Talk:Star Wars: Revelations

Part of the Star Wars storyline?

Is Star Wars Revelations part of the Star Wars storyline? -- UnknownJohn 17:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, as the entry says it is a fan made movie. I'm not sure what your standard is for 'canon,' but I doubt it includes fan fiction, no matter how good the special effects.

Seers are new, and there's something about the destruction of the temple not being mentioned in episode III. Otherwise, the storyline avoided tackling too much of the official story (nothing about Anakin eg) so as not to mess with not-yet-released episode III's version; the main theme being the hunt of the Jedi instead. Btw, in an interview of Shane Felux, he says he chose star wars so as to federate many people and energies, but next time they'll do an original story. --Argav ۞ 00:57, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

I dont belive it, I just dont. A film...by fans...free...Star Wars...crazy, it just can not be true...I dont even belive my eyes, when I visit the site. To download or not to download, that is the question, whatever it is nobler in the mind...to question the plagiarism charges from George Lucas, or to believe in fanfic, and by doing so to...aah, you were saying?Gnomz007 05:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• What charges? Fan movies are nothing new. Download it and see for yourself? Elfguy 22:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

George Lucas has said himself that he supports the creation of Star Wars FanFilms, as long as they aren't inappropriate (tarnisg the star wars name, and as long as no profit is made by the film makers on the movies. Lucas emcourages independent films such as this one, because he himself was once one. He also understand that fans enjoy creating and viewing stories from his galaxy. That is why he allows it. Lucas himself had nothing to do with it, and Shane Felux proudly proclaims how free it is and how he will track down all who try to sell it. Yes, it is free. Believe it. I've seen it, it has excellent special effects for a fan film, excellent and creeative story, but sadly lacks very much as far as acting and performance. Adamwankenobi 23:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

He was once an independant film?? Whoa.

Being a STAR WARS Fan myself, and having seen this "fan film" I daresay it is NOT part of the STAR WARS Storyline (not approved by Lucasfilm) and I disagree with fan-films being on Wikipedia because they exist on a very-thin-line between "art" and outright copyright- infringement. Nothing wrong with fan-fiction but if LUCASFILM doesn't claim it and STAR WARS being a Trademark-entity, it's too close to being an infringement on trademark/copyright laws, especially something as big as the STAR WARS franchise. IMDB has an entry for REVELATIONS and that is where is belongs I think. I'm not going to edit anything on this page myself but just wanted to add my view on this matter here on Talk :) Thanks. MaxButterchuck (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)MaxButterchuck

NPOV Violation

It seems to me that the last editor before me displayed quite the POV in the criticisms section. I have worked on it some, but wanted it up for debate. The Wookieepedian 20:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Its widely accepted that the acting is unprofessional and dry. It is also widely known that the female actors are unattractive

I know that, and I agree, but in an article for an encyclopedia, you can' tjust come out and say that. You have to back it up with some kind of proof or notable example. Especially saying "the actors were ugly." That seems a little too POV The Wookieepedian 20:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

How exactly is something so completely subjective as "someone is ugly" a "widely known fact?" How is it a fact at all? To take that kind of online flaming at face value strikes me as a bit absurd, and opens up every single film and television article on Wikipedia to including similar POV criticisms, under the guise of merely reporting said criticisms from other people, it seems to me. Sort of the way that biased reporters slip in POV with vague phrases like "Some people say that..." Anyway. I'm new here, just wanted to give my 2 cents. Sleeper99999 19:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want proof, goto the IMDB Revelation discussion board. Most of the threads there are about the horrific acting and the attarctiveness of the female characters.

And that's the POV of people. The Wookieepedian 19:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

EXACTLY. It's no more relevant than adding to the Mr. & Mrs. Smith article that many people praised the film because Angelina Jolie is hot. It doesn't strike me as a particularly Wikipedic thing to say. Sleeper99999 19:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Adding the opinions of many from an internet messageboard is not an exception to the POV policy. Typically, any praise or criticism we list is based on critics who are more "balanced," I guess you could say. The Wookieepedian 19:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone back in and made a few changes that really need to stay changed - people keep trying to add in something along the lines of permits and to an extent encourages the making of not-for-profit short films that draw upon the characters, events, alien races and technology of the Star Wars universe which is not necessarily true. While Lucasfilm DOES allow the films as shown in the Official Star Wars fan film awards, films such as Revelations are specifically NOT allowed, nor does Lucasfilm even admit they exist, if they can avoid it. Anything remotely fanfic or "expanded universe" they do NOT allow - which is where the "turn a blind eye" phrase comes in, as they don't actively discourage them either - they just ignore them, until they get out of hand or do something illegal, as was the case with The Dark Redemption.

I would have to disagree with this. While you are right that films of this length and that are serious about SW are not accepted for the AtomFilms SW Fan Film contest, Lucasfilm is hardly trying to pretend that such films don't exist. Lucas is particularly sensitive and litigious when it comes to his intellectual property, and I'd argue that merely allowing the film to exist and be available online is itself sort of an endorsement. I realize that this is just my opinion; however, in numerous articles about Revelations, Lucas himself commented that he appreciated such efforts. Here is one example: [1] A public acknowledgement of the film's existence by the creator of SW seems enough to me to justify the paragraph as is. Sleeper99999 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The line about permitting and encouraging non-profit films is also incorrect, as the film in the official contest, by way of being licensed and endorsed by Lucasfilm, ARE allowed to make a profit. It's only the non-licensed films, such as Revelations, that need to abide by the no-money-changing-hands rule.

Okay, sounds fair. Sleeper99999 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The criticsm about being a plaigarism of Matrix: Revolutions is utterly insane, and doesn't deserve a place here - it's unfounded, discredited, and should stay deleted - as should the "awards" listing for Balticon; simply being selected for a film festival is not an award - if they won one, list it, otherwise, leave it off the list... Also, I removed the line about requesting a DVD from Shane Felux as I've spoken with him this week, and he doesn't do that anymore - any physical DVDs he had are gone.

Agreed on the Matrix part. It seemed a bit spurious when I saw it but I tried to retain it in edited form, trying to be evenhanded. But I've no problem losing it. As far as Balticon goes, being a festival's Official Selection is often touted in countless movie advertisements and press releases, so I didn't see a problem with it (although I wouldn't exactly equate Balticon to the Berlinale, but, whatever. heh.) So I think that maybe should be put up to a vote, although I concede that it's a very minor point. Sleeper99999 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've actually found that Revelations won Balticon's Best Film award, so I'm putting that up. The Balticon site isn't opening but I found mentions of this in several online weblogs, including the blog of one of the film's actors, so. Sleeper99999 17:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If they actually won something, that's fine... what I object to is Wookieepedian's reverts back to an incorrect version, when it's been spelled out *exactly* why something was removed... he may have appointed himself the "keeper of the Star Wars pages", but there are others out there who do know what they're doing as well, and I wish he'd listen sometimes when reasons are given... and for the record, no, selection for a film festival is *not* a nomination in and of itself - I can speak directly to this having been in and been a judge at film festivals myself. Nominations only come into play for specific awards... TheRealFennShysa 19:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the original Balticon mention going on Panic Struck Productions' Revelations awards page. Maybe the problem isn't the mention of being an official selection, but that it's listed as a nomination? I see your point that it's not technically correct, however, I'm not sure what else to call the section without sounding overwrought...I suppose it's a moot point for this particular article now, but. Something to mull over for future film articles, I suppose. Sleeper99999 08:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

What the heck's that gotta do with this Fan Film?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.25.70 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Official site

Link to official site actually links to www.ndss.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.109.178 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 January 2006

Fair use rationale for Image:Revelation-first-poster.jpg

Image:Revelation-first-poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Revelation-second-poster.jpg

Image:Revelation-second-poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast list too long?

Why does that extra-long "cast list" have to be in the article? It includes a tediously-long "cast" listing when real motion picture stubs and articles don't have a lengthy cast list mentioned. It is also a list of folks whom are NOT real actors,and way beyond the three major players in this "fan film". I suggest the cast list falls under "trivial" and should be edited out of this article altogether in my opinion. Just a thought for improvement. MaxButterchuck (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)MaxButterchuck

Why is this on Wikipedia?

WHY is this "fan film" even on Wikipedia? It is a walking copyright-violation and is not a motion picture in the truest sense. If Wikipedia put every garage-set "fan film" up like this one then the servers would crash for the sheer numbers of these out there! I recommend it's speedy removal from Wikipedia for what it is, a personal home-video of potential copyright/trademark violation. MaxButterchuck (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)MaxButterchuck

If you honestly feel that way, then please take the time to actually nominate it for deletion - but bear in mind that the film has already survived an AfD, which will limit your chances of success. And while the film's story is not part of the official Star Wars continuity, the film IS officially part of the Lucasfilm sanctioned and sponsored fan film network on Atomfilms - and the filmmaker was personally named by George Lucas for an award on his follow-up film. The notabilty for inclusion is there. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD? Where? I can not see any notice in this talk page. --Meridiana solare (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)