Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

TLJ critical reception

WE should probably add that The Last Jedi was voted one of the best films of 2010's by Indiewire coming in at 74 https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-movies-of-2010s-decade/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.134.154.48 (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Lupita Nyong'o's credit

Is it unusual for Lupita Nyong'o to be credited so prominently for what is essentially a cameo role? She is credited above: Domhnall Gleeson Anthony Daniels Gwendoline Christie Kelly Marie Tran Laura Dern Benicio del Toro

The only actor who probably can be justified as having lower billing than Nyong'o is Gwendoline Christie, even that is a stretch though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.114.216 (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You would have to contact Disney or Lucasfilm with concerns about credits billing. Wikipedia is not involved in the production of any Star Wars film, and has instead reproduced the information from the reliable sources, such as the film credits and the poster billing block. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Most likely it was done that way for consistency with the previous film. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Credits billing is often part of an actor's contract as well. Alaney2k (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment about article

WIKi:PROMOTION

This page is clearly part of an astroturfing campaing for disney. I suggest to delete it completely and rebuild it from reliable sources instead of paid shills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell us which of the sources we are using now are unreliable so that we don't use them in such a rebuild? DonQuixote (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The person above does have a point, if you look at Youtube videos for example, 99% of comments, Like/dislike ratios etc. are all critical of the Last Jedi, yet this article seems to suggest everyone loved it, and any negative reviews are due to Russians, women haters, trolls etc. ---

The people who disliked it have certainly expressed themselves more. But we've gone over this already - take a look at the archives for this page. No need to re-open that. When millions go to a movie and indicate they liked it, as Metacritic shows, that is basically established as fact. Wikipedia articles only strive to report about a film, not be a critical resource. Alaney2k (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"When millions go to a movie and indicate they liked it, as Metacritic shows, that is basically established as fact."

Sorry, but thats not how facts work. As an example, I was never asked once I saw the movie if I liked it. Neither was my friend in another state, who walked out of the film. So what you are claiming as fact, is merely opinion, just as the opinion of most people online, on youtube, forums, message boards that The Last Jedi was the worst Star Wars film ever made. Now of course no one wants to add that to this page for some reason, but at the very least remove the false claims about "review bombing"Leonard133 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I just had a look at Metacritic: 4.4/10 rating I just had a look at Rotten Tomatos: 44% IMDB: Top 25 "helpful" reviews, average rating is 1/10

What else do people need as evidence that the majority of audiences gave this film an adverse rating?

The russian bot explanation is beyond ludicrous - why would Vladmir Putin care about what rating The Last Jedi receives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.114.211 (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

At a rough estimate, we would need at least 5 million user ratings. DonQuixote (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes has admitted several months ago that their scores were manipulated by people online. Online polling by nature is a poor way to sample opinion. However, online polls are a good measure of how much people care. It's clear there are people motivated to complain about this film. It's been almost two years and people are still vandalizing this page, Kennedy, and Rian Johnson's page. If the controlled survey's bother you then present one that shows something different than what's presented in the article.Nemov (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Nemov but your statement is false and has been proven false by the VP of Communications for Fandando, Rotten tomatoes parent company. I proposed an edit under a new section. Leonard133 (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Holdo maneuver needs to be addressed as a major reason story-wise for audience disapproval. It is neither bold nor exciting that this concept was introduced even though the shots of the aftermath were beautiful. https://www.theringer.com/2017/12/20/16800970/vice-admiral-holdo-maneuver-the-last-jedi

Change to Audience Reception

Closed discussion by banned sockpuppet account
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"In 2019, a Rotten Tomatoes spokesperson stated that the film had been "seriously targeted" with a review-bombing campaign." That statement is from the Last Jedi page, under audience reception. The statement has been proven false on numerous occasions, and not once in the article is there any proof. How this sentence was approved, is not fathomable to me, since I thought Wikipedia is all about facts, and not feelings. As per several articles, Benson, who is the Vice President of Communications at Fandango, the parent company of Rotten Tomatoes, said that Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes are fully confident in the ratings and scores for the Star Wars picture. She assured everyone that Rotten Tomatoes has gone to great lengths to verify their ratings' accuracy and authenticity. “We have several teams of security, network, and social database experts who constantly monitor reviews and ratings to ensure that they are genuine.” So why is the other FAKE statement, falsely claiming that Last Jedi was "review bombed", still a part of this article? The page is inaccurate as is, and needs to be promptly fixed. Leonard133 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC) References Leonard133, your concerns are already addressed by the sentence preceding the one you quoted above: "In response to tampering claims, Rotten Tomatoes released a statement that they detected no unusual activity on The Last Jedi aside from a noticeable 'uptick in the number of written user reviews'." The statement you call "fake" is properly sourced and verified, and is two years more recent than articles you have cited. If there is a discrepancy between what Fandango employees are saying (which it is not clear that there is), then it is still Wikipedia's role to report all the relevant perspectives. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC) It seems to me that you did not read the Fake article at all – wallyfromdilbert. The article does not cite any proof, however the article I cited has a DIRECT QUOTE from the VP of operations of Fandango. So no the false statement is not properly verified and my claim that the Last Jedi page is inaccurate still stands. I want the fake citation deleted and the quote from the VP added “We have several teams of security, network, and social database experts who constantly monitor reviews and ratings to ensure that they are genuine.” Leonard133 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC) References Just stop you imbicle. That article was from two years ago. Rotten Tomatoes confirmed the problems this year. Toa Nidhiki05 21:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Is there a reason you are insulting me? Toa Nidhiki05 One more time and I will report you for this. The article on the page has ZERO PROOF of its claims. If it has proof, please provide it here, as my article has a DIRECT QUOTELeonard133 (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC) The reason should be fairly obvious. Toa Nidhiki05 21:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC) @Leonard133: What exactly is wrong with the March 2019 statement? The Verge seems reliable. Why do you think it was not review-bombed? You can't pick and choose among reports. Alaney2k (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Audience Reception Section Inaccurate

This section below is inaccurate.

"In response to tampering claims, Rotten Tomatoes released a statement that they detected no unusual activity on The Last Jedi aside from a noticeable "uptick in the number of written user reviews".[164] In 2019, a Rotten Tomatoes spokesperson stated that the film had been "seriously targeted" with a review-bombing campaign.[165]"

1. The citation used is not accurate, I personally contacted Fandango last week and was told that the 44% rating is accurate and genuine. The article in the citation makes an inaccurate generalization that this film was review bombed, when in fact it was not. The citation and sentence needs to be removed, while the full quote (below) needs to be added.

2. This next statement is not complete "that they detected no unusual activity on The Last Jedi aside from a noticeable "uptick in the number of written user reviews" The full quote that should be added is from Benson, who is the Vice President of Communications at Fandango, the parent company of Rotten Tomatoes, who said "Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes are fully confident in the ratings and scores for the Star Wars picture. She assured me that Rotten Tomatoes has gone to great lengths to verify their ratings' accuracy and authenticity." - [1]

Now I have attempted to make these changes, only to be edit warred, so I am listing the facts here. Kenny139 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss it. The accuracy of the count that Rotten Tomatoes recorded is not in question, though. Alaney2k (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I think using the Forbes cite is better than the previous. It was not a statement - which would be a press release. I hope this is not contentious. Alaney2k (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m going to say exactly what I told you before: we are not replacing an accurate source (The average) with an inaccurate and outdated PR statement from two years ago. Toa Nidhiki05 10:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the Verge article is NOT ACCURATE, as I spoke to someone that is a part of their marketing department, and they informed me that they have no idea where that article came from or of its sources. Sorry, but this fake citation should be removed. Kenny139 (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m going to call bullshit on that, sorry. Toa Nidhiki05 15:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kenny139:You will have to do better than telling us you made a call to Rotten Tomatoes. There's no reason not to believe the citation. In fact, Rotten Tomatoes totally changed how they handle audience scores after all controversy surrounding voting manipulation. This suggests they know there was a problem and have taken steps to prevent it from happening in the future. - Nemov (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment – I know these recent changes were done in good faith, but please review the discussion at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 9#New information. There was at least one editor (whom I agreed with) that raised concerns about the use of "however" that implies a direct relationship/contradiction not fully supported in the source. As for the previous source, it is a secondary one that is one step removed and should have precedence over the Forbes' interview, which is considered primary. We could possibly link both, however. I'm not opposed to that. If there are other minor changes that need to be made, we can do that as well, but it's best to agree on that here first IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A primary source would be a press release from Fandango. Secondly, it was not a public statement but an interview. Alaney2k (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Why restore your preferred version? My edit restored the status quo while discussion is underway to form consensus. While I have no intention to revert, this should be noted. I realize some items like "public statement" could be improved, so I'm not completely opposed to change here.

You may want to read WP:PSTS as a refresher if nothing else. Interviews are considered primary sources in most cases. They represent viewpoints of participants/observers that are not one-step removed from the event, as you would expect in a secondary source. In Note C of that policy, it states (with my emphasis):

The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, ...

It would be best to offer improvement suggestions here first, as we've done very carefully over time for this section, as opposed to just ramming our preferred changes into the article. There's a reason this article is semi-protected until 2022. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Forbes is independent of Fandango. Alaney2k (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No need to ping...I'm watching. Being independent doesn't automatically make a source secondary. Newspapers are independent from what they report, but they are often considered primary sources as well depending on how they report the event. Have you read WP:PSTS? The event here is the information released in the interview. The Forbes source (or more appropriately, the Forbes "contributor") is primary because they directly participated in the event. In order to qualify as secondary, you need to be one-step removed from the event altogether and provide analysis or interpretation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The two statements from Rotten Tomatoes do not contradict each other. The 2017 statement states was Rotten Tomatoes denying that the score was being manipulated by bots or hacking. It did not address the possibility that the film was review-bombed, or the possibility that the people who posted reviews on Rotten Tomatoes were not a representative subset of the film's overall audience. The 2019 statement then addresses the possibility that it was review-bombed. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed. Their count is their count, we have no way or reason to dispute that. It still appears to be the target of review-bombing as the RT number continues to drop. I believe in 2015 it was 54%, now it is 44%. I'm not sure if the drop is worth mentioning in the text. At what point do we mention that? What if it drops to 20% or 30%? Alaney2k (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's essential, as most of the coverage is from around the time of the film's release, but if it were, a quick note of "(as of [Month] [Year], it stands at [X]%)". Anywikiuser (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Given the number is confirmed to be inaccurate and we don’t generally cite audience scores for good reason, I suggest just saying they had poor audience scores,p. That solves the problem. Toa Nidhiki05 16:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment – With all due respect, there is no need for the segment "In 2019, a Rotten Tomatoes spokesperson stated that the film had been "seriously targeted" with a review-bombing campaign.[166]" to be included in the article. It adds nothing of relevance, and the spokesperson isn't named in the article and therefore can't be confirmed. Morever, the article has a political agenda and is full of factual inaccuracies. "Trolls" is used to describe any low score received by movies that needs "special protection", but is never used when other movies receive low scores. The whole idea is absurd and by catering to these skewed articles, Wikipedia is indirectly taking a political stance which goes against the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Any editor defending this is technically breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Jonipoon (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The content is clearly relevant regarding the issues of the film's reviews, and the statement is already "confirmed" by The Verge, an accepted reliable source. Personal opinions are not relevant when there is explicit information reported in a reliable source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the editors of this page have put in long hours to deliver an NPOV article. Just take a look at all the archives on this. It's not fair to do a drive-by analysis. It's not what you want, or like, just let it be. Alaney2k (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUM is not applicable to the Talk pages, otherwise discussion would be impossible. That's why we sometimes have voting where members come together to decide what's the best decision to improve an article. When it comes to the statement in The Verge, not only is the source unnamed but it is also the only source. There are plenty of other sources from other acceptable/reliable news outlets that directly contradicts the source from The Verge. The subject is unresolved because of contradicting sources, and adding that statement is therefore irrelevant. Jonipoon (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUM is directly applicable to talk pages (for example, see #4), as talk pages are supposed to be used to discuss article content rather than forums to express personal views about great wrongs (also see WP:TPG: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it."). If other sources contradict information in the article, then I would suggest adding that information. Claiming that a statement is "irrelevant" because of contradicting sources makes no sense. We can choose to exclude a relevant statement if multiple other sources contradict it, but there have been several reasons for keeping the current content that would have to be addressed, including the 2019 statement being the most recent coverage on the issue. Do you have any other recent sources that discuss the issue? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Multiple accepted and reliable sources reported on the first statement, which has a named spokesperson (which raises the credibility) - contrary to The Verge source which is unnamed and was never picked up by any other news outlet (which lowers the credibility). It doesn't matter if the source happened 3 years ago or 3 days ago, it doesn't makes it more credible when there are multiple sources contradicting it. Here are two: [2] [3]
Additionally, here's another source from 2018 where Rotten Tomatoes confirmed that a score from a different film with John Travolta wasn't artificially manipulated with either, which further proves that there are more sources from within Rotten Tomatoes claiming that the artificial manipulation is either false or not large enough to make a big enough difference. https://screenrant.com/gotti-rotten-tomatoes-audience-score-fake/ Jonipoon (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Those are from years earlier, before RT admitted it had been victim to review bombing and changed their policy to allow "verified" reviews (which, as user-generated scores, are still not close to being reliable). Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of how the statement is worded (with or without mentioning "Rotten Tomatoes spokesperson"), the consensus in published sources on the matter is nearly unanimous as of early 2019. They overwhelmingly agree that "review-bombing" occurred on Last Jedi at the RT site, and because of this reoccurring behavior on that film and others, the site decided to make a change. That change was the removal of user comments before a film's release, as well as the "Want to see" and "Not interested" percentages. All of this is mentioned in dozens of sources including:

'Captain Marvel' was attacked by online trolls. Rotten Tomatoes took action. -- NBC News

A Change for Rotten Tomatoes Ahead of Captain Marvel -- The Atlantic

How Captain Marvel and Brie Larson beat the internet’s sexist trolls -- Vox

Trolls Are Tanking Captain Marvel’s Rotten Tomatoes Reviews. But They Can’t Stop Its Box Office Haul -- Fortune

Captain Marvel: How the trolls always win — until they don’t -- The Washington Post

'Captain Marvel' Sandbagged on Rotten Tomatoes Within a Few Hours of Opening -- The Hollywood Reporter

The NBC News source is most interesting, considering its parent company NBCUniversal owns Fandango. It specifically says Last Jedi was targeted. No way this story would still exist without retraction, or at the very least modification, if Fandango felt that it was incorrect. Also, the current Verge source is a trusted, reliable source on Wikipedia. There's no reason to believe that they are fabricating their claim of speaking with an RT spokesperson that was qualified to share that information. If you feel there's reason to make an exception to using it as a valid source, then I suggest taking it to WP:RSN and seeing what kind of feedback you get there on this specific article. Advocating that we should let outdated sources trump more recent revelations doesn't make sense. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Force projection

The article currently says Kylo Ren has been fighting “Luke’s Force projection”. This doesn’t tell the reader anything meaningful, since “Force projection” is an unexplained neologism. The key facts the reader needs to understand the synopsis is that Luke’s body is physically somewhere else, and he is using the Force to appear on Crait. @Antinoos69: keeps removing the explanation for reason I don’t quite understand, leaving the synopsis with something that’s not intelligible to someone who doesn’t already know what happens in the movie. What’s the objection, and how can we make this synopsis accessible to the reader? AJD (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, I agree that Ajd's version is better than referring to a "Force projection". Both image and illusion are both more descriptive to the reader than a in-universe term that isn't used in the film, although possibly there might be better options available. Scribolt (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Academic source for the Audience response section

Back in 2017, in the discussion about whether to include an Audience response section, I stated that "academic sources will eventually address this [divisive issue], just as they have addressed fan discontent with the prequel films." Years later, there is now this 2019 "Disney's Star Wars: Forces of Production, Promotion, and Reception" source, from University of Iowa Press, pages 314-320. I'm not stating that we need to/should use this source, especially given the significant debates that have already occurred regarding the Audience response section. I am simply pointing to it since I just came across it and mentioned it at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure it changes anything, but it's a very interesting read to say the least. This shows that fan divisiveness was in fact a prominent aspect in sources, judging from the amount of coverage it received. That definitely justifies our coverage of it on Wikipedia. But the source also seems to side with the idea that the perceived "fracture" among fans wasn't really anything out of the ordinary in Star Wars fandom. It points out that the media's fascination with and attraction to "drama, sensation, and the car crashes of pop culture" may have skewed the coverage in favor of fan divisiveness, despite the fact that there were many positive aspects to write about. I'm sure we'll see more academic coverage of this over time (which I very much look forward to), especially now that Rotten Tomatoes has acknowledged that review bombing occurred, causing them to overhaul their user rating system. That information came out after the academic source above was written (it makes reference in the book to September 2018 as the "time of writing"). --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Archive move of the "Audience response" draft page

Recently, TAnthony decided to move the Audience response draft page and its corresponding talk page into archive 11. Both were originally being preserved in a subpage of this article, separate from the main archive. The reason it was done this way had to do with a suggestion from Swarm in the thread "How to preserve this page when we are done". The problem with lumping it into the main archive, is that it makes it seem like a random occurrence in a sequential archive. Someone stepping through it manually will go from archive 10, which has discussions from 2019 and 2020, to archive 11 with discussions dating back to early 2018. Also, the autoarchive counter is on 10 still, so what happens when it wants to switch to 11? Maybe this needs more thought... --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realize this would be controversial, but I moved the archive because in the previous configuration, only that archive was showing, rather than all of them, because you were forcing the template incorrectly. I could move the archives around so this bit is placed more chronologically, but I was trying to avoid too much disruption. And btw, NO ONE will be going through 11 archives manually, anyone researching archives is looking for specific topic(s) and that's what the search box is for. Not to worry about the counter; when an archive page is "full", the bot moves on and creates the next one. In this case it will fill 10, and then move on and fill 11, before creating 12. Let me know if you have a better solution, and I'll check the {{archives}} and see if there's a workaround}}.— TAnthony^Talk 15:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed— TAnthony^Talk 16:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the explanation and fix! Just wanted to make sure it wasn't causing any issues. Also, at one time the archive box was showing everything properly. Someone's modification must have broken it. Looks good now though, thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Broom kid redux

Reopening an old discussion ... can we all now agree that the Boy with the Broom is an unimportant detail not worthy of inclusion in the plot summary?— TAnthony^Talk 02:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I would hope his can be agreed upon now. The scene is an epilogue presenting a symbolic message of Skywalker inspiring hope in the galaxy. On a story level, however, it isn’t essential - it’s a thematic scene that is out of place in a plot section. Toa Nidhiki05 02:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

At 707 words, do we really save anything significant by taking it out? BecUse by leaving it in we make sure that the plot does get up to the end credits. oknazevad (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe one of the new cycle of films will be the "adventures of broom kid"? You never know. Spanneraol (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I favor keeping it. Lots of movie synopses end with a description of the final moments, even if in isolation that moment wouldn't be an important element of the plot; the fact that the filmmaker chose to put it last gives it inherent significance. For example: "Back on Yavin 4, Luke and Han are awarded medals for their heroism." "As the Rebels and the galaxy celebrate the fall of the Empire, Luke sees the spirits of Yoda, Obi-Wan, and Anakin watching over him." "Aboard the fleeing ship, Princess Leia declares that the schematics will provide 'hope' for the Rebellion." "The Falcon then jumps into hyperspace." "A passerby asks her name; as the spirits of Luke and Leia watch, she replies, 'Rey Skywalker.'" None of these are major plot events of the films they appear in; some of them have significance for the themes of the films; but all of them are given importance by being the moment the filmmaker chose to end on. AJD (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Those are all different because they carry along the plot substantially. This is a pretty straight-cut epilogue that the plot section here fixates on in the wrong way (the point isn’t the kid with the broom, it’s that Luke Skywalker inspired hope in the galaxy). Toa Nidhiki05 13:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree; the other ones I listed don't advance the plot. If the ROTJ synopsis ended with "Luke cremates his father's body on a pyre before reuniting with his friends," or the Rogue One synopsis with "a small starship escapes with the plans on board," the sequence of events that make up the narrative wouldn't be appreciably missing anything. But in any event, I'd be glad to rephrase the sentence about the epilogue here to improve the emphasis. AJD (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I would support removing it. It is an unnecessary and insignificant detail. The relevant plot ends in the scene before with the main characters. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:PLOT says that plot should be UNDER 700 words, so 707 is violating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.114.47 (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Audience reaction, issues of greatest dissatisfaction

Even with the generalist backgrounds of many of the film reviewers cited, I think that the strongest noted fan reactions were from, The Last Jedi's depiction of an uncharacteristically hopeless Luke and, in context of losses involving the ejection of the extended universe from cannon, a lack of comparable return in regard to both a cohesive plot and the development dof replacement characters.

Here are some of the references used in the paragraph with related quotes:
"Star Wars fan behind anti-Last Jedi petition denies he was 'bought off' by Disney to back down". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on January 21, 2018.

The Last Jedi's treatment of Luke Skywalker and his Jedi powers contributed to the film being a "travesty" that "completely destroyed the [franchise] legacy".

"Star Wars fan behind anti-Last Jedi petition denies he was 'bought off' by Disney to back down". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on January 21, 2018.

The Last Jedi's treatment of Luke Skywalker and his Jedi powers contributed to the film being a "travesty" that "completely destroyed the [franchise] legacy".

Yee, Yip Wai Yee (December 31, 2017). "The Last Jedi divides". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on January 4, 2018.

WHAT FANS ARE UNHAPPY WITH

NOT OUR LUKE SKYWALKER...

DISNEY-FIED...

TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS - myriad holes in the storyline. Rey's parents turn out to be just "nobodies", while Snoke, ... is killed too easily and with little fuss and drama.

Cavna, Michael (December 18, 2017). "How 'The Last Jedi' became the most divisive Star Wars movie yet". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 22, 2018.

On MetaCritic, commenter “LukeIsTheBest” wrote: “They literally destroyed the entire Saga.” One Rotten Tomatoes commenter, “Cynthia R,” wrote in criticizing a run of plot points: “So, let me get this straight. The guy [Luke] who helped take down the Empire has a bad day and he turns into a recluse? . . .And you wiped the extended universe just to find out that Rey’s parents are nobody after building up the mystery? . . . Your casual fan base will enjoy this movie. But this movie does a disservice to loyal geeks.”

I don't think that the depiction of the film as being "too progressive" is representative. The main related comment that I found was:

Youngs, Ian (December 20, 2017). "Star Wars: The Last Jedi – the most divisive film ever?". BBC News. Archived from the original on December 21, 2017. Retrieved December 21, 2017.

So caught up in being diverse and political, it forgets to tell a coherent and compelling story

Star Wars fans have always been generally supportive of progressivism. In the original trilogy, the rebels side had: a politically powerful Leia, a greatly wealthy Lando and the wise Yoda. Fans were supportive of having a female lead in the sequels though they were critical of her starting with much the same character that her lack of arc finished with. Finn got a generally good reception. However fans have objected with perceptions that characters have been added for diversity with little contribution to the plot other than that involving belittling male characters - and, even in these cases, the additional characters then lacked development. I'd dispute that "too much progressivism" or that related choices made in the film were neccessarily allied to an "improvement of the human condition".

Another issue relates to the article's claim that "Particularly divisive was the reveal that Rey's parents are insignificant" which was all down to context. SW fans had no problem with Anakin Skywalker and his mum having been slaves and they might similarly have had no problem with Rey's parents being 'nobodies' if the build up hadn't both raised a different expectation and started speculation.

The article further says that, "Reviewers stated that fan theories were held so strongly among some viewers that it was difficult for them to accept different stories". The BBC article says, "Some theories became so ingrained in fan consciousness that when they didn't play out, many fans seem to feel like they were cheated out of something," and, in the context of other fan views of serious flaws within the story that had played out, they may have understandably felt cheated. The ing.com article says, "Indeed, some fans believe that Kylo Ren's story about Rey's folks is just a fake-out and that we will yet learn the truth about them in Episode IX. And who knows? With Abrams returning to helm that film, things may very well play out that way." - And that's exactly what happened. In this prominent case, viewers had found it difficult to accept a story that was later also refuted by cannon. The current article wording does not reflect this reality.

Various Star Wars fans rejected the Sequel trilogy stories as cannon for a range of reasons whether or not they had story theories of their own.

citations attached to paragraph three with various referenced issues raised by fans

feel free to add any referenced issues raised by fans and to use this as reference for amendments to the article. VanDerWerff, Emily (December 19, 2017). "The 'backlash' against Star Wars: The Last Jedi, explained". Vox. Archived from the original on March 2, 2018. Critics aren’t supposed to like blockbusters more than the general public. We’re supposed to be snooty snoots, with our noses turned up in the air at all of this populist garbage Too much progressivism: The jokes are too jokey: The movie is uninterested in fan theories: Individual plot lines/moments don’t make sense: The characters’ journeys aren’t what was expected: This is probably the fan critique with the most meat to it. But it’s also, ultimately, the one that has the most personal spin on it Youngs, Ian (December 20, 2017). "Star Wars: The Last Jedi – the most divisive film ever?". BBC News. Archived from the original on December 21, 2017. Retrieved December 21, 2017. The Last Jedi didn't fulfil the fan theories that had been lovingly and obsessively plotted since The Force Awakens So caught up in being diverse and political, it forgets to tell a coherent and compelling story some upset about the humour, the diversionary sub-plots, the introduction of new Force powers, and about the fact that it subverts some of the conventional Star Wars plot devices. Matyszczyk, Chris. "'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' positive vibes slipping online". CNET. Archived from the original on December 23, 2017. Commentary: An analysis of more than 5 million online mentions shows the latest Star Wars film is polarizing "Star Wars fan behind anti-Last Jedi petition denies he was 'bought off' by Disney to back down". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on January 21, 2018. The Last Jedi's treatment of Luke Skywalker and his Jedi powers contributed to the film being a "travesty" that "completely destroyed the [franchise] legacy". Schmidt, Joseph. "Rian Johnson addresses The Last Jedi backlash, says necessary for Star Wars to 'grow'". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on January 26, 2018. ...with many railing against the film’s depiction of Luke Skywalker, aspects of the Force, and other subplots. Youngs, Ian (December 20, 2017). "Star Wars: The Last Jedi – the most divisive film ever?". BBC News. Archived from the original on December 21, 2017. "I'm going to go have a funeral for my childhood now." "This is NOT the Star Wars movie you are looking for!" An online petition calling for Disney to "re-make Episode VIII properly" https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/18/16791844/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-controversy COPY OF OTHER VOX ARTICLE Cavna, Michael (December 18, 2017). "How 'The Last Jedi' became the most divisive Star Wars movie yet". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 22, 2018. polarizing On MetaCritic, commenter “LukeIsTheBest” wrote: “They literally destroyed the entire Saga.” One Rotten Tomatoes commenter, “Cynthia R,” wrote in criticizing a run of plot points: “So, let me get this straight. The guy [Luke] who helped take down the Empire has a bad day and he turns into a recluse? . . .And you wiped the extended universe just to find out that Rey’s parents are nobody after building up the mystery? . . . Your casual fan base will enjoy this movie. But this movie does a disservice to loyal geeks.” Goodmand, Stephanie (December 18, 2017). "'The Last Jedi' and You: What Fans Think of the Newest Chapter". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 21, 2017. What’s going on? There are several theories: {this is an example of an article where, instead of doing research, writers may have relied more on their own thought experiments} On Facebook, we asked what you thought of the movie and what explains the divide between fans and critics. More than 800 responses suggested that perhaps the Rotten Tomatoes fan rating wasn’t so far off. A lot of you really did not like “The Last Jedi.” excerpts from the comments: disconnect between “The Force Awakens” and “Last Jedi.” For example, Rey’s parents are set up as a big deal in one movie, then dismissed almost out of hand in the next. The Resistance and First Order are massive in one movie — in the next they are a handful of people with ships numbering in the single digits. Snoke is a major character, then discarded fairly unceremoniously. I’ve read all the new canon novels. There are several things in the movie that directly contradict many things in canon. Seeing this movie throw out parts of books that I truly love was, frankly, hurtful. I believe it has a lot to do with fanboys who are throwing tantrums about their personal predictions not coming true, and the fact that women are front and center in the film and saving the day in the end. Fanatics, me included if I’m honest, spent two full years coming up with increasingly absurd theories about Rey’s parents and the origins of Snoke. Both those things ended up being red herrings. The script was a hot mess of lazy storytelling, absurd plot holes, recycled ideas and lifeless characterizations. Over 50 percent of the movie is about an elite squadron of Star Destroyers failing to catch a single Rebel transport ship that is taking 20 hours to run out of gas. The plot was riddled with holes. Why was every serious moment broken up by a comedy moment akin to self-parody? Every Mark Hamill scene seemed to come straight out of his Stephen Colbert parody {that's of a "desparate Luke Skywalker"}, characters like Captain Phasma and Snoke were severely underdeveloped and unused, others like General Hux and Vice Admiral Holdo simply did not need to exist. I hated, really hated, that the movie could not let tension stand without cutting the moment with a punch line. Too many trembling lipped close-ups of Adam Driver, the random casino side trip, too many implausibilities, too many slow moments. I was expecting more thrills — and got more sap. 1) Luke Skywalker was not given the movie he deserved. The premise that the man who had chosen not to strike down the most evil Sith the world had ever known ever considered killing his sister’s only child was outrageous. 2) “Star Wars” is a Skywalker story. This movie is not about a Skywalker. 3) This movie is trying to get a political message across in a very heavy-handed way. That’s what “Star Trek” does, not “Star Wars.” Other fans loved the movie. Dyce, Andrew (December 16, 2017). "Star Wars: The Last Jedi's Biggest Disappointments". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on December 20, 2017. This is the author's perspective of what he was disappointed with - points: 10. SNOKE’S TRUE IDENTITY IS… NEVER EXPLORED OR RESOLVED 9. REY IS THE DAUGHTER OF… NOBODY 8. LUKE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT THE SKYWALKER LIGHTSABER 7. THE KNIGHTS OF REN STILL DON’T MATTER? 6. THE RESISTANCE HEROES MAKE EVERYTHING WORSE 5. LEIA’S FIRST USE OF THE FORCE IS… UNEXPECTED 4. THE FIRST (BORING) JEDI TEXTS Luke hadn't even read them 3. CAPTAIN PHASMA NEVER GOT HER OWN STORY 2. THE CRAIT BATTLE WASN’T A BATTLE AT ALL 1. THE FINAL SCENE Agar, Chris (December 15, 2017). "What Does The Last Jedi Reveal About Rey's Parents?". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on December 22, 2017. Author's perspective: There was an abundance of fan theories that spread across the internet, ... During the buildup to Episode VIII, it was promised Rey's parentage would be addressed in the film, and many were excited to see the reveal. ... After two years of hypothesizing, Rey's mother and father are actually two random lowlifes living on Jakku and nothing more. Busch, Caitlin (May 25, 2017). "The 7 Most Popular Theories About Rey's Real Parents". Inverse.com. Archived from the original on October 11, 2017. Audiences don’t yet know who, exactly, left a young Rey behind to fend for herself on Jakku, but people have plenty of guesses. Yee, Yip Wai Yee (December 31, 2017). "The Last Jedi divides". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on January 4, 2018. WHAT FANS ARE UNHAPPY WITH NOT OUR LUKE SKYWALKER ... DISNEY-FIED ... TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS - myriad holes in the storyline. Rey's parents turn out to be just "nobodies", while Snoke, ... is killed too easily and with little fuss and drama... Collura, Scott (December 15, 2017). "Why Do Some Star Wars Fans Hate The Last Jedi?". IGN. Archived from the original on December 20, 2017. So why is this film eliciting such a strong response? I have a few ideas { Johnson's decision to get rid of Snoke has rattled fans who have spent the past two years since TFA theorizing about and puzzling over the mysterious character's origins and true nature. The disposition of Rey's parents, ... were "nobodies," so the Luke that we finally got here had a lot to live up to. But of course, Johnson wanted to do something different ... Adding to it all is the fact that The Last Jedi, and Johnson, has killed off Luke Skywalker, a hero for so many of us for so very, very long. In a very real way, this starts to become personal.

I don't think that the current article text is representative even of the perceptions of the typically established but generalist film critics cited.

Ultimately the most significant signs of fan reaction are the number of people viewing the films multiple times or even once, the amount of merchandise sold, the number of people visiting star wars related attractions, the number providing free advertising by dressing up for events and the number of kids acting out the parts in the playground. Even when using unrepresentative titles like Rise of Skywalker for a final installment, sales have been far less than first envisaged. Audience reaction, or the lack of it, has made a huge difference.

GregKaye 23:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Fine as is. I don't feel like debating all of that again. And since this page is on my watchlist, please don't ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It'd be easier to understand what you are arguing if you proposed text. I will state now, though, that Rey's parents eventually turning out to be important is not a matter for this article. The audience response for this film should be focused on what the audience response was at the time the film was in theaters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems like there has been an endless parade of nitpicking of this page. Articles on movies should not be essays, should be neutral, should have consensus on the content and should not be too large. If you have a reasonable proposal that fits within these parameters, then propose it. After all of the revisions of this page and the amount of debate, I doubt any editor of this article will be interested in doing the work for you. Myself, I don't see anything in your text that is clearly a good add or change. You can always write an article in the Draft: space or your User: space to your liking on the audience response or whatever and see how it turns out. I don't mean to sound grumpy, but I am fairly fatigued. Alaney2k (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Greg, that is a large wall of text, and like the others said, I don't think you're going to find too many willing to sift through all that. I started to, until I realized that you are disagreeing with the sources cited; not saying that we are misinterpreting them. You then back up your disagreements by citing other sources as evidence, but as far as I can tell, they aren't always in direct support of your assertions. Perhaps you meant well, but your argument is too convoluted. You'd be better off writing a draft proposal in your sandbox and sharing that instead. And one more thing... I would steer clear of any sources that are citing audience comments from MetaCritic or Rotten Tomatoes. Anyone could have written them, and it's extremely easy to find comments that fit the narrative. That's not reliable analysis, it's garbage, and it's something news sources have been doing more and more of over the past few years. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It would be better to propose text or changes on this page. After two years and another film, there are one or two things that could be added, but I am satisfied with how this thorny issue has been addressed in the article. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thank-you. I didn't ping editors in my post but appreciate suggestions to draft. I'd seen the immediately preceeding topic which indicates the presence of an existing draft. On this basis one of my intentions was to supply a list of citations currently used with reference to issues raised by film viewers/fans as I thought that this might be useful. I provided this list in the sequence in which these citations are currently attached to the article and, as such, they don't begin with immediate support for the issues I am raising.

In the article I don't think that the list of issues final addition: "... and that Luke's actions contradicted his previous heroic portrayal" presents this issue in warranted prominence. I also argue that the divisive thing about Rey was that raised expectations in regard to her parents identities were unfulfilled. Star Wars fans don't tend to be ~snobs with expectations of characters being princesses or having other significant birth connections. Out of context, I don't think that it was the "reveal" (disclosure of conclusion/suspicion while under pressure) that Rey's parents were 'nobody' that was divisive. GregKaye 12:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Our article can only report about these controversies based on what reliable sources have reported, regardless of our opinions. The reason why the reveal of Rey's parents is mentioned prominently is because it was mentioned prominently in quite a few of these articles. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The draft was worked on in 2018. You'd want to create a new draft. Alaney2k (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with using reliable sources but hope that their contents will prove to be reliable. The article presents that a named reviewer "found that dissatisfied fans saw the film as too progressive...[4]". It's not something that I've seen prominently in on-line criticisms and, while still trying to get my facts straight according to the article's frame of reference,

I did an OR twitter search on "lastjedi" for the day before the referenced article. summary:

Search: https://twitter.com/ search?q=lastjedi%20until%3A2017-12-19%20since%3A2017-12-18 One thing that was apparent was that criticism weren't a large part of the overall comment and another was that the diverity of the cast was not negatively mentioned. Criticisms that I found on my trawl mentioned: "divisive",[5] "'Last Jedi' seriously had THE MOST WTF moment of any Star Wars movie" with pic of Luke's meeting with Rey, [6] "Apparently, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, they use Snap Chat as well...#lastjediawful",[7] "#LastJedi was a huge [middle finger] to all Star Wars fans. Please don’t let Rian Johnson anywhere near this franchise again.",[8] "A lot more ‘Disney’ than the last film. Too many jokes and bad pacing.",[9] "'The Last Jedi' is the only Star Wars movie that could actually benefit from a senate scene.",[10] its just a day's worth of search from a long time ago, but it presents a picture.

One thing that many of the initial responses to the movie also made clear was that it was widely praised for its diversity of cast. A logical response, when critics then see that the film that they liked was disliked, it may be easy to conclude that it is disliked for the same reasons that other people had liked it. However, evidence for conclusions of such dominent factors should be needed and possibilities of scapegoating tendencies can rightly be questioned.

In my earlier review of citations used in the article, it's evident that many of the cited criticisms deal with issues of "plot, or character arcs". My twitter search shows much same.

As mentioned, I'm still trying to get my facts straight and am only using this origial research to question an im*o unrepresentative lead reference used in the article. GregKaye 09:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on the scientific audience scores is there an example of another article where a vocal minority opinion receives so much attention? Star Wars is a huge IP so it's easy to find reliably sourced opinion articles on pretty much any point of view. Those opinioins, while easy to find aren't exactly notable. Spelling out the specific dissatisfaction of 10-15% of the audience seems silly. - Nemov (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Phasma is dead

Phasma definitely died, so why doesn't it say that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.136.143 (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Probably Wikipedia contributors forgot about her, just as the writers of the trilogy. Feel free to complete the article I guess though.--MediKron (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"Legacy" section

Reverted the addition by Shadowbokunohero (talk · contribs)...for the reasons I mentioned in my edit summary. Brought it to the talk page for discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Something like that could be included. Would not really say it is a legacy though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The first line is summary of the Critical response could be included in the Critical response section if editors wanted. The second line is a "Top List" and could be included under Accolades or as a subsection of it's own. Neither line has anything to do with Legacy.

On the matter of "Top Lists" that Rotten Tomatoes reference is just one list, and it is based on a slightly adjusted version of their usual Rotten Tomatoes scoring system. It would be better to mention the Metacritic overview of top ten lists for 2017,[11] which shows that the film was included on many end of year Top Lists. -- 109.78.209.8 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2020

Charlie Horner Publisher06 (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Audience Reception in Lead

I'm aware that this is a hotly debated topic, but it seems crazy that the divisive fan reception to this film is not mentioned whatsoever in the lead. 3 years since release and basically this film's whole legacy is being "the film that divided Star Wars fans", with plenty of articles written about this very legacy, many of which surely must qualify as reliable sources. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm one of the people who liked this movie, and it is amazing the lengths to which this article seeks to deny, downplay, and pooh-pooh the massive impact that this movie had on the fanbase. It barely gets one line, which treats people who didn't like the movie as babies who are upset about their pet theory of Snoke being Darth Plagueis not being true and tearing down the whole movie as a result. There's an agenda that has correlated dislike of this movie with endorsement of various unsavory political ideologies, such as incels (the director himself made this comparison), racists, and the alt-right. This is dishonest tactic which seeks to defuse and undercut any passionate dislike for this movie, and as such purports to some standard of objectivity over which movies deserve passionate dislike and which ones don't. The article about "The Last Airbender" is full of people trashing the movie, but that movie is one you are expected to passionately dislike, while you are expected to like "The Last Jedi" and any passionate dislike for it is therefore viewed as suspicious. --TeslaK20 (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You could write an article just about the number of people wanting to write about the audience reception. Alaney2k (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We could start a WP:RfC on this. I think it's time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We already have, and a strong consensus was reached in favor of not mentioning in the lead. That’s not whitewashing, that’s simply respecting the fact that no reliable audience score indications show any fan backlash. If anything, the lead should mention the highly positive audience scores. Toa Nidhiki05 15:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

A source here. [12] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We've been over this. That's a source discussing user reviews from Rotten Tomatoes, which are unreliable as user-generated content. User-generated scores from any outlet are unreliable. Most articles calling the film "divisive" cite the RT score, which has now been admitted by RT to have been manipulated by a review-bombing campaign. This campaign, combined with that of Captain Marvel, was so bad that they had to modify the way they did audience scores. For obvious reasons, this isn't an acceptable thing to rely on - and any source relying on it is making that same mistake. The fact the score is even mentioned here at all if frankly ridiculous, but that's what the consensus was.

On the other hand, all three legitimate, scientific polling methods (CinemaScore, SurveyMonkey, and PostTrak) showed highly positive reception. There is not a single credible audience poll that rates the film poorly. We go off of reliable sources here, not anonymous internet review-bombing campaigns. Toa Nidhiki05 15:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You stated, "We already have, and a strong consensus was reached in favor of not mentioning in the lead." Where is the RfC specifically about mentioning the audience reception in the lead? I'm not talking about the RfC for including the audience response aspect; I was obviously heavily involved with that.

Also, regardless of what one thinks about the true audience reception, we should be adhering to the WP:Lead guideline. The same reasons for not including this aspect of the reception in the lead were given for not creating an audience response section including the information it does. And, well, we know those arguments didn't hold up. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

We have adhered to it. Audience responses aren't typically included in the lead. Any mention of it would need to adopt to the actual standards of Wikipedia: mention the reliable polls showed highly favorable responses, and that the so-called audience scores were manipulated and vote-brigaded with many comments being outright racist or misognystic. The amount of space spent on that would not only disproportionate, it simply isn't something we normally do. Toa Nidhiki05 22:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

We haven't. Not fully. WP:Lead is clear that the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The audience reception is one of the article's most important points; its importance is why consensus deemed that this material should be included. It's a section in the article, not a passing mention or a lone paragraph. It is something covered in an academic source: Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 10#Academic source for the Audience response section. And it's probably covered in more academic sources by now. It is a prominent controversy with respect to the Star Wars fandom; the sources on the matter support that. I'm not trying to get the material in the lead, but I see no valid argument to keep it out of the lead. And summarizing the matter in the lead without the piece being disproportionate is easy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Except it isn't one of the article's most important points, and even if we do sum it up, we have to go off actual studies - not unreliable audience scores. Any rational summary would have to be very short - shorter than critical assessment. And going off our sources? Would be something like "The film received highly positive scores from scientific surveys of audiences, but it was targeted by a review-bombing campaign on sites like Rotten Tomatoes. Toa Nidhiki05 00:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

CinemaScore, polling initial audience reactions leaving the theater on opening night, is not an accurate way of measuring the long-lasting legacy of a movie among audiences. May I remind you that "The Phantom Menace" has an A- score - yet has been the source of immense ire among the fanbase for decades. If an outside observer relied solely on these "scientific" polling methods, one would come to the conclusion that there is in fact no fan controversy over the prequels and that fans regard "The Phantom Menace" as a good movie. No real observer would argue that that is the case. --TeslaK20 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's actually highly reliable and is widely used and cited, with scientific polling methods. And notice we don't mention audience backlash in the lead there. Toa Nidhiki05 00:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Initial polling is not highly reliable: people feel pressured to say they like it out of loyalty. Everyone that saw Episode I: Phantom Menace said to like it initially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renassault (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In the last RfC for this article, Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 7#RfC: criticism in the lead (May 2018), the idea of including fan controversy in the lead was touched on and turned down. The takeaway was that two things essentially needed to happen first. One, we needed reliable information from long-term, scholarly sources that have researched the issue and provided an unbiased assessment of the film's audience reception. At the time, we only had reliable sources commenting on unreliable metrics and numbers from Rotten Tomatoes, and some even made it worse by sampling their own posts on social media citing those as further evidence. To compound the issue, Rotten Tomatoes admitted more than a year after the film's release in March 2019 that Last Jedi was "seriously targeted", making the numbers there even more unreliable, despite efforts by their moderators to weed out suspicious reviews. Two, we needed an editor from the pro-lead movement to offer up a suggestion on what exactly they wanted the lead to say. Doing that would move the discussion forward and allow editors to work toward an acceptable compromise. To date, neither has happened that I'm aware of.

This isn't to say that the amount of coverage in newspapers and other short-sighted sources wasn't extensive. Of course it was. We're just saying what we had in 2018 was a form of WP:RECENTISM that needed additional support from highly-reputable sources with a long-term, historical view in mind. Personally, I think a new RfC should wait after said sources are gathered, and at the very least, until an attempt was made on the talk page to reach a compromise. Specific phrasing on what the pro-lead crowd wants to see could go a long way and negate the need for another lengthy RfC. Watch out for SPA's that like to jump into these conversations and throw them into chaos, calling opposing editors dishonest. There's already one in this discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have been using Wikipedia since before 2006, although I am not a frequent editor and as such rarely use my account. I am not a SPA. This is exactly the definition of dishonesty - calling people who disagree with you trolls or illegitimate users. --TeslaK20 (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05 stated, "Except it isn't one of the article's most important points." Per what I've argued above, that is incorrect, and I'm not going to keep arguing this matter. Toa Nidhiki05 stated, "[A]nd even if we do sum it up, we have to go off actual studies." That is incorrect. We'd go off of what is already in the article. Just like we don't need studies to relay any of that, we don't need studies to summarize that aspect in the lead. As for what wording we would use, that would be something for the RfC to resolve...or for an additional RfC specifically about wording to resolve if consensus for mentioning audience reception in the lead was established in the previous RfC. That, or plain ole consensus via involved editors.

GoneIn60, that 2018 RfC asked the following: "Should we mention the criticism, divisiveness, and/or controversy surrounding The Last Jedi in the lead section of the article?" It was not about including complete audience reception in the lead. Of course, we shouldn't just mention negative audience reception. If that was an actual RfC instead of simply being titled one, it's an RfC with few responses. It's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS RfC, one mainly including those involved with the article. The one I started about whether we should have an audience reception section -- Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 2#Should we include an Audience response section? -- had a lot of feedback. I disagree with any notion that we need additional support "from highly-reputable sources with a long-term, historical view in mind assessment" before we can mention audience reception, including the divisiveness aspect, in the lead. To me, trying to keep this out of the lead is the same as editors having tried to keep an audience reception section out of the article. I got fed up with that, and stared an RfC on it. And just like I knew would happen, consensus was for including the section. If I started an RfC on this lead matter, and advertised it at WP:Film, related WikiProjects, and at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, I have no doubt that consensus would be for mentioning audience reception in the lead. I won't start one at this point in time, but I am very likely to do so when this comes up again or if this discussion continues to where it's clear that I should just start an RfC now. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread began with, "it seems crazy that the divisive fan reception to this film is not mentioned whatsoever in the lead". The RfC I linked to, although somewhat limited in participation, specifically addressed divisiveness and controversy in the lead and the closer remarked, "The consensus was definitely for excluding any mention of either issue in the lead paragraphs." In the discussion section, you and I made our respective points about that. In fact, you even said, "Whatever the case, we have to wait until sources cover the matter in that detail. Like I noted before, I have no doubt that the divisive stuff concerning this film will make its way into academic books, just like prequel stuff did." Have you changed your position and no longer believe additional sources are needed?

Also, it should be noted that I participated in that original "audience response" RfC you proudly started and !voted Yes. Even to this day, I still believe the audience response section is necessary; not because I believed the "divisiveness" was absolutely clear, but simply because there was so much coverage early on of the RT audience scores and possible vote tampering (the latter of which was eventually confirmed). The unhappy fans were extremely vocal for this film, but the number of disgruntled fans was never properly quantified.

Let me repeat something as well that I've said many times on these talk pages. I am NOT opposed to mentioning overall audience reception in the lead. I just personally preferred to wait for stronger sources to appear, and if you think you have those already, then let's bring them to the table and hash it out. Bring existing sources already cited in the article if you feel those are enough. Let's also propose some wording and get it settled. There's no need to drag this out for 30 days in an RfC just yet. Let's give the process a chance to work and allow involved editors a chance to reach a consensus. Then if that's not possible, I'd be the first to agree with submitting an RfC (and may even beat you to the punch!). --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Whatever I stated back then, I don't think I held the notion that we need additional support "from highly-reputable sources with a long-term, historical view in mind assessment" before we can mention audience reception, including the divisiveness aspect, in the lead. And, as pointed to above, I did eventually produce one academic source covering the matter in detail. Yes, I remember and can see what you argued. One thing you stated is the following: "This shows that fan divisiveness was in fact a prominent aspect in sources, judging from the amount of coverage it received. That definitely justifies our coverage of it on Wikipedia."

As for the rest, I understand what you are stating. But because it's clear that one or a few editors vehemently disagree with mentioning audience reception in the lead, I'm not sure that we (meaning more than just the two of us) can come to an agreement about inclusion and wording without at least one RfC. And I'd rather not present sources when we already have sufficient ones in the article. In my opinion, all we should do is summarize the audience reception section in the lead. Obviously, we have to do that right. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Because of the way this thread started out by honing in on fan divisiveness, I think we need to give editors the benefit of the doubt that there may have been some confusion. We have enough participation here, by the way, to overrule one or two opposing editors. The important thing to do is to give it a chance; at most, you only lose a few days before RfC escalation. Also a comment or two early on by an uninvolved editor wasn't exactly conducive in fostering a collaborative atmosphere. Now that we've moved past all that, those who feel the audience reception is a major aspect of the topic should feel free to present the proposed text. My recommendation is to paint with a broad stroke here and keep it very brief, leaning on elements with the strongest verifiability. Doing so will have the best chance at a swift local consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's worth noting that I'm the only one who has proposed any language for a lede section. Toa Nidhiki05 13:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, noted. Since you weren't pushing for the lead to be changed, perhaps the suggestion needs to come from an editor who is. Then we can see just how far apart we are here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Are there any takers from the pro-lead camp? All this talk about having something in the lead but no one from that camp wants to make a proposal? --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating all of this, no. When it comes to this article, I was tired out by doing what I could to get the audience reception section in this article and to get it in the article in the right way. Regarding this latest case, my argument is that audience reception material, and not just the positive stuff, belongs in the lead. But I'm not one of the ones trying to get it in the lead/eager to get it in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If nobody here has a proposal, not sure why we’re discussing this. Toa Nidhiki05 13:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Because another talk page section was started on it, and editors have given their opinions on the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the idea is not the include of a mention that there was a fan split or whatever, but that it has to be encyclopedic. To those who think it is a big deal, it is a big deal, and it must be mentioned. But those of us like me who think that thousands, or even a million of negative opinions compared to the overall many millions of fans is notable, don't. If you think it is notable, then try making a stand-alone article of it, and see if it passes GNG. There were plenty of disgruntled opinions over Force Awakens and Rise of Skywalker and all of the prequels. What does it tell us? It's that it is completely normal for fans to react and have an opinion. It goes with the franchise. This one movie and the audience reception towards it, are just part of the never-ending story. I would chalk up any rabidity in the opinions to this movie to the rise of social media, and how many more voices are visible, or the growth in hacking, not the movie itself. Alaney2k (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't need a standalone article. And creating a standalone article for it, as opposed to briefly mentioning it in the lead, would be the worse option. As for notability, the RfC for including a section on it already determined that it is notable enough (well, actually WP:Due enough since our notability guideline, except for the WP:No page section, is about creating articles) for us to mention. We have a whole section on it. And as such... Never mind. I'm not going to repeat myself on the lead matter. Anyway, I see that an RfC on this inevitable. For those that want to try debating and debating wording to use before another RfC is started (whenever that will be) or so that another RfC on this topic is not started, Basil the Bat Lord and TeslaK20, let's hear it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If you're not going to propose anything, stop threatening an RfC. Patently ridiculous to utterly waffle on the actual question here and insist on an RfC for something you can't even be bothered to make suggestion for while we are having a discussion right now. Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I get that this is frustrating, but anyone can start an RfC at any time if they feel the need. I don't want Flyer to feel like they are backed into a corner here. My understanding is that all editors in this discussion are open to the possibility of having something in the lead, but whether or not we ultimately support it depends on the proposed wording. There's no deadline. The ball is simply in the proposer's court. Moving this forward depends on the proposer's schedule, whomever that might be, whenever that might be. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, there is no "threatening an RfC." How about you stop trying to shut down discussion? That never works for you. As for "something [I] can't even be bothered to make suggestion for while we are having a discussion right now"? This is not about me. This topic keeps coming up, just like whether or not to have an audience reception section kept coming up. I don't have to propose anything to try to settle the matter, especially if it means dealing with an editor who is going to reject whatever is proposed simply because that editor doesn't want the divisiveness aspect added to the lead. And if I want an RfC started on it to see what a variety of editors (rather than just the same few at this article) think and to settle the matter that way, I will start one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how I’m going to oppose literally any suggestion when I’m literally the only one here with a proposal. Toa Nidhiki05 04:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion is the following: "The film received highly positive scores from scientific surveys of audiences, but it was targeted by a review-bombing campaign on sites like Rotten Tomatoes." It was just you throwing something out there and you didn't seem serious about adding anything. It also doesn't tell the whole story since, as made clear by various editors, including those who supported creating an audience reception section, the divisiveness aspect is not just about some review-bombing campaign. It's not just about people fiddling with the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. It's also about what is stated in the last paragraph of the audience reception section. Furthermore, I did not mention you by name when stating "an editor who is going to reject whatever is proposed simply because that editor doesn't want the divisiveness aspect added to the lead." You aren't the only one. For example, we can see what Alaney2k stated above. I don't want to debate any of this with you because it's never productive when I debate anything with you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have a better suggestion, make one. Toa Nidhiki05 12:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We've been over this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended sidebar of responses

I’ll take that as a no, you don’t have a better suggestion. Toa Nidhiki05 12:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC) What did GoneIn60 state again? "I don't want Flyer to feel like [she is] backed into a corner here." In other words, you need to learn to back off. You can't make me feel backed into a corner, but I find it humorous and silly that you are pushing me on this, given that things never go your way when I propose something and bring in various other editors. And per my recent posts above, bringing in various others is what I would be doing. I would not be wasting time crafting a proposal to your skewed liking. It tickles me that you came back here days later just to make that snide remark. Did it take you days to think it over? Must have since you've been active in the days since your reply before that. My "03:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)" post regarding suggestions is clear. I'm not repeating myself on that again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Yes, I get it, you don't want to discuss things in the discussion we are having right now. Instead you'd rather discuss them in a different discussion with a bunch of other people. Rather than even bothering to try for a local consensus or even to discuss in good faith, you are instead outright refusing to discuss anything. But somehow I, the only one to make a proposal here, am the one who is "skewed". Gotcha. Toa Nidhiki05 04:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC) No, you don't get it. And apparently can't take "no" for an answer. Move on. You are embarrassing yourself. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC) I’m sure you would think that. Toa Nidhiki05 13:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Yep. No reason not to. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose standalone article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Support including it in the lede. The suitable wording might include "The film was a box office success and scored favourably in polls of audiences during its theatrical release, though its plot decisions were controversial within the Star Wars fanbase" or "was targeted with review-bombing campaigns on websites like Rotten Tomatoes". Anywikiuser (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Anywikiuser, if using "and" instead of "or" since both of those things make up the audience response, that's a decent proposal. But what sites other than Rotten Tomatoes were subjected to a review-bombing campaign? I imagine that others were, but the sources focused on Rotten Tomatoes. It seems that Metacritic was also subjected to vote brigading, but does it equate to a review-bombing campaign? No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Innaccurate Reception

Is there a particular reason, standard or protocol at play as to why the reception section of this movie is so incomplete (to the point of inaccuracy). The vast majority of people had an extreme dislike of this movie, and the next one in the series, for its non-sensical writing and poor character development. I understand wanting to base the reception section off of a select group of critics but when it leads to so much inaccuracy one must wonder if this approach is biased and unsuitable for what Wikipedia is trying to achieve.2A00:23C7:D87:3100:E651:B0AB:680B:4DA4 (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are new to Wikipedia, you may want to have a look at WP:V and WP:RS. For film reception, this may also help: MOS:FILM#Critical response. In a nutshell, reception sections adhere to what reliable sources have reported, not what blogs, social media, or other unreliable venues may conclude or insinuate. After becoming familiar with those guidelines I linked to, feel free to post here what you believe is missing, needs corrected, or is just flat out incorrect. There's always room for improvement. Just be specific on what you'd like to see changed. It would also be helpful to know whether you're referring to "critical response" or "audience reception". You can also look through this talk page's history for past discussions involving dozens of editors. This has been a very contentious topic that resulted in heated debate and a lot of compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I admire your reasoned response to what is clearly an insult to the editors who sincerely work on Wikipedia. And not a valid criticism of the article. An unproveable statement is not a basis for reason. Alaney2k (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the plot

So there are specific things I feel should be added into the plot:

• Rose basically telling Finn why fighting the First Order truly matters. Scene below:

FINN: What are those things?

ROSE: Fathiers. I've never seen a real one.

FINN: Look, this whole place is beautiful. I mean, come on. Why do you hate it so much?

ROSE: Look closer. My sister and I grew up in a poor mining system. The First Order stripped our ore to finance its military.... then shelled us to test their weapons. They took everything we had. And who do you think these people are? There's only one business in the galaxy that'll get you this rich.

FINN: War.

ROSE: Selling weapons to the First Order. I wish I could put my fist through this whole lousy, beautiful town.

Anyway, it's part of Finn's arc in which he accepts that he has to fight for the greater good of the galaxy. When Finn and Rose release the animals and they cause a ruckus, this is the moment Finn, for the first time, gets a taste of what it's like to fight for the cause. Finn fully accepts his role when defeating Phasma.

• Rey's story arc about her accepting that the belonging she seeks will never be her parents because of their sins. In the film, she wants to know who her parents are, believing that if they turn out to be great people she would automatically assume her future has something to do with this (hence why she asks Luke to "show her, her place in all of this"), and would use that destiny as a way to reinforce the lie she believes that her parents loved her, she refuses to accept that her parents were bad people; basically, she wants to feel loved by her parents. It's true that most of what I described isn't explicitly stated, but this can be inferred. Then Kylo Ren forces her to admit what she knew and has "hidden away," she responds they were nobody, she begins to cry because her parents being nobody means that they had no good reason to leave her on Jakku, meaning they thought she was worthless.

• Regarding the Poe storyline, Holdo's refusal to tell Poe anything regarding any plans she may have is the thing that motivates him to approve Finn and Rose's plan to shut down the tracker on the Supremacy. Also the point of Holdo is so we'd assume at first that she is a bad guy and we wouldn't trust her since we know nothing about her at this point, so we, as the audience, would side with Poe, and when it's revealed she was competent the entire time it shows how impulsive Poe truly is. Add to in the Crait section in the plot summary that Poe realizes that he would be wasting lives as the speeders are so weak they would do nothing to the cannon, at this point he has stopped being impulsive and began to think more of his actions, so he calls off the attack. Basically, Poe's arc is that he learns to control his impulsives and think more properly, because if he doesn't think properly then it would result in chaos.

I understand the Wikipedia rules stating that there should be between 400-700 words, but these are important to specific character arcs.

174.74.236.174 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There could be a place for that in the Finn (Star Wars) article and other character articles. Alaney2k (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 02:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 02:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Remove Frank Oz from the infobox since he's not in the billing block.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• [[Lucasfilm Ltd.]] → [[Lucasfilm|Lucasfilm Ltd.]]

 Not done per WP:NOTBROKEN and consistent with Episodes VII and IX. Chompy Ace 22:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• A reference is needed for the film being dedicated to Carrie Fisher as it doesn't appear in any other section.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Star Wars: The Last Jedi (soundtrack) somewhere in "returned to compose the score" (maybe in "the score").

 Done Chompy Ace 21:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Plot

• Remove the comma after "dragged into space".

 Done Chompy Ace 22:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the comma after "the Jedi library".

 Done Chompy Ace 21:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Cast

• In the hatnote, swap List of Star Wars cast members and List of Star Wars characters per consistency with The Force Awakens and The Rise of Skywalker.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• The first reference after "slot machine" is dead.

 Fixed Chompy Ace 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• The reference after "Force spirit" is dead.

 Fixed Chompy Ace 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is the reference after "Commander D'Acy" necessary since it's already cited at the end of the sentence?

 Fixed Chompy Ace 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Lily Cole is not in this source.

Replaced with the BFI. Chompy Ace 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• The last paragraph in this section has some really short sentences. Try combining some.

 Done Chompy Ace 21:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Production

Development

• Link Star Wars, Lucasfilm, J. J. Abrams, The Force Awakens, Bob Iger, and Kathleen Kennedy.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is the quote from Kathleen Kennedy needed? Can it be changed to "In December, Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy said that the film had not been mapped out and..."?

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• In that same sentence, the use of the phrase "with Johnson and that Johnson" seems repetitive. Try rewording or splitting the sentences.

 Done reworded Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• The sentence starting with "Abrams is an executive producer" seems out of place. Maybe change it to "Additionally, Abrams served as an executive producer".

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Combine the last two paragraphs in this section together and move January 23, 2017, to the beginning of the sentence it's in.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• The last sentence doesn't work without context. Add context and change "Carrie" to Carrie Fisher.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• "[[Kathleen Kennedy]]" → "[[Kathleen Kennedy (producer)|Kathleen Kennedy]]"

 Done Chompy Ace 01:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Lucasfilm in the first sentence.

 Done Chompy Ace 01:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• "revealed this as" → "revealed that"

 Done Chompy Ace 01:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing

• Link Rey.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• "scene to Luke" → "scene to Luke Skywalker"

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Combine the last two paragraphs.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Casting

• The first reference after "playing a villain" is dead.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Laura Dern, Kelly Marie Tran, and Yoda.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Tran plays" → "Tran would play"

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Filming

• Link Skellig Michael, Pinewood Studios, and Star Wars Trilogy.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• The reference after "filming in Mexico" only mentions Mexico once, and links to this source from Excélsior, so I would cite that instead.

 Done removed per Special:MobileDiff/1007271016 Chompy Ace 23:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Starting that same sentence with "In November 2014, Ivan Dunleavy, chief executive of Pinewood Studios, confirmed" seems misleading as the last part was from December 2015 and was said by Kathleen Kennedy. I suggest rewording, splitting, or just moving the last part farther down in #Filming.

 Done reworded Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't spot a change so this still feels misleading. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done removed per Special:MobileDiff/1007271016 Chompy Ace 02:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The reference after "March 2016" is dead.

 Fixed Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is "In September 2015, del Toro revealed that principal photography would begin in March 2016; Kennedy later said filming would begin in January 2016." necessary? Both sentences contradict themselves, making it harder for readers, and the point is already made in the next paragraph.

 Done removed "Kennedy later said filming would begin in January 2016." sentence Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• In this source, there's no mention of filming in Bolivia taking place in July.

 Fixed removed date Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• "[[Star Wars#Prequel trilogy|prequel trilogy]]" → "[[Star Wars prequel trilogy|prequel trilogy]]"

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bringing the Spanish source back change "at the Salar de Uyuni salt flats in Bolivia." to "at the Salar de Uyuni salt flats in Bolivia. Additional filming took place in Mexico."

 Done Chompy Ace 20:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Music

• "Star Wars Celebration Europe" → "Star Wars Celebration Europe"

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• The second reference in the first sentence is from June, so change "Kennedy announced" to "Kennedy confirmed".

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Star Wars sequel trilogy.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Don't link conducting per WP:OVERLINK.

 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• The first reference after "the sessions" is dead.

 Fixed Chompy Ace 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Release

• This source doesn't mention Shrine Auditorium. I'm sure a better reference can be swapped in that does.

Replaced with Los Angeles Daily News Chompy Ace 23:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Marketing

• Remove "were released on October 12" as it's already mentioned.

 Done Chompy Ace 23:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• This section is really short so I would combine all three paragraphs.

 Done Chompy Ace 23:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• "The Last Jedi: Visual Dictionary" → "The Last Jedi: The Visual Dictionary" (the actual title)

 Done Chompy Ace 23:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Home media

• This subsection looks good.

 Already done Chompy Ace 23:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Reception

Box office

• "$712.6 million" → "$712.5 million"

 Done Chompy Ace 23:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Fix the link in "seventh-biggest of all time".

 Fixed Chompy Ace 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's now the eighth biggest, not the seventh.

 Done Chompy Ace 23:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

United States and Canada

• Link Rogue One.

 Done Chompy Ace 23:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Since its been a while, also link The Force Awakens.

 Done Chompy Ace 23:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• A reference is needed for the film opening at "4,232 theaters".

 Done Chompy Ace 23:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• "a total of 67.5%" → "a total of 67%"

 Done Chompy Ace 23:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• "$71.6 million" → "$71.7 million"

 Done Chompy Ace 23:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• "$23.7 million" → "$23.6 million"

 Done Chompy Ace 23:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Other countries

• "set in France" → "set in various countries, including France"

 Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• What does "compared the opening of The Force Awakens" even mean? Is the sentence finished?

 Done removed Chompy Ace 02:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• "which compared the opening" → "compared to the opening"

 Done removed Chompy Ace 02:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The reference after "92 percent" links to this more in-depth source, so cite that instead.

 Done Chompy Ace 02:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• According to Box Office Mojo, The Last Jedi actually grossed $42.5 million in China. If you don't want to cite that, here's an from The Hollywood Reporter.

 Fixed added pre-existing reference Chompy Ace 02:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The reference after "showtimes by 90%" has the wrong title.

 Fixed Chompy Ace 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Critical response

• Update Rotten Tomatoes.

 Done Chompy Ace 01:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Try removing some quotes per WP:RECEPTION.

 Done Chompy Ace 01:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Audience reception

• "2.67 stars" → "2.6 stars"

 Done Chompy Ace 01:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• "4.3 out of 10" → "4.2 out of 10"

 Done Chompy Ace 01:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Some Multiple claims in the last paragraph have THREE citations each. Try removing some per WP:OVERLINK.

 Done have reduced to one or two citations, and one from the first sentence in this section is converted into a bundle Chompy Ace 08:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

See here and here. I restored the refs, but I bundled them. See WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:Citation overkill. I think the reviewer meant WP:Citation overkill, not WP:OVERLINK. WP:OVERLINK isn't about refs. The refs aren't redundant. They are there so that that the sentences are fully verified. If we say "several reviewers" and only have one reviewer supporting the sentence, that leaves the sentence somewhat unverified. There's also a WP:Hidden note in the section showing that the section was crafted after a lot of discussion. ReaperRoe (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

However, there are now duplicate citations to the same source. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 18:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What duplicates? We're allowed to use the same ref more than once. That's what WP:REFNAME is for. And it's fine for us to use a ref both in a bundle and on its own. ReaperRoe (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Chompy Ace 20:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying that the same reference is listed more than once (you can find the citation from Ian Youngs in #References five times). You can simply fix this with a better cite bundle using something like <ref name="Youngs"/> multiple times. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 20:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Accolades

• For the 2018 Teen Choice Awards, change "August 13, 2018" to "August 12, 2018"

 Done Chompy Ace 02:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick, Stuart Wilson, and Chris Corbould.

 Done Chompy Ace 06:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link each nominee every time they are listed per MOS:REPEATLINK.

 Done Chompy Ace 06:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Fix the link to British Academy Film Awards by simply adding an "s".

 Done Chompy Ace 06:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Can a secondary source for the Academy Awards be added, such as this?

Replaced with Los Angeles Times Chompy Ace 01:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• This reference doesn't include the nominees for the BAFTA Award for Best Special Visual Effects.

Replaced with Entertainment Weekly Chompy Ace 06:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• For the MTV Award, can "Best Actor in a Movie" be changed to "Best Performance in a Movie" per the source used?

 Done Chompy Ace 06:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Add rowspans to the various yet identical Teen Choice Awards.

 Done Chompy Ace 06:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Rick Heinrichs.

 Done Chompy Ace 20:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sequel

• This section looks good.

 Already done Chompy Ace 06:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• Mark citations from Vanity Fair with "url-access=limited".

 Done Chompy Ace 21:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Per consistency with the rest of the article, Yahoo! and Bleeding Cool should not be in italics.

 Done Chompy Ace 06:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Mark citations from The Washington Post with "url-access=limited".

 Done Chompy Ace 08:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Anthony Breznican

 Done Chompy Ace 08:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Dave McNary

 Done Chompy Ace 08:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Robbie Collin

 Done Chompy Ace 10:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Todd McCarthy

 Not done reference had been removed (See #Critical response) Chompy Ace 10:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Will Gompertz

 Done Chompy Ace 10:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Mark Kermode

 Not done as The Observer was removed due to its tabloid format Chompy Ace 01:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Owen Gleiberman

 Done Chompy Ace 10:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Link Michael Cavna

 Done Chompy Ace 10:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The New Yorker should be marked as "url-access=limited", not "url-access=subscription".

 Fixed Chompy Ace 01:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Alirjaafar" → "Jaafar; Ali"

 Done removed per Special:MobileDiff/1007271016 Chompy Ace 06:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The last reference, located after "with Chris Terrio" in #Sequel, is not working.

 Fixed Chompy Ace 06:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Progess

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Summary of critical reception in lead

In a recent edit, I removed "ensemble cast" from the lead sentence about the critical reception as this is not discussed in the article body. I also removed "visual effects" and "musical score" as those seem redundant when the sentence also discusses Academy Award nominations for those categories, especially since there is no other mention of the music or visual effects in the article body outside of these nominations. The "action sequences" seems like WP:SYNTH because that is from a single review in the main body, but Rotten Tomatoes critical summary mentions "all the emotion-rich action fans could hope for", and so I did not remove that again after Toa Nidhiki05 objected to my previous edit. Are there sources that discuss the ensemble cast, music, or visual effects that we could add into the main body before they are put into the lead (outside of individual reviews to avoid SYNTH)? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by IPs always add that crap (i.e. musical score, action sequences, etc.) to a lot of films with reception summaries in the lead. I agree that the lead shouldn't state anything that isn't explicitly covered in the body. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)