead, in the film you hear an alternate recording of "Duel of the Fates." The only difference being orchestration, namely the percussion is a bit more present and the horn part under the choir is noticably different.

Also, there is an unused end credits suite which holds the original film version of Duel of the Fates. Do I simply say "as heard in such and such game?" I'm making sure becuase I don't want information that is true and that I'm adding to information database frequented by many people to be removed again.--70.119.237.64 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to post the information in the Soundtrack article, but are unsure of where to put it, you could revamp the article yourself (save that you don't lose any information). If you'd like to learn how to cite sources, simply read WP:CITE, you need to find a webpage or a documentary of some kind that verifies the information you're presenting. I've reedited the paragraph on "The Great Dual" as I was misled by the featurette from the DVD. The Filmaker 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit is better but still incorrect. "The Great Duel" is a complete different track entirely than "Duel of the Fates," which has several versions: the album version, the film version, a choirless version, and the alternate film version. It uses the same idea, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a different version.

If you look at the known recording slates, you can see "The Great Duel," then you have "Duel of the Fates" which was meant to be heard latter while they were actually in the large power plant (with the glowing tubes and platforms). Then you have the end credits suite and the unused end credits suite. The used End Credits has the commonly referred to "Duel of the Fates," and the unused one has the alternate.

Since little information is ever made available on what exactly is recorded, the only proof I have past what can be heard in the DVD feturettes and the slate numbers, are the recordings themselves made available through several mediums.

Thank you for the links to the articles. That does help.--70.119.237.64 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Alright this section is getting non-comprehensive now. I suggest that you add this information on "Duel of the Fates" and "The Great Dual" and the rest of alternate versions to the Soundtrack article. As of right now the section is going into unneccesary detail over the track. Therefore I've removed any references to alternate versions. The Filmaker 13:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Reaction

In the section headed 'reaction' is says the following: "The idea that Anakin built C-3PO was also regarded by some as far fetched". I think this sentance should be removed as by its science fiction fantasy nature, all of Star Wars is far fetched. The sentance implies to me that Wikipedia consider the rest of Star Wars to be a plausible reality. Unless anyone disagrees for a good reason, I shall make this edit in a few days time. WhizzBang 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously missing the point. It isn't far-fetched because it's fantastic or remarkable, but because it lacks internal consistency. A better word might have been "implausible." For example, a patently absurd concept like "the Force" is believable because it operates on a set of rules that make sense in the context of the movie. But in the Original Trilogy, there was absolutely zero indication that Threepio had been built by Darth Vader. The whole thing reeks of retconning and bad storytelling. It's an old cliche: "fantasy can allow the impossible, but not the implausible." (now whether the criticism was sourced is another matter) Albrecht 01:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was totally unprovoked. The Filmaker 01:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the tone up there. Just doing my part to refute the old "well, it's only fantasy, so let's excuse shoddy storytelling" mindset, which has been haunting science fiction and undermining its reputation for decades. Albrecht 02:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference 36

Ref 36 isn't playing, I don't normally use that version of coding, could someone with more expertise fix it? Cheers, Highway Return to Oz... 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting usage

The Observer - Comment, August 13, 2006 column by Nick Cohen, titled: "Save us from the crackpots who see Zionist conspiracies in everything". [1] Quote:

There was much more in the same vein. All shared the assumption that the Islamist 'threat' (always in scare quotes) is a phantom menace used by the government to distract the credulous masses from Lebanon, Iraq or wherever abroad and panic them into abandoning their civil liberties at home. In this scenario, Islamists are little more than puppets jerking about to the commands of Western governments and the international Jewish conspiracy, which time their arrests to bury bad news.

Emphasis added. --88.152.179.102 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

contradiction

The intro to this article says that the film is currently the 6th highest-grossing, while the reaction section says 5th... Natalie 02:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Who ruined the Phantom Menace page?!

I was going to look at the Phantom Menace page, and when I got there it just said NERDS! I was terribly disappointed, and I hope whoever ruined that page reads this! Please rebuild that page Wikipedia. 8/30/06 Sean7gordon@epix.net

Taken care of. The Wookieepedian 02:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Anakin/Christ: a spurious analogy?

From the section 'Historical and cultural allusions':

The Star Wars film cycle features a similar religious narrative [to...? The life of Christ, presumably] involving Anakin, a messiah born of a virgin who is tempted to join the Sith—his sworn enemy— in order to save the life of Padmé, his secret wife. This action seemingly prevents him from fulfilling his duty as the "The Chosen One"— the individual prophecized to destroy the Sith. In both cases, the love for whom the tempted messiah abandoned his responsibilities dies, and the messiah must eventually reclaim his destiny in self-sacrifice.

The only parallels with the mainstream Christian view of Jesus's life that I see there are the virgin birth, his being the Messiah, temptation by the Devil and the eventual sacrifice on the Cross. The "reclaim his destiny" business sounds suspiciously like the plot of The Last Temptation of Christ and it's obvious where the "secret wife" idea has come from. But where, in gospel or pseudohistory, is the death of "the love for whom the tempted messiah abandoned his responsibilities" analagous with the one in the film? This passage needs some revision, unless it was actually Lucas's intention to allude to obscure theories about Christ that hold very little credence. [talk to the] HAM 19:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally tenuous allusion

This paragraph is ridiculous:

A possible allusion to World War II occurs during the Tatooine scenes of the film. Obi-Wan receives a radio broadcast from Naboo pleading for help. He warns the Queen and Captain Panaka not to reply to this message, never realizing that the Queen is an imposter. However, someone on the ship breaks radio silence, enabling Darth Maul to trace it. The person who sends this transmission is not seen nor heard, and is never revealed. This may be a direct reference to the highly elaborate and secretive radio interception and decryption services employed by both England and Germany during the North Africa campaign and elsewhere.[35]

This is a totally tenuous link to WW2 (there may be other allusions in the film, but this is certainly NOT one!). Looks like whoever wrote it was just looking for some sort of link to make the film appear more intellectual or something! I had to use all my willpower to keep from deleting it; instead, I thought I would do the honourable thing and mention it here.

The paragraph is cited, therefore it is not worthy of deletion. If you'd like to rewrite it to make is less "tenuous" than you are more then welcome too. The Filmaker 14:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the source from which it is cited is full of tenuous references! ;-) Being cited is no guarantee of quality.

-- I think that whole paragraph is simply absurd. THat's like saying that the way Couruscant looked was an allusion to New York becuase it has a bunch of big buildings.

As true as it is, it has no merit. --70.119.237.64 00:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And yet, that ridiculous paragraph is still there! The comparison is an embarassment; it's unprofessional and fanboyish. As I said before, there are many other more direct and obvious references in TPM to historical events, so why the waste of a whole paragraph on radio transmissions that are vaguely like those in WW2? And to think this is a featured article! 88.106.204.97 02:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, because of the backlash, I've removed it. The Filmaker 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes that need to be made to comply with Wikipedia NPOV rules

First, all references to The Phantom Menace "not living up to expectations" should be removed. I think it's in there a couple of times, maybe more. Nothing to back this up, it was the highest grossing Star Wars film and saying it didn't meet expectations is clearly bias.


Secondly, if you are going to continue to reference JAR JAR BINKS in a negative way, then you must provide other references to offset it, otherwise, it is not NPOV. You can't act as if "most" or "older fans" or whatever, didn't like Jar Jar, because you can't provide sources that back it up. You can't confirm what percentage of people like or dislike the character.

I think, you should add the word controversy in there with his name anytime he is mentioned (outside of plot points). There was some controversy, but again, you can't confirm anything.


Lastly, I don't agree with critics being in the "reaction" section. They should have a section of their own or not be used at all, especially if you are going to use sources which are geared toward poking fun at any well known movie just to get a reaction from fans. This includes "The Razzies" and "Mystery Science Theater 3000."

Venom-smasher 16:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Not living up to expectations" appears more then a couple times in the section? Try once, once in the entire section, and it's sourced which is the definition of "backing it up". I've stated this to you before, do you even bother to read other user's replies? Please stop reading into the article what you want, we don't refer to Jar Jar Binks as a character that "most" or "older fans" don't like. We state that he was criticized and that is all, we do not provide a specific number or even a vague number of people who liked or disliked him. There is not one point in the section that we state whether a majority or minority of people liked or disliked Jar Jar. You haven't provided a reasoning as to why critics should have there own section or not be in there at all. Your belief that the Razzies and MST3 are only geared towards getting a reaction from the fans is your own POV and should not be included in the article. Worst of all, you make outrageous statements that my supposed generalizations of the reaction are POV, yet you then make changes and add generalizations that are uncited, which are..... wait for it....... POV. The Filmaker 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference needs updating

Since the article is protected right now, I thought I'd ask for this edit here. Reference number 30, http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1999/STRWR.html needs to be changed to http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1999/STRWR.php. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute Section

  • Recent Changes that were made and then reverted:

REACTION SECTION


First, I removed the line: "Despite failing to live up to immensely high expectations"

I did this because:

A) This is clearly POV

B) There source is not for this line, it is a link to this website:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1999/STRWR.php

Which, as you can see has nothing to do with the films "expectations" but is just offering the movies BOX OFFICE GROSS. This ref is misplaced anyway, as at the end of the paragraph you have ref to BOX OFFICE MOJO. I don't see a need for two websites showing the box office information. If the person who originally added that site, wants to replace it with the BOX OFFICE MOJO link, I could care less, but I am not wasting my time doing it, as either site gives the same information.



Second, I heavily edited the line about JAR JAR BINKS being regarded by "many members of the older fan community as a purely merchandising opportunity rather than a serious character in the film." Again, there is no way to back up this claim and this is clearly POV.

Infact, whoever put this whopper in here, even went on to add REFERENCE to an internet FORUM for crying out loud, which has a whole 2 pages of a few fans discussing JAR JAR. How this stayed in here for so long is beyond me:

http://forums.nightly.net/Jar-Jar-Binkswhy-he-doesn-t-suck-t32636.html


      • Removed the reference to midi-chlorians being controversial. This sounds like a "Fan Boy" wrote this and there is no source to back it up and the REF link goes to "EPISODE 3 Spoiler Picks."
      • Did a massive cleanup of references because a lot of them were wrong. You can check the archive for what was changed here. Several sites pointed to EPISODE 2 stuff, which has nothing to do with the current article or line that it was attached too.


      • Removed the line about "many fans and critics agree that the epic fight scene between Qui-Gon Jinn, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Maul...BLAH BLAH BLAH."

Again, if this is going to be an unbiased article, that can't be in there. The REF was also a garbage link to a review where the reviewer makes one reference to that fight scene being "more acrobatic than previous films in the series."

If whoever added this (or someone else) would like to re-edit, they should do so, but make it unbiased.


On a side note:

      • I would like to see more about Ray Park and the choreography. This is something that set this movie apart from the original trilogy and sadly it is mentioned only once (which I now have to remove). If anything, there should be a section for choreography of this movie.



And finally, cleaned the article up a bit. In short, it seems that many "FAN BOYS" have been editing this article and now we need to make a large effort to get it back to an unbiased, NPOV article. Venom-smasher 19:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

LIKENESS

This user actually liked The Phantom Menace.
  • Now why should this need to be on a userpage! Everyone should like Episode I! \\LuketheGreat//


RECOMMENDATIONS

      • Flesh out the REACTION section, reorganize it, so it sounds more professional.


      • Add section on choreography of the film.

Venom-smasher 19:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


      • In the "Releases" section, the statement "The Love Letter resulted in a box-office flop, whereas Notting Hill fared rather well and followed The Phantom Menace closely in second place.[9]" contains value-laden language ("flop" and "fared rather well") that is not backed up by the IMDb blurb cited. "Flop" is not defined. The film "fared rather well" in compariosn to what? My recommendation is: edit this sentence so it contains more objective language, or locate a citation that corroborates the assertions.***

mnastasi 31 January, 2007

Response

First, I'm going to ask you to calm down and stop making changes without discussing them in the talk page first. Discussing means to converse. Meaning to trade ideas on what to do. Not to simply yell what you're going to do and then doing without bothering to wait for other user's reactions. Alright, on the subject of the "expectations", if you look at the ref and scroll down to the bottom you will find that it does mention the film not living up to expectations. As for Jar Jar, you have stumbled onto an inadequate ref. You happen to be right in this aspect, so I'm going to add new references to back up the sentence. The references do not have to point to a page about Episode I and Episode I alone, as long they contain information about Episode I. The choreography is mentioned in the production section. Please stop making accusations on the character of the users editing this article, to call us and others "FAN BOYS" can be construed as personal attack. Many users have come here and worked hard to get the article up to featured status, to call them "FAN BOYS" is rather rude and goes against the good faith policy. The Filmaker 20:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


You leave me with no choice. You are just being stubborn and are clearly biased about this article for whatever reason. Maybe you are the one who made many of these edits. There are some serious mistakes in this article and I am not going to stand for it. 24.148.141.38 20:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly not interested in discussion. I have found that you are correct in one aspect of your criticism and have corrected in as such. And yet you claim that I am simply stubborn and am biased. I will come right out and say right now that, yes, I formatted the majority of this article. I provided the information and cited the sources. Yes. I made the most of the edits that resulted in the page that you see today. But for some reason, even though the entire article is cited, and it was voted through as one of the best articles on Wikipedia, it is "obviously POV". Tell me exactly how that is true. How? The Filmaker 20:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Now we have gotten to the bottom of this. Because YOU did the majority edits on this article, you are clearly biased and thus refuse to discuss any mistakes. You have added false references that support your obvious POV statements. It is not the first time this article has been disputed (check the archives) and you have proceeded to quickly REVERT any changes made and refuse to make changes in the discussion page, because you did the edits. 24.148.141.38 20:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am discussing the changes. You have stated your opinion, I then stated why I believe your opinion is incorrect. This is the part where you make a rebuttal and offer opposing evidence as to why I am incorrect to believe that. However, you instead run back to your accusations of me being biased. You cannot state that if one user works on the majority of the article then it is POV. Many users take it upon themselves to greatly improve an article, as I have done with the Star Wars articles. If you check the history, I am not the only one reverting changes, many other users have done so. Thus, those changes were reverted, not because they go against some POV of my mine, but because they were incorrect or uncited. Like your changes. The Filmaker 20:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Why "Cast"?

OK, I know that this is a featured article and all, but I just think that it would be appropriate to rename the Cast section into maybe Cast and Characters or simply Characters, since you're actually descriping the characters of the film and only mentioning the cast.

Partially it has to do with symmetry between all of the other Star Wars film articles. The Cast section also contains information on the casting of the film which supplements the fact that the section is used primarily to explain who played who rather than explaining the characters as the plot section pretty much takes care of that. The Filmaker 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, so the Cast section is basically a job description for the actors. Makes sense. --SoloReX 07:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solo Rex (talk • contribs) 07:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Um, was that supposed to be sarcasm? The Filmaker 02:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all. I mean I guess it does make sense to actually say a little bit about what role it is the various actors have to play. This is an excellent article. --SoloReX 06:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical and cultural allusions

PLEASE HELP ME Sorry to ask this but I was not able to find it on the page. I remember seeing this film on Midnight opening night, However the people I work with said that they where not allowed to show a midnight showing, and say that becuase I was nine years old that I must have seen it the next nigth and just thougth that it was the midnight showing, if you know where I can find a site that states that at least some theaters had a midnight showing that would be very helpful, you can email me at spencerjfish@yahoo.com. Thanks Again

To quote from the named section in the article: "The Star Wars film cycle features a similar religious narrative involving Anakin."

Similar to what? The previous sentence in that paragraph is referring Maul's appearance. The only sentence before that is a general statement, half of which is also on Maul's appearance. (Since contributors seem to be playing up the Japanese connection, one might as well say that Maul's appearance comes from oni. Maybe someone can write a piece of religious propaganda with that in it, then we can cite that as a reference--not introduce it as original research--such as a contributor has done to support the devil-like appearance.)

I must confess to being insufficiently familiar with the Bible to know the bit about a "messiah born of a virgin who is tempted to join ... his sworn enemy—in order to save the life of ... his secret wife." Perhaps that is part of the reworked Bible that originates from a similar place to that which ejested midichlorians. Virgin birth and a messiah only occur in the New Testament and--unless someone is tempted to relate this to the forty days--that character is never tempted to join the enemy, nor is there a secret wife. (Don't start quoting The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail to me, thank you.)

To claim that virgin birth "parallels a concept developed by Joseph Campbell" is an unfortunate choice of word--unless one is suggesting that Campbell is an immortal or time-traveller who first came up with the story of virgin birth a long time ago maybe in a galaxy far, far away. Perhaps he described or elaborated it but develop can mean originate generate and that he didn't do.

Given that the birth of Luke and Leia and Padme's death doesn't come until two films later this concept is misplaced in this article.

The section is confusing and needs to be reworked or removed. Waerloeg 09:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Corrected the blatant misquote about the samurai connections ("although they practice zen and martial arts, the jedi knights were modelled after the samurai warriors") to be in line with the source cited (and the fact that samurai warriors practiced zen and martial arts...). In addition to this I'd question the wisdom of citing Christian propaganda (The Gospel According to Lucas) as a source here. Although it is indeed in the source, I'm quite sure anyone with more than surface knowledge of the subject will agree that the Jedi Knights have very little to do with any orthodox form of buddhism as practiced in east asia (although it does seem quite similar to what some would term 'california zen'...) 87.60.172.211 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Saga Begins

Should this song be referenced anywhere here? Perhaps under "pop culture references" or something? Just a thought.--Gleezus 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Several articles fork off "pop culture references" into their own lists for this reason. It keeps the size of the main article down, and keeps away objections of having a "trivia" section. --JohnDBuell 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jedi "Mind Tricks" don't work on Gungans

In the synopsis is the following sentence:

  • Through a Jedi mind trick, Qui-Gon secures a submarine, which he, Obi-Wan, and Jar Jar use to reach the capital of Naboo and rescue Queen Amidala and her escort.

As I recall, the trick didn't work, and Qui-Gon was chastised for trying it. He ultimately used diplomacy (and the Gungans' desire to be rid of Jar Jar) to get the submarine. I'll let someone more expert on the topic make the fix. Fjbfour 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

VHS release?

I'm surprised nothing is said about the initial resistance to a DVD release. I still have one of the US boxsets of the VHS release (Widescreen Collector's Edition from early 2000), which Lucas's people said at the time would be all that would be released until the prequels were done. There was also apparently some consideration as to whether or not they should BACK DVD (which in 2000 hadn't really picked up in sales yet, and DIVX had only just died). It was only after fan-led petitions that they caved and did a DVD release, which then followed the later two movies. Archives of some of the debates on the issue can still be found online (see forums.dvdfile.com). Of course, conspiracy fans would say George intended it to happen that way all along, just as with releasing the original trilogy on DVD.... --JohnDBuell 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such debate or resistance to the DVD release. If you'd like it to be included in the article, you'll have to cite your sources. Message boards (forums) are not considered to be suitable references. The Filmaker 05:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[2] February 2000 statement by Lucasfilm on a non-release of Ep I on DVD in 2000. Amazon lists an original release date of April 2000 for the VHS, and preorders seemed to have started in January or February of 2000. The first DVD wasn't released until October 16rh 2001; the announcement must have been in August or September, but I'm not finding the actual announcement, just a September 10th 2001 press release about its creation: [3] IMDb also notes that this was the final (or one of the final) movies to be released on LaserDisc, but it seems to be the only source for that. (on another note, "The Phantom Edit" that circulated fan circles as episode 1.1, with a lot of Jar-Jar's scenes cut, got a mention in all but name at [4]). --JohnDBuell 05:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Going by the archives at thedigitalbits.com, the DVD announcement was made in June 2001, about 14 months after the VHS release, and 16 months after the DVD denials. [5] The release is covered on [6] details on the campaign run by SW fans and film fans is still up at [7]. --JohnDBuell 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Front Page

Good job guys, I feel both happy and sad that this is a featured article. On one hand, it's a star wars movie. On the other, it's Phantom Menace. Keep up the good work Star Wars Wiki. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

924.3 million?

The article says it made $924.3 million.That's more than ROTS which made about $850 million.

is there a miscalculation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.136.63 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Is this 924.3 Million WORLDWIDE right? Because not even Titanic made that much domestically. And, that's the reason I came to this discussion page. I remember seeing a news show, can't remember which, that said Lucasfilm expected to break Titanic's gross income, they didn't, but I wish they had. Even though people camped our near movie theatres to be first to buy tickets to TPM, people were seeing Titanic literally 30 times. The snare 05:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yoda leader of the Jedi council?

I copied this from the article: "Frank Oz as Yoda. The leader of the Jedi Council, who is apprehensive about allowing Anakin to be trained. Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu. A member of the Jedi Council who also opposes the idea of training Anakin." But it's the other way around. Windu was the council leader, Yoda was just another member. It's counter intuitive, I know, but that's the way it was. Vince 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And where did you get this from? Gdo01 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Windu isn't the leader of Jedi Council. There is no clear leader, although Yoda is the most Senior member, followed by Mace Windu. Hibbidyhai

great

its the featured article.
again.
>:|—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.155.32 (talk • contribs)

Not "again". You may be confusing this article with Revenge of the Sith which was Today's featured article about six months ago. The Filmaker 04:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Angry

Forget it. I tried rewriting parts of the article to make it read better and we have the typical Wikipedia self-elitists making things the way they want. I'm not going to sit here for hours and hours and play games with this. Gabe 07:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You tried changing "George Lucas is a legend and" to "Legendary film maker George Lucas". Neither instance was correct, as while George is legendary in my opinion and yours, it's exactly that, an opinion. Any opinion in Wikipedia must be in quotation marks and cited to a reliable source. -- Zanimum 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious

The following is direct from the article

"... reappearance of the Sith, a religious order "

I know quite a bit in star wars and I do not believe that the sith should be classified as a "religious order." Does this mean that the Jedi order was an opposing "religious order"? Jackchen123

  • The Sith articles are in the 'Jedi religion' category although I don't know if that's appropriate. Siths form an order pursuing similar goals and using similar means, but I very much doubt it could be considered a religious order. I don't remember any Sith talking about gods, religious rituals and such. The only "religious" remark is about a god-like status of a Sith leader. I've replaced "a religious order" to "an opposing order." Svetovid 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In Star Wars itself one of the generals scoffs at Vader and his "sad devotion" to an "ancient religion." And Vader's response is, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." Also, in Empire, when Yoda explains the Force to Luke, he is clearly describing a religious attitude. Fumblebruschi 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, throughout the Star Wars series there are a number of references to the Force as an "outmoded religion" by those who have never witnessed somebody manipulate it. I think the idea of it as a religion is supposed to be a misconception brought on by the ignorance of those whose minds are too clouded to feel the force. It's much like Hinduism in the sense that people are clouded by their ego and do not realise that Hinduism is not a way of life, or a religion- it is dissosciation from life and a philosophy. It seems that there are a few plausible references to Eastern religions in the Star Wars series. The Jedi's were not organised in a religious fashion. Darth Vader was most likely mocking the General's ignorance for believing it to be just an "outmoded religion". Ph33rspace 04:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is nitpicking but the plural and singular form of Sith/Jedi are the same. Just like the singular and plural form of deer are the same. Hibbidyhai

It's true, in Star Wars Obi-Wan does not use the word "religion." Tarkin does ("The Jedi are extinct. You, my friend, are all that remains of their religion.") and so does Han Solo. However, Solo calls the Jedi beliefs a "religion" in front of Obi-Wan and Obi-Wan does not disagree. Also, the way the characters discuss it, it seems like a religious issue. Luke says accusingly to Solo, "You don't believe in the Force, do you?" And such statements as "May the Force be with you" are not really just philosophical observations. The Jedi do not seem to have been priests or ministers, but they were a hierarchical organization dedicated to a supernatural entity which they describe as though it were a living, conscious being. What is that, if not a religion? Fumblebruschi 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

so its defiently a religious order. But its more science then anything, the force is real (relativley speaking) and the lightsaber and stuff is based on science. I don't see how its a religion. Although Fumblebruschi point is well taken except i think Darth Vader was being sacarstic.

Kudos

One thing I like about this article, and that I was worried about when I set off to read it, was that the first sentence of the reaction section begins with the rottentomatoes score. I've been inserting that into the lead of all kinds of movie's critical reception/reaction sections as it first and foremost let's the reader know the real critical score and can serve to prevent cherry picking. Even if cherry picking is done later people can still see through it one way or the other. The rest of the article is solid too and I'm very glad to see this movie (which I actually liked despite Jar Jar and the kid's bad acting) get such a good article. Quadzilla99 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Front page needs changed

The opening line is vandalism and needs to be fixed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.61.0.50 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC). {{talkreply|204.61.0.50}} —Malber (talk • contribs) 07:17, 22 December 2024

Sandstorm

I readded that bit which a user removed. It's relevant and interesting but could someone else review? Thanks. - Denny 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's trivia. It's not relevent to the filming. It's just thrown in there. It's not brilliant prose. It's poorly sourced. This is a featured article. Enough reasons? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sandstorm that wipes out the film's sets is not relevant? It was relevant to them. It was relevant to their filming. It's relevant within the article. The prose is fine, there isn't anything wrong with it. As for the source, the source contains photographic evidence of the sandstorm and first-hand accounts of what happened. It is a proper source. The Filmaker 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. How many films filmed in the desert have their sets wiped out? Can you integrate some sandstorm into the overall narritave? As it was, you basically wrote "Hey, sandstorm." Write it here first. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I honestly do not have the statistics over how many films that are filmed in the desert have their sets wiped out. I also honestly don't believe that they exist. However, since an entire Featurette was devoted to the incident, I doubt that it is common enough to disregard. The Filmaker 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you add more info about it to integrate it into the text? Like I said - right now it reads "hey, sandstorm." It's just floating out there. Why is it notable? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I just made some edits to the section in question, mentioning that there was a similar sandstorm on the Star Wars set back in 1976. In light of the interesting parallels, I believe it's fairly significant to the production history of the film. If there is agreement, then the maintenance tag should be removed. Alcarillo 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the dispute about the ambiguity of the title - if you need to explain to someone who's already seen the film what the title refers to, it's ambiguous. MisfitToys 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


It's notable from this bit of historical trivia... "While filming, a fierce sandstorm destroyed several of the Tatooine sets in the desert outside Tozeur, Tunisia, and filming resumed two days later. The same thing would happen to George Lucas 22 years later while filming Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)" I can only find it (so far...) on IMDB here in the controlled (non-message board) section, so it's audited by their editors. The 1977 sandstorm is pretty common knowledge and in the extras--I don't remember which set/release--you can see Spielberg and Lucas walking through the wreckage, laughing about it in 1977 after the storm. It's worth mentioning since the historical irony of having it happen again at the lead off of the next trilogy as well.

What could be the best way to integrate this...? - Denny 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need that {{content}} tag in regard to this bit of information about the sandstorm? The tag seems to have been placed with unnecessary hostility, judging from the edit summaries. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag... the sand storm info has been in that spot since at least last July 2006. I think concensus supports its staying then. - Denny 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I reinserted the tag. You will not win by edit warring. I suggest you integrate "hey, sandstorm" into the text or get rid of it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the sandstorm bit out and remove the tag; it doesn't make or break the article, and it will stop this pointless squabbling. Please go back to editing your primary articles. — Deckiller 14:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel this information has merit, and there is no consensus to remove it. If this user reinserts it, it's a 3rr I believe... - Denny 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me understand - a four day old user is going to insist on keeping trivia in the article, he's not going to make any improvements to the trivia, he's going to edit war about it, and he's calling me the edit warrior? If this trivia problem isn't solved, I'm going to ask for more eyes to look at the entirety of this article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't wanna edit war, ok? What wording do you think is OK? And everyone else together? Please what do the regular article editors think too? - Denny 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
How about, instead of arguing over a tidbit of verifiable, you try to work something about the "citation needed" tag in that same section? It *is* a featured article, after all, and that tag is far more harmful to it than the question whether that detail about a sandstorm is relevant. Circeus 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna bow out and leave it to the regular contributors... I don't see what the big deal with the sandstorm stuff is, and it's verfable. If someone wants to take down the tag its up to you. Sorry if I caused I any trouble by trying to help... - Denny 19:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Protect Article

Now that it's featured article, shouldn't the admins protect/semiprotect it, cause there's been a lot of vandalism going on to this article. Luksuh 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Although main page FAs are the target of much vandalism, there is widespread concensus not to protect them. They are the first page many see of the free encyclopedia anyone can edit and its been felt to be offputting if that page cannot in fact be edited. Often anon users spot revert vandalism and sometimes they even spot errors or contribute useful content. Many users watchlist the mainpage FA and vandalism is reverted fairly quickly. WJBscribe 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Page gone?

I was going to edit out an instance of 'Obi-Wanker', when I noticed that the whole article had been changed to simply "aaaa". What happened??

victoria 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just love how vandals actually list in the edit summary what they did to the page. That is so stupid it's hilarious. I just wish it would stop because I was actually trying to look up something when I got the blank page and then the Worst Star Wars Movie ever line in the refresh. SailorAlphaCentauri 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the vandals don't; the summaries are automatically added. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh well. It was more fun when I thought people were being stupid. SailorAlphaCentauri 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I mean, on top of vandalizing the page. SailorAlphaCentauri 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:-) WJBscribe 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Soory for damaging the formatting of this page. I was also working elsewhere, and wasn't paying enough attention. Again, my apologies.

Also, why is this page up for speedy deletion? MacGuy 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Messed Up!

Someone has messed the page up! With:

"Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars ARTHUR MONNEThe Ti love star wars...ect" Aero Flame 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Someone has fixed it now :) Aero Flame 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a normal occurrence?

Does this happen to every page that becomes a featured article? MacGuy 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It mostly happens to featured articles that are Today's featured article. However, since it's Star Wars, it's a little more so. Especially since it's a film that was not...... loved by a lot of the fans. The Filmaker 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. You should have seen what happened when San Francisco was the featured article. Now that was bad. Gdo01 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Replying to MacGuy: Wikipedia chooses to allow each day's featured, most highly trafficked article to be abused over and over again by IP editors, and in doing so chooses to confuse some significant portion of its readers (as is obvious in a couple of comments here). I've never understood this silliness and dogmatism, but it's based on the (disputed) "policy" at Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Discussion is here. –Outriggr § 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The particularly preposterous levels of vandalism are recent development of the last six months, however, and it's quite likely that it will soon become the normal practice to semi-protect today's feature. Circeus 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Not really the last six months, no. You should have seen the vandalism on the Ido article last Christmas. Mithridates 22:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The links to various video websites present various copyright and WP issues, such as spurious links. See WP:EL for a full discussion. thanks!-Robotam 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sectioning of Reaction section

The recent sectioning of the Reaction section seems pointless. While I can see the desire for efficiency, there is a line that has to be drawn. All of these subjects are on the subject of the public's (as in not the production and distribution companies') reaction to the film. Hence we have a "Reaction" section. This is over sectioning. There is no need to section of Fans vs. Critics as they are related to the same overall subject. In addition, I believe that user also added a bit of OR to the opening of the "Fan Reaction" section. Something can not be allowed in an FA. The Filmaker 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The section also includes racial controversy and box-office returns, which are categorically very different than fan and critical reaction. Box office, in particular, is a significant topic (particularly given this film's record-setting returns) and deserves more than to be lumped under "Reaction." Vote for some form of sectioning. Happywaffle 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I am not saying that the Reaction section only or should only contain information on the critical and fan reaction to the film. The "Reaction" section is for any reaction of any sort. Box office and racial controversy are both reactions to the release of the film. If the paragraph(s) on them should grow into an abundant amount of information, then it would be wise to section them off from the rest of the section. However, at the moment, to section the information off will create small, one paragraph sections that go against the FA criteria. The Filmaker 16:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Article doesn't capture the disillusionment this film caused to fans

It bears noting that this film virtually destroyed all credibility that George Lucas had with his fans and there was a lot of hostility toward the film from fans. It is an important part of the Star Wars exostory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.242.205 (talk • contribs)

Certain controversies and reactions are covered in the "Reaction" section. Anything more would require a suitable reliable source. — TKD::Talk 11:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You're definitely gonna need at least one reference, if not many more than one, for the line "this film virtually destroyed all credibility that George Lucas had with his fans." The number of people that went to see Episodes II and III disagrees with your point. 152.23.196.162 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"DESPITE FAILING TO LIVE UP TO IMMENSE EXPECTATIONS..."

I have tried to edit this before with no luck. This line makes no sense and is clearly not NPOV. You say this and then follow it up by saying it was 1999's most successful movie and made more than any other Star Wars film to date. This just looks sloppy and the line should be removed.

venom-smasher

The sentence is obviously a means of "switching gears" from the critical reception to the box office reception. When speaking of "success" the paragraph is obviously referring to the box office draw. However, the "immense expectations" is referring to the reaction the public had to the film. In other words, box office does not equal "living up to expectations". The Filmaker 02:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
you know, ive never really known a guy who could say that the phantom menace is just his favorite star wars movie (or favorite movie in general)... on the contrary, there seems to be many who seem to believe otherwize, some of them fervently while we are at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.56.249 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New Jar Jar Additions

I do find the addition of Lucas' response to the criticism of the character to be well sourced and informative. It should stay. However the additions of a petition and what seems to be the equivalent of linking to a message board, I disagree with. The petition is from a site where anyone is able to make a petition as they please. In addition, it is not a notable petition as it only contains 86 signatures (which from my experience is not a lot). We did not say that all fans disliked Jar Jar. But a high number did. The Filmaker 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My problems with this article

I have added a weasel words tag to the reaction section. I suggest looking at The Spider-Man movie articles to see how a reaction section should be done (although with hopefully less critic's sources). This is in response to all of The Star Wars movie articles, which seem to be trolled by the same users.

The fact is, if you read all of the articles from A New Hope to Revenge of The Sith, you can see a number of individual Star Wars Fans have made sure that anyone reading the article will read that The Original Trilogy is superior to the Prequel Trilogy, and that nobody liked The Phantom Menace.

Actually, I myself was the prime editor of these articles when bringing them up to featured status. And I actually liked the prequel trilogy. This goes the same for majority of the prolific editors of these articles, I believe. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No professional writer would ever put anything even resembling opinions such as that in a real encyclopedia article.

Nearly every single good article on Wikipedia features some sort of Reception or Reaction section. The reaction of the public, especially with media related articles is extremely important. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of IMDB as a credible source is atrocious, though it hasn't stopped anyone on wikipedia from using it as a safety net. Again, with IMDB, their ratings for movies are irrelevant because of the millions who saw said movie, how many of them actually are members and voted on these polls? Just looking at The Phantom Menace, it says 133,791 votes. How many of those are double registered users? And thats still a fraction of how many people actually saw the film.

From what I am told now, IMDB is only a credible source when sourcing IMDB related information. A high number of people use IMDB as their film outlet, more so than any other film database. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly only being used to weasel an opinion into the article, by circumventing the rules, because in "wiki-land," apparently if you cite a source, no matter how ridiculous, it's concrete. Those aren't the rules, it's just a way that users have been able to weasel their opinions into an article (hence the term "weasel words").

Wikipedia is devoted to reliable sources. IMDB is only one you have cited so far as an unreliable source, however you are mistaken as it is citing IMDB related information. Also, that is not the definition of weasel words. Please read, WP:AWT. Because of that, I am going to remove the tags. If you still wish for the tags to be readded, please state why in the talk page and I will readd them myself. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Infact, the whole forced opinion thing on Wikipedia is completely out of control. I for one am tired of reading articles and seeing an entire section devoted to "Some people didn't like the cute fuzzy creatures in the movie" and then citing a source where somebody said they didn't like the cute fuzzy creatures because they reminded them of a dog they used to have that chewed up their favorite pair of socks.

An encyclopedia article should be in depth, but I don't care who liked this or that, even if you have proof, which you don't. It's irrelevant and you know it. The Revenge of The Sith article actually reads amateurishly like that, saying something to the effect of "Some people thought it was the best of the three prequels, some people thought it was just better than The Phantom Menace, some other guy said it was the best film since The Empire Strikes back, and still some people thought it was on par with the other two movies."

I mean, come on, if an article can make it to featured with that in it, then obviously your article isn't 100% error proof.

You know, I'm sure that if I polled a bunch of people, I could find many people who didn't like "New York styled Pizza" because the crust was too thin and they liked more toppings. But, who cares? If I am curious about New York style Pizza and I feel like reading an article about it, why would I need to know that "some" people thought Deep Dish was superior?

Now, if thin crust pizza was found to lower your cholesterol and a certain age group liked it because of this, then that is relevant to the article. movieguy999 August 16 2007

I don't care if you don't care. Wikipedia is not here to please you and you alone. If you can explain exactly why the reception of...... well...... anything is irrelevant to a subject, than you might have a case. Despite what you may think of Wikipedia, just because you say something is irrelevant, doesn't make it true. I'm unsure of why you even want the information removed. At times you seem to want it removed for inaccuracy and other times it's because you think it is irrelevant. However, the citations are from notable media outlets. Hence it is not inaccurate. And you would be hard pressed to find anyone on Wikipedia that would agree with you that the reception to a film is irrelevant. The Filmaker 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
uff, dont mind if i sayd it but this was a pretty pointless argument, anonimous user you are using many chauvinisms when it comes to discussing, this page is supposed to give an optimal account of knoledge already out there about the movie, this ranges from critics, imdb, etc. Every single movie article is supposed to have it. And Filmaker, for putting up with him (or who knows how many others) i humbly salute you.200.83.56.249 15:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

NEW CHANGES TO THIS ARTICLE!!!

1) Had to remove almost all of the critical reaction section. All that is left is a line from Roger Ebert. The rest of the lines were just fluff and contained weasel words like "Many" and "Some" which can never be validated. It was just unnacceptable.

2) Removed lines regarding characters being stereotypical as it was just a figment of a reporters imagination and this kind of thing could be said of just about any work of fiction. This also seems more like trivia or something a reader could find out about elsewhere. This section should only contain general information about the reaction of the film.

3) Also removed lines about midi-chlorians. Whoever originally worked on this could work it into the main article, without the empty fan opinions of course. Not surprising that there is absolutely no mention of midi-chlorians in the main article, because someone was trying to shift the reader towards their opinion that midi-chlorians were a bad plot point. This stuff just sucks the life out of the article and makes it look totally unprofessional because it's obviously just a fan opinion.

4) Removed information about IMDB.com and RottenTomatoes.com because both of these sites are not valid review sites. It's ok to quote Roger Ebert, or other valid critics who are regularly published and hold water within the industry. However, RottenTomatoes calculates both film critics and amateur critics from the internet, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. IMDB's voting has also come under scrutiny for it's voting calculations (which has not surprisingly been removed from it's wikipedia page) and simply cannot be taken seriously for ranking films. It's a great database for information about films, but should never be confused as a valid method of determining a movies popularity as only a fraction of people who see a movie actually vote.

Futhermore, polls are irrelevant in articles such as this.

5) Also removed information about The Razzies as it is also not a valid award. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movieguy999 (talk • contribs) 16:04, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I hope we can work together to continue to cleanup this article, as well as the other Star Wars articles which I will be working on during the week, and make them some of the best on wikipedia!

movieguy999 August 22 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:55, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

As I said in the edit summary, reverting your large edit, please do not remove copious amounts of information from the article without discussing it in the talk page. Placing a message on the talk page explaining your actions, does not qualify as "discussing". The article is a featured article and is required to remain stable. Please help come to a consensus before making such edits again.

1) You're going to have explain a little better than. "It was fluff" and "It had weasel words". Considering that everything is cited, you're going to have explain why each exact line should not be included.

2) Reaction/Reception section's include controversy. It is not the "General Reaction" it is "Reaction", that is positive and negative. Whether it was the reporter's imaginaton or not, it was well documented. Therefore is notable.

3) You don't seem to be assuming good faith by that assertion. The information is cited, therefore it is not simply "a fan opinion".

4) Rotten Tomatoes has a strict criteria for it's film critics. They are only allowed to be added if they are associated with particular film critic organizaton, i.e. Boston Society of Film Critics, Broadcast Film Critics Association, Chicago Film Critics Association, London Film Critics Circle. Please see http://www.rottentomatoes.com/pages/critics

Furthermore, you will have to provide a citation for this so called "scrutiny" of IMDB's ranking system.

5) Most film sites I have seen list when the Razzies are announced and list what awards are "won". Film stars have shown up to accept these awards. I'd say that's notable and valid.

The Filmaker 22:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Movieguy999 has been repeatedly removing information and while I tried to tell him to stop, he has once again removed information. I think the removal of information of Movieguy999 and reverting of Movieguy999's revision could be a big problem. Greg Jones II 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I came here from the AN/I thread about this problem. I only agree with one change Movieguy made, and have reinstated that singular change. The box office section opened with a ridiculously negative connotation, and in reading the source, the subtle chagnes made only barely skirt plagarism, and further, I read the cited source to be referring to fan expactations not being met regarding content, not box office performance expectations not being met. As the #1 film of the year in 1999, I think that reading that comment to mean the performance and earnings wwere lousier than expected seems absurd. Nothing in the citation supports the 'we were expecting to be higher than #1, we were shooting for #-1' implications that would be needed to open the wiki article's section with that slant.

As for the rest, it looks like tons of sections being gutted, which is a bad decision for an FA status piece. If there are genuine concerns, perhaps Movieguy could get a diff between the version he objects to and the FA status version, and compare points he finds genuine interest with, and revert to the FA version, or improve ON the FA version to include newer worthy information? ThuranX 19:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This would not be a good idea, considering that he refuses to discuss any of his changes in the first place. The Filmaker 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

REACTION SECTION DISCUSSION

Ok, as you can see, I am discussing the changes I think need to be made and haven't edited anything. I have been thinking more about it and I think we can come to a compromise here.

First, the midi-cholorians statement needs to be completely removed as the source cited is a forum. If we are going to be using that as a credible source, then we could come up with all kinds of fan opinion to smear this movie with. There still needs to be a write up of midi-chlorians in another section of the article. I don't see how it was only being mentioned as part of the reaction section.

Second, I propose a move of the stereotyping of characters paragraph into a CONTROVERSY section. Wikipedia rules suggest doing this as well, or else not mentioning it at all. It's a stretch to begin with.

Third, I suggest beefing up the reviews from critics. I had put in a statement from Roger Ebert is a really good description of the film, but alas it was lost in the revert. I am not trying to steer the article in any way, so positive and negative reviews should be included. However, it looks very much like you are steering the article by having all of these lesser known critics as sources and then just saying "many people" or whatever. Those are weasel words for sure and in a similar situation, you would not use Roger Ebert as a source and then say "Many," you would say Roger Ebert. So, again it looks much like you are trying to steer the reader with fluff sources.

Also pertaining to the critics, I would like to see the same critics used for all 3 prequels (preferably all 6 films). This would establish a pattern for the reader. For example, if you have Roger Ebert's review on all of the articles, the reader can see a clear comparison of each movie. So, you wouldn't need to embellish or look like you are steering the article with bogus sources and say something like "Most people thought the film was better than the previous one, etc, etc, etc." By having clear critical reviews from a set number of critics, you establish a true critical reaction and the reader can then draw their own conclusions.

I think a number such as 3, 4, or at the most 5 critics should be listed, with Ebert a definite and preferably critics that are really well known, like Roeper, Leonard Maltin, or Joel Siegel.

Fourth, I disagree with the statements that begin these sections, such as "The film received mixed reviews" and then you cite rottentomatoes, which as I have previously argued, isn't a valid source. A fun website none the less, but you shouldn't use their ratings in an article that you want to look professional. Take for example, Revenge Of The Sith carries an 80% (says 82% in the article) with Phantom Menace at 63%. However, they only counted 139 reviews for The Phantom Menace, while they counted 247 for Revenge. It also shows that the source isn't stable as it apparently crawls the web finding new reviews or something like that.

The same goes for IMDB and their controversial rating system. All in all, anytime you put ratings like that in an article, it looks like you are trying to steer the reader towards a distinct opinion.

Fifth, I suggest moving the Mystery Science Theater 3000 paragraph into a "References in Popular Culture" section as it's just one guy poking fun at the movie. You don't mention Mel Brooks' spoof, Spaceballs in any of the original trilogy articles, so this just looks like an inconsistent snip that is included in the article.

The same can also be said of Ewan McGregor's statement about The Phantom Menace being flat. While he did say that, it's only in the article to smear the film. It just doesn't fit at all. Take for example, Harrison Ford's now infamous line "You can type this shit, but you sure can't say it" is included in the production section for A NEW HOPE, where it's also used as a reference in the reaction section of REVENGE OF THE SITH to smear George Lucas' writing talent. And here McGregor's statement is being used to sandbag The Phantom Menace, while in the A NEW HOPE article, Ford's line is just a neat tidbit for the production section (which is where it should be). Again, if the Ford line is used the same way as McGregor's, then it would be smearing A NEW HOPE.

Movieguy999 01:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you are willing to discuss. Please remain civil in your discussion and unbiased as it has become very obvious that you feel that the article is too negative towards the film. Might I add that a couple sections up I have another user who complains the article isn't negative enough. I will reply and I hope that you reply back to my messages, rather than simply changing the article again and complaining that I simply won't let you edit.

"First, the midi-cholorians statement needs to be completely removed as the source cited is a forum. If we are going to be using that as a credible source, then we could come up with all kinds of fan opinion to smear this movie with. There still needs to be a write up of midi-chlorians in another section of the article. I don't see how it was only being mentioned as part of the reaction section."

Once again your first impulse is too simply remove the information. In this case the section only needs to have the citation removed and a "fact" tag placed in it's place. I'm not sure why you what a "write up" of midichlorians and how it would aid the article.

"Second, I propose a move of the stereotyping of characters paragraph into a CONTROVERSY section. Wikipedia rules suggest doing this as well, or else not mentioning it at all. It's a stretch to begin with."

If you are going to say "Wikipedia rules" you're going to have to provide a policy page, or at least an essay page. A controversy section would simply end up being a subsection of the Reaction section. So I'm not seeing what the big difference is. Also, the information is only a small paragraph and therefore does warrant it's own section. Again, you're being rather vague as to how it is a stretch. It sounds like your own biased opinion.

"Third, I suggest beefing up the reviews from critics. I had put in a statement from Roger Ebert is a really good description of the film, but alas it was lost in the revert. I am not trying to steer the article in any way, so positive and negative reviews should be included. However, it looks very much like you are steering the article by having all of these lesser known critics as sources and then just saying "many people" or whatever. Those are weasel words for sure and in a similar situation, you would not use Roger Ebert as a source and then say "Many," you would say Roger Ebert. So, again it looks much like you are trying to steer the reader with fluff sources."

If you would like to add more notable critics reviews, I have no problem with that. However, the "Many" and "Many people" and other "weasel words" you speak of, are cited with actual news articles that state "Many" and "Many people". Please understand that the use of weasel words is used to bias information when no actual citation is available. Here the citation specifically states "Many" and "Many people". We don't have one opinion, we have a journalist who reports on the opinions of "Many people".

"Also pertaining to the critics, I would like to see the same critics used for all 3 prequels (preferably all 6 films). This would establish a pattern for the reader. For example, if you have Roger Ebert's review on all of the articles, the reader can see a clear comparison of each movie. So, you wouldn't need to embellish or look like you are steering the article with bogus sources and say something like "Most people thought the film was better than the previous one, etc, etc, etc." By having clear critical reviews from a set number of critics, you establish a true critical reaction and the reader can then draw their own conclusions.

I think a number such as 3, 4, or at the most 5 critics should be listed, with Ebert a definite and preferably critics that are really well known, like Roeper, Leonard Maltin, or Joel Siegel."

I see no real point to having a pattern of critics. If you'd like to add more critical reviews to the articles, that is fine. Just as long as you are not removing information.

"Fourth, I disagree with the statements that begin these sections, such as "The film received mixed reviews" and then you cite rottentomatoes, which as I have previously argued, isn't a valid source. A fun website none the less, but you shouldn't use their ratings in an article that you want to look professional. Take for example, Revenge Of The Sith carries an 80% (says 82% in the article) with Phantom Menace at 63%. However, they only counted 139 reviews for The Phantom Menace, while they counted 247 for Revenge. It also shows that the source isn't stable as it apparently crawls the web finding new reviews or something like that.

The same goes for IMDB and their controversial rating system. All in all, anytime you put ratings like that in an article, it looks like you are trying to steer the reader towards a distinct opinion."

You have never provided a citation for IMDB's "controversial rating system". Rotten Tomatoes collects as many reviews as it can at the time of release. One film was released in 1999, One film was released in 2005, obviously the internet and the sites resources have grown in the last six years. It could also be argued that more critics are around or have requested to be added. Roger Ebert has mentioned Rotten Tomatoes both in his TV and newspaper reviews. Also, the site is owned by IGN Entertainment, which is in turn owned by News Corporation. Thus the final owner of the site is Rupert Murdoch. The fact is that the site can be used a mass reference hall and it also provides an easily wrapped up package of events. How this is not stable or reliable is beyond me.

"Fifth, I suggest moving the Mystery Science Theater 3000 paragraph into a "References in Popular Culture" section as it's just one guy poking fun at the movie. You don't mention Mel Brooks' spoof, Spaceballs in any of the original trilogy articles, so this just looks like an inconsistent snip that is included in the article."

Well, first, sections akin to "References in Pop Culture" are despised as we will get every new user of unregistered editor coming along an adding a little tidbit anytime somebody mentioned Jar Jar in a film. Second, the difference is that Spaceballs simply spoofed the films. Whereas MST3 outright mocked the films and as stated for the record that they honestly believe that it was the first film ever made (for the resources that were had).

"The same can also be said of Ewan McGregor's statement about The Phantom Menace being flat. While he did say that, it's only in the article to smear the film. It just doesn't fit at all. Take for example, Harrison Ford's now infamous line "You can type this shit, but you sure can't say it" is included in the production section for A NEW HOPE, where it's also used as a reference in the reaction section of REVENGE OF THE SITH to smear George Lucas' writing talent. And here McGregor's statement is being used to sandbag The Phantom Menace, while in the A NEW HOPE article, Ford's line is just a neat tidbit for the production section (which is where it should be). Again, if the Ford line is used the same way as McGregor's, then it would be smearing A NEW HOPE."

Is it not notable that one of leading actors of a film thought the film was not particularly stellar? As for Ford's line, Ford was speaking of one element of the production, he has said that he likes the films and likes George Lucas. McGregor outright said that the film itself, in entirety, wasn't great. Their opinions are notable. As for their placement, Ford stated the "You can type this shit..." line during production, about the production. McGregor stated the "flat" line after the release, about the release. And considering that a large number of people did not like TPM, it's notable that the star kind of agrees with them. Ford simply had a problem with dealing with the dialogue. Did any fans agree with him at the time? The Filmaker 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To The Filmaker...

As to your responses:

Yes, there needs to be something mentioned about midi-chlorians in the article, other than it being used to smear the movie in the reaction section. Again, it was a critical plot point, which describes how the Jedi are able to do what they do, and yet it's not mentioned in the article at all, save for that a hand full of fans on a message board didn't like the idea. The part in the reaction section should still be removed completely and I don't need an admin to mediate that. There is a bogus source, so it's not even worth mentioning (unless you are trying to smear the movie).

The supposed stereotyping of characters should either be in a controversy section or not at all. But, again, the whole thing is mentioned only to emphasize the negativity of the film, which is why it should be in it's own section or taken out completely. If it isn't worthy of it's own controversy section, then it's pretty much irrelevant to the reaction section. Take for example, a similar controversy was created over Lando being played by a black man, with allegations that George Lucas hired a black actor only because of backlash from the first film, blah blah blah. But there is no mention of this at all in the original trilogy articles.

I can't understand your reasoning at all of not wanting to maintain the articles consistency by having the same critics reactions on each of the articles. The only reason I can think of that a person wouldn't want that, is if they were trying to smear the articles. Take for example, you have Roger Ebert calling The Phantom Menace "exhilarating" with a 3 and a half star rating, but you conveniently only use Ebert as a source for the AOTC and REVENGE articles where A) He gives a 2 star rating to AOTC and B) He gives REVENGE the same star rating as The Phantom Menace.

You, or whoever originally made these edits is clearly CHERRY-PICKING their critic reactions in order to force an opinion. For example, You are only using Ebert when his statements are useful to your opinion, otherwise you bury him. You are doing the same by cherry-picking other critics. The critic you have praising one movie, could also be praising the other two. There is absolutely no other reason why you would mention Ebert's "3 and a half Star" rating for Phantom Menace and not mention his "2 Star" rating for AOTC. Again, you or someone else is using their edits to lead the reader.

You have the audacity to put blunt fan opinions in each article saying "MOST FANS THOUGHT THIS MOVIE WAS BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS, ETC, ETC, ETC" but then don't mention when one of the most well known critics in the world says otherwise.

Which is essentially your argument about the McGregor statement. If it is notable that the star of a movie says that movie is "flat" and if it is (apparently) notable if a comedian in Mike Nelson says the movie was the worst, then how is it NOT notable that Roger Ebert gave AOTC a 2 star rating?

And finally with Mike Nelson, you mention the RIFF TRAX of The Phantom Menace, but once again conveniently fail to mention that ATTACK OF THE CLONES received the exact same treatment:

http://rifftrax.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=66

In general, all three articles could use some beefing up in the reaction section to bring them up to be more consistent with the original trilogy. Take once again for example, the A NEW HOPE article goes on about people waiting in line to see the movie. The same thing happened for The Phantom Menace. The excitement was there. There was a lot more going on than Jar Jar bashing when this movie came out.

Movieguy999 20:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are not assuming good faith. You are still accusing me and others of intentionally trying to "smear" the film as if the reaction were more negative than it actually was. There was controversy there was a notable amount of fans who disliked midi-chlorians (a new citation however, needs to be provided). Midi-chlorians are mentioned in the Cast section are also wiki-linked should the reader want more information.

"The supposed stereotyping of characters should either be in a controversy section or not at all." Again, you need to provide a policy page or at least an essay for this statement to be taken seriously. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a suitable rationale (I know it's for AFDs, but the principal is the same), just because something does or does not exist elsewhere on Wikipedia does not mean it is suitable or inappropriate for this article. Once again, you've accused us of simply adding information to emphasize the negative reaction. Reaction means all reaction not just certain elements. It is an indiscriminate term. Controversy is apart of reaction. Whereas the information is not abundant enough to deserve it's own section. If we were to place the information in it's own section, it could easily be argued that the information should simply merged into other sections.

I just said that if you wanted to add information (positive or negative), that was fine as long it was notable and you did not remove information. I was also under the impression at the time that Ebert was sourced in all three articles, it appears I was wrong and he should be added purely on his notability. However, there seems no point to cherry pick certain critics to be the Star Wars critics of the film articles. If anything it is biased. Once again, I'm not arguing with adding critics, as long as you don't remove them. I'm really not sure what you're complaining about. WP:AGF

As for RiffTrax: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

The Filmaker 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you assume good faith when the facts are staring you right in the face? The notable number of fans who didn't like said film is debatable regardless. Only a fan himself with similar feelings would even think to put that in the article. Suggesting that only the most notable critics be featured in the article is not cherry-picking. Cherry-Picking is exactly what has been done in the articles, which is "User doesn't like the movie, wants the article to reflect that most people agree with his opinion, so he searches the internet until he finds a critic review that agrees with him."

You can assume good faith all you want, but noone is going to even find these critics and use them in the article unless they are agreeing with their opinion. And even then, just because a critic who is more of a fan than other critics says "Most people hated the last movie" or whatever, doesn't make it fact and looks bad in the article to begin with.

The reason Roger Ebert would never say anything close to that, is because Roger Ebert doesn't crawl around the internet looking for fan opinions to put in his article. There are other well known critics who also don't look for fan opinion. So, you are guaranteed an unbiased review.

Your arguments have been noted and I will be editing shortly with what I believe is a good middle ground.

Movieguy999 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what discussion is. Discussion is a means to find consensus, not a compromise. Especially on Wikipedia. And two replies to one editor is a bit of stretch when comes to actual "discussion", especially for changes of this magnitude.
You are again making accusations with no proof. I was main contributor to these articles. And I'll have you know that I actually liked the prequel trilogy, including Episode I. Yet for some reason I am hellbent on biasing the public to believe that the film is despised by all. For some reason I want the film articles to "smear" the films with negativity. Finally, the number of fans who didn't like the film is debatable yes. However the article does provide citation of well known magazines and news articles that state these as fact. That's more than anything that you have provided to counter the argument. The Filmaker 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around. You seem to think discussion and consensus are tools for you to use in order to keep other users from editing things you don't want them to edit.

FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CON

What is from WP:CON? If you're going to make more accusations, please more clear and specific about them. Once again you are simply falling back on accusations, rather than actually rebutalling by arguments against your edits.

I don't need to reach consensus to make these edits, though I have attempted to negotiate with you out of kindness. You haven't negotiated at all, and that should be noted here, ONCE AGAIN. I added to the article and removed items that were against the rules.

I'm not negotiating? I am the one who actually replies to your messages, rather than simply circling back to your original argument, as if I hadn't ever said anything. You're not only not negotiating, you're simply ignoring another editors attempts at negotiating. Also, you say that remove the items because they are against the rules. What rules?, this is fundamental, you must cite a policy or essay page explaining how such item is in violation or at least provide a suitable rationale as to why they are in violation ("it's trivia" is not a suitable rationale).

I removed the midi-chlorians statement because it wasn't cited. You chose to add a needs citation tag in order to keep it in. If you are aloud to do that, then you can put any fan boy opinions in this article.

No, a citation tag is added to allow editors a chance to cite the information before it is removed. If it has not be cited in a reasonable amount of time, then it should be removed. One day is not a reasonable amount of time.

I removed the Ewan McGregor line because it's trivia. Do you want to have a trivia section now?

WP:AVTRIV, before you ask again. You still have not explained how a quote from the star of a film saying that the film wasn't great is trivial.

We have already discussed the shady imdb.com polls.

We have? It seems as though I rebuttuled your reasoning and you are simply refusing to talk about anymore.

The Mike Nelson bit is trivia as well and he also gave the same treatment to AOTC. You argued that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This does not apply here. You can't use that line to describe the reaction of one movie in a trilogy and not use it when describing another movie in a trilogy that received the same treatment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS only pertains to seperate subjects. Do we have to have a reaction section for each film in the trilogy? If your "just because one article has it, doesn't mean the other article has to" argument was true, which it clearly isn't, I could change the three dramatically.

Movieguy999 00:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you must explain or respond to my rebuttal over it being trivia. And yes, perhaps it should be added to AOTC as well. The Filmaker 02:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It continues...

We have been over this several times. imdb.com is not a valid source. Your original argument:

"From what I am told now, IMDB is only a credible source when sourcing IMDB related information. A high number of people use IMDB as their film outlet, more so than any other film database."

That is not negotiation. First, it's a credible source when SOURCING IMDB related information? This makes zero sense. Of course you would use it as a source if you were talking about IMDB...

That's what we are talking about. IMDB related information is being sourced with IMDB. How does that make zero sense? If you are going to source the plot of the film, you use the film. If you are going to source IMDB, you use IMDB.

The point is, imdb can't be taken seriously as a reliable source to rate said film to begin with, let alone use it as part of this reaction section. It goes back to the message board sources you keep putting in the article. IMDB IS TRIVIA.

What message board sources? The one message board source that was used for the midichlorians? The one that was removed? All of the sudden all of the sources are message board sources? Also, I've have already answered to your assertion of IMDB not being taken as a reliable source, you however have not answered to mine (this is you once again falling back on your original argument, rather responding to other user's replies).

Lets talk about trivia. Trivia = Unimportant or TRIVIAL. The fact that a fraction of people voted said movie as the most disappointing, the fact that Mike Nelson, a man who makes his living off of mocking films said the movie sucked, or one of the films stars says the film was flat 3 YEARS AFTER the release, IS NOT IMPORTANT TO THIS ARTICLE...

Mike Nelson would not be important if he were not from a well-known television series that mocked B-movies and rarely (if ever) did films as large as Episode I. This is not trivial.

Mike Nelson would have done a riff whatever you want to call it on a film of this magnitude, regardless if it was a masterpiece. Thats how he makes a living. The line about him honestly thinking it was the worst movie ever made just sounds oh so much like a fan boy opinion, with no credibility. The only difference in him saying that and the kid at the comic book store saying that, is he has been on tv. So, now you are going to give a comedian credibility in your "sacred" featured article? Again, how is it important that THIS GUY said that and made an audio commentary?

Again, Mystery Science Theater rarely mocked films of this magnitude. I don't care if it does "sound like" a fanboy opinion. It is not, and the opinion of what it "sounds like" is left up to all readers, not just you.

The McGregor statement should probably be removed from this article and added to The Attack of The Clones article as he was comparing the new film to Phantom Menace.

Oh, so now all of the sudden the McGregor statement is notable? Your opinion is like a newspaper, there's a new one out every day! The McGregor statement is more notable for the fact that he was degrading this film, not that he was comparing films.

Much like imdb, the rottentomatoes site is suspect. I went through all three prequels and the majority of the reviews that they had listed there couldn't be accessed in full, so it makes you wonder how they are truely rating these movies. A critic who had a C+ rating for one of the films was listed as ROTTEN on the site. I also found that very few critics actually reviewed all three films. Some never reviewed the first two prequels. Some never reviewed AOTC. And some critics who have actually passed away are still mysteriously reviewing movies! (Paul Clinton).

So, consistency is a huge issue with that site.

"so it makes you wonder how they are truely rating these movies." Now you are purely speculating. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research. "I also found that very few critics actually reviewed all three films. Some never reviewed the first two prequels. Some never reviewed AOTC." And your point is? "And some critics who have actually passed away are still mysteriously reviewing movies! (Paul Clinton)." Paul Clinton died in 2006, so if you're talking about reviews for the prequel trilogy, you are incorrect. If you are talking about reviews for other films, you're going to have to provide evidence.

I think what you get carried away with is, you seem to believe that if you cite a source, regardless of how ridiculous (message boards, fansites), then it makes it true.

Movieguy999 23:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if you cite a source, it does make it true. On Wikipedia, truth is derived from consensus. Consensus is derived through source. Consensus and source. You have neither. The Filmaker 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:I believe that if you cite a source, it does make it true. On Wikipedia, truth is derived from consensus. Consensus is derived through source. Consensus and source. You have neither. The Filmaker 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say to me? If you cite a source that says McDonald's French Fries are perfectly healthy to eat everyday and noone takes the time to edit your weak article, it becomes FACT? I think not...

The history of this article and your own talk page alone shows that you reach "consensus" by guarding this and other articles 24 hours a day and quickly reverting any changes and immediately reporting users that dare edit an article that you have worked on...

Movieguy999 01:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who has ever reverted your edits or the edits of those like you? I think not. I will humor you with your McDonald's analogy. If I cited a source that said that these French Fries were healthy to eat everyday, it would not be a reliable source. And even if it was, there would be someone along to contest this. This article has been featured on the main page, it has been edited and viewed by hundreds, probably thousands of different users. You are among an incredibly small minority that has a problem with it. The Filmaker 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

IMDb and other comments

I'd just like to add in the point that the usage of the IMDb as a source for much of anything, much less its own ratings, has been fairly conclusively decided against per the rejected proposal at WP:CIMDB. There was very little content which was even proposed for being allowed for sourcing, and things such as the polls and ratings were specifically proscribed more or less unanimously. One of the main reasons is because indiscriminate ratings on such sites usually are considered violations of WP:RS and WP:NOR policies. So I would have to agree that IMDb ratings should be deleted from the article.

As for Rottentomatoes, I'm not so much against that because it is a meta-compilation of pre-existing critical opinion and it does restrict which critics may participate. (Your opinions of its inclusiveness notwithstanding.) The reasons why a newer film has more reviews than an older film should be obvious - less reviews were made available online in 1999, even from longstanding critics, many of which remain offline for various reasons involving individual sites' willingness to create online archives for their pre-online material. And of course there are critics now active who were not back then. I don't think it particularly matters much, as the sample size for all of the films is large enough to be considered a valid cross-section of critical views. I do agree, however, that critical opinion is better displayed through selected quotes which highlight common thoughts or schools of thought regarding the film which were voiced by many critics.

And regarding quotes, I agree that the MST3K-person's quote probably should go, since the man has no particular relevance to the film itself, nor does he have credentials as a professional critic. However, MacGregor's should stay since he was one of the leads. In regards to the comparison with Harrison Ford's quote on ANH, I think that MacGregor's should stay in the reception section, since his reaction was to the finished film, whereas Ford's comment was made during production and therefore is perfectly understandable in its current position under Production. Girolamo Savonarola 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A quote from IMDB is nothing more than a quote from IMDB, this means that the user when reading it should have some knoledge about it to discern for himself how reliable the information is or how important he think it is to the article (same aplies to historical articles; Fox News is more than a valid source when it comes to the Iraq war, but its the user who must discern wether is this a biased statement or not). Currently IMDB has a voting system that cannot be tampered with in the long run (the voting process is specially made to counter that). It is a valid source of information regarding its own status as a popular website within the the internet itself. Currently 135.000 people have voted for the Phantom Menace as is, and the rating itself while not proper for UNESCO standards, is proper IMDB standards (all in all we are talking about noteworthy information here). Regarding Rottentomatoes we aply the same logic, its just the information Rottentomatoes gives, and again it is the user that must discern for himself. Yet all in all, these are the best tools we have when the time comes to have an idea about how a movie has been recieved once its out; one can say that IMDB doesnt count the voting of ordinary people, but only the vote of IMDB voters, yet this reassoning is affected by a serious chauvinism regarding why arent IMDB voters worthy of mentionning then?, do we have proof that they are biased?, that their opinnions are not worthy, perhaps too ignorant to have apreciated the jamaican accent of Jar Jar Binks?, are they not valid consumers of movies, and therefor have a valid point when it comes to make their opinnion, from their own perspective. A critic makes his view from his perspective depending on many factors, Roger Ebert may be a respected movie critic, but he is working for a newspaper and his review must be understandable for the common public or the readers of the Sun, he is not going to review the Phantom Menace using the same critical point of view as if he was watching a Kielowsky movie; because the audiences differ from movie to movie, he is well aware of which audience is he writting his review, he doesnt need to be a proffesional critic to watch the Phantom Menace, mainly because sayd movie doesnt have an epystomological high level; its a movie about shiny lasers (...in a galaxy far far away) that can be watched by the average Joe without any problems. YET, for some reasson you believe that something within the Phantom Menace makes it so special that we should take in accountance only critics that have a PHD in philosophy and a doctorate in linguistics (or maybe just "respectable critics", a rather lose, snobbish term); now tell me, was the movie so hard to understand?, is this movie so brilliant that an average person without any degrees or a respectable status cannot give his own account about the movie? (such as IMDB reviewers!, for example).Kessingler 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If you aren't going to discuss this in reference to policy issues, it's going to have little ability to sway me. Girolamo Savonarola 19:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
User ratings at sites like IMDb will be inherently fallacious. I've seen films like 300 and Transformers get into the Top 250 at IMDb, then they fall out of the rankings. This is a clear reflection of potential abuse, and there's no telling if even-handed follow-up votes ever truly give a balanced rating for a film. The best way to do this is to conduct bona fide polls, such as film audiences being approached and polled. Online user ratings are far too prone to manipulation, and they should be excluded from Wikipedia articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that any opinion within the article should be a direct quote from that person and that person should have some kind of credentials pertaining to film. Otherwise, you have (or already have) weaseled in fan opinions. I still argue the rottentomatoes thing, because as Girolamo Savonarola put it, you don't have balance because there are more reviewers on the net now than there were and quite frankly I still question their sources because for every review from a major newspaper, you see a website that looks very much like it was made using a basic html editor.

I have thought about Ewan McGregor's statement and I was going to say that it should simply be added to The Attack Of The Clones article, as he is praising the new movie, more than bashing the old one, but I am willing to let it stay in this article as long as we get the other changes mentioned above, so it doesn't look like it's being used just to bring down the film.

I mean lets be honest here. I am not trying to make The Phantom Menace look good, look better than it was, etc, etc, etc. Personally, I have always viewed The Star Wars films as one entity and each film could be argued to have the same controversy and criticism as the next one. Obviously, being a fan who uses the internet, you will hear a lot of people saying this or that about a certain movie, but why is there a need to give these faceless people credibility in an article that should be neutral and unbiased?

I honestly think Jake Lloyd and Natalie Portman's performances were pretty bad, but were they any worse than Hayden Christensen in the next two films or even Mark Hamil in the original trilogy? By taking Jar Jar out of the next two films, you still have the suspect acting. The point is, this is all up to the person watching the film to decide if they like it or not. Even if so many people didn't like this or that, why are they given credibility over all of the other people who don't voice their opinion on the internet 24/7? If you really hate the movie or if you really like it, feel free to go onto the internet and talk about it, but it needs to stay out of this article.

Why is there such a rabid need to edit an article so that it reflects those kinds of opinions? Why are they relevant to anyone except a hardcore fan?

It's interesting to note that out of all these people who supposedly hated the movie, a lot of people sure got upset when the movie didn't goto DVD straight out of the theaters.

If anyone actually cares about polls and ratings, they will surely venture to these sites like imdb and view them for themselves.

Movieguy999 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and we can use that same "venture themselves" logic for nearly anything, its lobbying 101, does smoking cause cancer?, well, we cant put that on the cigarrette article, no way sir... if people want to know about criticism of cigarrettes, they will venture themselves into sites like that!. The Phantom Menace?, same thing... we shouldnt place comments from those snarky "viewers" and "fans" that make Star Wars what Star Wars is, we should look around for critics like Rogert Ebert, who has the all the credentials of a film reviewer (had a tv show) and gaved one of the few all around positive reviews of Episode One back in the day. How do i know?, Rottentomatoes of course!. Yet, since both Rottentomatoes and IMDB do not provide the positive kind of review that certain people want to see, they are censored into oblivion... like a lawyer would make OJ wear Jar-Jar mittens. There is nothing wrong with this, but the problem is that like a bad political move, we are promised that no more we'll be using either IMDB or Rottentomatoes, but a better, more fair system that is not biased, composed mainly of critics with doctorates that can understand the dichotomy of good and evil present in the multi million dollars blockbuster. Yet, we have not witnessed any of that yet, the criticism section is a pastiche of Ebert, a few short lines of criticism (all of them start with the word "some...") and of course a counterpart to each criticism ("the screenplay was criticized by "some" but the saberfight really kicked ass"). Philosophers and people with doctorates (any) dont watch the Phantom Menace! (or write about it), who do you people think you are fooling?, they have actual serious work to do! ("gee, should i make my thesis about Nietzsche or George Lucas... thats a tough one"). And even if they have... what could make their reviews so different from the review of an averafe Joe?. If you people have deleted both IMDB and Rottentomatoes, at least do so properly, re-writte the whole criticism section so that it could reflect sayd change. Considering this is the most criticized Star Wars movie out there (by fans, who else?), it surprises me that none of that is on this page. How did it even accomplished a Featured Article status to begin with?.200.83.57.71 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed Lines in Reaction Section

Removed midi-chlorians line as no citation was ever found.

Removed IMDB references as per wikipedia rules (see above arguments).

Removed Mystery Science Theater 3000 ref as the show nor the host have any relevance to Star Wars.

Movieguy999 01:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted two citations from reputable film and religion scholars that support the midi-chlorian statement. Dmoon1 04:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dmoon, I am cool with the sources on the midi-chlorians, though you need to reword that first line, it makes no sense and looks unprofessional:

Film historian Daniel Dinello notes, "Anathema to Star Wars fanatics who thought they reduced the Force to a kind of viral infection, midi-chlorians provide a biological interface, the link between physical bodies and spiritual energy.

I don't know if you cut into his statement at Anathema, or what, but that looks terrible. The rest is really good.

You also should put something in the main article about midi-chlorians because they were introduced into the series in this film. It needs a brief write up at the least, and would be really nice if it had it's own section. I can do it sometime later, but you've done a pretty solid job here, so I say go for it.

Movieguy999 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. This is a common way to quote from a source when using that quote as evidence to support the statement that just came before it. You have taken the quote out of context from the first part of the paragraph. Dmoon1 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Greg Jones II 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job movie guy, now the reaction section makes absolutely no sense at all, besides giving no real account of the reaction of the movie with fans. I salute you for being one of those who contributed the most into making this article a poor one.200.83.56.253 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

FA Status Removed

Hey um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we need this article back up to FA status since this article has now been demoted. We need to get this article back to FA if we can. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 12:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Someone put down Chuck Noris as playing Darth Maul, when in fact it was Ray Parks; who was also toad in the first xmen movie. Of course Ray didn't provide the voice for Maul, and I'm not sure who did 100%. But I know Parks was the actor who played the physical part of the character, this needed to be changed in the main article part. I'm surprized this wasn't caught before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.45.49 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: It is well written with correct prose and grammar.
2. Factually accurate?: Yes, it has references and citations throughout most of the article, with little or no Originial research. Although, the "Plot" section could use some references.
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, it has everything on the movie, and stays on topic.
4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral point of view
5. Article stability? The article has been very stable with hardly any edit wars or vandalism.
6. Images?: Provides images on the topic.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done some cleanup to the citation templates, and in the process saw some issues. First, there is no consistency in the use of templates. Styling should be consistent in the entire article. That means, if you got it from a DVD then use the Cite Video template, and remove any sections that are not applicable. I just removed 2kb of information that wasn't being used. I saw in the FAR that there was concern over the use of IMDb. I agree, it is abundantly in this article, and many times you can see where they were quoting another source. If they got it from another news organization then go find it in that organization's archives. The article probably needs a thorough copyedit as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


"Historical" and "Cultural" Allusions

Is it just me, or does this seem very much hearsay and own research? There're very little citations, and it seems to me that whoever wrote this is trying to find "things that match up"; those of which 'accidentally' "fit together". It's annoying! Damienzor (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Video game adaptions

I think this section should be in here, there were a few of them. Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

needs more pictures i mean there is none —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.184.224 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace/Archive 1#Phantom Menace = Anakin

I always thought the "Phantom Menace" was The Sith. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars:_Episode_I_–_The_Phantom_Menace/Archive_1&oldid=1222056067"