Talk: Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film)

Twi Lek

Who were the one red Lethan Twi'lek dancing for Jabba and the two blue Rutian Twi'leks giving Jabba a massage at Jabba's Palace? —Unsigned comment by 75.27.36.231 (talk • contribs)

• They weren't named. CC7567 ^(talk) 19:08, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Jabba

No one from Jabba's Palace is mentioned anywhere. We should list the names of his droids, girls, singers, slaves, and anyone else not named. Does no one know their names? Tinminer 23:10, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

• They were never named. CC7567 ^(talk) 03:57, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Newsreal/Flashbacks?

This article should include what the narrator says in the newsreel, like the rest of the clone wars articles, so one of you mods should add in what the narrator says. —Unsigned comment by 58.178.79.33 (talk • contribs)

• Anyone can edit and help contribute constructively. If you feel that it's necessary to add in the "crawl" table within the article, you may add it in. Be Bold. JangFett ^(Talk) 06:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the article is semi-protected. —Milo Fett^[Comlink] 06:25, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. JangFett ^(Talk) 17:36, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

"Mostly Negative Reviews"

This is not an NPOV statement, and is atypical for the articles concerning Star Wars films. Case in point -- the ANH article goes into fantastic detail of how the film was received, both positively and negatively, but does not begin to mention how it was "mostly positively" or "mostly negatively" received. Since we can't take a massive, global survey of the opinion of every human on Earth, either phrase is inherently skewed. If we include this "mostly negative" statement, we have to include such statements for all of the other Star Wars films, as well. If we cannot, then we need to ask ourselves why that statement is there in the first place. Qui-Gon Reborn Enter the realm of the fifth dimension... 07:34, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

• It did receive negative reviews, that's completely true. The reason being is because it is mentioned in a lot of sources. If you want to include something similiar in other Star Wars film articles, you can. Be bold. But, removing a statement that has been proven will be vandalism. JangFett ^(Talk) 17:32, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Completely true according to someone who doesn't care for the series? ;) "A lot" of sources. I don't think that's the Wookieepedia standard. At least, I'd like to think it isn't. Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. The statement needs to be removed. Qui-Gon Reborn Enter the realm of the fifth dimension... 18:35, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, I do care about the series. See WP:TCW. However, that's not the point. The fact of the matter is that you want it removed for your own beliefs. That's not how Wookieepedia works. I suggest that you take a look at our policies to get a sense of familiarity. The statement will remain within the intro of the article. It's been proven and sourced quite a lot in the "reception" section of the article. JangFett ^(Talk) 19:00, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • Please don't tell me why I want something removed. It's a terrible insult to both my intelligence and your own. And please don't assume I'm not familiar with how Wookieepedia works. I find that horribly patronizing. All I'm saying is that movie articles -- on Wookieepedia, yes, but other Wikias, as well -- traditionally don't state that a certain film "flopped" or "received rave reviews" or "was an instant hit," because such statements cannot be quantified. The Clone Wars film is not an exception. It shouldn't be, anyway. Qui-Gon Reborn Enter the realm of the fifth dimension... 07:14, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
        • We're not "other" wikis. The statement will remain in the intro, as it is properly sourced. End of discussion. JangFett ^(Talk) 15:25, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Date

What date does this take place? I would think it is ether 21 BBY or 20 BBY --That guy from that show 03:13, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

• An official timeline for all things Clone War hasn't been established yet. However it is generally believed the events take place between 22BBY-19BBY. Korsa3 03:31, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, per Star Wars Annual 2011, certain events take place in 21 BBY. The events of the film take place in 21 BBY. JangFett ^(Talk) 03:33, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it actually has a specific date.

(James.dg.50 (talk) 04:46, May 24, 2014 (UTC))

Yavin IV Duel

In the deleted Rancor pit scene, Ventress and Anakin reference their last duel, so I've added this event to the list of appearances.Killerkaleesh 23:38, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

• Given the complete upheaval that The Clone Wars has performed on the Clone Wars timeline, we really don't know whether the Duel on Yavin IV comes first or not. Yes, Skywalker has his scar that he supposedly received during the duel, but amidst all the chronological chaos, no source has actually verified this chronology. CC7567 ^(talk) 00:39, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

8th Film in Theaters?

No, it's the 7th. Six movies and this makes 7. What's the 8th? —Unsigned comment by 99.107.151.144 (talk • contribs)

Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure received theatrical releases in some countries. —MJ— _{War Room} Saturday, October 20, 2012, 04:08 UTC

Last Chance to Watch the show

According to Making Star Wars, Star Wars the Clone Wars will be leaving Netflix at the beginning of March. The contract that Netflix had will presumably end on March 7th however there is still time for Netflix and Disney to make a contract that would enable Clone Wars to continue to stream on Netflix this though seems to be unlikely.

--Impossible Inc (talk) 17:34, February 7, 2017 (UTC)

Workprints

Does anyone have the sources that detail the original actors returning for the workprint of the movie? NBDani (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Canon vs. Legends

I know this film came out before George Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney, but even though it, along with the series, are the only media outside the saga films to stay canon, should all the Legends links be replaced with the Canon links. --Rocket Retro Reed (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• As Canon is the default, yes, absolutely, links within the article should be turned to Canon, unless they refer specifically to legends article, or because they are part of the legends sub-section within the Appearances section. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 18:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• The problem with your edit here is that you turned Legends links into Canon within the Legends sub-section in the Appearances section, something that I explicitly told you not to do in my previous message. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 16:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• I'm sorry. It was a misunderstanding. --Rocket Retro Reed (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)