Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Should this be moved to the mainspace?

Hi, filming began today, so should this technically now be moved? It's four days on Skellig Michael, due to seasonal issues, before they have to move production in Ireland elsewhere (near Derry I think, though maybe it was Kerry considering its proximity to Skellig Michael), where they will continue for a few more weeks I believe. This is not second unit filming - Johnson is directing these scenes, Mindel is shooting them, both of the film's producers are in attendance (Bergman and Kennedy), as well as at least Hamill from the main cast - but it seems this is being shot a few months prior to the rest of the film's apparent shooting schedule (January 2016 according to Making Star Wars, whereas Del Toro claims he doesn't begin till March 2016, though he could be being purposefully misleading). I'm not sure what should be done, so I'm putting it here instead of just jumping the gun and going straight ahead and moving. I have no preferences either way, I just think it needs a discussion before anything is done. Cheers -- Nbdelboy (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if it isn't second unit, I don't believe it is "principal photography" which is required to begin per WP:NFF to move to main space. I think the March 2016 date is a safer bet for moving it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NFF says we need to wait until the film has begun principal photography. Wikipedia's article on this subject, which is linked at WP:NFF, states, "Principal photography is the phase of film production in which the movie is filmed, with actors on set and cameras rolling, as distinct from pre-production and post-production." Granted, second unit photography probably doesn't fit this category exactly. However, if what @Nbdelboy: says is true about filming continuing over the next few weeks with Johnson, Mindel, Hamill, and the producers, I believe that would qualify as principal photography. Given all that, I think that at some point soon, the film will commence principal photography of some sort and it should be moved to the mainspace at that point.-Rmaynardjr (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

But we don't have much info about the film ie a cast. That isn't to say that Lucasfilm hasn't already done that and it isn't public knowledge, but generally having cast members is a requirement to be filming. And Nbdelboy doesn't provide any reliable source supporting the fact that Hamill will be there, or that they are moving elsewhere after filming on Skellig Michael. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The article can be moved to the mainspace if it is notable enough. I've debated that with other eds. and it would likely come down to a !vote. IMO, the time to move it to mainspace is probably close, but not yet. I would rather put it into mainspace sooner rather than later, rather than fend off requests and edits putting it in mainspace anyway. If Johnson is doing directing in Ireland and Hamill is there, then it's hard to call it second unit. That's typically done by an assistant director and has none of the cast. Though it could be a teaser trailer or after-credits scene or something for the E7 DVD. We'll see soon enough. Alaney2k (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait until something better comes up. But, wait I've just read "cast and crew members" in the news this and this, but it is not reliable yet I think. Alaney2k is right, they might me filming something like teaser. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Kelly Marie Tran

I removed the link on her name because it simply re-directed to the same movie article. Let's get a page for Ms. Tran up and link to that. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Could somebody create a page for Ms. Tran, or is it too early? DaddlerTheDalek (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Peter Mayhew not on official cast list

On the official production press release Mayhew is not listed, as well as the actor who portrays 3CPO. I'm removing his inclusion until further confirmation. Npamusic (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Good call. Just for future reference, it's C3PO, not 3CPO. A lot of fans, ones much more rabid than myself, would have your head for that blunder. Amccann421 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems people keep re-adding him to the page using that irritating source based on the off the cuff comment from Kennedy at one of the premieres about the entire cast returning. If people are going to start using that source as gospel, then Harrison Ford should be re-added too, which is ridiculous. I've removed Mayhew once again and added a hidden message asking for editors to not re-add him without consulting the talk page. Cheers Nbdelboy (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Should we mention Joonas Suotamo's involvement in the movie? Confirmed by The Daily Mail that he's the one in the suit during filming for Episode VIII. --Jsngrwd (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Since when did Daily Mail become a reliable source? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Installment numbering

2nd sentence of article says this film is the "ninth" in the series overall; it should say "eighth"...right? Unclemikejb2 (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No, why? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Clone Wars film counts in the "overall number". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be the 10th? If we're considering Episode 8 as the 9th film because of The Clone Wars pilot released in theaters, then shouldn't Rogue One be included too? That would make this the 10th film overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.202.3 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

IP editor, look at the timestamps. Those comments were made over a year ago. Ask about it in this section instead. — Gestrid (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Colon in title

The current page title is "Star Wars Episode VIII." Shouldn't it be "Star Wars: Episode VIII", following suit of the previous episodes? Amccann421 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC) edit: The production announcement on the official Star Wars website (http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-episode-viii-now-filming) uses the colon.

I agree, that seems pretty official to me. Hopefully some others see this and we can get it moved, but I think we need an admin because "Star Wars: Episode VIII" already exists, redirecting here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that the colon was forgone because of our styling on here, which is "Star Wars Episode #: Subtitle". In actuality, they should all probably be "Star Wars: Episode # - Subtitle", but here's not for that discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree with you, "Star Wars: Episode # - Subtitle" should be the titles. Wonder why they are the way they are. Amccann421 (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Amccann421: If you are not aware, I started move discussions over at the talk for Phantom Menace (see below this section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think there is no need to move until Lucasfilm or Disney announce the official name for the movie. There is a redirect in place. No-one will have trouble finding this article. Use the effort to be productive instead. Alaney2k (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, THEN I noticed it had already been done. Whatever. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

John Williams

John Williams should not be listed in the infobox section until if and when it is confirmed. Otherwise, another composer and conductor may be selected. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It is sourced to a very reliable, well known magazine. It is confirmed. Do not remove it again, and don't go around calling editors that have reverted you unneeded removals liars again, as you did in your edit summaries. It is exceedingly bad form to call someone a liar when they are adding a reliable source. oknazevad (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Empire is trust-worthy. There is no discussion of some other composer. Until then, we should just stay with what we know. The information is current. Alaney2k (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Title?

Where's the title. It was confirmed as "Tale of the Jedi Temple". Please change it guys. Broncosman12 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh my bad that's the wrong title LOL. Broncosman12 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Leave Out Las Vegas

The Las Vegas article is a fake, as confirmed by people involved with Lucasfilm. Whoever can edit the page needs to get rid of that bit of misinformation. 2605:6001:E7D1:6C00:780C:279D:1AB1:6A16 (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Gugu Mbatha Raw

I have removed her from the cast list, and included a hidden section not to readd her. She has not been announced, and the level of source quality available to say she is in the film, has also suggested she no longer is, that Bel Powley may replace her, and that she has been replaced by Kelly Marie Tran.

References

Potential title

FYI for all, given the recent rumor (which to me look at least somewhat legitimate), I've just created a redirect at the supposed name to this article. Redirects never hurt anyone so it's there if we need it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a different perspective about redirects, as shown by my irritation from seeing a link for "Star Wars Episode VII: A New Dawn", and wouldn't support creating more redirects that may all be incorrect and potentially misleading, but oh well. If anything, we may want to consider moving for semi-protection of this page, as people are just too excited for common sense with the title right now. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Darth Botto. I think such redirects are actually harmful, in that they lend credence to unproven rumors, which runs afoul of WP:NOT, and is actually more likely to increase attempts to add the rumored title, not reduce them. oknazevad (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars: Episode VIII - Fall of the Resistance?

I just saw a video clip of a Star Wars poster with an unseen title: "Fall of the Resistance". I don't know if that's the official title, or...I don't know. Anyway, I have seen official titles on the last seven Star Wars movies. So we need to talk further about this "Fall of the Resistance" thing. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you not see the immediately preceding discussion? It's an unconfirmed rumor at most, and doesn't belong in the article. And we don't need you to list all the titles here. Please respect our competence. oknazevad (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of 3D/Imax/etc... Release Dates

I've noticed a bit of a back and forth going on about whether to include the release of the movie in 3D/Imax/3D Imax/etc... while I agree that the information is unnecessary and probably shouldn't be included, is there a MOS/Guideline reasoning behind deleting it other than @AdamDeanHall: saying that he doesn't want it there? Again, I agree with Adam, but his constant reasoning of 'I said I don't want it' sounds an awful lot like WP:OWN jmcgowan2 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Fan-made logo

Why is there someone's own work in the infobox, rather than the only official logo released? Was this discussed prior before inclusion? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not that I believe. I didn't realize that when I saw the user change them. I'll restore the old, official logo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that CapLiber also switched out the logo on the main Star Wars page. These are some pretty hefty unilateral actions that really should be discussed prior. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted him at the main article, as the transparent yellow without a background is unreadable. But the logo here is not made up (even if this particular execution was user-created); the design was used by Disney themselves during one of the presentations revealing the release timeline. It is a real logo, and one that is complete, not just a big Roman numeral. Frankly, I think we should keep it. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd be open to having a discussion about this topic. Though I may err on the side of being against it, I'd like to see what consensus reads as. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If it is an official logo then it should be used, as it is much clearer and more beneficial for identification than the simple roman numerals we have. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a recreation of the logo used at the panel Lucasfilm had for discussing the slate of upcoming films. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I think we can use it as long as everyone is happy to. We had a similar situation over at Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 when the initial logo was revealed as part of a larger promotional image. It wasn't usable in the infobox as it was, so we used a recreation of it in the infobox until an official release of the logo was available. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

With that logic, I'm neutral on the matter, as there are pros and cons. So, I wouldn't interfere or object if the recreation were used, but I also wouldn't support it per say. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As long as I know that the previous logo was actually used somewhere by Lucasfilm, I'd be okay with it. But like DarthBotto I'm a bit indifferent about it, as the one I reverted to (just the 'VII') is fine as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification.

@AdamDeanHall: This is a genuine question. I saw your last edit (Bad robot not allowed) on this page. Just wanted to ask why that is (as in, was there a press release or something I missed?). Thanks in advance. N. GASIETA|talk 00:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Bad Robot Production

IMDB is listing Bad Robot Productions on their company page and on the movie's page as one of the production companies behind Star Wars: Episode VIII.

I would like to know why this cannot be reflected on this article. Every time someone has added the name of the company, one or an other editor has reverted that addition, stating in their summary that either it is not allowed (to add them) or to cite reliable sources.

Following repeated additions and removals, I too removed the name when an IP user added it. I also requested a semi protection, which I see is now in affect.

But it still remains unclear why they cannot be added.

I mean, are we saying that IMDB isn't a reliable source?

Additional sources stating J.J. Abrams staying as a producer/executive producer for the trilogy which by extension means that Bad Robot will be involved.

• Cinemablend
• Making Star Wars
• Digital Spy

N. GASIETA|talk 13:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Because J. J. Abrams was not allowed to direct Episode VIII. He is the executive producer of the upcoming film. The only Star Wars film he directed was The Force Awakens. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if J.J. Abrams was directing, that doesn't necessarily mean that Bad Robot is involved. The very possibility that Abrams can operate independently of Bad Robot means that adding Bad Robot to this article is an assumption, which isn't allowed. As for IMDB, I've heard it said many times that they are not a reliable source. Something about it being modifiable by site visitors makes it too much like quoting another wiki. jmcgowan2 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I am not talking about Abrams directing the movie. The additional sources I provided (the most recent one being two weeks old) clearly state that he's remaining as an executive producer. Are there any sources disclaiming Bad Robot's involvement? Because if there is not, it would be an assumption on your parts to exclude it from the article.

And since it's founding, Bad Robot has been involved in every single project Abrams has participated in, since he does own it.

So, again, please provide a link to a source stating the company or Abrams will not be involved with Ep. VIII.

N. GASIETA|talk 14:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You would need a source specifically stating that Bad Robot is involved (other than IMDB). WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Therefore, saying "Abrams is involved in Star Wars VIII" and "Bad Robot is involved in every Abrams movie" falls under SYNTH because we're combining information to come to a conclusion that isn't specifically stated. jmcgowan2 (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Let's ignore Abrams and his connection to the company for a moment. So, if I'm reading your comment correctly, the only reason Bad Robot isn't listed is because IMDB is deemed an unreliable source by you (and I presume others). Which means that there is no source disclaiming its involvement (much as there is no source explicitly stating its involvement apart from IMDB)? And that's the reason why it isn't included?

The reason why I'm asking is because I am genuinely curious.

N. GASIETA|talk 15:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not having been one of the people to remove it (at least I don't remember removing Bad Robot at any point) I can only speak for myself, but that sounds about right. Without a reliable source stating that Bad Robot is involved, we should not be adding them to the article. WP:VERIFY, and it's related essay WP:TRUTH, basically say that Wikipedia is concerned with whether something is verifiable, not necessarily whether it is true. WP:VERIFY also states that the burden of proof lies on the person trying to add something to the article, not someone trying to remove something from an article. Therefore, until we have a reliable source stating that Bad Robot is involved, it should not be added. On a side note, whether IMDB is a reliable source has been debated extensively Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard (search for IMDB) the general consensus always indicates that it's not reliable. jmcgowan2 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Then that clears it up some, since I was not aware of IMDB being deemed unreliable, and since I could not find any source stating that BR would not be involved in the production. I thought I'd missed something huge (i.e. BR parting ways with JJ or Disney or something). But yeah, thanks for your replies.

N. GASIETA|talk 16:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

(After an edit conflict)IMDB is considered unreliable because it is largely user generated; it's been so considered for some time, this is nothing new. Now, as for the latter, asking for a source disclaiming Bad Robot's involvement is asking us to prove the negative, when the standard is always to provide positive proof. We know JJ Abrams is exec producing this movie (which is not really a major hands-on role necessarily, or even usually; exec producer credits are given to anyone who signs the checks paying for the film). But we don't know explicitly if his company is involved, or just him personally. Based on his history, it's likely, but without a source to back it up, that becomes SYNTH. Best just leave it be until something firmer is released. It's not like it needs to be perfect right this second. There's WP:NODEADLINE. oknazevad (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC) PS, Jmcgowan said it as well as I could.

Okay. I was not aware of this. Thanks for clarifying it.

And what about IMDBPro? Because as far as I know, information there is verified by the companies and their PR reps.

N. GASIETA|talk 16:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

For reference on the IMDb matter, WP:RS/IMDB. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

N. GASIETA|talk 21:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

BTW, since Abrams is listed in numerous sources as an executive producer (the official SW ep VIII website also states it), I will be adding him in the article. It's already added. N. GASIETA|talk 15:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Carrie Fisher Final Role?

Holy crap, I haven't seen this much reverting since I started editing!

We need to discuss whether a comment should be made concerning Carrie Fisher's death and it's potential implications on future movies. Personally, I think we should definitely mention that she passed away, and that she had finished her scenes for this movie. Both of these items are verifiable and have been posted here with references. Whether this should be considered her last appearance is more up for debate, especially since I haven't seen any reliable sources chime in on this. Thoughts? jmcgowan2 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Earthscent thinks that an actor having the features of another actor digitially plastered onto them is akin to the actor physically being there. That's not the case.

Carrie Fisher died when filming was completed, and this will be her only other film role left to be aired. Look at the lead paragraphs of Star Trek Beyond, Absolutely Anything, The Dark Knight. They reflect that their actors, Anton Yelchin, Robin Williams and Heath Ledger, passed away before the film's release. It's her last film appearance (episodes of Family Guy and Catastrophe will air before this film releases), and it's an important thing to note since she won't be returning to physically be there for Episode 9. Rusted AutoParts 18:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't know if General Leia survives Episode 8 (or if the plan was for her to survive and that will be reworked in reshoots), so consideration of how this impacts Episode 9 is moot at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

But Fisher is dead. This isn't saying this is Organa's last film, it's saying it's Fisher's. Rusted AutoParts 18:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

To be a bit of a devil's advocate, I'd point to WP:VERIFY and WP:TRUTH as I did above in a different discussion - Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not necessarily truth. What you're saying makes sense, but there are no reliable sources that say so. Frankly, I think a comment about this movie being Carrie Fisher's (not necessarily Leia's) last appearance is fitting and appropriate, but I'm not so sure that it fits with Wikipedia policy. jmcgowan2 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source saying this is her last film. Earthscent (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

[1] Rusted AutoParts 21:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I think what has been stated here is all acceptable, because it has all been verified in sources (at least what I've read, not entirely sure if all used here do support what is stated). What all is stated, and should, is: Fisher died and had completed her work on this film; this is the last film role she had that has not yet released, so it is her final film role (and as Rusted pointed out, there are a few TV episodes also remaining, so the wording final film role should be used); and it was known that Fisher was expected to be a part of Episode IX. That's all we know, the rest is just speculation moving forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added the info to the lead paragraph per Favre and my points made here. @MordeKyle:,'please don't remove the info again. Rusted AutoParts 23:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm quoting the conversation on your talk page since you like to keep deleting it and making notes on my talk page:

Do not accuse me of edit warring when you are doing the exact same thing that I am. That is absurd. Also, WP:AGF. Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It was very clear by the existing discussion and edit summaries I was placing that info to the lead paragraph. You either didn't read it or ignored it. Rusted AutoParts 23:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It was apparently not very clear, as you felt you had to make a mention on the talk page after these reverts. Nice try though.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, stop claiming I've done something so horribly wrong. It was not clear in the talk page that this should be added to the lead. Why don't you just relax a little bit and WP:AGF. You don't own this content.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Never claimed you didn't a horrible thing, nor made ANY claims of owning jackshit. Just fed up of not being clearly understood in my discussions and have to re-add or re-remove info I had already discussed and got consensus for. You want me to assume good faith? Goes both ways bud, so I don't appreciate your WP:OWN claims. My very first comment in this discussion included the words "lead paragraph", so I figured I was clear enough. Plus the content that spawned the discussion was being pulled from the lead paragraph, so again, my intentions were fairly clear. Rusted AutoParts 23:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Never claimed you owned it.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As an outside observer, yeah, you kinda did. Unless you had a different intention in linking to WP:OWN that isn't clear. That said, let's get back to talking about the article content, not the contributors, please. I think the mention should stay in the lead, as it is a well-sourced fact in the film that appears in the body so is fair game for including in the summary that is he lead. oknazevad (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If I was accusing him of taking ownership, I would have directly accused him of taking ownership. What I did was the same as saying something to the effect of, "Be careful of WP:3RR." I am not accusing someone of braking 3RR in that sentence, no was I above. Thanks though. It should also be noted that his irritation with being reverted and instantly accusing others of edit warring because of slight amount of confusion is the only reason any of this discussion is taking place. {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A thorough read of this discussion could've fixed your confusion, but here we are. Either way, like Oknazevad said, let's move back to the content, which was ok'd to be added. Rusted AutoParts 00:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This is absolutely worth mentioning in the lead. It isn't WP:CRYSTALBALL because, as Rusted AutoParts said, we're not making any claims about the future of the Leia character or Star Wars franchise. CG "appearances" by Fisher do not count. Popcornduff (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that there are several sources stating that this was her final film role in the wake of Fisher's death, I would also agree with mentioning that in the lead as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't we mention here and on other articles that Episode VIII and Episode IX are tentative titles and expected to change? At present this isn't mentioned, and someone completely new to the franchise might be confused. Popcornduff (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

They'll be part of the final on-screen title, so no, I don't think it need to be mentioned. They're not going to be replaced outright, just have a subtitle added to them. oknazevad (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, technically, the consensus is that Episode VII isn't actually part of the Force Awakens' title. And just because the final title, whatever it is, won't replace the Episode part outright doesn't seem to change the point. Is it not reasonable to say that Episode VIII is still untitled at this point? Or at least that its full title hasn't been announced? Popcornduff (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think wording along the lines of "A subtitle for the film is expected to be announced" would be appropriate. Because, I'm assuming, once we get the title, depending on how it is actually revealed lest we go through TFA discussion again, it will be adjusted here to: Star Wars: [New Subtitle] (also known as Star Wars: Episode VIII – [New Subtitle]). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Cast names in lead

"The last names of the actors are not supposed to be included in the summary of the upcoming film," says AdamDeanHall. Why not? Will it spoil the surprise? Popcornduff (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Because the actors are already named in the 'Cast' section, so it is redundant to add their last names in the summary. jmcgowan2 (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

But the lead summarises the body of the article. Duplication is inevitable. That's the point of the lead. Popcornduff (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

But does including the entire main cast qualify as a summary?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if including the entire main cast is necessary (though it seems pretty standard). All I did was put two actors' names in brackets following the character names (Rey and Luke), so you know who they're played by. That's what Adam removed, but I still don't know why. Popcornduff (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Padme Amidala

Concerning Padme Amidala, you keep adding her name to the Star Wars: Episode VIII page. Surely, this must mean something. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one you're referring to, but I don't see what the big deal is considering she is in fact Leia's mother. Calidum 23:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with this either. AdamDeanHall what policy based argument do you have for not including this information?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed Padme from the list but really would like to remove all family information (and other superfluous information). Unless, of course, there is consensus to include all family information. So Luke's, Leia's etc family associations should be listed in detail if Kylo's family associations are being listed in detail. It is so much neater and better to exclude all this extra information. Each character has a page which is linked. Go there if you want to know more about the character. Robynthehode (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to put all Kylo Ren's family members? I think the only one really important is his grandfather, Vader, given that this is what's more important to the character's decisions and behaviour. Facu-el Millo (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No. You don't even have to mention Vader. It is clear that Leia is the child of Vader, so it uneccessary to put that information. However, it makes more sense to include Padme if you are going to say he is the grandchild of Vader. I.E. Son of Leia and Han, Grandson of Vader and Padme. If you are listing his lineage, you might as well include his grandmother.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Then let's just eliminate them all. Facu-el Millo (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

We should mention only the relatives that are important for the plot. Leia and Luke are active characters of the story (they are confirmed actors, reprising their roles), and their relation has to be noted. Solo and Vader are not, but there is strong reason to suspect that they will be important for the plot. The first one because a turning point of the previous film was... you know which one. The second one, because having Vader as his role model is part of his character definition, and that is unlikely to change. Amidala, however, was not mentioned at all in the previous film, and I have not heard about Portman reprising her role. If the film is released and she finally turns out to be important for the plot somehow, we may add her, but right now there's little reason for it. Cambalachero (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

None of this is policy based arguments for removing this content. This is all simply a matter of opinion. This information does not harm this article in any way, and is only the difference of a few characters. This really just seems to come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Also the "former princess of Alderaan" part in Leia's description has nothing to do with this particular movie. Facu-el Millo (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that we strive to include encyclopedic information in our articles, as much as possible, with little or no more information than what is necessary. Policy arguments don't really have any place here: the question is whether Ren's relation to Amidala is encyclopedic, and therefore worthy of inclusion. It wouldn't be against any policies to include or not to include her, but I too have a problem seeing the real encyclopedic value of their relationship as it relates to this film. With that said, we're arguing over a couple of words stating a well-sourced fact of questionable relevance. -RM (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see how this is not relevant when you are writing about this characters lineage. You can not say that Vader is relevant to this article, and not Padme. No one here has a crystal ball. Is Vader going to be relevant to this character in this episode? Yep. However, verifiability is more important than the truth on Wikipedia. We won't know the details of the importance of each of these relationships until we see the movie and have reliable sources on this information. So... To say you include certain characters in his lineage because of their relevance to this movie, is a violation Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. If you include a character in the list as part of his lineage, then it would not be very encyclopedic to omit certain characters. Your argument that arguments of policy do not apply here, is just wrong. Wikipedia policy does apply here.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that policy does not apply, I said that policy arguments have no place because of these particular circumstances. That said, you brought up a good point. I think Padme's inclusion or exclusion would be fine. I'll be honest, I don't think we really need to include a character's lineage back two generations, especially since neither of his grandparents are expected to appear in the film. So, forget about Ren's lineage on the grandparent level for a second, and accordingly exclude Padme and Vader. Reference instead the fact that he EXPLICITLY refers to Vader as his grandfather in TFA, the context of which paints Vader more as an inspiration or mentor than a relative. There's your line of reasoning for including Vader without Padme. Like I said, we're arguing over a couple words, I don't think it really makes that much of a difference. -RM (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand the reference, but this is not an article about TFA. This is an article about VIII.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Vader is clearly still an inspiration for him. Facu-el Millo (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You're most likely correct, but we don't know this. This is Wikipedia, not wookiepedia.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ben Solo

Ben Solo is the former name of Kylo Ren, the master of the Knights of Ren according to Star Wars: The Force Awakens. He told Han Solo that his son was weak and foolish like his father, so he destroyed him. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

How is this helpful? -RM (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not. At all. The accompanying edits were some sort of screwed up INUNIVERSE junk. We don't write in character Adam. Don't do that again. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

2013 book

There is a 2013 Star Wars book called The Last Jedi by Michael Reeves and Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff. If there is enough notable coverage about the book, we should create an article for it and disambiguate it with (book). Considering that it did not have an article before, in general use it is secondary to this film and its new title. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Episode IX GameNGuide

The production start for Episode IV in April is referenced with the website GameNGuide. However, this is an unreliable clickbait website that even creates fake news. According to Collider.com, production is not expected to start before end of 2017 [2]. --Christian140 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

J. J. Abrams is an executive producer of Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

J. J. Abrams is an executive producer of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, yet the article, http://www.starwars.com/news/the-official-title-for-star-wars-episode-viii-revealed, says that he produced the film. J. J. Abrams can't be both the producer and the executive producer at the same time! AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you reread your linked article more carefully. Antinoos69 (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"THE LAST JEDI is written and directed by Rian Johnson and produced by Kathleen Kennedy and Ram Bergman and executive produced by J.J. Abrams, Jason McGatlin, and Tom Karnowski." Rusted AutoParts 00:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Title ambiguous

As was the case with the title of Return of the Jedi, the word Jedi here is ambiguous and could be read as plural or singular. Back then some translated versions opted for one or the other (e.g. plural German Die Rückkehr der Jedi-Ritter (de) and Greek Η Επιστροφή των Τζεντάι (el), singular French Le Retour du Jedi (fr) and Italian Il ritorno dello Jedi (it). The English title may have been kept ambiguous on purpose, but that is not possible in many other languages. I am looking forward to see how this will be handled in the case of Episode VIII. Note that not only the number of titular Jedi but also the gender of the Jedi would be given away by foreign language titles. Iago2¹² 10:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

IMDb (unreliable, I know) lists international titles such as the German Der letzte Jedi, the Italian L'ultimo Jedi, the Russian Звёздные войны: Эпизод 8, and the Bulgarian Междузвездни войни: Последният джедай. I have no idea if these are official title translations or simply IMDb users translating the title themselves. In any case, I don't speak any of these languages. However, I'll keep an eye on that page (If we get a French title, I can translate it). Like I said, I know it's all unreliable, but it's something to note and consider. -RM (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hate to say this, but this is not a forum, and speculating about the meaning of the title falls under forum material. oknazevad (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We're not really speculating though. The Last Jedi is ambiguous as a phrase, and the meaning behind it is clearly relevant to the film. IF we were just saying "I think it means this," then we'd be speculating. But it is reasonable to at least keep an eye on international titles as they will reveal more about the English title's implications. -RM (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Implications for what? This is fodder for fan speculation. It has very little implication for the article. Popcornduff (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The official names for The Last Jedi in foreign languages have not been announced yet. If they are on IMDb, it is unconfirmed. The database is also easily editable like wikipedia. The English title is the original title and possibly deliberately ambiguous. Though, interesting to know, foreign titles don't really have implications for the original title. It's just that changes have to be made depending on the language. However, perspectives can be different and still it has no impact on the story. E.g., while the English movie title The Handmaiden refers to Kim Tae-ri's role, the original title 아가씨 agassi refers to Kim Min-hee's role. But the story has not changed. So, it is possible that a foreign title could refer to only one person while the original title refers to more than one. --Christian140 (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow, did not expect backlash. This was not meant as random forum blabber and I did not mean to waste anyone's time. All I wanted to say was that we have been given an English title and that we should keep an eye on the foreign language titles to see what the English title means. And no, I would also not trust imdb as a source for these. The official German Star Wars website has a post about the English title for VIII but does not mention a German title yet. Iago2¹² 09:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Foreign titles announced: Plural. --Christian140 (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi

I removed Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi because I cannot find evidence of this alternative title in its entirety. This does not mean that this film cannot be recognized as Episode VIII (the eighth episode), but it is incorrect to provide this as an alternative title. The same problem seems to exist for Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Both of these films have a different titling approach than the prequel trilogy (and the retroactively-renamed original trilogy). Unless there is evidence of this alternative title in full, we should not include it. As an alternative, we can state "Episode VIII" or "the eighth episode" somewhere in the lead section. Pinging involved editors: Robynthehode, AdamDeanHall, Mz7. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I take that back about The Force Awakens. It appears that for that film, the alternative title has been used by some sources, though not in an official capacity. I suppose it may be fair to assume that there will be the same unofficial usage for the next film, but I think we need sources first. Wikipedia follows; it does not lead. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks Erik. Its about the sources. May very well change but at the moment I have found no source that says the aka title. So it should stay as just the title in the sources so far. Robynthehode (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the "also known as" text should not be included until reliable sources refer to it as such. Lest we start this discussion all over again. I'm adding some text now to help alleviate the editors who will be adamant about this, as well as a hidden note. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I can acquiesce to omitting the full "also known as" text for now (but I advise that if we truly want to avoid restarting that discussion, we should try to extend the consensus from that discussion). I do, however, want to agree with Erik's suggested alternative approach: that the phrase "Episode VIII" or "eighth episode" should appear at least somewhere in the article's lead, since it was used extensively by reliable sources prior to yesterday as the primary means of referring to the upcoming film. Personally, I don't see any reason to believe that The Last Jedi will turn out to be any different from The Force Awakens naming-wise, but I recognize the relative scarcity of sources available at this point in time. How about revising the second sentence to read something like this: It will be the second installment in the Star Wars sequel trilogy following Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015); in the fictional chronology of the franchise, it will be the eighth episode. Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Please see how I added episode 8 in the lead, but removed the "also known as" text for now with this edit. @Oknazevad: please join the discussion since you restored the text. Google-ing the following exactly, with quotes, "Star Wars Episode VIII The Last Jedi" does not yield any promising results that we could use to source it as an alternate title at this time. Once again, WP:NORUSH applies. If it is meant to exist, the sources will come eventually. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whoops! You're right, I didn't see the text you added until just now. I'm fine with how it is currently, but I recognize that this can definitely change as more sources become available. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no 'relative scarcity of sources' just no reliable sources that state the aka title (unless someone can refer to them. I have checked). So it needs to stay as Star Wars: The Last Jedi until enough reliable sources state otherwise. This may happen, it may not. And no you can't extend a consensus from one article to another. It really is quite straightforward. Wait for reliable sources, if they appear then any changes can be included. Such a process has not changed in Wikipedia since the year dot. Robynthehode (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a relative scarcity of sources in the sense that the title was just announced yesterday—surely the sourcing available right now for The Last Jedi is not as abundant as it currently is for The Force Awakens. I agree with you that it can change when more reliable sources become available. Regarding an extension of the consensus, this article and The Force Awakens show many parallels: the films come from the same trilogy, have the same primary naming scheme (i.e. without the episode number), and are often referred to by their episode number. Come December, if the film has "Episode VIII" in the opening crawl, I argue that the prior consensus extends very naturally to this case. If we cannot extend the consensus, then I'm afraid we'll have to have essentially the same discussion again. Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we not mention "Episode VIII" at least, seeing as how that is the title that has been used so far by reliable sources? Also, for what it's worth, the opening crawl for the film says Episode VIII – The Last Jedi. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Right now, the phrase "Episode VIII" appears in the second sentence of the article: ...serving as Episode VIII in the Star Wars saga. Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

For The Force Awakens, the 'episodic title' was not used in any official capacity. I think it was on the Star Wars site as part of some headings on a page or two and a bunch of cinema chains listed the episodic title. That's as close to official as it got. But I think it was primarily fans and movie talk sites, etc. and such that used the episodic title. So it more or less became common usage only less common than the title without the episode words. Yet, it did end up in the lead paragraph. Probably the same will happen for this title, and with non-productive back and forth debate. Is it worth resisting? I added the redirect "Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi" to "Star Wars: The Last Jedi". At least, we can keep the article title as is. Alaney2k (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No one is talking about changing the title of the article. The question is the inclusion of an "aka" in the first sentence. As the consensus, following existing guidelines, in the last discussion made clear, the display of the title in the film itself constitutes as valid, significant alternate title that belongs in the first sentence. And the link from Adamstom97, which itself links to the film's director shows that it is in the film itself. Removal is pointless, pedantic, and against guidelines, and again, let's not bother with the slippery slope arguments. oknazevad (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again, from the Force Awakens discussion, using it in the opening crawl ≠ an alternate title for the film. But, that can be added to the article, as with The Force Awakens, stating that Episode VIII is featured in the opening crawl. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Funny, considering that using it in the opening crawl is exactly what the close said. There's no way to read it the other way! oknazevad (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Following up, to quote the close for TFA: "However, the words "Episode VII" do appear in the film's opening crawl, and the use of credits, etc. as a valid, legitimate primary source for information for films (and television) has been affirmed on Wikipedia multiple times. Thus, the inclusion of "Episode VII" in the film's opening crawl certainly confirm that the "Episode VII" is a "significant" alternate title." Coupled with the confirmation from the film's director that the opening crawl is of the same format as the prior films, there's no valid reason to omit the "aka" title except pointless legalism (for rules that are fulfilled). oknazevad (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we really have to have this same discussion every time a new Star Wars movie releases? The episodic title is and already has been used by sources. It was officially called episode vii before the title was even revealed. Doesn't that alone mean that "Episode VIII" is an alternate title?

Two well known sources:

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/23/14357700/star-wars-episode-8-the-last-jedi-title-announced (this one literally calls it an alternate title)

http://www.nme.com/blogs/star-wars-8-last-jedi-release-date-trailers-1882426

Since it has a reliable source, I will go ahead and be WP:Bold and re add. Xilech137 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The Verge source doesn't state what you quoted, nor "Episode VIII - The Last Jedi". Also, the NME source, not to be picky, uses "Episode 8" not "Episode VIII". But still, disregarding that, an alternate title should be used by an abundance of sources to show that it is indeed an alternate or "aka" for the film. At this time we still don't have that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I was searching Google directly for it in quotes, and it quoted the Verge article and showed in the summary it said it. After looking further at the article itself, I noticed what it was quoting was an external link within the article, not the article itself. So that is my mistake. But, Episode VIII was the first title for the movie, referred to in multiple official sources, so the fact that it was once used as an alternate title is unquestionable right? Just like in the original trilogy, even though they had their name changed to add the episode doesn't mean they weren't officially once called Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. But this is all ridiculous since we know Episode VIII will be in the crawl. That alone makes it an "AKA" situation. Xilech137 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe that it wouldn't have Episode VIII in the crawl. This whole thing is ridiculous. Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBMuktcY-4 and https://www.instagram.com/p/BPqBSPZBRoo/ BrianBrecker (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The point is that we can't start naming things until enough reliable sources (in terms of due weight) do. Until then, there's no rush to list any alternate titles. DonQuixote (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely now. The Verge is a reliable source. But since I misread that reference, there are definitely not a good bit of, if any, reliable sources calling it Episode VIII: The Last Jedi. Xilech137 (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. None of the opposition, if I can boldly state, are not saying this won't be an alternate title. We just don't have the sources to back it up. The title was revealed 2 days ago, for a release at the end of the year. The sources will come, if it is meant to exist and be noted. Every just always seems to be in a rush to add the info, without having the sources to back them up, or considering WP:V. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. And most of the other users arguments are in violation of WP:Crystal ball. Xilech137 (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What, the verified instagram of the film's director is not reliable?!? What? oknazevad (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That's for the crawl. Again, not an alternate title Oknazevad. Info on the inclusion of the episode number in the crawl is already in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And again, per the close of the TFA discussion: "However, the words "Episode VII" do appear in the film's opening crawl, and the use of credits, etc. as a valid, legitimate primary source for information for films (and television) has been affirmed on Wikipedia multiple times. Thus, the inclusion of "Episode VII" in the film's opening crawl certainly confirm that the "Episode VII" is a "significant" alternate title." That was the exact conclusion of the close. That the crawl is an alternate title. I frankly am puzzled at your objection. oknazevad (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I think oknazevad's reasoning is sound: this issue was already decided for Force Awakens, where consensus was that use in the crawl and consistency with the other articles were enough to say that the films are also known by the longer form of the title. Is it not logical to say that for each new saga movie this same reasoning also applies? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a very good point. I wasn't aware of the initial discussion at TFA. Definitely agree. Xilech137 (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more this strikes me as a WP:BLUE situation: it seems obvious to me that this film will not turn out to be any different than The Force Awakens in its approach to alternative naming. The evidence in the reliable sources that we do have supports that. The outcome of the prior discussion did determine that the presence of the phrase "Episode VII" in the opening crawl, as well as the usage of the phrase "Episode VII" to refer to the film in multiple reliable sources, makes the title Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens a significant alternative title for the film (and I agree with this assessment, for the record). It naturally follows then that if "Episode VIII" is present in the opening crawl of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and if the phrase "Episode VIII" is also used by multiple reliable sources to refer to the film, then Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi would be a significant alternative name for the film. I understand the argument that we should omit the information for now, since we may not have enough reliable sources at this time, but I'm inclined to keep it in the lead anyway, given the prior discussion and the lack of intuition that says this will end up any different. Mz7 (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Three sources have currently been added to the lead to support such wording, and I feel that those three should stay at least until it comes a point where the wording is used by more reliable sources. Because if we leave it to just one, then it looks as though only that source is the one calling it by the alternate name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Unneeded. Again, the crawl itself is sufficient for it to be an alternate name. We only need the one source to confirm he crawl. It's not about any other source; the film itself (and we know this will be in the film) is the only proof needed for an alternate name. oknazevad (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

need we use a low-resolution poster?

Does File:Star Wars The Last Jedi.jpg meet the threshold of originality? — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I'm inclined to say no, it does not meet the threshold of originality, after looking at some of the other Star Wars-related logos at commons:Category:Star Wars logos. I've made a post at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Star Wars The Last Jedi.jpg to get additional input. Mz7 (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The response there from Masem seems to indicate that the logo alone, with just the text, does not meet the threshold of originality, but the entire poster, combined with the starfield, does. Out of an overabundance of caution, let's keep it a non-free, low-resolution file. Mz7 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for picking that up and running with it. It's good to have a decision made. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. I will note that the logo itself—the one that falls below the threshold—is available at the Wikimedia Commons as File:Star Wars Episode VIII The Last Jedi Word Logo.svg. Mz7 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Plural title

If we are going to include information about the plural translations for the title, we need a source that says so. Sources such as this that say, "It has been pretty much confirmed that Star Wars: The Last Jedi is indeed plural." and then saying, "...subsequent translations of the title were announced for international markets and revealed that The Last Jedi is in reference to more than one Jedi." is an extrapolation of the source. The information is fine to add, but we need to come up with a way to put it in the article correctly, so that we are being encyclopedic.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Magic.mushroom is going to get a warning for edit warring, and we'll see what happens from there.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this all that notable though? Beyond being interesting to some fanboys? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a fanboykinda, and I don't find it very interesting or useful. We know there will be an Ep 9, and we know there has always been more than one Jedi at a time, except for the brief period between Yoda's death and Leia and Han's kid being born. I think trying to use other languages to prove Jedi singular or plural is pointless. Rey is a Jedi, also, so of course it's plural.L3X1 My Complaint Desk

Ya, I believe non-inclusion is probably the best, but I'm doing my best to be open to multiple points of view here.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think it's more than just a trivial fact, but I suggest that we wait until an official English-language source says so. 2001:4898:80E8:9:0:0:0:6D0 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that source will ever come. Honestly, this is only ever going to speculation, and there will probably never be a statement from Disney. The title was probably vague and subjective on purpose. At any rate, what encyclopedic value does this even have?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Entirely speculation which has no place in an encyclopeadia (unless said speculation is quoting directly from a reliable source). It also doesn't meet notability criteria unless someone can show that it does by giving sources.Robynthehode (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"tenth installment"

There is no need for this in the intro. For the average person, it creates more questions than it provides answers. The Star Wars series is too complicated to be so simply summarized. Wilburycobbler (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Everybody counts the numbered episodes but which of these should be included: Rogue One (theatrical live action standalone film), The Clone Wars (low budget animated theatrical film introducing a tv series), Ewok tv films (released theatrically in some countries but not the US), Holiday Special (shown once on tv and buried). "nth installment" without clarification is too unclear, and clarifying sufficiently can quickly become too detailed for the lead. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160405135100/http://dorksideoftheforce.com/2016/03/26/star-wars-episode-viii-filming-update-luke-in-a-casino-poe-takes-charge/ to https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2016/03/26/star-wars-episode-viii-filming-update-luke-in-a-casino-poe-takes-charge/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please DO NOT write that Episode 9 will be the last film ever!

Sorry, but please DO NOT write on here that Episode 9 will be the final entry in the series as this is totally false.

Disney has plans for new SW films down the road that have not been finalized yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.131.37.137 (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the article said. It said Ep IX would be the last film of the sequel trilogy, which is accurate. On the other task, calling it the next film in the series is inaccurate, as between the release of The Last Jedi and Ep IX the Han Solo anthology film will be released, making it the next film released in the series (as a whole). oknazevad (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nitpick: one could argue IX is the next in the series, but not the next in the franchise - depends on how you define "series". --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

In the "Sequel" section explaining Star Wars: Episode IX, add Jack Thorne to the line saying who is writing the film. Itsyeboi19 (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Done nihlus kryik (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Space Bear - really?

There is a source from Entertainment Weekly here with an interview with the CEO of Disney, Bob Iger, who said this movie had the working title "Space Bear". I would remove it, but it comes from an otherwise reliable source. Was he joking? Because if so it's not stated. The brave celery (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are you questioning. Space Bear was the production working title. Read that article for more on what that is if you're unclear. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I was only stating, (and this truly is not an attack against you). that it sounds incredibly out-of-place and comical. It sounds like a Disney pre-school property rather then a movie title that people would ridicule, because we all know that for MANY years, Disney had a reputation for being overly, opposed to violence of any kind, family-friendly, "sunshine and flowers" etc. etc. (I am a fan, but I'm not one of those fans who care exceedingly about the decent treatment of Star Wars by Disney. Granted, I don't want to see it turn in to a pre-school property either, or see it called "Walt Disney's Star Wars", which I know people would hate. Which Disney probably won't do at least for the foreseeable future.) It happened with the Muppets... but I don't care as deeply, is what I'm stating. In all seriousness, best wishes The brave celery (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017

Change: A sequel, Star Wars: Episode IX, is scheduled for May 24, 2019. To: A sequel, Star Wars: Episode IX, is scheduled for Dec 20, 2019. Source: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Star_Wars_sequel_trilogy#Episode_IX and https://twitter.com/starwars/status/907686475512160256 Jyaif (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Mention title ambiguity?

Should it be mentioned in the article that the title of the movie is ambiguous? International translations of the movie have the title as plural (IMDb, ScreenRant), while the director said in an ABC interview that in his mind, it's singular (Source). --Adrio (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Disney v Theaters controversy

Should we mention the controversy over Disney's strict guidelines to theaters when screening The Last Jedi, at least in US theaters. Disney is requiring 65% of ticket sales and a stipulation that the film be screened in the largest auditorium for at least four weeks. If a cinema fails to uphold the deal, they'll be subject to a five percent penalty - making Disney's total cut 70 percent of profits. The demands are unlikely to have any great effect on major multi-screen chains, but smaller cinemas could be facing a major issue. A location with, for example, only two or three screens won't exactly be inclined to dedicate an entire screen to The Last Jedi for five weeks, especially with several major other releases happening in December.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-the-last-jedi-tickets-where-to-buy-cinemas-us-refusing-to-show-trailer-a8033371.html

-- Draco9904 (talk) 1:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a news story. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Please see WP:NOTNEWS Robynthehode (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Run time according to the BBFC

Star Wars: The Last Jedi run time officially classified by the BBFC as 151 minutes and 38 seconds (2 and a half hours and a minute and 38 seconds), an estimated 152 minutes long: http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/star-wars-last-jedi-film. Can we please add this into the wiki page for The Last Jedi? PLease? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor Typos needing corrections by verified user

As I was reading through the article, I noticed a few small errors. The article is currently semi-protected, so I can't fix them myself.

• In the second paragraph of the intro: "The Last Jedi is scheduled to premiere in Los Angeles on December 8, 2017, and be release in the United States on December 15, 2017." Maybe change to "The Last Jedi is scheduled to premiere in Los Angeles on December 8, 2017, and to be released in the United States on December 15, 2017."
• In the first paragraph of the section "Production', the sentence "In October 2012, Star Wars creator George Lucas sold his production company Lucasfilm, and with it the Star Wars franchise, to The Walt Disney Company. Disney announced a new trilogy of Star Wars films." should be changed to "In October 2012, Star Wars creator George Lucas sold his production company Lucasfilm, including the Star Wars franchise, to The Walt Disney Company. Disney announced a new trilogy of Star Wars films."

Semi-protected edit request

One of the last sentences under the heading "Sequel" reads " On September 5, 2017, Lucasfilm announced that Trevorrow had stepped down as director." This is the first time that Colin Trevorrow is mentioned in this section of the article, so it is incorrect to refer to him by last name. I would suggest editing the sentence to read, "Although Colin Trevorrow had initially been attached to direct the film, on September 5, 2017, Lucasfilm announced that Trevorrow had stepped down as director."

--Kdf94ppf (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2017

Marketing

Add the following to the Marketing section, as the marketing campaign is close to what TFA had: The film's product line debuted on September 1, 2017, known as Force Friday II; Target launched its Force Friday campaign early with a video centered around Rey and female fans. Like with The Force Awakens, the months leading up to the debut of The Last Jedi saw the release of several novels, short stories, comics, reference books, and activity books known collectively as Journey to Star Wars: The Last Jedi. The media, written and created by several different authors, cover various topics related to The Last Jedi as well as other aspects of the Star Wars universe. Toy merchandise includes many plush toys based around the porg creatures introduced in the film, as well as various action figures, including action figures of porgs.

Lucasfilm arranged licensing tie-ins with Ample Hills, Build-A-Bear Workshop, Cargo Cosmetics, Christian Louboutin, Dole, General Mills, Hot Topic,Nissan, Philips, rag & bone,Samsung,Verizon and Vizio. The UK's Royal Mail released a series of The Last Jedi-themed postal stamps. Disney added The Last Jedi-themed content to its Star Tours: The Adventures Continue ride, including the new planet Crait. The video game Star Wars Battlefront II features sequel trilogy characters as they appear in The Last Jedi.Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes introduced The Last Jedi characters and material. LEGO released an online minigame, "The Last Jedi" 360 Experience. ILMxLab's Star Wars: Droid Repair Bay is a virtual reality experience that will tie into the film. 24.159.59.179 (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Should this page be frozen until 12/15?

Due to the considerable sensitivity some have towards spoilers for The Last Jedi, should this page be frozen to prevent a plot summary from being released before the movie is available for general consumption? Jedieaston (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The appropriate guideline regarding spoilers can be found on Wikipedia:Spoiler. Strictly by itself, it is not grounds for full page protection (this article is currently only semi-protected to prevent disruptive editing from unregistered users). A group of well intentioned, regular Wikipedia editors from Los Angeles who have already seen the film should not be prohibited from adding it. What would definitely get this page protected would be an edit war/content dispute between such a group from LA, and another group of regular Wikipedia editors who remove the plot summary on grounds that it is not verified. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thus, my recommendation to editors who may have seen the film already is Wikipedia:There is no deadline#View three: Don't postpone dispute resolution. It is not worth getting into an edit war when the European release date is only in a couple of days on 13-Dec, and then the entire United States release is a couple days later on 15-Dec. If there is consensus to start adding it on 13-Dec (the European release date) instead of later on 15-Dec (the USA release date), then so be it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Just saw it. Attacking the section on :fr:. Thanks you for the gist. --Yug (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

See : on the French Wikipedia. You can take and translate. --Yug (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017

69.159.9.129 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

200 million is two small you dumb ass its 300 million

 Not done Please provide a reliable source that we can cite. DonQuixote (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

Scarfaceone (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Prince William does have a scene in this movie. He attended the European Premiere, stop reverting edits.

 Not done - attending a premiere does not mean the person is in the movie, unless you can cite a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This post is the only edit by your account so I don't know which reverts you refer to but it is mentioned with sources in the last sentence of Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Cast: "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry and Tom Hardy all filmed cameo appearances as stormtroopers." PrimeHunter (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot

Why isnt there a plot? 117.200.201.154 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It just got open in Europe, and opens in the US on Friday. I just wrote a long version of the plot on the French Wikipedia.

I encourage English natives editor to use google translate to get a gist of the plot, and write a shorter one en English. --Yug (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I did it. Enjoy.

PS : copy edit for grammar is welcome ! Yug (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

why star wars is not in the "list of shared universe" page

wtf ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.207.75.83 (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

user:77.207.75.83 hello. Because no one edited the articles accordingly. If you have some knowledge on this issue, please feel free to edit around and/or ask help so some wikipedian can guide you in this edit. --Yug (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017

Again Prince William is still in the movie, John Boyega was joking and also unreliable sources. http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/star-wars/news/a845496/star-wars-john-boyega-prince-william-harry-being-cut-from-the-last-jedi/ Scarfaceone (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done oknazevad (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

BB8 not having actors attached

so not even Ben Schwartz and Bil Hader are attached this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.2.200 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

They are. The caption was incorrect. And the file was inappropriately used per WP:NFCC. It has been removed. oknazevad (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If Ben Schwartz and Bil Hader are attached to it, it should appear in the Cast section, since they are behind a major character. Also, thanks Oknazevad and 198.70.2.200 for this info. :)

We could alternatively create a subsection "Puppets and CGI" characters.

The file is fair use and can be used here as long as it is to illustrate BB8 (character) and no other concepts (robots). Yug (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it can only be used to illustrate the BB-8 article, as non-free (including fair use) media must have a fair use rationale on the image page, and this image does not.oknazevad (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

oknazevad, I disagree with interpretation focusing on "image page". There is fair use on the image's context : talking about BB-8 as a character, within this film. Yug (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not in line with Wikipedia's policy. Fair use rationales must be on a per-article basis. oknazevad (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'am putting together some sources for that. Yug (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Control by Dave Chapman and Brian Herring.”Initial “English dubbing” by Ben Schwartz. Voice by Bill Hader, modulated through a synthesizer by J.J. Abrams. Both Schwartz and Hader are credited as "voice consultants".

I think its good now. It's much more real and complex than I initially though. I added facts to the BB-8 article and infobox. Yug (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Death of Skywalker

I haven't seen the movie, so I have no idea what needs to be written, but it is not at all clear from the plot summary why Luke Skywalker dies. It surely only requires a couple of words, but it seems like a fairly major plot point to leave out. Is it just old age? Or does the projection battle with Kylo Ren have some bad side-effect? Or? Cpaaoi (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It was actually pretty straight-forward. He did what he needed to do, before ascending of his own will. TechNyanners (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@TechNyanners: What!? It was obvious to me that the Force projection (including Force projected lightsaber duel) was such a drain on him that he expired from exhaustion, and Leia and Rey's conversation was meant to imply that that was his intention the whole time. That's not the same thing. So yeah, it's not straightforward, and if you want to include your interpretation in the article you need to find a reliable secondary source that shares it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 The movie actually contained numerous cues that the vanishing of Luke's body was not brought on by the cessation of bodily functions. However, because it was not directly stated that he died or that he ascended, there remains some degree of ambiguity and it is perhaps better to simply state that his body vanished. Even in this case though, cues throughout made clear that Luke joined the Force. TechNyanners (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it is supposed to be that the strain killed him, but he was okay with that, as he made peace with his failures. The clue about the strain was early in the film, when Kylo and Rey have their first joint vision, where he states that Rey couldn't be behind it, as the strain would kill her. oknazevad (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

See, while one or both of you may be right on this or that obscure detail, the principle is that plot summaries such as these not include such obscure details without citation of a reliable secondary source. To do otherwise would violate WP:NOR. I would honestly prefer if we included a separate "analysis" section that included stuff like "some scholars noted hints that Luke did not die at the end of the film but rather ascend bodily to the Force" or some such, with appropriate citations, but we can't state such things matter-of-fact within an uncited plot summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

I request to ad that after the critical praise in the third paragraph to add that Star Wars the Last Jedi has received polarizing reception from the fan base the source is here http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi-divides-fans-cinemascore-rotten-tomatoes-user-score-1201908384/ Cforthewin (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cforthewin:  Not done. Given how contentious this is, there's no chance we'll add it without an explanation. Why does the article need this information? CityOfSilver 20:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

vandalised

Please fix the first sentence of the "Sequel" section that contains vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.194.98 (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Sorry ... Never mind, it appears to be fixed. Dunno what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.194.98 (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017

2601:2C1:8200:833C:BD63:64B9:9449:BBCD (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You need to specify what you plan to edit into the article as part of the edit request.Crboyer (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

Please edit the plot section to include Leia using her Force powers to pull herself back to the ship after the First Order attack because I believe it is a vital part of the movie and her character and should be included in the synopsis. Admiral of the MCRN (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please note that the existing plot is only 18 words short of the maximum plot length, so any additions would have to be very short, or reduce another part of the plot. - Arjayay (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Admiral of the MCRN: Sorry, but no. Please see the discussions that already took place on this talk page and on RSN. Consensus is already against the inclusion of that content pending a change-up of how the plot summary section is structured to allow for inline citations of secondary sources. If you want it added, you need to discuss and establish a new consensus (and not a local consensus of Star Wars fans on this talk page who only created Wikipedia accounts to edit this specific article). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Average user scores

The Last Jedi has mixed to average user scores on both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Should this be mentioned?ArcticleCreater (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No, per WP:USERGENERATED. Only CinemaScore, which performs a random survey of opening weekend viewers, is reported for fan opinion, as it has a third-party basis. (That score won't be released until Monday.) oknazevad (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes audience score down to 56%

The article states that TLJ has a 93% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is true for the critics but not for the audience. It was roundly panned by ordinary viewers. That should be mentioned in the wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:80:943B:B95A:6CB3:7C69:9012 (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No, per WP:USERG. DonQuixote (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

While I certainly agree user reviews aren't as important as films critics, it should at the very least be noted in the article that the public reception wasn't as warm as the critical one. Many other articles do the same so it would be keeping in line with WP:CONSISTENCY.

78.152.250.63 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It should only be mentioned when reliable secondary sources discuss the phenomenon so that we can cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles such as [3] are beginning to mention the Rotten Tomatoes disparity, but we should wait for more coverage before we add something along the lines of <Fan Reactions>. I feel like the discussion is headed that way, though.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

In the same paragraph it references an audience rating?? 'An audience poll of U.S. adults conducted by SurveyMonkey on the first four days of release found that, out of all the respondents who said they had seen the film, 89% said they either "loved" or "liked" it.'Reactorred (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes, is unreliable given the fact that it can't be confirmed whether the users ratings on the site have actually seen the movie. It best to wait for the Cinemascore rating as it is more reliable as they their rating from audience members who have just seen the movie.

Update: Cinemascore rating just came in and the audience rating is an A.

https://www.cinemascore.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson145 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The article claims that an A from Cinemascore is an "average" grade, but I don't think that's quite accurate. An A on Cinemascore should be an above average grade with scores like B+ to C- being consider "average".

The link below should help explain the Cinemascore rating system.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/here-are-the-only-19-movies-to-ever-receive-an-f-cinemascore.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson145 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what the sentence says. It says the average of the scores the film received from respondents is an A, not that A is an average score. You misread it. oknazevad (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the sentence states "CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale" so I took it as A being an average score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson145 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking for some articles about the audience score, I thought I'd start compiling a list in the case we do want to make this a section.

• Mashable
• Cnet
• Screenrant
• Insider
• ComicBook
• [4]

These are just a couple, but I'm sure more will talk about it since the very mixed audience reaction was very surprising. --QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm of two minds on this. On the one side, I agree that the content as written was bad and needed to go. But I don't agree that the fan backlash is mere trolling. See, the real problem with what was there was that it presented it as Wikipedia so often presents such problems (in contravention of WP:WIAE), as whether this is a good movie that our readers should pay to see or not. What we should really be doing is summarizing what reliable secondary sources like this one are doing with the serious problems presented by the film. These not "problems" in the sense of "bad things about the film that mean you should not watch it" but in the critical scholarship sense. While some of the negative fan reactions definitely do come from trolls and/or obsessive fanboys who really wanted the film to be what they had already built up in their heads (even though Disney made it clear years before even The Force Awakens came out that these films would not be big budget fanfiction adaptations), it is definitely true that the previous film had actively encouraged fans to engage in that kind of speculation: it is therefore legitimate to point out that the film seems to be at odds with its own direct prequel on a number of these points, perhaps reflecting a lack of long-term planning on the part of the creators. Put simply, it seems J. J. Abrams's Star Wars sequel trilogy had a principal antagonist who was this big, powerful, ancient and mysterious figure, and a principal heroine whose parentage was some big, important secret probably tied in with the lore of the franchise, while Rian Johnson's Star Wars sequel trilogy did not, and some fans are annoyed that this film appears to be completely out of step with the previous one on these and similar points. (I should stress that I'm not one of that group of fans.) Pointing this out, while acknowledging that it has nothing to do with whether or not the film is "good" should not be that big a deal and should be easy, but the way Wikipedia covers recent American pop culture topics is artificially "hardening" it for us. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: It should be obvious, but my above proposal is a long-term solution. I think the source I cited is good enough for a sentence or two, but ideally we could one day address the whole problem with multiple reliable sources after all the smoke has cleared. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the Rotten Tonatoes Audience Score is that it is not a scientific poll. Anyone can chip in a review. That means if there is one small minority of viewers that is particulary determined to drive the rating up or down, they will have an outsized effect. They are also vulnerable to being manipulated, if someone organises an effort on social media to skew the result. Unless I'm wrong about how it's calculated, I am sceptical that the audience score means anything. Whereas the CinemaScore and ComScore polls are scientific surveys of the audience who saw it. Their responders may not be representative of the general moviegoing public, but at least they are representative of its target audience. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that the score is 55%. Perhaps a note that the statistic is not scientific? 23:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UAIED (talk • contribs)

At some point, it might merit discussion here though. Even if only to dismiss it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A recent edit claims that while ComScore reported a 79% definite recommend when external sources claim it has an 82% definite recommend. http://deadline.com/2017/12/the-last-jedi-star-wars-box-office-thursday-night-preview-record-1202227654/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson145 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Forbes reports "Rotten Tomatoes Says Its 55% 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' Audience Score Is Authentic". [5]. While the Rotten Tomatoes audience score seems to differ the most from the critics score, other sites corroborate significant fan backlash. For instance, the user score on Metacritic.com is just 4.8 (out of 10) with 1872 negative reviews (compared to 1642 positive ones). The TLJ wikipedia article should point out some obvious frustration on a large part of the audience.ClassA42 (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion why don't we create a notes section (if there isn't already one) and put it all there?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Normally this is not noteworthy, but in this case it has seen notable press coverage by several very reliable outlets.--217.85.32.62 (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot details that aren't clear from the film itself?

I kinda feel like we shouldn't include the something like Leia saves herself using the Force but is incapacitated without citing a source, since this is not explicitly stated in the film proper. The current grammar also implies that Leia actively leaves command to Holdo, which is inaccurate, Another solution would be to remove the reference to Leia's near-death entirely and just say ...but TIE fighters destroy the bridge of the ship, killing many Resistance leaders and incapacitating Leia, leaving Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo in command. Leia's implied death is a peripheral plot detail in the film itself, as it only lasts a moment, and her using the Force to survive is kinda something I think deserves out-of-universe context-setting discussion (like what Rolfe and Matei gave it in their review) so as not to offend good taste -- we definitely could do that, but we don't at present, and because of the way the article is laid out we can't really do it until at least several thousand words after it appears in the in-universe plot summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, no, it's very clear from the film itself that Leia was using the Force to save herself. Not only in her body positioning, but through the music, which features both Leia's theme and Binary Sunset (the Force theme). oknazevad (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Are you joking? If so, good one. Try going to WP:NORN and asking the folks there if it's okay to extrapolate from the soundtrack that she is using the Force and include it as a "given" in an uncited plot summary. The only reason we tolerate citation-free plot summaries like this one is that it is assumed Wikipedia editors will have more sense than to include obscure details like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. Just because the film doesn't actually have a character state she uses the Force verbally, doesn't mean the film doesn't make it as obvious as can be. oknazevad (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: This is fanboy stuff. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for a general audience and the plot needs to be kept concise. The question is not whether Leia used the Force or not but whether including such detail is essential to a general audience in a plot summary. Robynthehode (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It is, because her use of the Force is why she survives and no one else on that bridge did. Its a significant plot point. It's also literally three words that would be omitted, so conciseness is not an issue (and as someone who keeps coming back to trim down to just under 700 words, I know all about conciseness, thank you very much.) oknazevad (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Umm... what three words? My proposal was that Leia saves herself using the Force but is incapacitated be replaced with and incapacitating Leia, which would cut six words. And (as numerous users have already pointed out) it's not about arithmetic word count, but the level of extraneous detail we include in that word count. A fake-out death that is literally undone within two minutes is the very definition of extraneous detail. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Just because the film doesn't actually have a character state she uses the Force verbally, doesn't mean the film doesn't make it as obvious as can be Seriously, your comments look like you are joking -- it's literally impossible for it to be "as obvious as can be" with no one actually saying it in words.

Anyway, my main concern is that, given that the actress died while the film was in production, it seems really tasteless to throw off a reference to how the character appeared to be dead and then came back using the Force in the plot summary like this. I don't like extraneous detail in general, but the reason this particular point is problematic as we are covering it here is the real-world background.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That's really not a reason to omit something from a plot summary. It may have been a reason for the filmmakers to omit it from the film itself, but they didn't, so clearly they don't agree with you. We don't leave out plot points just because you don't like the way they remind you of real-world events. oknazevad (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Sorry if I upset you re the fanboy reference. I actually just thanked you for your edit on the plot summary. My point, prompted by your argument, for the inclusion of Leia using the force is whether it is essential. Using the reasons of body positioning and music are fanboy supporting reasons but there may be a good reason to keep Leia's use of the Force in the plot summary. Can't see one myself though. And I agree with you about your comment to Hijiri 88. Real world events are not a reason to exclude a fictional event from the plot summary. Robynthehode (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(multiple (edit conflict)s) You're both missing the point -- it doesn't belong in the plot summary for a bunch of reasons, and my reason for bringing it up rather than the various other things wrong with the plot summary now a coupla days after the film's release is at best peripheral. If it isn't clear to the average viewer of the film then it can't be included in the plot summary with reference to a reliable secondary source (so "uses the Force" is out), and if it's not absolutely relevant to the plot, then it doesn't belong either. Actually, to turn the argument around for a moment, the fact that there was a "Holy shit, Princess Leia just died!" moment that was immediately undone is important to fans for real-world reasons, but is not a reason to include the fictional event in the plot summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

He events have material impact on the rest of the film's events, so I cannot agree that it's not an important event that can just be left out. In fact, that's a pretty absurd suggestion, no offense. oknazevad (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

He events have material impact on the rest of the film's events You're mixing up what I'm saying with what I specifically said I was not saying. The only way in which her near-death affects the other events of the story is that it incapacitates her, and I think we can get away with simply saying she "is incapacitated" rather than going into detail about how the soundtrack makes it clear that she uses the Force to survive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, it is why she alone survives. That's a significant plot point in my mind. oknazevad (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Her alone surviving is not a reason to reference the Force, just noting she survives is enough. But if the plot keeps within 700 words I'm happy. Robynthehode (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we should just note she is incapacitated while others are killed. Saying "she survives" is redundant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the part that annoys me is people keep trying to put in Admiral Ackbar's name just because his name is specifically mentioned. That is an unimportant detail, as he's a minor character at best in this film and overall. We don't really need to not that he died in the First Order's trap. (Though you'd think he would know a trap when he sees one ;-) ) That's a case where it's verbally confirmed but not important, while Leia's Force use is as obvious as can be without verbalization and isn't important to the plot. Film is a visual medium; seeing something on screen is just as valid as hearing it in the dialogue. oknazevad (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Film is a visual medium; seeing something on screen is just as valid as hearing it in the dialogue. Sorry, but no. Unless something is explicitly stated, unambiguously, in words that every Wikipedia reader can understand, in the film itself, then the film itself is not treated as a reliable source for that claim on Wikipedia. And this is just a generality; here you are making a claim about the soundtrack, not something seen on screen, so that argument wouldn't even make sense if it wasn't out-of-line with the OR policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Read again, I also said "her body positioning", a visual aspect. But here's the reason your argument fails: by your standards we can't say anything in a plot summary that is only shown, not said. That's not only illogical, it's just an incorrect interpretation of guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NORN is not a "guideline": it's one of our core content policies. The primary source you are citing (currently the only source cited in the relevant section of our article) is open to different interpretations by different viewers, and so is unacceptable for the claim you want to make. (And it doesn't matter if those other viewers' interpretations are wrong.) I've been a fan of Star Wars for more than twenty years (one and off, recently more off than on), and it was only "obvious" to me because I knew the character's background from previous films, not because of the visuals. Once the film is released on home video, it might be a good idea to see if we can find an audio description for visually impaired audiences, and see if the producers thought "Leia uses the Force" is obvious from the visuals enough that it was something that should included in the audio description track. But either way we can't include "she uses the Force" based on the film itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Rey's Parents

Shouldn't there be at a sentence about the identity of Rey's parents? That is an important detail. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No. It's not an important enough plot detail that it's indispensible, and we need to cite reliable secondary sources for minutiae like that, no matter how important they are out-of-universe. If the plot section consisted of a combination of plot summary and sourced analysis, like my plot summary at Matsuranomiya monogatari, that would be another matter. But as this article is structures that would be untenable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that, per my long comment two sections up, I definitely think we should be giving this important problem more weight than we currently do, just not in an unsourced plot summary and not in a manner that makes our article read like a film review telling our readers whether it is a "good" or "bad" change. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's also not even confirmed in the movie. There is a story that Kylo tells, but as with the destruction of Luke's training program, Kylo may not be telling the truth or the entire truth. The only thing that can be verified is that the movie gives no conclusive evidence of who Rey's parents were. Danbert8 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This will veer dangerously close to WP:NOTFORUM territory (but it's MOS:FILM's fault for allowing us to write plot summaries based on primary sources, however dubious and unreliable and fictional they may be), but I don't think we can grant weight to the "Kylo Ren is an unreliable narrator" theory. I've heard it speculated (by Roth, of Screen Junkies) that what Kylo said was Johnson's decision that Abrams probably didn't like, and that Abrams might retcon it as a lie when Episode IX comes out. But in all honesty this isn't Yabu no Naka we're talking about, and this film's plotting was not that intricate or subtle. We were unambiguously told that Luke's account was untrue and Kylo's was a out-of-context but basically factual, and there was no hint that the other stuff Kylo said was a lie. Maybe we'll be told that everything he said was true "from a certain point of view", like how Darth Vader "betrayed and murdered" Luke's father was a metaphor for how he "ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader", but I don't think it will be revealed to be an outright lie. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot Summaries and Wikipedia Guidelines

From several hours making edits from the film's plot-climax onward, it does not seem very possible nor practical to summarize the film within 700 words without making significant material omissions. An article is supposed to provide clarity to those details that are non-speculative but somewhat prone to being missed from a casual watching of a film. Moreover, the sentences should be tailored so as to logically connect the major scenes, while omitting those portions or details that are not necessary to understand the the chain of events. Likewise, in order to more fully comply with the standing Wikipedia guideline for articles to be reminiscent encyclopedic writing, an article should be written with an audience in mind that has limited knowledge -- or possibly even no knowledge -- of the subject before consulting the article. It should also be noted that Star Wars: The Last Jedi was 150minutes in length and comprised more content than more typical feature films that average about 100minutes in length. TechNyanners (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The recommended word limit is meant to accommodate four-hour plot-dense epics, with "typical feature films" not needing to fill the 700-word quota. This film is much closer to the latter group. Discarding extraneous detail, in all honesty we could summarize the plot of this film in three or four sentences comprising less than 100 words. I am not saying we have to, just that we could. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer. Ok, I'll go ahead and post a somewhat verbose summary. Following, if you could condense or reduce it further, I'd be deeply appreciative. THANKS

TechNyanners (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Having checked both WP:PLOTSUM and WP:FILMPLOT I can see no information that says the the film plot range relates to 'typical feature films' nor 'four hour dense epics'. This is a POV assessment unless it can be shown otherwise. Yes the 700 word limit should be respected but maxing out this is up to the editors who edit the plot summary as far as I can see. Happy to be corrected on this point but it seems clear to me that the plot summary here can go to 700 words based on consensus of editors Robynthehode (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: Please see WP:CREEP for an explanation of why neither of those guidelines explicitly states that they apply equally to "typical feature films" and four-hour plot-dense epics. And the 700 word limit should be respected but maxing out this is up to the editors who edit the plot summary is what I meant by I am not saying we have to [keep the plot summary as short as possible regardless of the official quota], just that we could; editorial discretion, guided by consensus, is assumed by all the guidelines and by everything I say. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thanks for pointing me to this article. Don't see how this really applies to what I said. Are you trying to say your view relating "typical feature films" and "four hour plot dense epics" is correct? Has this view been reached by consensus already? Can you point to the discussion where this was agreed? Or is it just your POV? Robynthehode (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. I stated the view that the same word-count guideline applies to both typical feature films and four-hour epics, you went through the guidelines and apparently found no explicit support of my view, and I cited WP:CREEP since it wouldn't normally be expected to explicitly support this view. And it should be clear from my comments elsewhere in this thread that I don't think there are key plot details missing: I think there are peripheral plot details currently included that, if it were up to me, I wouldn't include, but I'm not looking for an argument and so won't address them (except on the "Leia uses the Force to save herself" stuff). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit of TechNyanners because adding 200 words to the plot summary is not acceptable according to WP:PLOTSUM and WP:FILMPLOT. If you think key plot details are missing from the current summary I would suggest discussing them here first and reaching consensus before adding such major changes. Robynthehode (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The guidelines seem to strongly suggest that a plot summary for this particular film can be a bit on the longer side. Moreover, those very same guidelines communicate that it is NOT a matter of number of words, but rather a matter of making a concerted effort to remove specific items from inclusion of the plot summary which are not material. Said alternatively, the plot summary consists of those components that reflect the story arc's progression through time. Please further consult both https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot and https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary .

In any case, word count alone is not an appropriate basis for anything so severe as a reversion. Had that been the case, the guidelines would have said so directly. To wit, the guidelines do directly state that a plot summary that was a straight copy and paste from elsewhere on the Internet is impermissible.

Having said that, the guidelines do state clearly that excising specific components of a long plot summary is permissible and to be encouraged and I respectfully insist that this be attempted before more drastic steps are employed.

TechNyanners (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Word count is the usual means to keep plot summaries concise. Only in exceptional circumstances can this word count be expanded. Although your edit was in good faith please do not begin an edit war about this. TechNyanners you need to get consensus on the talk page before expanding the plot summary as much as you have. I can go through your edit in detail if you like and show you what I think is plot bloat but I will leave it for now for other editors to comment. Please leave the plot summary as it is until other editors have made their comments. Just to be clear here is the text from WP:FILMPLOT with the relevant section highlighted. 'Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.) Robynthehode (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Word count is the usual means to keep plot summaries concise. Only in exceptional circumstances can this word count be expanded. Although your edit was in good faith please do not begin an edit war about this. TechNyanners you need to get consensus on the talk page before expanding the plot summary as much as you have. I can go through your edit in detail if you like and show you what I think is plot bloat but I will leave it for now for other editors to comment. Please leave the plot summary as it is until other editors have made their comments. Robynthehode (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"I can go through your edit in detail if you like and show you what I think is plot bloat "

I would appreciate that very much, actually. I am inclined to agree that the plot summary I have drafted is too long, but in the spirit of reaching consensus and agreement, I respectfully request that specific improvements be implemented or at least discussed. To that end, while I do believe consensus can be achieved via presenting the case that the plot summary needn't be constrained to <700words, I feel the other path I am proposing, implementing or proposing specific improvements, is a slightly sounder mechanism for achieving consensus at present.

TechNyanners (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Audience Score

Audience Score in Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are easy to manipulated by voting several times, I think they should not be named on the article, they are hugely unreliable. There are better audience scores like IMDB score and Cinemascore, and they gave it a much postive result.

Source: https://screenrant.com/star-wars-8-last-jedi-audience-score-fake/ --190.215.237.41 (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Point taken. I think pretty much everyone here already agrees we shouldn't cite any of them, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. What you think about the Audience Score system is something subjective. You even use a link to support your claim about faking the score, but the same website admits that such a division between critics and audience, especially the fanbase, here: https://screenrant.com/star-wars-last-jedi-critics-audience-divide/ On the other hand, we could say the same about the critics, that their opinion is not reliable because it can be manipulated, they can be 'bought' by Disney, etc. That is all subjective (just look at your sentence 'There are better audience scores like IMDB score and Cinemascore'. So you just choose which scores are better with no empirical evidence? All of that is up to the wikireaders to decide, we only provide the info by editing the articles. The audience score has to be mentioned, it is relevant that one of the largest aggregators present such a gap, although I could agree that a note on the fiability of Rotten Tomatoes' voting system might be added. In anycase there has been 108.000 votes and you can read plenty of reviews to see, is plausible to think that the films is not as universally liked as it is presented, or that the fanbase is not agreeing with the general audience or the critics. I am pointing out this difference but also how Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score might not be reliable User:Jasandia 20:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jasandia: You clearly have read neither what I subjectively think of the matter nor the relevant guideline ... is what I was going to say before I examined your comment more closely. Please be careful how you indent your comments in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I've discussed my views on this above. Scientific polling by CinemaScore and ComScore is a reliable measure of how much the audience liked it. The Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score is not a scientific poll. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anywikiuser: I have read it and I see there is a disparity of opinions, but also that you get to chose that this whole matter doesn't deserve a mention even though I added a reference. That is not the Wikipedian approach, I conceeded you the reference to the Audience Score being unreliable (although it is a possibility, not a fact, you nor anyone have conducted an investigation on the topic, nor is there a thesis on the topic). Your response? Erasing the whole thing. Look, the fact is that there are signs that the film is not being unanimously acclaimed, and it should be reflected. On the other hand, you are determining which pollings are scientific and which are not. What is so scientific about them, that you have to register? Do you know I could own several mail accounts and log in for instance in IMDB? Your whole argument is subjective! Just by saying 'these are scientific and these are not' it doesn't turn that into something true! No worries, I just retrain from making any further additions to the Wiki, have it your way User:Jasandia 13:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A 'scientific poll' is when the pollster makes sure its answers come from a representative sample of the relevant people, in this case people who have seen the film. CinemaScore hands out survey forms to people who have just seen the film. ComScore have a large pool of respondents that get invited to take part in online surveys, and they use several techniques to check they're getting a representative sample. Those are scientific polls. Not necessarily perfect ones. They aren't completely safe from participation bias, and ComScore can't be completely sure that a respondent has actually seen the film.

An 'open poll', where anyone can respond and there's no attempt to check that the respondents are a representative sample, is not a scientific poll. It's not a reliable measurement, for the reasons I have explained above.

The IMDB score is a difference case. It's somewhere in between. Anyone can add a review to it, so I would hesitate to describe it as a scientific survey even though there is some weighting. IMDB say that they use weighting to avoid ballot-stuffing and response bias, but unlike ComScore they keep these methods secret.

I'm not completely opposed to mentioning the Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score, but only if it is discussed in reliable and significant media, and we'd have to point out the issues discussed here. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment – In general, audience scores from online polls are not permitted. There have been countless discussions at WT:FILM about why we tend to avoid user-generated content. With that said, this particular case is a little different. Mainstream media is taking notice of the low audience score and how it contrasts with the critics, though in the same breath, they are cautioning to take it "lightly with a grain of salt" as mentioned in this Newsweek article which addresses the possibility the score has been gamed. As long as we are presenting it in an intelligent fashion (and not letting it spill over into other film articles unnecessarily), then I don't see a reason why we can present it here in the proper context. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Admiral Ackbar

I made this edit to the Plot which was reverted: TIE fighters destroy the bridge of the ship, killing several Resistance leaders Admiral Ackbar and incapacitating Leia, leaving Vice Admiral Holdo in command. Here's my rationale:

1. Admiral Ackbar is a notable enough character to have his own article for almost 15 years now.
2. He is important as one of less than 10 characters from Episodes I-VI to appear in the sequel trilogy: Luke, Leia, Han, Chewy, R2, C3PO, Yoda, Nunb.
3. As another editor said, he's culturally relevant with the second most quoted line from the series. No other killed Resistance leader in the bridge attack is relevant - none of their deaths were even mentioned in the film except Ackbar. Ackbar is probably 1000 times more relevant than the rest of the "several Resistance leaders" killed in the bridge attack put together.
4. The updated sentence explains why the Vice Admiral came to power, because the Admiral was dead.
5. When I added his death to the Cast section, it was rejected on the basis of being a spoiler.
6. It cuts one word from the summary.

I leave my fellow editors to discuss. starship.paint ~ KO 13:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Not remotely relevant to the plot of this film.
2. Not relevant to the plot of this film.
3. Not remotely relevant to the plot of this film. He is not named in the film in the fashion that you imply (i.e., "it was an attack that killed Ackbar and incapacitated Leia").
4. WP:NOR. Of you want to include it for that reason, you need to cite a reliable secondary source that says, among other things, that there aren't two vice admirals, the senior of whom was killed and the junior of whom came to power.
5. Who did that? Wikipedia contains spoilers. Name-dropping Ackbar in the plot summary is much worse than "spoiling" the movie by saying he dies in a different section lower down in the article.
6. Totally misses the point of the plot summary length guidelines. You added an irrelevant detail that only fans care about or would even notice; the arithmetic count is irrelevant by comparison.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: - on point 5 aptly enough it was Hux. I'm totally okay with it in the Cast section, really. Here is the revert. starship.paint ~ KO 14:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• To explain my edit, I didn't remove the part from the Cast section about Ackbar dying because Wikipedia can't ever have spoilers. I removed it because having that spoiler in that section felt out of place. Aside from simply linking actors to their roles, the Cast section is there to provide a little introductory text about the character, not to talk about what happens in the movie and especially not to reveal their ultimate fate. That's what the Plot section is for. (PS My name, btw, is coincidental and unrelated to Star Wars. No First Order evil intent motivated this edit!) -- Hux (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• To the main point, I think Hijiri88's starship.paint's edit to the plot re Ackbar dying was perfectly fine. In particular, it's not WP:NOR to link that to the Vice Admiral becoming the leader, due to the chain of command - that's explicitly stated in the film. -- Hux (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Did you mean my edit (not Hijiri88's) to the plot, General Hux? (Sorry XD) Indeed on point 3 I raised, it was surely necessary for Ackbar to die for Holdo to rise. Whether there may have been a more senior Vice Admiral is never mentioned. starship.paint ~ KO 13:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• I did! Apologies. I've fixed it. Please don't force choke me! -- Hux (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Request Edit to Plot of Star Wars: The Last Jedi

The plot should be edited to include the chemistry between Rose and Finn, causing Finn to be confused as to whether he should go with his original interest in Rey or pursue Rose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alegriamia (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that says that. DonQuixote (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Fan-shipping in a Wikipedia plot summary? Good luck... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Adopting a neutral position over the score.

Seeing the divide between the fans and the critics, we should remove the critics score and stay in a neutral position. That's one of the bases of Wikipedia. And if we are going to put a score, we should post the opinion of both sides. Lenoir9898 (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lenoir9898: No. If you want to discuss this, please read over the discussion that took place before you got here, and reply there. We don't need a new section on this talk page for every editor who wants to comment on the issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral position with criticism.

This should be eliminated from the article since there is a lot of controversy regarding the score given by the fans and by the specialized critics.

First: There is nothing certain that the ratings were altered by software in Rotten Tomatoes.

Second: They only mention good criticism and ignore negative ones (it seems that you are being paid to put only good reviews). Here there must be neutrality because due to the controversy that exists with specialized criticism and the criticism of the fans should be eliminated due to lack of data, to be honest the fans are divided to the degree of being considered the worst movie of the saga, if you are going to mention that it is considered the best overcoming the Empire Strikes Back should also be considered the worst in the saga because the fans are divided, should see Twitter, forums, Facebook Fan Groups, YouTube or newspapers and there are numerous criticisms negative ones that surpass the positive ones. If you are going to put in the article you are even and you put the complete information, not only the one that favors the film that in this case is what they do when putting only the good critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaidWorld (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ratings altered by software? What? It's a given that people can vote multiple times on the RT audience rating, so it's unreliable and non-noteworthy. I think there is legitimate backlash against this film from some fans, but we need reliable sources that analyze it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

And those sources exist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

See discussions above; you are not the first to point this out. An 'open poll' that anyone can respond to can be skewed up or down by a vocal minority, especially if there is a campaign to skew it on social media. Our policy is not to cite these as evidence. A survey like CinemaScore is a more reliable measurement. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I am the first to point them out in extensive detail below. And you can keep going on and on about polling as much as you want to, but the sources are clear that they are not simply about polling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

description of luke skywalker

why is there a quote from an edited intereview with Mark Hamill?????

everybody knows the freaking video is edited to acommodate the agenta that mark didnt liked this movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.2.200 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Done Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add a hatnote for Episode 8

"Episode VIII" redirects here. For other episodes, see Episode 8.

{{redirect|Episode VIII|other episodes|Episode 8}}

-- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to have disappeared. Episode VIII still redirects here, so the hatnote is still needed. Please add the hatnote to the article. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Bias in audience reactions

Just a quick question: Why is the article only mentioning audience meters that showed positive ratings on the film, when there are many others that showed a much more mixed response? From a neutral point of view, all sides of the spectrum should be mentioned, otherwise the whole reception part is full of biased opinions. Negative reviews from professional critics are allowed, so why aren't the mixed audience meters mentioned? This is ridiculous, I sense a great amount of Star Wars fans working on this Wikipedia article. Jonipoon (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC+1)

Yeah this really surprised me too when I stumbled upon this article. Anyways, there is a discussion and survey about this topic a couple sections up the talk page, you might consider commenting there. AfD hero (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be that guy. Read the extensive discussion already in progress on this page. oknazevad (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I think the last user not to be "that guy" was this one five days ago, as they were the last to reply to the one active thread and imply they had read it without feeling the need to start their own new talk page section on the subject. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jonipoon: I would like to know which 'many' you are referring to? Please reply in the Discussion section on the audience response section topic above. Alaney2k (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Jonipoon, you can weigh in on the #Should we include an Audience response section? section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Why Does Mark Hamill's Opinion on the Film Matter?

Under critical reception, it should include only critics and audience reactions. Those involved with the production's opinions are irrelevant. 2601:4A:600:A217:DD31:3B58:D0BA:80DD (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

As previously mentioned in another section the video was heavily edited to make Mark seem more critical of the film than he was. He has been very supportive and happy about how the film has turned out.

2601:4A:600:A217:DD31:3B58:D0BA:80DD (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of people are saying the quote has been heavily edited, but as far as I can tell from the video, it stands for itself. I'm also didn't write that Mr. Hamill was critical of the movie itself, just that he said he disagreed with elements of the characterization of his role with the director, which, in my humble opinion, is a fair assessment of what he said. Personally, I think it's worth mentioning when there are potentially significant differences in creative vision. Perhaps it's better suited to a section about production, thought. PvOberstein (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If we are including quotes from a cast member, it needs to be somewhere else. I would also include more than the single quote as long as we keep WP:DUE in mind. Granzymes (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Granzymes: See what in the talk, exactly? PvOberstein (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It does matter, especially when there is such a debate on the the reception of the film and if it is polarizing or not. Is a main cast, and his quote is out of the normal quoting, that is what makes it different. Would we be having this debate if it was a regular quote? I think the debate revolves around where to put the quote. Recepcion, a new section such as controversy...? As an example of this, I will redirect you to Jim Carrey rejection of Kick Ass 2 referenced in the article for the film. 13:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasandia (talk • contribs)

Proposed text to add:

Actor Mark Hamill was critical of his own role in the film, stating that he and director Rian Johnson had "a fundamental difference" on the characterization of Luke Skywalker.

Would something in the Production be appropriate? PvOberstein (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That is well-sourced and relevant, so yes it would. Rlendog (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The above text does not include the comment that that was Hamill's opinion at first. And only at first. Alaney2k (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Rotten tomatoes controversy

Is the RT controversy worth mentioning in the article? Any comments on that?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see the above Request for Comment and the related Discussion section. Granzymes (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot interpretation

"Luke dies and vanishes into the Force."

Is this OK? It's what's presumably what happens, but to me it reads like personal interpretation. All we see is Luke vanishing, so what's what we should say. Popcornduff (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the movie clearly states he's dead, no? Both Leia and Rey comment on it, as far as I remember. Him disappearing into the force is consistent with previous deaths within the same universe.--217.85.32.62 (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, do they say he's dead? I don't remember. Popcornduff (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Rey mentions to Leia that "Luke is gone". oknazevad (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Leia also comments that she felt him go too. --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 18:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"Restore transition words that make the text flow more smoothly and ease reading."

Oknazevad... not this again.

The words restored in [6](your edit) do not "make the text flow more smoothly" or "ease reading". They either add information that is not important, such as the detail that BB-8 escapes (no one cares and BB-8 is never mentioned again in the plot), or they add no information at all. Examples:

• "Rey and Kylo begin communicating with each other through telepathic visions". Will readers wonder if they are communicating with other people?
• "Kylo declares himself new Supreme Leader. " As opposed to old Supreme Leader?
• "the Resistance has all it needs to rise again" has become "has all that is needed to rise again". Why? You know the passive voice usually sucks, right?

Please reconsider. Popcornduff (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Popcornduff. Less is always more. Granzymes (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No. Firstly, your edits removed necessary words that give the summary its proper time framing, otherwise it doesn't accurately describe the sequence of events. Secondly, even with these needed transitory words, the summary is below the 700 word threshold by quite a bit. As for your exact criticisms here:

-BB-8 later frees Rose and Finn. Like it says in the summary. It's like you didn't even read what you edited.

I stand corrected, apologies there. Popcornduff (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

-That Kylo and Rey communicate with only each other is a plot point of significance. It pays off when it's revealed that the link is part of Snoke's trap for Luke.

I understand that, but "Rey and Kylo begin communicating through telepathic visions" already suggests they're talking to each other. This isn't ambiguous and readers won't take other meanings from it. Popcornduff (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

-"New Supreme Leader" is idiomatic.

I have no idea how to respond to this one. There's nothing strange or unnatural about it. Without "new", no one will be confused or perturbed. Popcornduff (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

-There is nothing wrong with the passive voice. That old hang-up of elementary school English teachers has been thoroughly debunked.

Let's put aside that argument and focus on the sentence. In this case, the passive voice weakens the verb and adds a word, but adds no information. Can you explain why it's better in this case? Popcornduff (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Less is not always more. And choppy prose that doesn't read like natural English is not better. oknazevad (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I think timeframe words such as "Meanwhile" are largely unimportant, but I can live with them. Words that serve absolutely no purpose keep me awake at night, though. There is nothing "choppy" (such a bizarre word you use) or "unnatural" about the sentence "Leia reassures everyone that the rebellion has all it needs to rise again". I think you saw a few changes you disliked and threw the baby out with the bathwater. Popcornduff (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This change exemplifies my point: "who says he can help" has become "who says he is able to help". Can you really defend this? Popcornduff (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)