Talk:Darth Vader
 | Darth Vader received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Old talk at Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 1, Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 2, and Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 3.
Talk:Anakin Skywalker/Archive contains archived talk from an article that has since been merged to this one, including some discussion of the merge itself. — Phil Welch 02:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Darth Vader's Intellect
Anakin is the "son" of the Force, thus, he is gifted with a brilliant mind (just as the gods of ancient mythology). During his service to Watto, he learned vital technical and mechanical skills. While the Force may aid him in the construction of devices and machines, it is notewothy that Anakin is an engineering prodigy without the powers. -- User:24.253.120.206
- Yeah. I tried to leave it unstated in the article whether all his talents were due to the Force, other than specifically quoting Obi-Wan about his piloting skills. I think it works best to put it that way. — Phil Welch 00:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
"I Need Him! or Nooo!!!"?
There is a debate on whether "I Need Him!!!" or "NOOO!!!" warranted Anakin to simultaneously ignite his lightsaber and carve off Mace Windu's offenses. I don't think that "I Need Him" warranted Anakin to ignite his lightsaber and cut Windu's offenses off. My views is that Anakin didn't say that "he needs Palpatine" for a reason, but he tries to convince Windu to have Palpatine stand trial. Don't you guys think that Anakin was supposed to shout out "Nooo!!!" as he tries to cut off Windu's offenses to defend Palpatine?
I don't think "I need him!" warranted Anakin to defend Palpatine, I think Anakin wanted Palpatine to stand trial, but Windu chose to ignore Anakin's request, so that's why Anakin sliced Windu's hand off. I think it should be "NOOO!!!" instead of "I need him!" that caused Anakin to slice Windu's hand off. — Vesther 03:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Try writing more clearly, that made absolutely no sense. — Phil Welch 04:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Section divisions
If you haven't noticed I'm trying to keep the sections so that they correspond to the films, with "Anakin Skywalker" covering the prequels and "Darth Vader" covering the original trilogy. Also the use of numbering in listing the actors is amateurish, the publicity shot is a better picture, and Ben Burtt was the special effects supervisor—not in any universe would he be credited with playing the role. — Phil Welch 17:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Anakin Skywlker/Darth Vader at the end of Episode III discussion update
The official site has updated the databank entry for Darth Vader. I suggest you take a look at it. Copperchair 06:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- "His wife, Padmé Amidala, followed Anakin to Mustafar", "Despite his newfound power bestowed by the dark side of the Force, Anakin was grievously wounded in the fight", and it was only after Mustafar that "He abandoned his former identity". Alright. Thanks for pointing that out. The databank follows the practice we established for the article—namely, to use both names throughout most of Revenge of the Sith. It appears Copperchair's favorite source seems to agree with our consensus. — Phil Welch 09:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
1. "When it came time to make the fateful decision, he agreed to follow Sidious' teachings and knelt before the dark master.
Anakin was renamed Darth Vader".
2."His wife, Padmé Amidala, followed Anakin to Mustafar, to plead for him to return from the dark side. When Obi-Wan Kenobi emerged from Amidala's ship, Vader was consumed with rage. He saw betrayal at every corner. Distraught, he reached out with his hand and began to telekinetically throttle Padmé. She gasped for air before collapsing, unconscious, on the Mustafar landing platform. Shocked at how far his apprentice had fallen, Kenobi vowed to stop Vader and the two entered into a fierce lightsaber duel that traversed the burning Mustafar landscape."
It says "Anakin" because that is who Padmé was looking for. She didn't know his new name. You invented the "and it was only after Mustafar that" part. As for "He abandoned his former identity.", it refers to the fact that he no longer had a wife (or nobody of his loved ones, to be precise), which was the cause for his turn to the dark side, so he began a new life. Copperchair 20:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- You're forgetting "Despite his newfound power bestowed by the dark side of the Force, Anakin was grievously wounded in the fight," and also "When metal coupled with flesh in the form of cyborg implants and enhancements required to sustain him, Skywalker's transformation was complete." Copperchair, it's a completely moot point anyway. We made an agreement, and you promised not to break it. I am going to hold you to it. Don't waste our time on this yet again. — Phil Welch 22:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but you know that was left from the older version of the page, since you pointed that out too the last time. And even though I will keep my word, I want the issue to be clear at least in the talk page, so I do not feel I am "wasting my time". Copperchair 22:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- They would have changed that part if it was wrong, Copperchair. We decided to go by the scripts, and as far as we know that's what happened. As long as you keep your word, I have no further complaints. — Phil Welch 23:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to keep reminding my of our agreement. I gave you my word, and I will keep it. But I am not satisfied with the current version of the article, and will continue to support my position on this page. Copperchair 04:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- You go ahead and do that then. — Phil Welch 04:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Hayden Christensen in Jedi - huh?
According to the caption below the photo; "Hayden Christensen as the spirit of Anakin Skywalker (left) in Return of the Jedi." - is this a photoshopped photo?? because at the time Jedi was made he was about 2 years old. Astrokey44 13:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Check the 2004 DVD set. Lucas replaced the the old guy with Hayden. The Wookieepedian 13:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- oh ok, should that be noted on the picture caption? - something like "On the 2004 DVD cover, HC replaced SS from the original movie" - well I cant think of the right wording but you see what i mean. Astrokey44 13:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Lucas considers that the only' version of that films, sort of his updated one, and claims that's how Anakin should look. I guess I could mention that, though The Wookieepedian 13:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I see that its been removed, which makes sense since it was not in the original movie - just to put it up so people know what we're talking about Astrokey44 22:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Lucas considers that the only' version of that films, sort of his updated one, and claims that's how Anakin should look. I guess I could mention that, though The Wookieepedian 13:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- oh ok, should that be noted on the picture caption? - something like "On the 2004 DVD cover, HC replaced SS from the original movie" - well I cant think of the right wording but you see what i mean. Astrokey44 13:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Read the archives, this has been discussed. — Phil Welch 22:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
And the same goes for the Palpatine article. Copperchair 23:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
User:Obi-Wan keeps reverting back to DVD-version captures. While these are the most up to date and I would like to change to them eventually, I do think that at this point in time the earlier captures are more appropriate just because they're the version that's the most familiar to the most people. We can feel safe changing it over after the theatric re-release in 3D, or perhaps later on, but right now I think it's premature. After all, Lucas might make yet another change between now and then. — Phil Welch 19:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think the new versions should be used, they're higher in quality and the latest official version of the film. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I just reverted another of his reverts. I agree with Phil. The Wookieepedian 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine, they're the latest official version. It's also a version that's only existed for just over a year now and that comparatively few people have seen. The fact is, the story of Darth Vader and the cultural phenomenon of Star Wars is more than George Lucas's latest revision. As an encyclopedia it's our job to reflect reality, and reality is, far, far more people saw Sebastian Shaw as the Force ghost. Until the latest revision gains enough cultural currency to overturn the scene that's existed for over 20 years--not just among fanboys but among the public in general--then it's premature to change it. — Phil Welch 20:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't we then as an encyclopedia have both versions and explain the difference in Vaders portraial between the two versions of the movies. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
We do--in List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. — Phil Welch 22:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Plus the fact that Lucas changed the scene is in the Vader article. The Wookieepedian 23:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Since when is Wikipedia not supposed to have the latest information? We shouldn't stay purposefully outdated just so some people can catch up. There isn't going to be panic in the streets if we post a screenshot from a DVD that millions of people have bought over the past year or so. Just have a caption that says "from the 2004 DVD release". That's all. The more you show these shots, the quicker they'll be accepted. Besides, I'm sure that more people nowadays would recognize Hayden Christensen over Sebastian Shaw. You know, I sense an undercurrent of dislike against this change, or Christensen, or the Prequels in general... you shouldn't be making excuses to keep the old picture. --Marcg106 05:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Assume good faith. I'm not "making excuses", I'm just looking beyond the impulse, of some, to treat Lucas's latest revisions as the only consideration to be made. If we're supposed to present a truly representative picture of what Star Wars is, we should present a generally broader picture than simply what Lucas's latest revision is. There won't be "panic in the streets" if we don't—we'd just be failing our job as an encyclopedia, not to make Lucas's tinkering with his old films more quickly accepted, but to catalogue the cultural phenomena of our civilization. — Phil Welch 13:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- You say to assume good faith, yet your reply seems to have a condecending attitude toward's Lucas "tinkering". Every other page on Wikipedia is always updated with the latest information as soon as it's available. I fail to see how this page is different. "Cataloguing cultural phenomena" does not take precedent over providing accurate, up-to-date details.
- This flippant attitude toward's Lucas' updates is not appropriate. The idea that, "oh, he'll make more revisions in the future, so why bother displaying them now?" is completely against what Wikipedia's about. If he does make those changes, then we'll update the pages accordingly. But for now, the images should reflect the most current version.
- I'd really like to see some other pages where up-to-date information is sacrificed for the sake of "preserving culture".
- It would be interesting to see arguments against this change that aren't based in a fundamental dissaproval of Lucas' prerogative to change his films. --Marcg106 15:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with Lucas changing his films. I just don't think Wikipedia should be activist about promoting the acceptance of those changes: that's called maintaining the Neutral point of view. Once again, this page notes that Christiansen appears in the latest version of Return of the Jedi--no "accurate, up-to-date details" are sacrificed. If you want to see arguments that "aren't based in a fundamental dissaproval of Lucas' prerogative to change his films", I suggest you reread my arguments because you obviously failed to comprehend them the first time. — Phil Welch 18:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, I suggest that we display images from both versions of the films and explain the differences, there's no need to pick one version, and no, having it at List of changes in Star Wars re-releases is not enough. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why? That's the article that's actually *about* differences between various versions of the films. It's at best a tangential issue in this article. — Phil Welch 01:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well in my opionion if the portrayal of this character changes through different versions of the movies we should explain that in this article as well as the list of .. article. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
As currently written, the article clearly states that the portrayal does change. We just haven't cluttered the article with two pictures of the same scene. — Phil Welch 15:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
"where both Kenobi and a dying Yoda" vs. "where both a dying Yoda and Kenobi"
I really hope there's not some stupid edit war brewing over this, but I see that Copperchair has reverted this edit several times, and I really, really just want to ask: um, why does such a small word choice even matter? – Mipadi 07:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Kenobi and a dying Yoda" flows better, even though it's not chronologically accurate. But there's no representation or expectation that it would be, either. — Phil Welch 07:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Category:Star Wars Naberrie family
Does Anakin really belong in this category? He married Padme and that might be considered marrying into the Naberrie family, but usually we see it as the woman marrying into the man's family and not the other way around. If there's something definite about the way this is seen in the Star Wars universe, I'd like to see it. — Phil Welch 07:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the way it is in the real world is quite the double standard, so I would think that the Star Wars world, as advanced as they seem in all aspects, would see it both ways. As far as in-universe aspects go, I'm quite surprised that they would still expect women to take the last name of the person they marry. But of course, since those stories were written by earthly humans, it's not all that surprising. Let's leave it at that, as there's really no established custom as far as "marrying into" in Star Wars fiction yet.The Wookieepedian 08:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
"widely considered one of the most iconic movie villains of all time"
I've attempted to replace this weasel statement in the lead section with a factual statement that conveys approximately the same message. It may be less dramatic, but the original statement is still an opinion without references, even if it is not a widely disputed statement. --Poiuyt Man talk 03:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- How about we just leave it the way I had it, but.. give a reference to your specific fact, wherever it is on the net. The Wookieepedian 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've reworded it to keep the notion that he's an iconic figure (without the opinionated "one of the most"), while mentioning his pop culture significance and AFI to back it up. It easily summarizes and leads the reader into the "cultural figure" section. --Poiuyt Man talk 04:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Good. I agree with your style of wording. The Wookieepedian 04:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've reworded it to keep the notion that he's an iconic figure (without the opinionated "one of the most"), while mentioning his pop culture significance and AFI to back it up. It easily summarizes and leads the reader into the "cultural figure" section. --Poiuyt Man talk 04:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- He's been featured on some sci-fi presentation as the #1 greatest villian of all time, unlike his #3 ranking in the reference used in the article. Vader is rather iconic; though we'd need significant backup to state here that he's the most iconic villan ever. Stepping back from wikidom a bit, he may very well be.
"Appearance" image
The image of Darth Vader by the "Appereance" section is there for a very simple reason—so we get to see what he looks like in a section discussing what he looks like. It's an illustration. While I'm not opposed to a caption necessarily, it would have to be a caption that is useful to the purpose of illustrating what Lord Vader looks like, or else it's a distraction from the meaning and flow of the page. By the way, formatting the image as a thumbnail without a caption is quite silly as well. — Phil Welch 19:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The caption goes along with the discussion of his appearance. Furthermore, the image is a thumbnail, so it should be formatted as such.
- Wikipedia even specifies a standard format for adding images: 1 2 – Mipadi 19:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Stop the petty reverting.
This is directed towards Copperchair and The Wookieepedian, who keep reverting Hayden's episode VI appearance in the infobox. Regardless of which version of the film you consider the "true" version, all versions of the movie need to be acknowledged to avoid POV. I've place a footnote to clarify which version of ROTJ Hayden appears in. Hopefully this is a satisfactory solution for both of you. --Poiuyt Man talk 16:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Trust me, Copperchair cannot accept any type of compromise. For him, all Star Wars articles must be based only on the '97 Speial Editions. I was not trying to promote my version as he was. He was attempting to remove information from other versions. I left everything in from the other versions. If I acted like him, I would have removed the fact that Sebastian Shaw originally played him. Yep, that's how silly Copperchair's actions are, when looked at from a different point of view! Even when I have given him this comparison, he merely avoids it, and continues reverting. And the guy claims he studied law! The Wookieepedian 02:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Inexplicably removing factually correct and referenced information, as Copperchair is doing, arguably constitutes vandalism. I'm conservative when it comes to defining vandalism but I think this qualifies, if barely. — Phil Welch 03:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It is NOT vandalism, as that information is already in the article (Sebastian Shaw portrayed the dying, middle-aged (and redeemed) man behind the mask in the theatrical release of Return of the Jedi and shortly after, as his ghost; however, in the most recent DVD release, Christensen is digitally inserted in Shaw's place.) Thus, Poiuyt Man's footnote is redundant. Copperchair 07:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- And so is the fact that Shaw played him. Should we remove that from the info box as well? The Wookieepedian 07:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)