FANDOM


Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

UnderConstruction

Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope was the improvement drive project for the week of 2 October, 2005.
See how it improvedOther improvement drives

Article milestones
Date Process Result
10 August 2006 Good article nomination Failure
5 November 2006 Failed good article nominee
Current status: Failed good article nominee

KFIIWT (KFan II Wikipedia Transfer) KFan II 01:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)KFan II

Opening Crawl Edit

Is the Opening Crawl Image really necessary. I think it just wastes space and increases loading space. The crawl is better in just plain text.

The original, pre-ANH crawl should be included as well, as the formatting and capitalization is different, too.

It is necessary, the opening crawl was a major part of the original film. It doesn't take up much space at all either.

Please expand Edit

Please expand this article--Shreshth91$ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-| 15:44, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)


Added Stuff Edit

I've added a few pictures and rewritten only a few poorly-written sentences. There's more to be done! --Hollis 11:20 CT, 28 Sep 2005

From Star Wars to Episode IVEdit

Here's an idea on one way this article can be improved. The poster in this article just has the words "Star Wars" on it. Are there pictures of any posters that say "Star Wars, Episode IV, A New Hope" on them? Double D 14:23, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • There are, but I think we should have the original theatrical posters for each movie. --Master Starkeiller 14:38, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Why not center? Edit

MarcK, why does the DVD cover "belongs" to the right? It looks much better in the center. --Master Starkeiller 18:51, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • You think it looks much better in the center. The custom for all images is to put them on either side; in the center it takes up way too much space and generally looks untidy. MarcK 22:37, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the DVD release has to stand out from the rest of the images just like the release poster has. --Master Starkeiller 10:08, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • It looks ridiculous in the center. The only reason it still doesn't look great on the right is becasue there is not much written for it. Hollis 00:14, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • I see your point. But if so little is written for it, it looks even more ridiculous on the right. Any extra info we could add? --Master Starkeiller 11:36, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

AAAAAHHHHH Edit

SOMEONE ERASED THE WHOLE THING! PUT IT BACK! Unsigned comment by 68.7.160.80 (talk • contribs).

  • Yes, it appears to have been started when you blanked the article for the text "-pwned--". So thanks for that. --SparqMan 02:28, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Early wide surround sound? Edit

All 70mm releases before Star Wars were in surround sound. That's a lot more than just Cinerama and CinemaScope magnetic prints. Unsigned comment by 67.176.40.244 (talk • contribs).

Additional info on sound mixes:

There were THREE theatrical sound mixes. The first completed was the six-track 70mm surround mix (equivalent to a 4.2 mix - left, center, right, rear, and two LFE). Then the theatrical 35mm stereo mix, and finally, the most completed and polished "final" mix that Ben Burtt and Lucas considered to be "perfect," and the most widely-heard theatrically, the 1.0 mono mix (which featured a different voice for Beru, different alarms on the Tantive IV, Luke saying "Blast it, Wedge, where are you?" instead of "Biggs," etc.) was the last completed. Interestingly, the mono mix has never been officially released on video, though fans have preserved it from early '80s TV broadcasts, and it does indeed sound more complete than the others.

For video, in 1985 Burtt prepared a re-mix based on the theatrical stereo mix (there isn't much of a significant difference between the theatrical stereo and '85 remix) - this mix was used on any home video release from 1985-1993 (except, IIRC, one that used the theatrical stereo). In 1993, another remix was prepared, bringing some elements of the six-track mix back while adding in some brand-new sound effects (such as added "glass breaking" sounds when Han, Luke and Chewie shoot up the Death Star security cameras, etc.), and a much more "improved" bass response. It's rumored that the 1993 remix (found on the 1993+ VHS tapes, the 1995 "Faces" VHS tapes, the "Definitive Collection" and "Faces" laserdiscs, and the current "unaltered" 2006 DVD) is actually a 2.0 fold-down of the 70mm six-track, but since the six-track hasn't been heard since the original 70mm screenings, this is unknown.

The SE 5.1 mix was based on the six-track, except that the two LFE channels were combined into one, and the surround channel was re-mixed to be stereo instead of mono (so L, R, C, LS, RS, LFE).

The 2004 DVD re-mixed the 5.1 SE mix once more, but a mistake was made, and the LS and RS (left surround and right surround) channels were switched (IIRC it may just have been the music that was flipped in the rear channels). Also, certain music cues were buried in the mix, and, while the intent was to improve dialogue clarity, sometimes the dialogue sounds much more harsh than it ever has before.

Figured I'd mention some of this since NONE of it is mentioned on the main page. Oh, and yes, 70mm releases had been using surround sound for years ('2001' had a six-track mix in 1968).

Antilles issuesEdit

Empire at War strongly indicates Raymus Antilles is both the Captain in ROTS and in ANH. However, Chronicles, the Prequels, indicates Raymus is the dude in ROTS only, and the Cpt Antilles in ANH is his SON, Colton Antilles. This is EU canon vs. EU canon, so which is right? I feel this deserves to be taken to Leland Chee.JustinGann 09:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • it is officialy said now that it is Raymus Antilles in both ROTS and ANH--Darth Vader II 23:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Errors error Edit

The mention of Han and Luke running up and down ladders, then appearing to be at opposite ends of a corridor is not an error, but is perfectly plausable in the context of a zero gravity environment.

The two gunners towers may well have offset gravity generators to make it more comfortable for the gunners.

I've deleted it.

DELETED TEXT:

"*When Luke and Han Solo are preparing to shoot down the TIE fighters Luke starts by going down a ladder. Han going up, but when Luke finally hits a TIE fighter he turns and looks at Han as if it is a big long hallway that is seperating them." Unsigned comment by 80.177.28.141 (talk • contribs).

Re-releases Edit

  • I believe the DVD release should be moved under the Re-releases section. Is there a reason it is kept seperate? --Xwing328(Talk) 22:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

did obiwan know of bobaEdit

that he was in the spaceport just minutes before he enters? Unsigned comment by 69.112.122.217 (talk • contribs).

  • probably not or else he would have said something.Sith-venator 1:15 8-31-08

Some past editsEdit

Can someone check in history if the anon edits by address 155.8.89.2 can be justified or it was simply vandalism? He has removed contributions I added twice MoffRebus 14:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The IronyEdit

When George Lucas first made Star Wars Episode IV, his goal was to make a happy-go-lucky Sci-Fi tale. But the Star Wars universe has ironically grown to become tragic and complicated. Anyone agree? user:Darth Vatrir

  • I do, that's for sure. Wha he started also became a universe in and amung itself. --Jabbathehuttgartogg 07:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A Hero's Journey works well if it includes tragedy. What about Empire? It's the natural continuation of the story as set up in ANH. You can't just keep having happy endings, else there'd be no suspense - Kwenn 09:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia addition Edit

This was added recently to the Trivia section.

*Despite all its profanity, gore, and killing, it was rated PG. After Revenge of the Sith was rated PG-13 Lucas had all the films in the saga re-rated. The movie received another PG rating.

Is this accurate? Don't see how he got all the movies re-rated unless they were re-released to theaters. -Finlayson 21:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the inclusion of "hell" as profanity. And I know "damn" was considered profanity when they filmed Gone With the Wind but in '77? Or are there just some overly uptight people defining the language? 211.28.236.220 12:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I was mainly asking about getting movies re-reated. Also, the profanity, gore, and killing is not all that frequent as is implied in my opnion. The dead bodies on Tatooine is only gory thing I can think of. -Finlayson 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that line needs to be changed, as it is not npov. Timifer 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yea, doesn't seem neutral POV. I removed the 'Despite all its profanity, gore, and killing' part. Don't think there much of that anyway. -Finlayson 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe they were submitted for rating again, but in 1997, not 2005, and the ratings stayed the same anyway. Lucas did re-edit ANH a little bit so that some of the Imperial guys on the Death Star getting shot wasn't so "grahpic", i.e. the shots were more reactionary and less of them getting shot. Anyway, that trivia bit was rather bogus and shouldn't have been there anyway. -- Ozzel 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also another thing amatter with the Trivia section is that Plo Koon was not killed by Palpatine as stated he was killed by Clone troopers while flying over Namoidia Agen Kolar was the one who was killed by Palpatine. I have already edited it apon catching the Mistake
  • Anybody else bothered by this?: "This is the only Star Wars film where a major character wielding a blue lightsaber dies as a result of a lightsaber duel (Obi-Wan Kenobi is killed by Darth Vader aboard the Death Star). The only other film in which a character wielding a blue lightsaber is killed in a duel is when Agen Kolar is cut down by Palpatine in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith." I've heard of hyperinclusionist fanwankery, but this... Gonk 20:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The film WAS submitted for re-rating in 1997 due to changes made, and all 3 again received a PG rating.

HOWEVER, the film was censored - the shots of lasers blowing holes in Imperial chests were cut short so you see them fall, but you don't see the squib explode on their chest anymore. The films WERE re-submitted again in 2004 for the new DVDs, because further changes had been made. If they hadn't re-submitted them, they would have been required to carry a NOT RATED or UNRATED label, which would have restricted their sale to 17+ in some US stores (like Wal-Mart).

Pre-1981 CrawlEdit

I see that some people have been removing it. I'm the guy who originally put it in and I think we should keep it. There are several other differences in addition to the "Episode IV" subtitle such as the r in "Rebel spies" being uncapitalized or "have won" not being on the same line, resulting in the the Empire in "Galactic Empire" being left by itself in its own line. Your thoughts? 24.158.198.170 03:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the changes are small enough that it's not absolutely required that anything other than the "Episode IV" change needs to be mentioned, but others may disagree. —Silly Dan (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening Crawl Differences Edit

All movies have 2 sentences in the first paragraph except RotJ has 1 sentence and RotS has 4 (if War! is counted). All movies have 1 sentence in paragraphs 2 and 3. I've noted this in talk for all movies. -- anon, I'll register if I post again. 12:20 EST, December 28, 2006

Wrong tenseEdit

I noticed that some of the text in here has the wrong tense. Is it supposed to be like that or should I change it? DarthAmazing 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know "Old Ben" had street cred... Edit

"Your father's lightsaber. This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or as random as a blaster. An elegant weapon fo a more civilized age..." —Obi-Wan Kenobi to Luke

I've corrected the obvious error here, but I thought it was pretty funny, especially considering Sir Alec Guinness. Sirius Shadowflame 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Training driod Edit

What was that thing called that shoot lasers at Luke on the Falcon where he wore the blast shield helmet Lord Titze the Dark Wanderer 04:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

a long time ago?Edit

when they say a long time ago do they relly mean a long time ago or does it mean a long time ago in the far future? 69.23.65.113 22:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That's the point, it's unknown, and intended so. It's what makes Star Wars literally timeless - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 22:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Dosn't ago usualy mean "in the past"?--Steinninn 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's somewhere in the past (maybe the only Sci-fi tales to be set in the past), but we don't really know where and when. Maybe we'll know one day... ;-) Klow 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

...:::The original Scrit Illustrated:::... Edit

This is the Original Script of Star Wars (Ilustrated):

User_talk:Starkiller1996

Mistake in Luke's(Mark Hamil's) lines Edit

If you turn the volume up near the end of the movie were luke gets out of his X-wing and goes to hug leia she says "Luke!" and he says "Carrie". i have listend to this multiple times and its there i was wondering if maybe it should be added somewhere in the article just as a interesting fact kinda thing.--Darth Vader II 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no source for this, but I think that was debunked recently. To my ears, he's always said "hey!", but while laughing so it stretches to two syllables. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I heard it too, but start reading "Star Wars Insider". Can't remember which one, but they dealt with that in one issue, it is deffinately not Carrie. supergeeky1 BobaFett The Cantina 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-issue title Edit

If "A New Hope" was on the 1976 script and replace "Star Wars" after the Ep. V release, why was it still "Star Wars" in the 1997 re-release? Does anyone know the reason?... Klow 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

    • I'm sure someone has the answer! Come on! Klow 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

--The title in the movie itself was STAR WARS until 1981, when EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE was added and the crawl reformatted. In 1997, the A NEW HOPE crawl was kept, but the film was still advertised as STAR WARS, because that's what people were more used to - people referred to the movies as STAR WARS; THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK; and RETURN OF THE JEDI, and if the title of the first film had been advertised as A NEW HOPE, it would have confused people too much.

Poster Edit

Hi. Has it been brought up to change the poster? I was thinking we might make a vote. I would wote on e this on. I think it would be cool to use the posters they kind of re-used on the last DVD release. --Steinninn 18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The poster on the page is the original poster for the movie, and it should stay that way. Leave it as it is. Your poster is good too, but its from a later release, and isn't as significant. LukeSkywalker 5:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, both were original posters, but the one currently on the page is the one that's most commonly seen (mainly because it was used on VHS sleeves until 1995).

Deleted scenes Edit

Where can I get the OT deleted scenes?... Are there in any DVD? If anyone know, please tell me. Klow 19:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up "Appearances" Edit

One of the most confusing sections of this article is the list of various Appearances. The biggest problem is these cascading bullet points, with a list that goes so far that you can read the bottom of the list and not even see where the top of it is, and know where an item fits. I understand the interest in completeness, but to have entire hierarchies listed for one single mention of a character or a place just makes this look ridiculous. Maybe separate "Appearances" page or just listing some items on their own, even if they "fit" underneath others? It just seems like this should be addressed somehow. --JMM 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It's own speerate page just for Appearences doesnt make a lick of sense, might as well do the same for the appearences of a Stormtrooper commander. There may be a lot, but I believe they're all important in their own signifcant way. --Lord EggHead (No, I am your father!) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

link for referencing?Edit

In the trivia section, there is a line item talking about "The Art of Star Wars" form 1979 which discusses the inclusion of the 4th draft script from 1976. I have found a link to an antique website with pictures of the item. Do we want to add a sources link to endnote that trivia line?

Here's the link I found.

[1]

Or maybe contact the website's owner to see if we can get the picture of the page to include somehow? Thoughts? Medleystudios72 19:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

QuotesEdit

Shouldn't "May the Force be with you" be added to the memorable quotes section? Strobes13 16:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Definetly I'm with you on that.--Semper fi 45 22:55, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Random Subtitle Edit

I was watching this movie on my Xbox 360, with the subtitles off. I got to the scene when they're in Detention Block AA23, right when Han is retreating down the corridor, and the word "Burtt" appeared. It disappeared after the stormtrooper started to speak. Is there any significance of this word, or why it only appears on the 360, or why it appeared when the subtitles were off? Stormie1138 04:04, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

If you set the commentary track in the main menu, it turns on a subtitle that tells you who is speaking at times. When it says "Burtt," it means that Ben Burtt is speaking. If you watched it long enough that way, you'd see "Lucas" and several others that contributed to the film's commentary. leandar 04:09, June 10, 2010 (UTC)


Copy Protect for Legacy edit Edit

So we are at an impasse with this article this is considered Canon, has Legacy issues and cannot be edited to remove said issues or create a legacy tab. Somebody with access is going to have to work on that.--23.28.21.187 17:57, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Really? I wasn't aware of any such issue. Could you be more specific? For the record, if it is in the film, then we consider it canon. Otherwise, no. That's the policy that's being followed at the moment, I think it's fairly clear. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:03, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
By "Legacy issues," are you referring to non-canon Star Wars Legends content? If so, that can remain in the page, since the film exists in both the Canon and Legends continuities. Any Legends information should be referred to as Legends, though. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:05, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. We just need to clear to be clear about what's what and make sure we're not presenting stuff that wasn't in the film as if it was canon. Also, the article is full of links to Legends articles that eventually need to be changed, but that's a large project that nobody has tackled yet. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:07, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
Currently how Legacy is handle on other articles is to use the /Legacy or /Canon at the end to make the difference known and create a separate tab. That way people can see only canon articles if they choose. the issue is that this article has been labeled Canon when it is not Canon. What needs to happen is copy-protected be removed so somebody can pull out the text, edit the Legacy items out and create an actual /Canon article.--23.28.21.187 18:15, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
There has been no decision to remove Legends material from film pages, so it would not be appropriate to remove it at this time. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:18, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about removing it entirely. We could just add the Legacy moniker at the top of the original article and than have the /Canon article so that other articles that are being updated to Canon have a reference point.--23.28.21.187 18:20, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
First, to clarify, it's called Legends (rather than Legacy). Simple mistake, no big deal! Regarding having a separate article, I think that would need to be proposed in the consensus track. I wouldn't mind that, but I'm not sure how keen other people are on having separate film articles. I think there are better options. If you want to propose it, though, feel free to register an account and propose it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:23, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Canon/Legends tabs are currently for articles about in-universe subjects, not real-world articles like pages about the films. As Brandon said, anything like that would have to go through a proposal process first. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:25, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
Correct. It would also open the door pretty wide too; if the films had Canon/Legends pages, then all episodes of The Clone Wars would need them too. That seems excessive. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:29, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
The thing with the Clone Wars is that everything within it is canon. So we can use anything in them for sourcing the new /Canon articles about those people. What I'm talking about with the Movies is the additional EU connections to the original films, that were not talked about at all within the film. They never mention in the film where Darth Vader crashed or who Leia got the transmission from those were all added post movie. Do you see where I am coming from? Unsigned comment by Timothy Orr (talk • contribs).
Please remember to sign your posts by appending four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your message. To answer your question-- the thing is, that's not quite true, though. Though the whole of The Clone Wars is considered canon, it too, at times, drew on material that was originally featured in the Expanded Universe, and also itself had comics, video games, novels and such that supplemented the television series, but themselves are no longer considered canon. Creating separate articles really just opens a whole new can of worms that I don't think is necessary, but the place to discuss that is really on the consensus track thread that is up now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:01, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Red & Gold Squadron pilots Edit

Are pilots names such as Garven Dreis, "Dutch" Vander, and Jek Porkins, still considered canon, or will the canon articles say, Red Leader (Yavin) etc., like Red 2? 108.92.162.217 19:10, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Here's the canon guide to the Rebel pilots in the OT. --Alientraveller (talk) 19:12, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Legends LinksEdit

I Noticed a lot of Legends material mentioned on this article. I thought we were refraining from that ? --Marcuspearl (talk) 05:48, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

  • Please note that the article is tagged at the top "Nolegends." That means that the issue you mentioned has already been identified and it's intended to fix it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 06:51, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

Eddie Byrne's Credit Edit

Why is Eddie Byrne credited as a co-star alongside Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew etc. in the film's credits? He has a grand total of maybe 2 minutes of screen time, and only 2 sentences of dialogue, both of which are dubbed over. Did Lucas get him confused with Alex McCrindle, or what? 203.100.0.82 07:02, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Will Fox ever sell A New Hope? Mc1934 (talk) 14:42, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

Red links Edit

There are very, very few red links left, should I remove the template?--Boris Baran (talk) 03:01, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

  • There are still a lot of redlinks in the cast and crew section.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 03:04, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.