Talk:Star Wars (film)
|This article needs to conform to our limits on quotations policy.
The subject of this article is a film, and as a result, there should only be: five quotes per hour (about one quote every 12 minutes).
If you would like to add another quote to the page, you may first need to remove one that is already there in order to keep within the bounds of fair use of copyright material.
Mark Hamill quote from Empire of Dreams
I don't know where I should put this. I am thinking of starting an Empire of Dreams page entirely
"What was disappointing would be the Cantina sequence. It was really imaginatively described, and then you go in there and it looks like the Nutcracker Suit. You know there's a frog guy and a mouse girl and [laughs to himself softly] giant cricket at the bar. It was [laughs some more] it was really disappointing. But you know, George says, 'don’t worry don't worry, we're gonna fix all of this.'" Genome4824 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be trimmed already? I can't remove the Checkcopyright template if this page is not trimmed.(StarWarsFanBoy 22:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC))
Looks trimmed to me. Good work everybody.(StarWarsFanBoy 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC))
1997 special edition
As the intro says, this is about the "1977 space opera film". Therefore the Greedo fired first comment, and the Jabba scene should either be explicit about the source, or removed altogether. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Droids we are looking for
Isn't it the right place to put the "droids we are looking for" dialogue?
Selection of pithy quotes vs. storytelling
Recent months have seen some edit warring, without discussion on the talk page, over differences of opinion on which quotes to include in the article. Chiefly, it is a disagreement between these two quotes favored by Kalki and these longer dialogues favored by Eaglestorm and AdamDeanHall. Rather than continuing to revert each other, this needs to be discussed. For the reasons explained below, I agree with Kalki's selections.
Although this is a film targeted at a youthful audience, aiming for melodrama rather than literary depth, it nevertheless contains a number of lines that are memorably pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant, or that have persisting currency in popular culture almost forty years later. Unfortunately, the present article misses many of these quoteworthy lines and instead is mostly filled with dialogue featuring plot development or elucidating back-story.
I strongly endorse the following (often ignored) guidance from the Quotability: Length of dialogues guideline:
Whole scenes from movies or television shows, or large chunks of dialogue from them, are rarely quotable. While they may seem "exciting" or "readable," they are nonetheless not quotable, and really provide only a method for fans of the film to vicariously re-live watching it.
Dialogue only ought be included when the interchange is quotable, terse, and/or pithy on its own.
Plot revelations and other story-related statements are typically not quoteworthy for the general Wikiquote audience unless the words themselves mean something outside of the immediate context.
Therefore, I recommend restoring the two significant statements of an iconic character related to "the Force" proposed by Kalki, and removing the plot-related dialogues inserted by Eaglestorm and AdamDeanHall. This would be one small step toward improving the article, which is focused far too much on telling the story rather than featuring "quotations [that] summarize the collective insights of society, a legacy of knowledge passed onward, from one generation to the next". ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing no response from those who were pinged above, I am now restoring the selections preferred by Kalki and myself for reasons given above and in edit summaries. Please feel free to discuss reasons for choosing otherwise before reverting these selections. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- that's about it? Just because nobody's been joining the discussions for days? you didn't even consider the fact that people are busy with their offwiki activities and you just sweep in? Seems too unilateral in favour of somebody trying to shun LOQ. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)