Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Update

Some aspects of this page need to be updated. Naf140230 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You are going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Considering the continuous edits to just about everything since the film's release, I can not imagine what you think needs updating, so you are going to have to tell us. oknazevad (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Video game

Warner Bros. confirmed that there will be a video game based on the film releasing on June 28th for Wii U and Nintendo 3DS. If someone could add this in. Thank you very much! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

That would be Lego Star Wars: The Force Awakens and it's on all current systems. Gistech (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"Based on" in the infobox

In the infobox, the Based on section says "Characters by George Lucas". Would this not make people who are not familiar with the Star Wars universe assume that the characters of Rey, Finn, and Kylo Ren were created by Lucas, which is not true? What do you think about changing it to something else besides characters? Because there are a very small fraction of the characters created by Lucas, specifically only the characters from the Original Trilogy. Idealist343 (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is this credit shown on the poster billing block? It's not an adaptation, it's a continuation of the series, based on is redundant. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't debating whether or not we should have a based on section, which is kinda redundant, I guess. I am just saying that Characters by George Lucas is not wholly true. Idealist343 (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "based on" implies that every character was Lucas's - adaptations are generally not pure representations of the source. Either way, I still think it's still unnecessary for the reasons Darkwarriorblake has stated. --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Idealist343 (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

After some research, it is actually in the credits of the movie. I retract my objection. Idealist343 (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That fact is immaterial to me, frankly. Of course it's based on characters by Lucas, and the credits would rightly acknowledge that - but does that mean it should be stated as such in the infobox field, which implies something rather different (an adaptation, as discussed above)? I still say remove it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My main problem with it is that it could cause confusion for some newcomers to the series. Idealist343 (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake Fru1tbat I'm strongly against removing "Based on", the film's credits explicitly say "Based on characters by George Lucas". And it's true, regardless of it being a continuation of a franchise. Why would it confuse readers? The lead sentence explicitly says "Episode VII" and "seventh installment". Besides, not all adaptations are faithful and don't add or change new characters. Overall, if it's in the credits, it should be in the IB parameters available. I'm not sure that there is a consensus to remove it, considering it was already done. κατάσταση 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement "if it's in the credits, it should be in the IB parameter available". The fact that the IB says "based on" and the film credits say "based on" do not mean they're equivalent in meaning. The parameter, to me, does not imply an installment in a franchise that simply changed hands, but rather an adaptation of an existing work. Note that the infobox documentation for that field says Insert the title of the source material and the name(s) of the source material writer(s). Use this field in conjunction with screenplay and story where applicable (i.e. "Screen story") if films are based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays etc. That does not really seem appropriate for the continuation of a rather large franchise. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

To readers, what the parameter space in the Template page says is pretty much irrelevant. How is "Based on" in this film different from other films? Many sequels use "Based on", and this case applies to TFA. In fact, if the credits explicitly state "based on", then it is in fact somewhat of an adaptation. Regardless, I doubt readers will be confused and believe this film is purely an adaptation and not a sequel. Like I said, the opening paragraph of the lead makes it very clear that this is a continuation. κατάσταση 21:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the infobox guideline "Insert the title of the source material and the name(s) of the source material writer(s). Use this field in conjunction with screenplay and story where applicable (i.e. "Screen story") if films are based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays etc. Use or similar formatting where possible. Do not use this field where the source material is ambiguous." It says nothing about it being applicable for use on sequels to existing films, it's for adaptations. It's purpose in the article here seems to be just to get George Lucas' name in the infobox since presumably, had Lucas directed the film, it would not directed by george lucas based on characters by george lucas. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The source material is not ambiguous. "Based on characters created by George Lucas". It's directly stated in the credits. I believe Disney/Abrams/Lucasfilm did this because it had no involvement from Lucas and they were expanding upon a material that was not created by them, thus being "based on" Lucas' characters, even if from a certain point of view it's not true. To me, the assertion that the purpose is just to get Lucas' name in the IB is wrong. It's not there to have Lucas' name, it's there to inform readers of the credits correctly. κατάσταση 21:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WP content is not based on "truth", it's based on verifiable "facts" (there is a difference). If the credits stated "based on characters created by Pope John Paul II" and that is verified with reliable sources, then in gets included, even if it's complete bullshit. - ^theWOLFchild 22:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup, my point exactly. κατάσταση 22:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - If this item is listed in the film's credits, why would there be any concern, or opposition, to having it the film's article? It should remain. Clearly LucasFilm/Disney wasn't concerned about causing "confusion" to "newcomers". This shouldn't be a concern for WP either. - ^theWOLFchild 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My contention is that the "based on" field in the infobox is not necessarily intended to be for the same purpose as the "based on" credit. Forget that the wording happens to be the same - the wording is, for the purposes of this discussion, completely arbitrary. The intent is what matters - the infobox is used to convey relevant information to a reader, not to transcibe directly from a film's credits.

So: If the purpose of the "based on" field on Wikipedia is for adaptations of source material, and if the purpose for including the credit was some Hollywood legal or contractual requirement, or just to give Lucas due credit, or whatever, then the purposes are not the same, and any argument based on the fact that the credits state such-and-such is therefore irrelevant. That is the crux of the issue, not the existence of the text in the film's credits, and that's what we should base inclusion on.

Now, I would contend, judging from the instructions on the infobox's page, that the intended purpose of the "based on" field is for adaptations of source material, not for just any work in a franchise. This case does not fit that. Therefore, I don't think it should be included. That's my logic.

--Fru1tbat (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't know if it was a contractual obligation or if they wanted to give Lucas due credit, and we can only speculate on that, which would be irrelevant. The fact is, the credits say "Based on characters created by George Lucas" and, as of now, that is all we know. We don't know if it's factual, but we know that this is verifiable and its stated in the credits, and it is relevant to include screenwriting credits in the infobox. κατάσταση 22:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if we know why it was included in the credits. Whatever the reason, it's obviously (to me) not for the same reason we generally use that infobox field, which is adaptations, not episodes. I'm not sure why you're bringing up screenwriting credits, which have their own field... Invoking verifiability here is irrelevant - nobody is arguing about whether or not it's verifiable that the credits state Ep VII was based on characters created by Lucas. I'm arguing that by including it in the infobox, you're using the infobox field wrong. --Fru1tbat (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In an archived discussion about this infobox parameter, it appears the consensus was to allow even "loosely" based on source material to populate this field. It was also mentioned that the film's credits were an acceptable "starting point", and that "sequels featuring the same characters" also provides justification. In light of this, I would support leaving the Lucas credit in. I didn't see any evidence from the archived discussions I came across that this is an incorrect use of the field, despite the arguments presented here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fru1tbat When I said "screenwriting credits" I meant the story/based on credits as well. I think the IB field does not strictly fit only for straight adaptations, and, like GoneIn60 said, it has a broader meaning. Ultimately, I believe that it is in the credits, and there is no reason to remove it from the infobox. I hardly think it'll confuse readers. As I said, it is pretty clear from the article's lead and body that this is in fact a sequel. κατάσταση 03:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

GoneIn60, thanks for providing that discussion link. I still prefer a more narrow application, but if the community has decided it can be applied broadly, even to episodes/sequels in a franchise, I can live with it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment - thewolfchild: Disney did word it different in the credits though. It said Based on Original Characters by George Lucas. Idealist343 (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply - Idealist343 - Um... ok. - ^theWOLFchild 06:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

thewolfchild: I was just saying, because you said "Clearly LucasFilm/Disney wasn't concerned about causing "confusion" to "newcomers" which I agree with. I agree that it should stay in the article and all. But just using the word characters and not Original could imply that the Characters of Rey and Finn and Kylo and others were also created by Lucas. Like I said, it was just a thought, I don't oppose it really staying how it is. It's not that big of a deal. Idealist343 (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Idealist343 - Perhaps you should propose adding the word "Original" to "characters" in the infobox and see what the community thinks. - ^theWOLFchild 06:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Does the credit fall under the infobox guidelines, yes or no? This isn't hard, the puff credit existing is inconsequential to whether or not it fits within the parameters of the infobox, which it doesn't. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Relax, DWB... it's just talk - ^theWOLFchild 01:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the discussion about the parameter that Gonein60 linked, yes it does. oknazevad (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the "puff credit" does. Why do you assume it doesn't? Read the above discussion and what GoneIn60 has presented. κατάσταση 01:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change

In the infobox for the article, it reads "Based on Characters by George Lucas" which could cause some confusion by implying that all characters in TFA were created by George Lucas. Should we change it to read how it is presented in the credits for TFA which is "Based on Original Characters by George Lucas". So all in all:

• Based on Characters by George Lucas → Based on Original Characters by George Lucas

This is as it is read in the official credits at the end of the movie. Even at the hyperlink for characters, not all of those characters were created by Lucas. This could just further disambiguate the wording and it also uses the Official wording in the movie. Idealist343 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I was bold and went ahead and added it since nobody gave an objection. Also, there really shouldn't be an objection. This IS how it appears in the credits. Idealist343 (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually the film credits say "Characters" not "Original characters". See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZDzvbTx2Nk -- Wrath X (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I read a script online that had it in the closing credits. But yours is obviously an actual video of them, so I would concede that it should remain how it was. Idealist343 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2016

Home Media section has a date listed for Home Entertainment. Date should be removed as the article cited as reference 264 has since been removed: http://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2016/01/star-wars-the-force-awakens-blu-ray-to-be-released-on-april-5th.html

Amazon product page referenced in article no longer has a date listed (can't link here as Amazon is blacklisted). This article confirms the date was posted and removed: http://us.blastingnews.com/showbiz-tv/2016/01/star-wars-the-force-awakens-may-debut-on-blu-ray-in-april-00763677.html

Deflatormaus101 (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: For now, added dead link tag. Will wait for someone else to check if the info should be removed --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: Is the Amazon blacklisting in place because you're still new? Try using {{ASIN}} to point to Amazon. Bazj (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Marking as answered. If more needs to be done, please mark as unanswered or submit a new edit request. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Cast order

I get that Luke, Leia and Han are from the original cast and everything, but they shouldn't take precedence over Rey, Fin, Poe and Kylo in the cast order. Luke only appears in the movie at the end and Han and Leia are supporting characters. --24.67.141.49 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The ordering is not based on who "we" deem is important or how important. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What's it based on then? It's not alphabetical, so then why are Han, Luke and Leia at the top? --24.67.141.49 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The cinema poster. The copy in the infobox is a bit blurry, so you might have to look for it on google image search. DonQuixote (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the way the names are listed in the credits at the end of the movie. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

What destroys the base

Re: this revert. My understanding was that the base was already on its way to destruction, and it was just a prolonged process. And now that I think about it, where was the sun emerging from? It was already light earlier in the battle. The sun was getting darker because the base was sapping its energy (it would have gone completely dark if the base had continued doing so). The sun emerging in no way destroyed the base. It seems to me that it emerged because the base was destroyed. I think the line needs to be changed. (Incidentally, Wookieepedia happens to agree with me: "Inside, Poe fires volley after volley of torpedoes into the oscillator, destroying the base's thermal oscillator thirty seconds before it finishes draining the sun to completely charge the superweapon. This causes a chain reaction to go off, which destroys the base and levels the entire planet's terrain - without the weapon to dissipate it, the stored solar energy begins tearing the planet apart from the inside.") Stating or implying that the sun destroys the base by emerging seems to have the causality exactly reversed. --Fru1tbat (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, and I've fixed it. Popcornduff (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I see now though that the intent may have been to describe the energy released from the base (the "star within") - this was not clear from the wording. I'm probably forgetting the exact sequence at the end, but if starkiller base itself explodes and forms a new star (does it?), I'm fine with explaining that. I just wouldn't phrase it the way it was phrased before. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

IMO the star being regenerated/created/whatever isn't important enough to mention in the summary. Others might disagree though. Popcornduff (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree - the essentials are just "everyone escapes, and the base is destroyed". I wanted to clarify my initial misunderstanding/misremembering in my initial post above, though, and while I don't think it's necessary to describe precisely what happens with the base/star, I also don't feel strongly enough to revert it if someone else felt it important enough to mention. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

"Overwhelmingly" is far too subjective. Someone should change it to just "widespread critical acclaim" or something like that. 49.150.188.139 (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As the section currently shows, "overwhelmingly" is directly supported by the sources beside it and indirectly supported by the review aggregators. "Widespread critical acclaim" is not, and is significantly more subjective, which is why we have a WP:Hidden note in that section stating that editors should not add "critical acclaim" without a source directly supporting it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The two sources [1][2] saying "overwhelmingly positive" are from December 16 when the review embargo was lifted. They base it on Rotten Tomatoes scores of 98% and 97% that day. It's currently at 92%.[3] Still great, but we don't know whether those sources would have used the same term about 92%. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Either way, 92% is still overwhelmingly positive and is softer language than "critically acclaimed." Metacritic says "universal acclaim," and that's enough "acclaim" wording for the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

AndrewOne, regarding this, this and this, see what I stated above in this section, namely where I stated, "Either way, 92% is still overwhelmingly positive." The critical reception for the film has not changed so drastically that "overwhelmingly positive" is a problem. But the "acclaim" wording you adding was a problem, per what I stated above. NinjaRobotPirate has also advised you against "acclaim" wording. And I don't see how having added "widely" is better than "overwhelmingly positive," but I won't revert "widely" unless tampering with the lead-in summary gets to the point that restoring to the "overwhelmingly positive" wording is better. And as for the lead-in summary mentioning "and audiences," there is not a problem with that either, if the sources mention the audience response. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Audience response, including brief mention of the audience response in the Critical response section is fine; this is why CinemaScore is there. As you've surely seen, including CinemaScore in the Critical response section of our film articles is standard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If we've got a source that says that reviews have been positive, I think it's fine to say so. But I would avoid unnecessary modifiers and synonyms ("extremely positive", "overwhelmingly positive", "critical acclaim", etc). Just say the reviews are "positive". We wouldn't say that a film got "underwhelmingly mixed reviews" – such prose would be immediately recognized as non-neutral. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we can attribute opinion-based statements to the person who made them. So, we could say, "Journalist X characterized the film's reviews as 'overwhelmingly positive'." That's not exactly what I prefer, but it's at least policy-compliant. We've already got two aggregators, and one of them even comes with built-in puffery once the rating reaches 80/100 ("universal acclaim"). I don't think we need to add our own peacock language on top of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree - "overwhelmingly positive" sounds too peacocky for my liking. Popcornduff (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, "overwhelmingly positive" isn't my cup of tea either. It was added by the editor who added the sources to go along with it, and I saw it as a decent compromise for those wanting "critically acclaimed" wording. I usually prefer "generally positive," "generally negative," "mainly positive" or "mainly negative." I don't like simply stating "positive" since the film got negative reviews as well; similar goes for stating "negative" in the case of a mostly criticized film that got positive reviews as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"Overwhelmingly" may be a little gushy, but I often find alternate wordings less precise. "Mainly" works for me for films where 75% or so of critics agree, but seems a little cautious for >90%. It's not that it's wrong, per se, just that it doesn't reflect the positiveness. If I see a film rated positively by 90%+ of critics, I think "Wow, that's a significantly positive response!" Wording that doesn't reflect that significance may confuse readers - make them wonder what they're missing. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have found that in past discussions, avoiding a summary statement at the beginning of the critical response section is usually the best compromise. The numbers can speak for themselves, as can the quoted summary statement from RT. In situations where positive or negative reception is uncontroversial, then proper attribution with an "According to [source]..." at the beginning of such a statement is an acceptable alternative. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

GoneIn60, you know that I prefer "generally positive," "generally negative" or "mixed" type of statements for the critical reception sections of our film articles; that's why I usually don't mind them. I only agree to their removal in cases like this one regarding the Fifty Shades of Grey (film) article. In other words, the matter has to be confusing or reasonably contentious for me to state that I prefer no summary statement. When such statements are removed, an editor, or a reader who just happened to visit Wikipedia, usually adds one anyway. I prefer summary statements because they state plainly how well a film did, and because Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic shouldn't be the sole things we look to in these cases. Having a summary statement in the critical reception section is similar to having one in the lead, which summarizes how well a film did. I also dislike "According to" wording for summary statements because it's a misleading form of WP:In-text attribution; it suggests that it's only according to that source that the film did well, badly, or was mediocre. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In my experience it seems prefferable to avoid summary statements alltogether. This not only avoids any peacocking, but also helps with redundancies, as the numbers do speak for themselves, and are accompanied by the quite useful RT consensus and MC indicator. Remember, you are saying something to the affect of 'the film received mostly positive reviews', followed by 'according to RT the film received mostly positive reviews', followed by 'according to MC the film received mostly positivr reviews' - that seems pretty redundant to me, and doesn't give the readers much credit. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

If Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic were the sole things we should look to in these cases, I wouldn't mind as much. And I would give the readers more credit if they didn't so often seem to want a summary statement, especially when they add one themselves. Sourced summary statements with a WP:Hidden note about how these matters should be worded/sourced helps dissuade the addition of summary statements not supported by Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or other sources, and helps stop edit warring over the issue. In my experience, a sourced summary statement with a hidden note about the issue is better than no summary statement. I think that the Mad Max: Fury Road article is an example of that, given the many attempts by editors to add "critically acclaimed" there. Per discussion at that talk page, I still might add a summary statement there. Then again, the lead of that article is already clear that the film was well received. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "According to..." isn't the best way to open a statement for the reason you linked to. It is better to just plainly say "[Source] reported" or "[Source] said" to clarify that this is just one source out of a possible many that agree or came to the same conclusion. When I responded above, I actually had the critical response section at Terminator Genisys in mind. You can see how the opening line there was formed, and I believe this works in most situations. I'm only suggesting this if there is still a desire to keep the adverb "overwhelmingly" in the statement.

As for summary statements in general, I agree with you to some extent that they can be helpful to readers. Having one in the critical response section justifies having one in the lead, where it is very useful. The problem, as you well know, is that they are magnet centers for edit-warring. When a film gets really high scores from both RT and MC, it's not usually an issue. But in the many instances where films hover in the "mixed" range, disputes are more likely to occur. In general, I avoid them for that reason, but I understand that opinion can vary on a case-by-case basis in articles like this one. Here is just a small sample of the many discussions about this issue popping up in film articles: Jurassic World, Cinderella (2015), Jupiter Ascending, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, etc. At WP:FILM, this has also been discussed numerous times: Archive 52#Summary statement for "Reception" section and Archive 55#Critical response summary - was consensus ever achieved?. It appears the lack of consensus at the project has lead to the constant rehashing of the topic on many film talk pages. I would think at some point we can come up with a better approach, instead of having to explain this over and over again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely understand what you mean. As for "According to" wording, I also have a problem with "[The source] said the film received generally poor reviews." type of wording because it can lead readers to believe that it's just according to that source when it's actually the case that numerous sources are reporting the same thing. If it's a case like the current state of Terminator Genisys article, I'm unlikely to mind such wording, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, I see your point. But in the Terminator Genisys article, the LA Times source is essentially acting as an aggregator similar to RT or MC. At least to me, it's a lot like saying, "RT's critical consensus states [summary]...", which we find in practically every modern film article. I think the issue with using a general summary statement over there was that multiple editors disagreed that the film received "generally negative" reviews. The argument kept coming up that they're closer to mixed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In the case of that article, I don't understand the "closer to mixed" argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Going back to the original topic whether "overwhelming" should be kept or removed, I elect that it should be removed because despite the fact that "overwhelmingly positive" is actually supported by more than one source, there will be other editors who will wish to rephrase it either to "critically acclaim" or "generally positive" or "widely positive", like it is right now and will possibly trigger potential edit wars. All the sources support and confirm that the film received positive reviews. I think it would be a fair compromise if the summary statement read simply as "Star Wars: The Force Awakens received positive reviews from critics", because it is an accurate and supported statement and there would be no modifications like "generally positive" or "widely positive" that can be rephrased by other editors. It's fair, simple, and accurate. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't avoid properly sourced descriptions just because we're worried or concerned about potential edit wars. Also I disagree with the notion that only having "positive" will deter others from adding "generally" or "widely" before it. It will still happen. With that said, I do agree that we should remove "overwhelmingly" in this case. We do not need to use the same phrasing as the source(s) to convey the same message. Only when a particular source is being quoted should we ever really consider it. That's my 2¢ anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Armegon, I'm fine with leaving "widely positive" or "mainly positive" there. Per what I stated to NinjaRobotPirate above, I don't like leaving "positive" only. "Generally positive" is more accurate than "positive," since the film got negative reviews and criticism in addition to praise. Fru1tbat also made a valid point above questioning the use of "generally positive" or "mainly positive" for all films that got mostly positive reviews, as if all films were created equal or received the same level of praise. Sometimes "critical acclaim" or "overwhelmingly positive" is appropriate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Belson 303 (talk · contribs), regarding this edit you made, I do not agree with using "both critical acclaim and widely positive reviews from critics"; that is overkill and redundant. I also don't agree with using "critically acclaimed" for this film. And, above, you can see how others feel on the matter of wording for that lead-sentence. Make your case in this section...if you want to keep that wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I changed the hidden note. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: With this edit, Tenebrae removed "widely," stating, "WP:PEACOCK - there's no way to quantify 'widely' and we don't use it at films with an eve higher RT number. Positive is neutral, and the RT number provides additional detail." The addition of "widely" had been stable in the article, and, combined with the hidden note, seemed to stop edit warring over this matter. I really don't have anything else to state on the matter, though; how I feel is shown above in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of this discussion; I hadn't realized there had been debate over the word. If other editors believe this is settled consensus, albeit not being an RfC circulated throughout the wider WikiProject Film for discussion, then by all means reinsert "widely." I would ask anyone who does so consider that we do not use this term with movies having even higher RT ratings, and that is is, unquestionably, a subjective, unquantifiable term. I find it a classic example of fannish WP:PEACOCK we don't generally use in other film articles. But if we're making an exception here and singling this movie out for special treatment, i won't fight conensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I just reverted an IP, and am tempted to simply restore "overwhelmingly positive," per the sources using that wording. But, to be fair, regarding the stable aspect I mentioned, the article was WP:Semi-protected at the time. Semi-protection obviously adds to stability of an article. And now it's currently not semi-protected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Accolades table

Should there, or should there not be a big table in the accolades section? Discuss. Cnbrb (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it should be, that's how it is in every article with awards section. And separate article was made because a large number of organizations / ceremonies (at least 20) has awarded the film and it is enough to split this section into a separate article. With reliable sources, precise information already an article has been made List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and i don't think it should be a matter of discussion even. It meets all the requirements of eligibility and article is well written as well, then why shouldn't we provide a information in prose and refers the section itself to its main article. That is how we do in other articles as well, then why it is even a discussion? it doesn't violate or against any rule of Wikipedia. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 22:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough; thank you for the explanation.  I withdraw my objection.  Scr★pIron^IV 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I emphatically object. First, the current text says nothing as to whether an award has yet been awarded, conveying the impression that the film has lost awards not even given yet. That's a problem. At the very least, awards not yet awarded should be lumped together in a separate paragraph. Second, information was much more easily and clearly conveyed by the chart. Remember, to paraphrase, Wiki policies are made for Wiki readers, not Wiki readers for Wiki policies. Third, I would never have had a separate article on awards until the awards were all given, reserving the material for the film's article in the meantime. I find the current discussion infelicitous, inaccurate, and largely useless. I revert. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't depend upon your preference that "i would never had a separate article.." if there is a rule on that than please enlighten me. This discussion is not infelicitous or useless, unless you think like that. It does not matter that film won the awards or not, it's about notability and there is no restriction on creating separate article even if there are pending results in winners announcements. And wiki readers can read easily by going on the relevant article that has chart. If you can give any verification of your claims of reverting this edit by Wikipedia - apart from your preferences, we would be delighted to look through your claims. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 17:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Drop the snide and legalistic attitude. My motivating concern, always, is what's best for readers. You misconstrue my first point. As it was, the discussion misled readers about awards not yet won or lost, making readers think the film had lost awards not yet even given. You must stop being snide and legalistic long enough to face that problem. I feel very strongly that the current and original format serves readers best due to its clarity, accuracy, and ease of reference. If, after all the awards are done, people wish to change to another, abbreviated format, I won't object. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Would all editors please familiarise themselves with the Wikipedia policies on Edit warring and Civility. The point of adding this discussion to the Talk page is to discuss the section in question and reach some sort of consensus. This is the preferred alternative to edit warring. Cnbrb (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'd say remove the table from the section, leaving only the link to the List of accolades, and a brief, sourced summary of major awards and nominations. The point of having a separate article for accolades is to remove the table from the main article so it won't be too long. All articles I've seen with a separate accolades list do not feature an actual table in the article mainspace. κατάσταση 23:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• I second that motion and support the logic. I really don't understand why this is even a point of contention. To rephrase what I said in an earlier edit summary: There should be no reason for the same table to exist in different articles. It undermines the purpose of a separate "List of accolades" article. Either leave it there and keep this section concise or keep it here and delete the spin-off. It's one or the other. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 00:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• On balance, my personal view that this table should be removed from the main Force Awakens article. Taking into consideration WP:LENGTH, the presence of a 108-row table does impact negitvely on readbility. Big tables also present problems for mobile devices. WP:SPLITLIST does suggest that long tables and lists can be split off into a stand-alone page. this has already happened in this case - the List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens includes the table being disussed. This is quite normal for Wikipedia articles, and allows for more detailed information about a subject to be presented without affecting readbility on the main article. With this in mind, I see no reason for the same table to exist in two places.Cnbrb (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• A few points:

1. Any text replacing the table at this time would have to very clearly distinguish between pending and awarded awards; otherwise, that text would, as the previous one actually did, convey the false impression that pending awards had actually been awarded and lost. First and foremost, Wikipedia must not be in the habit of conveying falsehoods. I would recommend separate "pending" and "awarded" paragraphs, to be restructured and, perhaps, rewritten once all awards are given. (See why waiting just a bit would be simpler?)
2. At this time, the table in the separate article is incorrect/out-of-date.
3. As a general matter, I find the idea of separate articles on films' awards exceedingly silly, to say the least.
4. Lastly, I see no harm, and exceeding good, in letting the table be until all awards are awarded. We're talking about two to three months. What could possibly be the all-too-pressing rush? All relevant information is far more easily gleaned from the table than from any other conceivable format. I, for one, would be entirely ignoring any replacement text for my reading pleasure, automatically clicking on the table link instead. Why waste my time on partial and inadequate (if not plainly incorrect) information? I can't possibly be alone. When one has to turn to some forked article for the info one is looking for, one must question the utility of the original material, which so becomes mere worthless filler. (Better to provide no text at all, just the link.)

It's quite impossible for me to imagine what you guys are thinking. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

To respond to your points:

1. I don't see the difficulty between distinguishing pending awards and awarded/nominated ones. If the award ceremony is yet to happen, just write "The Force Awakens is nominated at X Awards for Best Director" (example). You could also say "was nominated" for lost awards and "won" for awards won. This has been done in other Accolades lists. No mystery here.
2. If it is out of date, better replace it then. Just paste the one from the article in the list.
3. Why silly? This table is long and quite frankly clutters the article. I see no problem in having a separate list, and many recent films have Lists of accolades (many of which are featured lists).
4. What difference does it make if all awards have been given or not? Anyway, I have no hurry. I just think the table has to be removed, for the reasons already stated by myself, Jedi94 and Cnbrb. κατάσταση 17:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, or to have bothered actually reviewing the previous text before commenting on it. That text provided no dates and treated nominations lost exactly the same as nominations still pending, thereby conveying falsehood. I don't understand your lack of comprehension here. Perhaps you should attempt to paraphrase my point on the matter. I also provided a clear recommendation on how to remedy the problem. In any case, the current table cannot be replaced by the previous text. A new text would have to be provided. 

Now let me ask you a question or two. What's the rush? In two to three months, all listed awards will have been given. Can't the matter wait until then? You guys seem very rigid and inflexible. While I would much prefer the table be permanent and the forked article not exist, I have nevertheless shown a marked willingness to collaborate and compromise. I am willing to see the table disappear forever in two to three months, the blink of an eye, once the awards are given and there's no longer a need for the ease of reference provided by the table. Why is that not an acceptable, good-faith resolution of the matter? I don't get it. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason why you could not maintain and edit this table on List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and even retain it after the three months you specify.Cnbrb (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I was, of course, speaking of the table disappearing from this article, the article that actually concerns me and my point. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I may actually have lost the plot at this stage.00:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think now that only one awarding body has left pending, the section should be written in prose removing table from main article. And i think it won't give any wrong impression or put readers in confusion that film has lost the awards or won. Previously i backed out from the conversation and following civility i didn't revert any edit. So i expect that now it won't be problem. Please give verdict, so i could proceed. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 00:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression we had agreed to wait for that last award also, and oppose any change. Again, you've won, so what is the irresistible rush? Consider it an exercise in patience. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

budget

every time that I come to this page, the number given as the films budget is different. this makes me wonder why the wikinazis are allowing it instead of deleting it since there is no citation or verification as to the actual budget. is it 150? 200? 204? 306? or will any random guess be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.226.20 (talk) 29 March 2016

Box Office Mojo says $200M, so that's what I think we should go with. The politico article seems to be the only one that thinks it's around 200M pounds, not dollars, so I don't know if I trust it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, but I couldn't find a currency converter to render £204M as ca. $306M. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: the current edit war over the budget: there are conflicting sources. Deadline and BOM both state ~$200M, while Politico states £204M. In a recent edit, the budget value in the infobox was changed without changing the ref, making the value inconsistent. In another recent edit, Politico was re-added as a source in addition to Deadline to support the larger value in the prose, but with two conflicting sources listed, this is another obvious inconsistency. With this in mind, I've restored an older version where at least the article agrees with itself (mostly). Can we agree on a solution here before changing the article again? --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

BoxOfficeMojo is a blog. They report the budget they see in the press, which has been $200 million in the past. However, politico is reporting the new, more current number of 204 million pounds, as they have looked at the audited financial filings of the production company that Disney set up to make the film in the UK. These offical filings have also been linked to. The $306 million is the value of 204 million pounds using the average exchange rate of 1.50USD for 1.00GBP in 2015. If you use today's currency converter on google, it's worth $293 million. But, as one of the other editors pointed out, the value should be calculated when the money was spent, not todays. I will stop reverting the edit. But $200 million is factually incorrect. And since when do blogs outweigh actual company filings hosted on a government website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depauldem (talk • contribs) 29 March 2016

Those are good points, and thank you for replying here – I don't personally care which value is used, as long as it's accurate. I checked the links you added in this edit, but I don't have a lot of experience reading financial data. What numbers are you using to conclude that Politico is correct? --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand. It is inherently confusing. The filings contain many numbers, but the "cost" of producing the film in the UK is reflected in the "cost of sales" line under turnover. In the most recent filing, it was 56.69 million GBP. The prior period, it was 89.1 million GBP. Going to the a previous full accounts filing, which was filed on April 7th 2015, you can see the cost for an earlier period of 58.43GBP. Add these up, and you get the correct 204 million GBP. These numbers are the end all be all of spending. They are used to report on spending for a number of UK productions. Politico got the numbers right, so it's easier to consume by citing them. I ended up citing both, but even that was rejected. Depauldem (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, but I would like to hear from other involved editors before moving on. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone else care to comment on this? There are plenty of editors involved with this article, and it would be nice to have a little more input before making a potentially controversial change. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where one commenter above decries Box Office Mojo as a blog when in actuality it's an aggregator, same as Rotten Tomatoes, and uses studio figures and estimates widely available to trade publications. It's a reliable source and its use for budget citations throughout Wikipedia makes for apples-to-apples comparisons. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

And incidentally, Politico is WP:RS for political news, and less so for Hollywood studio budgets. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"blog" may be mischaracterizing a bit, but what's BOM's original source? If (big "ifs" here, just posing a question) Politico's source is actual financial reports and BOM is using an estimate of some sort, is Politico still less reliable in this case and BOM more? As I stated above, I don't really care which number/source is used as long as it's accurate; I'm just hoping for a good explanation of the discrepancy (from an editor more knowledgeable than myself) so everyone involved can be satisfied and move on. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Many reliable sources from the film industry are saying the budget was $200 million. If a single non-film source reports another number then I wouldn't accept it above all the industry sources. Do they actually know what is normally counted as "budget" in the film industry? I don't. Maybe the budget is counted after tax reliefs and not before. Maybe some of the spent money will be counted in the budget for the coming Episode VIII and IX. WP:WEIGHT says: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." PrimeHunter (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The budget of the movie the amount spent on the production itself. It does not include marketing and advertising costs. While the "tax reliefs" may lower the out of pocket cost for the studio, the film itself still cost the original amount. As for The Force Awakens, the actual financials (and I stress this, as it trumps budget guesses in the news) do not include spending on the other films, which have their own separate production companies set up--Episode 8 is "Lunak Heavy Industries", for example. I would also point out that Deadline, which claims a $200 million budget, also claims a $250 million budget for Jurassic World, when most sources have it at $150 million, including the State of Louisiana, which subsidized it and disclosed the actual budget as $150 million. Point is, Deadline got that one wrong, in addition to the Straight Outta Compton and Entourage budgets as well as Furious 7. For what it's worth, I author the annual feature film studies for FilmLA and we are going to be listing the budget as at least $306 million, as the UK figures do not include the spending while they filmed in Dubai. As you will note in the sources for our last two reports, Walt Disney Pictures is one of them. Finally, the higher budget of $306 million is brand new, as the new spending info was just released in mid-March, so of course it will conflict with various news articles that are often many months old. Please feel free to google other articles about the information contained in the UK reports. While The Force Awakens info has yet to percolate into other papers, reports on budget spends and tax credit amounts on many other films (Thor 2, Avengers etc) are widespread. Actual financials from the production company itself are more authoritative to budget estimates in outdated articles. Would we cite an article about what a document says, or would we cite the document? The latter, I think. Depauldem (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no, not generally. Wikipedia severely limits the use of primary sources, since things like budgets are often open to interpretation — surely you've heard the term "creative accounting." So we use RS secondary sources that digest and report that information, trusting that journalistic and academic professionals can do their jobs. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard of creative accounting. It relates to the profits of a movie, NOT the production of it. Budgets are not open to interpretation. I would add that The Guardian reported on the first payout to The Force Awakens in 2014, using these same filings. UK film industry expert Stephen Follows has also reported the UK filings. And Forbes also reported on these figures earlier this year. Bottom line, there are reliable secondary sources that use primary sources. The Deadline article cites no source, whatsoever. Depauldem (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Update, while Deadline (nor BoxOfficeMojo) list no source for their $200 million budget, but Bloomberg reported that, as of December 2015, Disney had not disclosed the actual budget to the press and that "analysts estimate it cost about $200 million". Good luck finding a name for any of these analysts. Facts are facts, and this movie cost at least $306 million, just based on spending in the UK alone. Depauldem (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally, the primary sources entry also states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source"...numbers showing how much was spent are as straightforward as facts can get. Or is 2+2=4 open to interpretation?

• Comment The scheme that Depauldem refers to is the UK's Film Tax Relief scheme, where a film production company can claim back up to 20% of its total production budget as a tax rebate. It basically works like this: the production company submits all production expenditures (there are strict rules on what counts as a production cost) to HMRC who then audit the accounts and dtermine how much the compnay can reclaim. This information comes available under UK's Freedom of Information Act, and journalists can file a request for the accounts on any film which claims money under the scheme. While most film costs are usually concealed this scheme makes movie production costs transparent for the first time ever. There is no "Hollywood Accounting" here since these expenses are audited by the UK tax authority. The reason Box Office Mojo and many other source have the $200 million figure down is simply because the information requests have to be filed and it takes time to release them i.e. the numbers were obviously not avilable at the time of the film's release. The problem isn't the veracity of the source (which is ultimately the British government once you take out the middle man) but rather the conversion to dollars. Over the last couple of years the dollar to pound conversion rate has ranged from $1.38 to $1.72, which means that the net budget for Star Wars (at a total cost £171.4 million after deducting the £31.6 million rebate from the total £204 million expenditure) is $236—295 million. You can read more about the scheme here. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Requestt: Depauldem is being disruptive on other articles too such as Avengers: Age of Ultron, Thor: The Dark World and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. Will editors keep an eye on them please. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Betty, I think there needs to be an understanding of what the word "budget" means in a film's page. I spend $100 million making a movie, the cost (or budget) for me is $100 million. If the government decides to subsidize me after the fact, say by giving $20 million as a film rebate, my out of pocket to make the film is now $80 million, but it still COST $100 million to produce. For example, if I get $2 million back from the government as a 20% rebate on $10 million I paid my actor, I may be out of pocket for only $8 million...but he still got $10 million. In short, the budget is the the gross (actual) cost rather than the net to the producer.Depauldem (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Your comment above could be read as supportive of using Politico's budget figure (putting conversion rate aside for the moment), as Depauldem suggested. Is that a correct interpretation? I'm assuming that were we to choose that source, how to represent it appropriately in US dollars would be somewhat less contentious... --Fru1tbat (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

My main intent was to clarify the nature of these figures and where they come from, and why they are different to Box Office Mojo's. Box Office Mojo has probably used an estimated cost, or a figure that Disney released at the time to the press. These latest figures that Depauldem has tried to insert into the article is the figure that Disney (successfully) submitted to HMRC in applying for its rebate. The reason that these figures have only become available now is because somebody had to file an FOI request with HMRC to obtain them, so it is not a contradictory claim as such, but rather just new information that has come to light. There is currently a dispute over how the HMRC audited figure should be interpreted (see Talk:Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron#Disruptive_changes_to_the_budget), and there is also the problem of exchange rates: as you see from my rough estimate there is a potential $60 million variation depending on which exchange rate you use, so I don't think editors should be arbitrarily selecting exchange rates. Forbes has been tracking the Disney/HMRC rebate story for some time so I think we should wait and see if they pick up on the Star Wars financials and give us a "converted" amount. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, the validity of the filings is actually something Betty and I agree on, which is progress. For the exchange rate, I would be willing to look up the historical rate and apply it to the amount of spending for the periods listed in each the reports, if that works for everyone. As for the "debate" over whether the cost should reflect the amount spent vs. the final out of pocket for the studio, the discussion on the other thread now favors using the amount spent to produce, regardless of the incentive paid out after production. The film still cost what it cost. This also is in keeping with the budget that had been posted on here, as it stayed the same despite the reports of incentive payments to Disney going back to 2014. As I suggested there, we can still post the amount of the rebate in a footnote and state that it reduced the out of pocket for the studio. But when people look at the budget, they want to know what it actually cost--GROSSS--to actually make the film. Depauldem (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

I have to take exception to two of the arguments here. Depauldem says "creative accounting" is used for film profits, not production. I am flabbergasted that he doesn't realize that the higher the film's ostensible production budget, then the lower the profits — thus lower taxes, thus lower profit participation to actors. etc.

I would suggest he read Art Buchwald's book Fatal Subtraction: The Inside Story of Buchwald V. Paramount or Steven Bach's Final Cut: Art, Money, and Ego in the Making of Heaven's Gate. It is very common, for example, to attribute amortization / depreciation costs on studio property to high-grossing movies, whether or not those particular parts of studio property were used for that particular film. Just off the top of my head that's one way studios purposefully inflate budgets for tax and profit-participation purposes.

The second point — which I had thought was inherent in my statement about how primary sources can be misread by laymen and so we rely on analysis / reportage by authoritative journalists / academics — is: If the budget source Depauldem is relying on is so readily available and so inherently, perfectly, inarguably accurate, then why aren't sources like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter etc. quoting its figures? Possibly because these trade magazines realize the truth of the previous paragraph, and analyze accordingly. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

First, creative accounting is, almost exclusively, focused on the net profits side of the equation. Sure, the cost of the film is a factor, but much less so than the actual proceeds from various revenue streams and the accounting practices on the studio side of the equation (which is separate from the limited one-off shell company set up to make the project). Sure a studio can try and inflate budgets (these days it's more related to the incentive scheme rather than net profits). But when a project gets made under a government incentive program, like in the UK, it is subject to strict audit requirements and can be investigated for fraud.

Second, both the Hollywood Reporter and Variety have cited these filings. This is addition to the Politico post, Forbes, The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph and others. Depauldem (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am going to add in a budget range that includes the current $245M budget, which comes from BoxOfficeMojo (from an uncited source that doesn't match any reported numbers) and make it to $324 million, which comes from the Politico article that, unlike BoxOfficeMojo, is actually supported by the original budget filings from the production company itself. To arrive at the dollar amount (Politico reports it in GBP), I used the exchange rate on the end of period date for each of the three full accounts filings on the UK government's companies house page (Nov. 15th, 2015; November 14th, 2014; May 10th, 2014) when the GBP to USD was $1.542, $1.565 and $1.685 respectively. Depauldem (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, that's not the way Wikipedia works. We wait for consensus — we don't unilaterally push our own preferred version onto the page over the objections of other editors. If your reasoning is sound, other editors will come around. And there are points that need discussion.

You say, "the cost of the film is a factor, but much less so than the actual proceeds from various revenue streams and the accounting practices." Who says? You personally? From the books I noted above, inflating the cost of production through amortization of studio property seems a major factor.

You say, "when a project gets made under a government incentive program, like in the UK, it is subject to strict audit requirements and can be investigated for fraud." Yet there are numerous tax-incentive programs from the various states, and no widely reported investigations for fraud in some years — so are you saying creative accounting is no longer and every production in the UK and US and Canada and anywhere that uses tax incentives is absolutely clean without any accounting tricks? That's a remarkable notion, and if true there would be widely reported stories saying, "Hollywood Fraud Is Dead." C'mon. Just because something is made under UK tax incentives in no way means figures are never, ever manipulated.

Another point, and granted this one is less methodical than anecdotal, but there has never been a movie that cost $324 million to make. So if this record-breaking figure were unequivocally true, don't you think some trade magazine or other would have reported on this? Record-breaking budgets have been reported on regularly in the past.

I'm not say I'm completely right and not saying you're completely wrong. But I'm asking legitimate questions and raising legitimate points that can't simply be blithely dismissed. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The books you noted above center around two movies that are over two decades old. The cost of a film is the cost of a film and this project has been audited. Either way, I don't see how a claim of creative accounting means that you can discount any budget just by saying those two words. As for no widely reported fraud investigation for years?? Are you kidding? A documentary film about the topic made news just this year about UK film fraud. It has also been an ongoing issue covered in the trades. And that's just in the UK. Film fraud in Iowa, Massachusetts, Louisiana and Michigan all made major news in just the past few years. And there has never been a $324 million movie?? Tell that to Disney and the $410 million spent on the last Pirates movie. The last James Bond movie was widely reported about when it was revealed that its budget was in the mid $300 million range. Depauldem (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Pirates of the Caribbean claim comes from yet another Forbes WP:USERGENERATED, generally unpaid "contributor" not under Forbes editorial control — and, as he says, he specializes in "auto racing and theme parks", so even by the loosest interpretation of guidelines he's not an authority on film budget. I'll give you that the hacked emails noted in the CNN story appear to confirm the Bond budget was more than $300 million — and you're proving my point that such record-breaking budgets make news. If Star Wars were really $324 million, that likewise would have been newsworthy. And I believe your own analysis put it at $254 million, which is not materially different form the $250 million given by Box Office Mojo. Since these are just close approximations in any case, are you really fighting and spending all this time over a possible $4 million difference ... which, depending on exchange rates, may not even exist?--Tenebrae (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Section break

It seems that the circumstances surrounding Star Wars' budget have changed a bit. Above I noted that due to the exchange rates that Star Wars probably cost in the 236-295 range (going by the HMRC costs submitted by Disney) and I suggested waiting to see if any major sources pin it down any further before making changes. In the last few days Box Office Mojo has revised its estimate to $245 million, while Deadline insist it cost $259 million. The difference in the those totals can probably be explained by fluctuating conversion rates, but it seems to me that both of these publications have revised their oirginal $200 million estimates to the 240-260 range, which does to some extent account for the HMRC figures which have been recently released. I still don't think we should be performing our own currency conversions, but it seems to me we have two revised dollar estimates ($245 million and $259 million) which are fairly close together and fall in the range of the HMRC figures. I am thinking we should perhaps go with a 245-259 range to reflect the most up to date dollare figures that we have at our disposal? Thoughts plz. Betty Logan (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

For reasons I note in my post above, that seems a much more believable range than some unprecedented $324 million — which, if true, would have generated press coverage. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Deadline changed the net budget (emphasis on net) to $259 million because I emailed Mike Fleming at Deadline on March 29th the following: "I wanted to see if you could make an edit to your recent post about The Force Awakens in the most valuable movie blockbuster series. The change is regarding the budget, which you list as $200 million. This was an estimate and it was widely reported last year. However, as you know, the film shot primarily in the UK and received the generous tax credit there. The most recent filing was entered on the UK government’s companies house page earlier this month, and it accounts for spending through November 2015. If you add up the spending from it, and the prior “full accounts” filings for Foodles Production Limited (the production company set up by Disney to make Force Awakens in the UK), you will note the total UK spending amounted to no less than £204 million. Using the average exchange rate of 1.50USD for each 1GBP, the UK spend was roughly $306 million. The out of pocket for Disney was offset by £31.6 million pounds, which is $47 million using the same exchange rate."

As you will note, once the actual cost of the film (assuming a 1.5 currency rate for the pound), at $306 million, is lowered by $47 million (the amount of the rebate), then net cost to Disney was $259 million. As you will note above, I emailed Mike based on the average exchange rate of 1.5. Since then, using the historical exchange rates at the time of the filings, the rate fluctuated from 1.524 to 1.685. Hence, my edit today was an attempt to use more precise exchange rates. But even if we want to stick with the 1.5 I gave to Deadline, the actual cost would be $306 million with a net cost for Disney of $259 after rebates. I can post the email if needed. As for the new boxofficemojo amount, it is unsupported by any citation and does not reflect reports in any other news sources. If they are a reliable news aggregator, why is there no news that supports their amount??Depauldem (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the fact you're doing independent analysis in the form of WP:SYNTH, the notion that we should see your email to Deadline's Fleming is disallowed original research, which you seem intent on pushing. Second, I and I'm sure other editors can debate the merits of Box Office Mojo — which newspapers including, I believe, The New York Times cite — but this is not the page to do it; that would be the Reliable Sources talk pages. Finally, it sounds as if under your analysis, which Deadline repeats, the budget was $259 million, Box Office Mojo says $245. Given that these ultimately are near-estimates, I'm not sure the difference between $245 and $259 is so significant as to be worth all this mishegas. I'm for saying $245-259 million with the two respective citations. However, if no one besides Deadline is saying $259, that sounds like a WP:FRINGE claim. What do other trade sources say? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No, these are not "near estimates". The amount spent on the film, in GBP, was 204 million. Using the lowest exchange rate for the period of production (1.52) in 2014, the cost in US Dollars is over $300 million. And if you are going to write-off Deadline for a fringe claim, then you better do the same with BoxOfficeMojo, as no one besides them is saying $245 million. Depauldem (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You said yourself Deadline is only using a figure that you gave it. If you're analysis is so expert and industry-standard, why is no one else reporting it? Your claims all hinge on your personal analysis of primary-source numbers, which is disallowed OR. Separately, at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron, I disucc your claim of phantom money — amounts that the production never actually spent, since tax rebates are assumed as part of the budget. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am getting sick of your false accusations. Simple calculations are not OR. Further, I wasn't using Deadline as the source. I was pointing to actual filings for Foodles, which are supported by Politico. Your analysis of "phantom money" is as baseless as calling it "phantom money" or saying that Forbes disavows everyone with a standard legal disclaimer about opinions. Please educate yourself on gross budget vs. net budget. The former means what is actually spent, the latter is the final out of pocket. Just because the latter may be lower than the former, the former was still spent to make the project. Your arguments are amounting to a "nuh uh" response without responding to (or making) valid arguments. Depauldem (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I am giving clearly articulated, specific reasons, and yet you falsely claim my arguments amount to "nuh uh." Geez. Someone giving you counterarguments you don't happen to agree with is not in any way, shape or form making "invalid" arguments. I don't agree with your arguments, but I do you the respect of taking them at face value, thinking about them, and providing a reasoned response. Yet you won't show the same courtesy and instead resort to an hominem attack that if I disagree with you, them my arguments must be invalid. Amazing.

And it certainly is "phantom money" you're using to inflate budgets. If I buy a $350 coat on sale for $245 after rebate, that doesn't mean my budget for the coat was $350.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In December, The Daily Beast reported the budget for The Force Awakens was $350 million. Given that the film also shot portions in Iceland and UAE, this budget would make sense given the $300+ million spent in the UK alone. The current budget for the page still lists $245 million, which is based solely on BoxOfficeMojo and is not reported in any other news source. With the actual filings at our disposal, not to mention the coverage in Politico and the higher budget reported by The Daily Beast, is it really tenable to keep BOM?Depauldem (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Beast doesn't say where it got that figure, so it's no more or less tenable than BOM. And I remain astonished by your insistence that money that was never spent inflates the cost of the film. If I buy a $350 coat on sale for $245 after rebate, that doesn't mean my budget for the coat was $350.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

And ironically, you suggested a compromise at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron with which I certainly agree. Would it not be productive to use that as a shared foundation from which we can move forward?--Tenebrae (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Almost no sources say where they get the budget number from. You haven't had a problem with relying on them before, as you favor the current BOM number. The other sources you have been objecting to (Forbes, Politico etc.) have told us this, as they are based on numbers from the actual company filings. As for the phantom money claim, you are the only one making this case. Betty, Fruitbat and others have not objected to the full gross spend. As I pointed out on the Avenger thread, truncated: your coat analogy fails for many reasons. You are assuming your definition of a budget is the right one. You clearly prefer a net budget amount, after the rebate. But a gross budget is as much the "budget" as net is. Most people want to know what the actual cost was to make a movie, regardless of where the money comes from. So if you want to use the net budget, how are you going to make it work when multiple studios and/or production companies finance a movie? If you are going to argue for the net budget, then net for who? Are you seriously going to have five net budget for five different financiers? And if two studios or more make a film, people don't really want to know or care who financed what portion and by what amounts. They want to know the COST of the movie. The gross budget is that number. It never changes. At all times, if the studio needs to spend $200 million to make a film, the gross budget--i.e. the amount paid to all the people and firms so they could make the film--the COST of it will always be $200 million. Try telling the people who are paid $200 million that the budget was only $150M and they would laugh at you. For them, the budget had costs adding up to $200 million. The net cost, on the other hand, will always be subject to change, and it will also be subject to the "net cost for who?" question. Finally, you keep disregarding the fact that in order for Disney to even get said rebate, they still HAD to spend $300 million. To argue that they only budgeted $245 million when the gross spend required them to pay out $300 million is nonsense. They still had to spend $300 million and they prepared a budget that allocated where it went. The gross budget represents the actual contents of the budget and line by line those costs amount to the gross, not the net.Depauldem (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I've responded to these same points at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron. It boils down to: Your personal opinion of what "Most people want to know" is at add odds with that of the entire journalistic profession. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This is playing out at the RFC, but I wanted to respond to this gross characterization. Despite your hyperbole, how on earth are you remotely entitled to claim what the view of the "entire journalistic profession" is? You are not. Worse, your claim rests on examples given by Betty Logan. Lets review some of those and some others, shall we:

1. For John Carter, the headline to the link she gave reads: "The $307 Million Cost of Disney's John Carter"--emphasis on cost.

2. For Fast 6, the link says: "The latest in the series cost close to $200 million, according to a person close to the production."

3. For Godzilla, the link states: “Godzilla,” powered in part by strong Imax and 3-D screenings, cost a reported $195 million to make."

4. For Dark Knight Rises, the link states: "The Dark Knight Rises cost between $250 million and $300 million to produce."

5. More recently, LA Times Company Town Editor Richard Verrier wrote about the feature films awarded CA tax credits, and gave their gross budgets (but did mention tax credit award amounts) for many films: "The list includes at least two large-budget movies, Whale" and "Overnight" — both from Disney — budgeted at $86 million and $95 million, respectively, according to state records of planned California expenditures. Disney was approved for $6.8 million and $11.6 million in tax credits for the films. Twentieth Century Fox received a $4.9 million tax credit for "Avon Man," budgeted at $65.9 million; and $5.4 million for "Why Him," which is budgeted at $52.2 million."

6. Saving Mr. Banks has a reported budget of $35 million on BOM, despite the fact it got $2.4 million in tax credits on that budget.

7. Likewise, Insidious Chapter 2 has a reported budget on BOM of $5 million, despite getting a $1.2 million tax credit on that same budget

8. Ditto for The Conjuring, which had a reported $20 million budget on BOM, despite getting over $4 million in tax credits.

I could do this all day long. Point is, you don't have a clue what the "entire journalistic profession" thinks when it clearly doesn't reflect what you proclaim it does. Depauldem (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess you can if you have nothing better to do — this must have taken a couple of hours. Fortunately, Wikipedia editors recognize that some of us have jobs, and so, in these sorts of discussions, they recognize who's obsessing and using bludgeoning walls of text. (There's even an abbreviation for this, though I can't remember what it is.)

To cut through the obfuscating fog: Wikipedia gives the figures as reported in mainstream sources. The figures these sources report are the ones editorially judged as what is pertinent and factual for most readers. It's the same kind of choice editors make in deciding "Man on the Moon" is the headline and "Town Council Passes Sewer Bill" goes on an inside page. These are extreme examples to make clear what editorial judgment entails. You consistently have been proffering figures based on your own computation / analysis that differ from what most mainstream sources give. If your figures were in agreement with the mainstream, then the mainstream would be publishing those figures. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, you totally fail to address the points raised. I didn't concoct any of the above. I didn't calculate anything. These are direct quotes from the sources. You are at war with reality. The figures I would use are exactly the same as the figures above. Depauldem (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it this was already mentioned but the numbers.com puts the budget at 306 million dollarsBroncosman12 (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae, User:Betty Logan and others, I went ahead and made the edit per the consensus we reached. Please let me know if this works. Depauldem (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You guys are great. Now if I could only get us all to use full cites instead of raw URLs!   : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

____

References

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Spelling of Finn

How do we know that the character Finn is spelled Finn? It could be spelled Fin. Eurocus47 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There is plenty of official written material like http://www.starwars.com/databank/finn. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There are Lego sets that call Finn "Finn" Luke... Use the force! (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Budget: net/gross

I see that there is already a discussion above regarding the conflicting budget numbers. Rather than re-open an old and lengthy discussion, I figured I'd create a new topic related to a concern. It appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that the consensus arrived as is to list a net and gross number based on the budget before and after tax credits. The sources themselves do not appear to mention the tax credits, leading the casual reader to wonder just what in the heck a net and gross budget are. Is there any way we can make a reference to this within the info box? Something like "$245 million (net)[3] (due to tax credit)[4]" or something to that effect? I'd do it myself but I'm not versed in infobox protocol and I don't want to create an undue synth. Thanks in advance. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of the tax credit is in the article itself, under pre-production and also in commercial analysis. Depauldem (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, sure, hopefully all of the information in the infobox is in the article text. That doesn't necessarily resolve or preclude issues with the infobox, though.Scoundr3l (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue with the infobox has been resolved. It states both the net and the gross. If people want more info, they read the article. Depauldem (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. No, it hasn't. If people want to verify information on Wikipedia, per WP:V they should be able to verify it using the provided source. Neither of these provided sources makes any mention of tax credits or whether or not their figure represents a gross or net budget. If you like, we can just call it original research and replace it with a range of figures. I'm willing to discuss an alternative solution, though. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I just added two extra footnote sources in the infobox. Both make mention of the tax credits for the film and one even has a discussion of the gross budget vs. a net budget. We discussed have a range, but since one end of the range is the "net" number and the other was the "gross" budget, consensus was it was a bad idea to have two disparate numbers in the same range as they are totally different things. Hence, one line for gross and one for net. And yes, it has been resolved, per the infobox template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_film "When applicable, add "gross" and "net" parenthetically beside the figure(s)" Depauldem (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. As I'm sure you know, the gross and net still have to be verifiable, so I appreciate you taking time to fix the issue. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

SW:TFA is a reboot according to Disney or Gizmodo

http://gizmodo.com/5979671/lucasfilm-kills-3d-star-wars-prequels-after-realizing-its-horrible-and-everyone-hates-it

"Instead, Disney wants complete focus on the J.J. Abrams reboot—an absolutely smart move, even if those new sequels will themselves probably be filmed in 3D. If there's going to be 3D crap, let there be the smallest about of 3D crap possible."

Thetechwizard21 (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"reboot" is term chosen by a Gizmodo article where "the J.J. Abrams reboot" links to another Gizmodo article by another author who doesn't even use the term. Both articles are from January 2013, long before plot similarities between A New Hope and The Force Awakens were known. Disney itself probably didn't know what the plot would be. They had just bought Lucasfilm and George Lucas' ideas were not used. The article cannot be used to call the film a reboot. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur. The term "reboot" was obviously being used in a purely speculative context back in January 2013 and it says nothing about the screenplay completed in January 2014 or the film released in December 2015. No self-respecting journalist familiar with film industry terminology would call the final released product a "reboot." --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

Production section: third paragraph needs a 'he' was taken to the hospital. 97.104.137.192 (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: This sentence reads grammatically correct.

"That same month, Harrison Ford fractured his leg while filming at Pinewood after a hydraulic door on the Millennium Falcon set fell on him and was taken to a hospital." 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Surely by the rules of grammar, this implies that it was the hydraulic door that was taken to a hospital. (A dangling modifier?) 208.81.28.208 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Box office

The number is given in billions but I guess the right figure should be 2.068 millions, not billions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.90.4 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That's 2-point-068 billion, i.e. just over 2 billion. I realize different countries use different digit separators, but Wikipedia uses '.' as the decimal point exclusively. See MOS:DECIMAL and MOS:DIGITS. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151230043857/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/937e730fac6f463f96ff46e4f1079c26/force-awakens-becomes-fastest-movie-1-billion to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/937e730fac6f463f96ff46e4f1079c26/force-awakens-becomes-fastest-movie-1-billion

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

I don't know why Star Wars: The Force Awakens was just rated C-class?? I've translated this article in Vietnamese and I nominated it for featured articles in viwiki, but somehow people here protested because of the C-class in enwiki. Please someone tell me why! Mintu Martin (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that this article is deserved to rate B-class. Mintu Martin (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Box office performance information

Hello Everyone,

As I mentioned during my soliloquy above, I have never contributed to this article, but I have really enjoyed reading it. Two areas that I think could use cleanup are the "Theatrical run" and "Commercial analysis" sections. I don't think that the article really needs eight to ten paragraphs on those topics. Maybe a paragraph each to summarize, and then a totally separate article with the more granular details, or something along those lines. All that information just isn't readable, at least in my opinion. I just wanted to give my two cents on that; do with it what you may. Thanks all!--Ktmartell (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Critical Reception

I think it's worth mentioning in the "Talk" section that the user reviews for this movie on imdb are almost universally, highly critical, especially those reviews that have the highest number of "useful" reviews. Below is a link to the imdb user reviews, sorted by "most useful": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/reviews?start=0 A very quick scroll through reveals that it is pages and pages and pages of highly negative reviews before any positive review is offered, and then pages and pages and pages of negative reviews before another one is returned. In fact, with this sort, as of December 26th, 2016, there is exactly one positive review in the first 16 pages of reviews under the "most useful" sort. Said positive review is the only one in those 16 pages with a user rating of more than 5 stars out of 10, offering a rating of 9 stars out of 10; the vast majority of reviews offer a rating of just 1 star out of 10. I personally think this fact should be at least mentioned in the "Critical Response" subsection of the article, especially in light of the otherwise very favorable critical response, but the merits of user reviews are not something I will explicitly defend. I will leave this note up for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.25.204 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

IMDb is generally not a WP:Reliable source. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Would this constitute an exception, given that "Critical Reception" is about matters of opinion, and the source provided tends to indicate negative opinion? I.e. the pertinent information is not how accurate the opinion is but how accurately the opinion reflects its critical reception among users, especially on this scale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.25.204 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just about every other review has had a section on negative reviews to balance it out and I recall reading a mixed bag for The Force Awakens, some saying that it copied too much from a New Hope while others pointing to the lead male character for "breathing too heavy" and Rae for being good at everything...the point is that the Critical Reception brief now reads like The Force Awakens was the cinematic equivalent of "The Catcher in the Rye" and loved by all...for the sake of balance, it should be, well, balanced (2603:300A:1603:4400:E5AE:146D:3925:C4E5 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC))

The final paragraph of the section clearly begins with "Some critics found the film too derivative of previous Star Wars films." And then goes into criticism of the film. What other criticism did the film get? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As someone who has never contributed to the article, but has read more about The Force Awakens than I care to admit, I have a couple of thoughts to add. Firstly, approximately 90% of critical reviews for The Force Awakens were positive, so to evenly balance the positive and negative reviews in the article would be confusing, in my opinion. Secondly, complaints about Rey's character were much more prevalent in amateur reviews, which are not reliable sources, as has already been mentioned. Here is one particularly interesting can of worms that might arise from referencing IMDB: Most user reviews are negative but the film still rates as a top 250 film of all-time based on user scores. What in the world is going on there? I wouldn't touch that kind of thing with a ten-foot pole.--Ktmartell (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's no way to validly evenly balance the positive and negative; that would be WP:False balance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone anywhere mentioning the IMDb usefulness score of user reviews as a sign of anything. The reviews are unreliable sources and hinting that the user scores of them mean anything would violate WP:SYNTHESIS. Maybe a small minority of haters look for all negative reviews and mark them as useful. Or maybe a lot of other things. If nobody else assigns any meaning to the scores then neither should Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, but the reviews are user-generated and are not published with any editorial oversight, both of which are clearly against what we would typically consider a reliable source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Craig as Stormtrooper

In an interview on Stephen Colbert's show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNr9xdc6cVA somewhere from 7:30 onwards) he said he managed to get a cameo as a stormtrooper, not with his face showing but with some text. Don't know if this is just one of those little stories made up for show purposes, but the host said "if you listen closely, you can recognize him", so it might actually be true. This might be something for a trivia section or similar. --79.194.242.135 (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The page mentions he had a cameo. He was the Stormtrooper that Rey used the Force on to get him to release her from her restraints. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"Overwhelmingly" for the Critical response section again

Tenebrae, regarding this, we discussed it last year. Remember? The discussion is now at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens/Archive 5#Reception. I stated that " 'overwhelmingly positive' isn't my cup of tea either. It was added by the editor who added the sources to go along with it, and I saw it as a decent compromise for those wanting 'critically acclaimed' wording. I usually prefer 'generally positive,' 'generally negative,' 'mainly positive' or 'mainly negative.' I don't like simply stating 'positive' since the film got negative reviews as well; similar goes for stating 'negative' in the case of a mostly criticized film that got positive reviews as well."

Others weighed in. And you stated, "I was unaware of this discussion; I hadn't realized there had been debate over the word. If other editors believe this is settled consensus, albeit not being an RfC circulated throughout the wider WikiProject Film for discussion, then by all means reinsert 'widely.' I would ask anyone who does so consider that we do not use this term with movies having even higher RT ratings, and that is is, unquestionably, a subjective, unquantifiable term. I find it a classic example of fannish WP:PEACOCK we don't generally use in other film articles. But if we're making an exception here and singling this movie out for special treatment, i won't fight conensus."

The use of "overwhelmingly" there, with the sourcing to support it, has been relatively stable, without much dispute. Of course, an IP recently added "critical acclaim" to the lead, but, as you saw, that IP was reverted on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

My bad. I'd forgotten there was a discussion. I'll revert myself, if it hasn't already been reverted. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, we should try "mostly positive." If editors want sourcing to support that wording, I'm sure there's some reliable sources out there for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a significant difference between "mostly" and "overwhelmingly", with the former seeming to imply a majority (51% or better) as it does in most grammatical uses, while the latter implies a much higher percentage (like a supermajority). Unless there's a compelling reason to change it, the current form seems just fine. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"Mainly positive" or "generally positive" would work too, but we've had editors who feel that's not enough to relay the positive reception of this film. It's one reason that "critically acclaimed" kept getting added. But, yeah, "overwhelmingly positive" has been meant as a compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

GA nomination?

MagicatthemovieS, regarding this, will you discuss your nominations before making them, especially when you haven't been substantially involved in building the article? You've already recently nominated the Gone Girl (film) article for GA, and that GA review has yet to begin. When you nominate these articles, you are putting pressure on those who care about them to become involved with the GA review or watch the article fail if the one who nominated it does not stick around to see the reviewer's criticisms through. This is why WP:FAs should only be nominated by those who have been major contributors to the article. I think you should pull the GA nomination for this article until its main contributors are confident with going through with a GA nomination for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, Popcornduff, TheOldJacobite, MarnetteD, DonQuixote, Darkwarriorblake, Oknazevad, PrimeHunter and NinjaRobotPirate, opinions on the nomination? Are we ready to go through with it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I personally think major contributors should be the ones to nominate an article. There are a few articles I've been working on off and on that could probably pass a GA review, but they'd need some work. It's a little frustrating to have that work pushed to the forefront when someone else nominates the article before I'm ready. Part of the problem is that the work is sometimes not obvious to someone unfamiliar with the article and the sources. The article certainly looks impressively filled out, though I'd probably copy edit it a bit further. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I'm definitely not one to ask. My work here has consisted almost entirely of reverting vandalism. I can't comment on the article's strengths and weaknesses. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 10:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've never really considered myself a major contributor to this article, just vocal on the talk page, so I'm not sure how much help I can be. oknazevad (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, guys. I'll leave a note at WP:Film and see if anyone else has an opinion on whether or not we should push through with the GA nomination. MagicatthemovieS, you can also clearly still weigh in; for example, letting us know if you plan to be involved with the review once it begins. Another concern of mine is adhering to any whims of the GA reviewer; those who have been heavily involved with the article and/or watching the article are the ones who are going to be up to the task of countering criticisms from the GA reviewer. It's not a good thing to simply go along with everything the reviewer wants. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping Flyer22 Reborn. My edits were mostly housekeeping and, like TOJ, I wouldn't know the articles status re GA. I can say that Magic nominated at least one other article and did not do the necessary followup. I don't know whether this is a pattern or even a WP:CIR problem. If they don't respond here - or others don't encourage the GA - in the next few days I would suggest that it be removed. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Once the review begins, I will definitely help to get this article to a place where we are all satisfied with it and it can reach GA status. - MagicatthemovieS 13:11, 20 September 2017‎ (UTC)

I personally do not feel this article is ready to be nominated to GA at this time. And while it appears I am a top contributor to the page, I'm not looking to pursue getting this article to GA. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't consider myself a major contributor either, but there I am in the top 10. Amazing what a couple of years of drive-by edits does, I suppose. At a glance, the article looks more or less in good shape to me, but I haven't examined it in detail - especially not the sources - and I'm not about to get my hands dirty with a GA either. Popcornduff (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Guys, I wasn't suggesting that everyone I pinged is a top contributor; I focused on pinging active watchers of the article. Given that we all seem to be the main editors of the article now, however, the pings are also relevant in that regard.

Anyway, per the comments above, I'm going to pull the GA review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"Guys, I wasn't suggesting that everyone I pinged is a top contributor; I focused on pinging active watchers of the article." Well, now you've hurt my feelings. I've given it some thought and I think I deserve credit for everything. Popcornduff (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://indd.adobe.com/view/87976431-f650-4be0-a9c3-392d676b5514
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151219071307/http://www.opencastingcall2013.com/ to http://www.opencastingcall2013.com/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715043003/https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/harrison-fords-star-wars-injury-details-195505600.html to https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/harrison-fords-star-wars-injury-details-195505600.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150916074352/http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Star_Wars_Episode_VII_Will_Be_Called_The_Force_Awakens_160763.asp to http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Star_Wars_Episode_VII_Will_Be_Called_The_Force_Awakens_160763.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

Nburket98 (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Running time 136 minutes

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)