Talk:The Empire Strikes Back

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die

Hi all, I'm wondering whether this sentence can be removed from the article: "[Empire] is included in the 2003 film reference book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die."

I removed it, but my edit was reverted. My argument is that, compared to all the other high rankings Empire has received, being one of the 1001 best movies of all time seems insignificant. The editor who reverted my edit (Darkwarriorblake) pointed out that this book was compiled by a total of 70 critics, and not just by one author, as I had assumed. Even then, I'm unsure why Empire's inclusion in such a book is meaningful, especially since the book is more than 20 years old. What Wikipedia readers are going to find this information useful? Wafflewombat (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The book receives a new edition pretty much every year, the edition cited here is from 2013 so it is not 20 years old. Additionally, a work by 70 critics mentioning the film is not something to be dismissed. I'm unsure why if we have the acclaim we wouldn't want to mention it. Or what harm those 15 words do? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If we mentioned every bit of praise this film has ever received, the article would be way too long. Just because acclaim exists, doesn't mean we have to include it. Since it's a featured article, I feel we should have very high standards, and every sentence should be important and necessary. My feeling is that this information is neither, but if you disagree I respect that. Just wanted to share where I'm coming from, since you asked.

Although the citation came from 2013, the text in the article said it was a 2003 reference book, so that's why I said it was 20 years old. I fixed the 2003 typo. I should have checked the citation date, though, before bringing it up for discussion! Wafflewombat (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Wafflewombat. 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die is not considered a prestige list among film buffs. This is especially true of the newer entries that have been added (and often removed again) in updated editions. I'm not entirely sure as I might be misremembering, but I don't think it's a consensus list that the contributors have collectively agreed on, but rather a list where many different people have written the essays for the individual entries. At any rate, the list's standing in the field is dubious – it's considered a "fun" list rather than a "serious" one, for lack of better words. It's also not a "best of" list but a "must-see" list, as the title implies. It might be worth mentioning for comparatively obscure works like Storm over Asia, Méditerranée, and Deseret, but for films with wide recognition like this one mentioning it on the article is mostly dilution of more worthwhile content. TompaDompa (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If you could take a week off from undermining one of the articles I've worked on based on your broad interpretations of legitimacy Tompa I'd really appreciate it. 1001 movies is compiled by 70 professional critics, it's as legitimate as anything else, it's as legitimate as Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, etc, your personal opinion not withstanding. Also "is not considered a prestige list among film buffs" needs a citation, ideally from Sight & Sound, and it needs to explicitly say these words for it to be verifiable, it cannot be synthesis from multiple sources, thanks bud. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I came here because I was asked on my user talk page about a different part of the article and happened to see this talk page section. It's nothing personal. On the topic of the 1001 Movies list I'm not disputing its legitimacy, but rather its relative importance in the field—which is generally recognized to be low. The list is popular to be sure, but not highly respected. Again, fun rather than serious. I personally rather like it. TompaDompa (talk) 09:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I know you're being facetious about needing outside sources to ascertain the standing of 1001 Movies within the field and thus its quality as a source to be used here, but if it were necessary you would obviously have it backwards—we would need to demonstrate that it is considered prestigious and/or highly respected, not that it isn't. TompaDompa (talk) 09:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Just giving you a slightly annoying task you can never fulfil, that's all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

For the benefit of other people visiting this talk page: I gather this is about our disagreements at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seven (1995 film)/archive1. TompaDompa (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey Darkwarriorblake, I have a quick question for you. Now that two people have supported removing this segment, would you be willing to reconsider your stance on it? Wafflewombat (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what the big deal is. 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die is practically included on every album page that includes said albums and I've never encountered any editor disagreements with that so why does the movie equivalent book matter? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, which is why I didn't bother commenting on it for the past 3 months. Since @Darkwarriorblake opposes the removal of the segment, there's no reason to discuss it any further unless other editors lobby for its removal. As for the reasons for the removal, @TompaDompa and I explained our reasoning at length. If our arguments don't make sense, I'm not sure how else to explain them. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Three more segments

Hi folks! I'm posting three segments from the article that I feel could be changed or removed, and I'm hoping to get your thoughts.

1. "Hamill insisted on doing as many of his stunts as possible, though the insurers refused to allow him to perform a 15-foot (4.6 m) fall out of a window. He fell from a nine-inch ledge 40 feet (12 m) high but rolled on landing to avoid injury."

If the insurers wouldn't allow him to fall 15 feet, then why did they allow him to fall 40 feet? Or was the 40-foot fall accidental? I feel this should be clarified, but I don't have access to the cited source (Starlog no.40, November 1980). Can someone with access look this up, or tell me where I can find the Starlog issue online, so I can look into it?

Segment is now more clear. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

2. "When the crew returned to London, they had only half the planned footage, including background plates for special effects shots that were uneven."

I made the argument that the average reader of this article won't know what background plates are, but another editor disagreed with me. I'm hoping to hear what others think. If we use filmmaking terminology like this, I feel we should either explain it or wikilink it. Unfortunately, there isn't a Wikipedia page for background plates. Explaining what they are would mean devoting more article space to a very minor topic, so my suggestion is that we remove the mention of background plates entirely.

Background plates now explained. Wafflewombat (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

3. "Kershner wanted each character to make a unique entrance in the film. While filming Vader's entrance, the snow troopers preceding Prowse tripped over the polystyrene ice, and the stuntman behind him stood on his cape, breaking it off, causing Prowse to fall onto the snow troopers."

I feel this segment should be removed from the article, but on this there has also been disagreement. My argument is that the segment has no connection to anything else in the article. It's a disconnected anecdote which doesn't provide any valuable information. If the segment was preceded by a sentence telling us that the polystyrene ice caused numerous problems on set, or if it was followed by a sentence telling us that it took two days to repair Vader's cape, which delayed the production, then I would support keeping it in. Another reason to keep it would be if we had information about the unique entrances of other characters, but such information is not in the article. As it is, the anecdote has no context. Thoughts? Wafflewombat (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm listing two more segments I have questions about. Thank you, Darkwarriorblake, for your swift action on two of the previous ones.

4. "The American Film Institute ranked Darth Vader as the third best villain on its 2003 list of the 100 Best Heroes & Villains, after Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter."
@Darkwarriorblake, could I get your thoughts on the above sentence? Is a 2003 ranking still important?

Yes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply.

I'm just wondering if this is too outdated, since it's from 20 years ago. Vader would probably still be high on the list today, but that is ultimately speculation and not fact.

Resolved

5. "Filmmakers such as the Russo brothers, Roland Emmerich, and Kevin Feige cite it as an inspiration in their careers or identify as fans."

This is awkward, because we aren't told which of these filmmakers have been inspired by the film in their careers, and which ones are simply fans. There are probably way, way more filmmakers than just these three who have been inspired by Empire or are fans, so I'm not sure why there should be a list of just these three. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps standardize film article titles?

Would it be beneficial to standardize the article titles for Skywalker Saga films? Lucasfilm has changed its titling policy several times over the course of this franchise, from just the subtitle when the original trilogy was being released to "Star Wars: Episode ? - Subtitle" when the prequels were coming out, to "Star Wars: Subtitle" when the sequels were coming out, and now they're displayed as "Star Wars: Subtitle (Episode ?)" on Disney . That's all well and good, but Lucasfilm has always retroactively used whatever their current titling policy is to refer to the previous films, so when they made the prequels they were referring to the original trilogy with "Star Wars: Episode ? - Subtitle" and when they made the sequels they used "Star Wars: Subtitle" for both the previous trilogies, and so on. The film articles are frozen to whatever the titling policy was at the time, so they're different for all three trilogies, but Lucasfilm never treats them this way. They're always referred to using the same titling policy. Perhaps more pertinently, sources also almost never treat the films this way. Whenever they're referred to as a set, which is frequently, they always have the same name styles, because that is what obviously makes more sense. I know that this is against normal film guidelines but in this case I think it would be better to follow sources than to follow the normal film guidelines. My personal preference would be to just use the subtitle, like this article does, so it would be for example The Phantom Menace or The Force Awakens. Obviously, Star Wars (film) would be an exception to this because it released without a subtitle and is frequently referred to as just Star Wars rather than as A New Hope. Ladtrack (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If this should be anywhere else, please let me know and I'll move it. I didn't really know where to put this so I left it here. Ladtrack (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, based on previous RfCs I've read, WP titles these articles by the original film titles, not by retroactive retitles. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Citations

Hello! I've noticed that, on this page, in-line citations are "bundled" into a footnote when four or more of them appear consecutively. This is great, because it creates a cleaner aesthetic and improves readability. Has any thought been given to bundling blocks of three? Wafflewombat (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I've found three is not that much of an issue aesthetically. It usually depends on the editor. Some bundle them up but others don't. It's much more valid to bundle them when there are four or more. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly if there are more than 3 references for one thing, then it's over referenced and the references should be reduced to the most relevant and significant. There is such as thing as too many references. Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There is such a thing. Four references is not that thing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITATIONOVERKILL applies when you're sourcing ten things that say one thing. But if those ten things combined are needed to cite the sentence(s) you're trying to write, then it's necessary. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)