Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Questions are being removed from this talk page contrary to Wikipedia policy

I will wp:AFG and an involuntary mistake having been made without RfC or noticeboard recourse.

User Oknazevad on 8 July 2021 removed the following talk page contribution:

“Why is the Star Wars: TLJ wikipedia article locked (semi protected) for editing? None of the other sequel trilogy movies articles are locked (semi protected) Is there something going on with this article we should know about or mention? The contents doesn’t mention anything out of the ordinary. What is different about this movie as opposed to the others. It seems very sinister.”

The fact that only this single Star Wars movie is semi protected and having talk comments which question the omission of this fact from the article itself being deleted is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Nothing in the lede or the article refers to anything that may warrant this. Gold333 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It is locked because of persistent vandalism. Spanneraol (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Court opinion added to audience section

Resolved

 – There doesn't appear to be valid reason to include this in the audience reception section. Even the user objecting admitted it didn't belong. Marking this resolved. Nemov (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Inexpiable, can you explain why the court addition to the audience section is relevant? It's kind of strange you left this bit a praise for this section a few days ago, but you're protecting this illogical addition. - Nemov (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Nemov It isn't particularly relevant to the audience section but I don't see why it should be removed from the article altogether. It seems a relevant and interesting thing to add. I stand by what I wrote here a few days ago, however, that doesn't mean criticism about the film should be ignored. Any form of criticism about the film, or praise for that matter, that can be supported by a reliable source should be added. I think the article as it stands now reads well, and is pretty fair, but criticism or negative views about the film can still be added, and shouldn't be removed just because you personally disagree with them. It's pretty clear to see based on your comments here, edits to this article, and your overall edit history, that you are clearly a fan of this film and Rian Johnson's work. Wikipedia should be neutral, and any form of criticism about the film, or praise, supported by a reliable source should be added to the article, and not removed just because you don't think it's relevant. Why is it not relevant? You just removed it completely rather than moving it to a different section, and gave an edit description saying "Not worth adding", that is not a reason to remove the statement. If that same judge had described the film as a "grand masterpiece" of cinema, I find it hard to believe that you would have removed it from the article. Please be neutral and don't remove stuff just because you personally disagree with it. Inexpiable (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Inexpiable, thanks for the long response and the time you took to view my edit history, but you make my point in your first sentence, this "isn't particularly relevant to the audience section." This was added without explanation to the audience section. I removed it because it doesn't belong. If you believe it should be in another section please feel free to move it there and spend less time claiming other users aren't making GFE. - Nemov (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The onus is on you to gain consensus now that you've been reverted. I also disagree that it should be included. It was tried before months ago and removed. It's a trivial mention by a non-film critic; it's simply one person's opinion. You could find thousands like it on Twitter that were spotted and mentioned by reliable sources, but no, we're not including any of that, good or bad. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

And just for clarification, the same editor who inserted this tried it previously in June in this edit, which was reverted. ImYourTurboLover should probably be discussing it at this point instead of coming back and trying every few months. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that a random footnote by a judge in a court opinion that has no significance for the film should not be included (and it is worrying that the content appears to distort what was actually said in the court opinion). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Themes?

Should there be a section about the themes of the movie like failure?

FreezingTNT2 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources talk about it, then yes. DonQuixote (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Audience reception in the lead (part 2)

Unfounded accusations about editor behavior (whitewashing, fanboy, etc.) made by a single-purpose account

This was a lot to read, and I will, but I strongly concur that it's essential information to mention this film has caused enormour division among the fan base. Abrams even tried to undo most of the story points with the sequel, which is remarkable (though I understand that's hard to explain in a Wikipedia article). Even one of the prominent authors of the SW universe in no uncertain terms have scathing criticism too; that isn't "blogging material" (I can find the actual interview in a sec). But surely, as Wikipedia covers all the basics of topics such a pertient fact that this is an exceedingly divisive film really needs to at least be mentioned prominently. The language used to describe this fact in the article significantly plays down the facts. It is not a stretch that immediate insight from moviegoers who are not fans may differ from fans and that fans may not be the bulk of viewers on release but over time will greatly affect the direction of future media. Rotten tomatoes is still at 42% even after hundreds of thousands of reviews and any potential negative campaigns at release filtered out with the help of RT themselves or just time. Even if that is diregarded, by now there are hundreds/thousands of mainstream entertainment media articles and content (like "top x lists" etc) that explicitly mentions the film as divisive. Considering there are lots of non-scientific sources for many other facts like George Lucas' "Beautifully made" comment from Screenrant, that same publication also mentioned the controversy and explained it in short wording and how GL seems unimpressed with the sequels generally[1]. The point about controversy can easily be backed up by a list of references as long as the entire references list of this article (of varying degrees of quality, of course); all blog entries excluded. Star Wars: The Last Jedi was a divisive entry. Most critics and many viewers praised the unexpectedness of The Last Jedi’s plot, while some new and longtime fans of the franchise felt it misunderstood its characters and the universe they inhabit. The film’s negative reception was shared by more than viewers. Mark Hamill, John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Sam Witwer, and Alan Dean Foster all criticized the movie with varying degrees of subtlety. Pretty good summary. The list of "important names" is also not trivial. Lucas' opinion is unknown (other than the visuals) but he was disappointed they didn't use his treatment for the film; worth mentioning. In regards to vote bombing, didnt RT themselves say they didn't seem to suspect bots/bombs but simply detected unusually high activity? It's entirely plausible that it more disturbed the ire of fans rather than an outright campaign. Regardless, are there facts to back either claim up? What facts would "suspicion of bombing" require to be in plain text when the overt and obvious controversy is not? Regardless, both a possible bombing as well as actual reviews show divisiveness of the film itself. I mentioned that JJ Abrams tried to undo the entire middle movie but media such as the Mandalorian is also in direct contrast and very much in the theme of the original Star Wars (even including the prequels, but grittier). TLJ is radically different than really everything that came before or after so it's not strange that individuals who were invested in this worldbuilding may have a negative emotional response. The subverted expectations in the rest of the franchise is carefully built up and nuanced before execution while Johnson seem to press the subvesion button like a skinner box (and obviously this was very popular among many non-fans). I am not advocating making a point about the film and I understand some fanboys/girls may have the OPINION "everyone" hates it even though that is blatantly not true. I just want to make sure that all pertient facts about TLJ are easily available on the world's best place for bulk impartial information. It seems enormously skewed to try and whitewash when selecting sources. In brief: What are the main arguments to NOT include the very factual and easily sourced controversy? Is it only a lack of (literally) scientific studies? If so there is an imbalance on sources. Would other contributors here be OK by using a similar level of referencing in terms of the controversy to other aspects such as percieved reception or "opinions of X famous person" and include the controversy? Are there any reality-based arguments for excluding a very important part of this film's legacy or is it mostly the opinions of local editors that "the films was good" and that facts about it should be swept under the rug? I know my wording may not be the most neutral here and I apologise, but I want to know this literal thing and I'd like the article to be as factual as possible. Leord Redhammer (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of curious how Wikipedia editors handle topics like this going forward. This is only a contentious subject because Star Wars is a huge intellectual property with passionate fans. Every controlled survey shows 80%+ of people who saw the films like it but there's a very vocal minority that has received far more attention that it deserves. This vocal minority receives undue attention because it is over represented on the internet. This has led to extensive notable coverage online. The film really isn't divisive if 80%+ of people like it, but it's divisive online and that appears to be driving the coverage. Shouldn't Wikipedia rise above "internet reality?" Internet discussion is rarely representative of the general public. That's certainly the case when it comes to this topic. The current consensus on this article is to ignore the facts to accommodate a vocal minority position. This accommodation is made simply because the group is notable for being vocal. - Nemov (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I highly doubt that 80%+ of audiences liked it. That is a ridiculous overestimation. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the majority hated it, either, but it cannot be denied that there was some divisiveness over this entry in the franchise. I don’t think negative opinions can just be dismissed as review bombing. I agree with some of what has been said by people like Leord Redhammer and others have said here. It at least deserves some mention and is important information about the film. I am strongly against a separate article, as I don’t think it is important enough to warrant that. It does deserve to be discussed in the article, though. I also question the validity of some of the sources cited as evidence that negative reception is just a vocal minority and should be dismissed. Sources that simply poll people’s opinions upon leaving the theater are not reliable, as many people take time to form their final opinion on a film, and their final opinion may be very different from their initial opinion. Thus, I don’t consider such polling scientific at all, as it just assumes that the opinion of the moviegoer remains static and doesn’t account for people changing their minds at all. It isn’t scientific to dismiss the possibility of change over time. All possible variables that can effect the outcome must be taken into account in order for a study to be considered scientific. I have also yet to see a single source that proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that negative reception is simply a vocal minority and that we should dismiss any source that says anything to the contrary. The fact that this very topic has been brought up multiple times by multiple users over the years since the films release in 2017 seems evidence in and of itself that this isn’t something that should be dismissed. Perhaps it is indeed time to discuss this again. Anasaitis (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Unless you can provide some reliable sources that back up your assertions, nothing can be done. DonQuixote (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with DonQuixote. You need to produce legit sources that have reliably assessed overall audience reception before we can have this conversation. Otherwise, it's a pointless exercise to draw this out any further. I also don't think it's a coincidence that Leord Redhammer has only contributed five times, all on talk pages. Smells fishy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Every scientifically controlled survey that has attempted to measure what people thought of this film shows that the overwhelming majority liked the film. If there was real evidence to the contrary it would be included in this article. The entire "it's divisive" narrative is driven by internet perception. That perception has generated coverage. There are people who hate the film, they're very vocal online, but their opinions are definitely over amplified thanks to how the internet machine works. Nemov (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well I apologise if it came across as accusatory. I suffer from exhaustion and often get unable to dig in to a topic sometimes for long stretches. I have lost access to the e-mail used for Leord and I am unfortunately unable to retain it. Not that it has much activity either, but I have always been a wiki fan and have use MW in my jobs as well as run my own for my roleplaying campaign setting. I donate to the foundation. I have also on many occasions between 2014 and 2018 made (mostly minor) edits not logged in or made a temporary username I can't remember. I started "Redhammer" to properly consolidate usernames.

I am sorry but it's actually quite hurtful to just delet-ish-ing my post, especially labelling it as making unfounded accusations of editor behaviours. You'd have to pick singular words or lines to get that impression from quite a long post. It's hardly encouraging someone to contribute or do better with this sort of response. I am removing the tags, but I would actually be exceedingly thankful and it would restore massive faith in editors who do this a whole lot more than me if it was allowed to be seen as normal. I really don't mean to imply the editors of THIS PAGE are fanboys, whitewash or the like. I am asking for advice in good faith.

Just throwing "WP:RS" out is basically redundant. If you know for a fact that websites that report on pop culture can not be considered a source, just say so! If the rules say we need to wait for peer-review on it, that's fine for me too. I DO understand there are more films that can also be seen as divisive by small or large groups of people of different "enthusiasm" and there needs to be a procedure on how to rule on phrasing; I am a fan of systems. That's all fair.

The reason I am cautious is I have had issues in the past of "fanboys" and I don't have the energy to get sources (like top 50 media commentators on Alexa or something) and then having to argue for it afterwards. I'd rather just get a straight up "no" and look elsewhere. Obviously I understand that no editor here is obliged to answer me, and technically "WP:RS" IS an answer so there's that, but it's too complex for me to easily digest for the fairly simple question I have on a limited topic.

So, regardless of if you feel my original comment may be allowed to be seen here, is it really as simple as new polls (of relevant size) needs to be made to describe the current state of reception to this film? Does anyone have some other example of what would be acceptable quality sources?

If a full 20% of all movie goers didn't like it is not an insignificant number, considering that could very well be 100% of eople who may describe themselves as "dedicated fans". While big Hollywood films draw a lot on moviegoers alone, new media in the form of streaming is (especially because of Covid-19) also gaining momentum and then fanbase matters more than big one-offs. MCU has a significantly different treatment of their core "universe" and even smaller budget films and those with less positive critical receptions do quite well a lot thanks to this. What fans think (or more precisely: what pop culture media outlet editors identify that fans think) definitely matters more than "internet chatter".

But if it doesn't matter to Wikipedia, there is no point discussing it any further until in-depth analysis is done. So that is what I am asking about. (And I realise the energy I spent on writing this could have been better used to read WP:RS, but thus works my stupid mind.) Leord Redhammer (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Your post can still be seen. Anyone can simply view it by clicking "show". If you continue to post walls of text (as seen in both of your posts here so far), future posts may be collapsed as well. No one's going to read all that, so you'd be wise to keep your posts short and succinct if your intention is for others to respond. I'm not going to address the numerous aspects of your last reply, but going right to the heart of the matter, if you believe additional coverage should be added to the article, you need to start by providing the sources you're drawing the information/conclusions from. What's currently in the article has been thoroughly discussed and is properly sourced. It may benefit you to read through the archives on this talk page before posting your next reply. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a controversial topic. It's especially difficult to make statements on audience reception, because there may be misinformation due to agendas, conflicts of interest and dishonest practices. For example, the article text references the possibility of fake or biased negative reviews, but not the possibility of bots spamming positive reviews (for which I saw lots of speculation online). Many have also questioned the integrity of the film's positive reviews, citing ideological bias or collusion. Of course, the main thing is Reliable Sources, which requires digging. but even there, there's the issue of bias in coverage -- RS are far more likely to support a major corporation's party line, rather than a groundswell of public opinion to the contrary. I don't have sources to offer at the moment, this is just guidance on how to approach the matter. Xcalibur (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There's scientifically controlled surveys that measure audience reception. That's not misinformation. Every scientifically controlled survey shows the audience overwhelmingly liked the film. The "misinformation due to agenda" could be attributed to anything written online after the film was released. The audience scores and box office return on the film suggest the film was received well by the majority of the audience. - Nemov (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Bloggers and journalists often write from a captivating perspective and get caught up in all the surrounding hoopla of the times, weighing in on hearsay and offering their own opinions. Unless they cite objective evidence, much of it can be tossed out as speculative. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

yes, but that assumes that the scientific surveying was done with proper methodology. incorrect selection/size for sampling, leading/misleading questions, inaccurate tabulation of results, etc can subvert the scientific method and lead to false results being published, yet enshrined with the clout of "scientific truth". this is especially a concern when a major corporation has an agenda, presumably to portray their film and its reception in a positive light. while anecdotal evidence is generally not sufficient, I've observed alot of grassroots backlash against this film online, so much so that I have to question the party line here. Xcalibur (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"...that assumes that the scientific surveying was done with proper methodology"

You can dissect any study or survey to a fault, but that's not our job. The industry has widely accepted the methodology we are citing in the article, as have other secondary sources and the Wikipedia Film Project as a whole. No one is saying those polls are the final word, just like RT and MC scores are not the end all be all, but we are simply including it as one aspect of audience reception. Other competing aspects are also mentioned as they should be per WP:NPOV. I understand your concern, but I'm not sure where you're going with it or what changes you think should be made (if any).

"while anecdotal evidence is generally not sufficient, I've observed..."

I'll even take that a step further. Anecdotal evidence (aka personal research) is flat out not permitted. No need to waste any time on that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm simply encouraging editors to look for sources that tell a different side to the story, that's all. I'm not sure what those are, but they may be out there. However, powerful vested interests (eg Disney) tend to dominate RS, so intrinsic bias is something to take into consideration.

I'm aware this is nowhere near acceptable as RS, but consider the following Youtube video: [2] this is the first part of a harshly critical video review of TLJ, it has 3.2 million views, and the interaction is about 95% positive/supportive (by my estimation). Of course, this is no basis for writing an article, but it's strong evidence that reality is not being portrayed accurately. How else do you explain that?

It's apparent to me that there's alot of criticism not being accounted for, and if supporting RS can be found, coverage of this would improve the article. Xcalibur (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

to add onto what I said, it's not just Youtube. there's also the precipitous decline in box office returns after the first week, and the poor performance of Solo, the following release. All this is consistent with audience backlash. In addition, if the surveys were only done in certain urban areas on opening weekend, that might be enough to skew the results. I'm aware that OR is not permitted, but I think the evidence veers towards SKYISBLUE in its indication that there was in fact a large-scale negative response, and that audiences & professional reviewers were deeply divided over this. Xcalibur (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you've introduced your personal observations and analysis indicates that it's nowhere near SKYISBLUE. For tertiary sources, such as Wikipedia, evidence comes from reputable secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition, you still haven't said what it is about the "Audience reception" section that you disagree with. We mention the negative user ratings from RT in the 2nd paragraph, and almost the entire 3rd paragraph is dedicated to aspects of the film that some viewers were unhappy with. What's missing here? --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed that you think we need to include something about bots spamming positive reviews. Even if that did happen and sources could be found, the overall audience score was still negative on RT. Does it really change anything? In the end, the numbers are unreliable because of how susceptible the system is to fake reviews. You seem to want to put more stock into a rating we can never trust. What's the point? --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

there's coverage, to an extent. but it doesn't capture the large-scale negative response of many fans that I've witnessed. it describes the divisiveness, true, but it doesn't quite cover the gulf between reviewers and audiences. it also emphasizes allegations of review-bombing, with no mention of the opposite allegation, that there were bots/shills inflating the score, which I saw much of. of course we have to work from the RS, but it's apparent to me that the current content is not an accurate portrayal of reality. in cases like this, where RS can be biased, it helps to dig deeper to find the other side of the story. if I had the RS, I could make the necessary changes. until then, I can only bring up shortcomings, and point others in the right direction.

tl;dr: current coverage of negative audience response is insufficient and inaccurate. the RS themselves may be lopsided in their coverage here, and we need new RS to cover a different, opposing narrative, which I see as significant to the topic. Xcalibur (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Or...and bear with me on this one...it seems "lopsided" to you because you're a fringe minority viewpoint and we're not just out of the blue going to give you more weight than you deserve. If you're wanting to change public perception on this topic, then you've come to the wrong place as we're only here to reflect what reputable sources have to say. What you probably need to do is to get your observations and analysis published in a reputable source before we'll be able to touch it. DonQuixote (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a "fringe minority", and I'm not trying to "change public perception". There's already a widespread public perception that the majority of fans hated the film, and that reviewers are off in cloudcuckooland. my whole point is that the article doesn't cover this state of affairs adequately, and hopefully improvements can be made, if the RS can be found. Xcalibur (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There's already a widespread public perception that the majority of fans hated the film, and that reviewers are off in cloudcuckooland.

So you claim, and yet you haven't provided any evidence of this. The fact that you've made these broad claims without any evidence makes you come off as being fringe. DonQuixote (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Xcalibur: Your position is beginning to creep into WP:TENDENTIOUS territory. You have an obvious bias that the film was received more negatively than what has been reported in mainstream reliable sources. It's OK for editors to be biased, that's natural, but it's not OK for articles. Even more interestingly, you have arrived at this biased conclusion without first being influenced by reliably-published information (of which you yourself admit may not even exist to begin with). That implies you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS based on your own perception of the truth. You say it's only a call to action, hoping someone out there has what you are desperately seeking: vindication in RS that your perception is real and holds weight. If reliable sources come along at some point and start telling a different story, we'll take action then. Preempting reliable sources with your own personal discoveries is not what talk pages on Wikipedia are for.

You have also spent a great deal of time challenging the existing RS cited in the article with...no, not other sources...but with...wait for it...your own personal observations! Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? Attempting to cast doubt on the validity of a source without anything concrete to counter it with is a common tactic employed by tendentious editors. They are only concerned with finding sources that support their desired viewpoint instead of remaining objective (see WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH). Comments like "hopefully improvements can be made" when no faults have been established is a passive-aggresive stab suggesting the opposition doesn't want improvements to happen. You should assume good faith that all editors here want what's best for the article.

TL;DR: You appear to be treating this page like a wishing well without offering anything of real substance toward the improvement of the article. You've expressed your opinion; time to move on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Essentially most of the support for the divisiveness of this film is based on user online polls that are easy to manipulate by mobs (see: Rotten Tomatoes) and by online coverage of the mobs. As I've stated before, Star Wars is a huge IP. So a YouTube video review that has 3 million views is hardly evidence of anything other than Star Wars is popular and people have strong opinions about the IP. People need to remember that online crowds are not necessarily representative of the general public. The internet makes it easier for minority opinions to be loud. For an IP as big as Star Wars if 20% of people hated something that's going to represent a huge number of people online. This is why reliable sources are so important to carve through the chatter. - Nemov (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No reliable sources have been provided in any of the discussions by those who claim that a large number of fans did not like the film. Unless there are particular sources to discuss by those who want to add additional information about the audience reception, then I'm not sure what point there is in arguing the issue. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I think how the article reads now in relation to audience reception is very fair and well written and very neutral/unbiased. Good job on whoever did this but it reads nicely and remains unbiased in my honest opinion, and I say this as someone who didn't particularly like the film. Inexpiable (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Hi, I apologize for vanishing from the discussion, and not responding back in a timely manner. I've been busy as of late, so please excuse me (although NODEADLINES seems to be relevant to this sort of thing).

the points above seem to make alot of negative assumptions about my motives, you're supposed to ASSUMEGOODFAITH.

it's true that RS are hard to come by, but this is a tricky situation. I have provided evidence, albeit not of a kind that can be accepted for a WP article. it seems quite clear that there was a large-scale negative backlash, how else could you account for what I've observed? again, it's not RS-based, but what do you do when the RS themselves seem skewed? RS do not define reality. Again, if the "majority of fans liked the film", why did harsh critiques get strong support, why did fans boycott Solo, why is there so much negativity around? You claim that negative reviews on RT were from bots or trolls, but this seems like a baseless conspiracy theory, designed to push a narrative; you're ignoring the far more likely possibility that many positive reviews were fake, and the negative audience score doesn't accurately show the large-scale rejection. You dismiss all this as personal observations, yet I see no way of rationalizing this away. In particular, So a YouTube video review that has 3 million views is hardly evidence of anything other than Star Wars is popular and people have strong opinions about the IP. except that the ratings/comments are all positive and in agreement. There's alot of grassroots backlash against the film, but I don't see much of any grassroots support, except 5-star RT reviews that seem like bot posts. There's also the made-up nonsense about fans "harassing" Kelly Marie Tran, with a facebook group that was certainly a false-flag by Disney. So there's plenty of grounds to question claims made by RS. eta- just came across this [3] a petition circulated after the film came out, asking it to be removed from canon! Again, if most of the audience liked the film, where does this come from? eta: a very strong point of evidence is the divergence on RT between professional reviews and the audience score. even with the audience score skewed upwards, there's still a vast difference between them. this speaks to a basic disconnect between industry insiders (who provide the RS) and the audience at large, which confirms my point: for this article, the RS and obvious reality are not consistent with each other.

It's like the RS are saying the sky is green, and these are funded by the Green Sky Institution. I point out that when I go outside, I observe that the sky is blue. this is dismissed as personal observations and a fringe minority view, after all, the RS say it's green, and all the activity online saying it's blue is surely the work of shills and trolls, and going against the RS is tendentious, despite the blatant CoI. Likewise, it's in the interest of a megacorporation to push the narrative that their major film release was well-received, and to dismiss obvious evidence to the contrary.

so that's what this boils down to -- I'm letting you know that the article is inaccurate, and that this is a problem that should be rectified, RS permitting. That's all. Xcalibur (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have provided evidence, albeit not of a kind that can be accepted for a WP article.

What you're looking for is a secondary source where you can publish your evidence, like a journal or magazine or fansite. Wikipedia is a tertiary source where we summarise what's already published in secondary sources.

a very strong point of evidence is the divergence on RT between professional reviews and the audience score

I suggest you take a statistics class to learn why this is meaningless. DonQuixote (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

why did fans boycott Solo - why is there so much negativity around? - There's alot of grassroots backlash against the film

You undermine any hope you have of making a compelling argument with these unprovable personal observations. This is a very good example of how people read loads of "what's talked about online" and interpret nonsense as reality. This really is an easy discussion. There never has been a one scientific survey of people who have seen the film to support the claim that most people or half the people didn't like the film. I assume this lack of evidence is what keeps this going? If a person really believes that Disney performed a "false flag" operation to justify an actor getting harassed off social media then what chance is there that person will understand the basic scientific theory behind statistics? Provide some coverage of real data and it will be included here. - Nemov (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

if you've seen that screencap of the "Down with Disney's treatment of fanboys" fb group, it was blatantly a false flag. if it were genuine, they wouldn't call themselves fanboys, and they would refer to the EU, not Legends. but even if you don't accept other points I've made, the ratings clash on RT is highly relevant. yes, I understand statistics just fine: sampling, methodology, etc. That doesn't explain away the gulf between reviewers and audience. You seem to be suggesting that the audience score is subject to sampling bias, but I see no grounds for this. If anything, there's evidence that the audience score is skewed *upward* by various means, such as not counting 1 star reviews, 5 star bot reviews, etc., a more accurate score might be in the 10-20% range. Either way, it's still 91% vs 42% at the time of writing, which is far too significant to be explained away by error/bias. Additionally, scientific surveys conducted in very limited times/places are actually far more vulnerable to sampling bias than online feedback, so you shouldn't presume that these surveys are signal to RTs noise, it may in fact be the other way around.

Overall, it's apparent that there's a vast divergence between professional and popular opinion. Consider also that the RS will naturally reflect the critics and industry insiders who get published, not grassroots opinion. And since we write from the RS, rather than what's obviously true, the end result is that this article mostly tells one side of the story. It may touch on some of the controversy, but it doesn't adequately cover the fans' overwhelming rejection of the film. Xcalibur (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

So what methodology does Rotten Tomatoes use to compensate for self-selection bias inherent in an opt-in survey? You can publish your findings in a reputable secondary source so that we can cite you and start using Rotten Tomatoes user scores. DonQuixote (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"Consider also that the RS will naturally reflect the critics and industry insiders who get published, not grassroots opinion"

This is another example of wishing to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, something Wikipedia is incapable of doing. Let me be very clear. You are now exhibiting WP:IDHT behavior, which is a form of disruption that can very easily lead to a block or sanction. You are constantly restating an opinion that lacks WP:RS support and flies in the face of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We have heard you, and it's way past time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Should you come across a reliable source that adequately supports your claims, we can revisit and cross that bridge if needed. The rest of this is all noise. Personal observations, no matter how right you believe them to be, have zero chance in improving the article, and are therefore disruptive to the purpose of article talk pages. If the disruption continues, this will escalate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the others here that unless there are reliable sources being presented to support the claims being made, there is no real point in this discussion. Rotten Tomatoes audience scores are not reliable. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

DonQuixote: that didn't make much sense. of course online feedback is subject to biases (especially since the audience score is skewed upwards), but given its wide accessibility and large time-window, I trust those results moreso than surveys conducted only on opening weekend and in select cities.

Gonein60: it's not RIGHTGREATWRONGS at all, it's pointing out systemic bias in the RS that this article is built upon. if you care about documenting facts, rather than crafting well-sourced fiction, this is a relevant point. why are you being so hostile? all I've done is bring up serious deficiencies in the article, explain why that is, and point others in a constructive direction.

Wallyfromdilbert: of course we need RS. my hope is that my fellow editors would be proactive in helping me find RS to fill in information currently lacking in the article. I can look myself, but I may not have the expertise of others here, so hopefully they can assist me, now that I've brought the issue to light. That's all I'm doing here. Xcalibur (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

So let's summarize your talking points so you don't have to keep repeating them:

• All reliable sources that fail to depict or quantify negative audience reception (or seem to contradict RT's audience score in some way) are biased...check Y
• All independent surveying methods – CinemaScore, PostTrak, and SurveyMonkey – are unreliable, especially when compared to uncontrolled online surveys...check Y
• Bots were more likely to spam online surveys with positive reviews as opposed to negative reviews, but you just need some evidence to back that theory...check Y
• Editors who are able to find sources that support the grassroots backlash you observed are encouraged to do so...check Y
• You are fully aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research, which is why you're hoping someone can find the sources you're seeking...check Y
• You admit the article touches on negative audience reception, but you believe it needs to dive deeper, again pending sources which have yet to be found...check Y

The common thread here is that the reliable sources you need to meet WP's Verifiability policy are not available or have yet to be found. Any editor reading this who agrees (or is simply curious) is now on notice to pitch in and help with discovery. Did I miss anything? If not, then we've reached a natural stopping point and can safely assume that further discussion is pending new information. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

green check marks don't refute me. I let you know that the article is incomplete and inaccurate, because while it discusses controversy, it doesn't cover the large-scale backlash of fans. I also provided some explanation and background for this, albeit not the kind that's actionable for the article. And yes, I'm encouraging others to find RS to address this issue, now that I've made it evident. If other editors don't wish to contribute, that's not my fault. that's pretty much where it stands for the time being. Xcalibur (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

that didn't make much sense

See [4] for a start.

I trust those results moreso than surveys conducted only on opening weekend and in select cities.

Unfortunately, you're not an acknowledged expert who's published in reputable sources. As mentioned above, you would need to publish a work that we can cite or cite a reputable source stating this. DonQuixote (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

green check marks don't refute me.

GoneIn60 was summarizing the argument you keep repeating. It wasn't an attempt to refute you. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. - Nemov (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean by self-selection bias now. that is a consideration, but the fact that Star Wars is a vast franchise largely offsets that issue (which would be more relevant to a niche interest). You're also disregarding the possibility that the glowing reviews from critics may also be biased, perhaps much moreso than the audience score. Maybe the critics feel beholden to give positive ratings to a movie that promotes leftist/idpol themes in order to display their loyalty to their political tribe, which would completely undermine their integrity as reviewers; this of course is purely speculative on my part.

I understand it was a summary, but the sarcasm implied by the checkmarks was not-so-subtle, in my view. Xcalibur (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

the fact that Star Wars is a vast franchise largely offsets that issue

You just saying that doesn't make it true. You would need to show it and publish it in a reputable source or cite one that shows that.

this of course is purely speculative on my part.

Then it's neither here nor there for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia reflects what's been published in reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand. my purpose was to discuss the article's deficiency, my reasoning for this (including systemic bias in the sources, which are based on industry insiders who are in turn compromised), and encourage others to be proactive about this. of course, without better sourcing, we can't proceed, so I'll leave it at that for the time being. Xcalibur (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You're not going to get anywhere without any evidence that's not your personal observations or speculation. Please review WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. DonQuixote (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I just admitted that. and all I did was try to conduct a civil discussion on how the article might be improved. if I discussed the film itself, and its moronic comedy, bizarre tonal shifts, narrative flaws, incompetent battles, logic breaks, character assassination, preachiness, and the fact that it's about 90% plagiarized (from Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Battlestar Galactica, Escape from LA, et al), then that would be a violation of FORUM/SOAPBOX. instead, I'm indicating the way forward if/when the needed RS come to light. Naturally, it must wait on that. Xcalibur (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

So essentially, everything in this "Arbitrary break" section can be collapsed. This has become a circular repeat of the comments left in September: where you state how to improve the article, others state that reliable sources are needed first, you clarify that it's only a suggestion and a call to arms, then rinse and repeat. We're in exactly the same place we were back then...waiting on RS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding Driver and Hamill's performance to the lead

@Gonein60: You said it yourself, Travers calls Hamill's performance the best of his career, which, I don't know about you but that seems to me like a pretty important thing considering Mark's career spans over 40 years of films. Hell, even one of the reviews in the article that criticizes the film, Gleiberman's review for Variety praises Hamill's performance saying "Hamill’s burnt-out, faith-challenged Luke (the most resonant character in the movie)" . Travers also praises Driver's performance "Ridley and Driver knock it out of the park as Rey and Ren". BBC News' Will Gompertz does this as well "Adam Driver's performance as the conflicted and recently scarred Kylo Ren is not far behind."

Though not found in The Last Jedi's page, another critic praising Driver's performance in The Last Jedi can be found in Adam Driver's own Wikipedia page: David Edelstein of Vulture wrote, "the core of The Last Jedi — of this whole trilogy, it seems — is Driver's Kylo Ren, who ranks with cinema's most fascinating human monsters." If this doesn't fall under the category of "Most critics", I don't know what does as I have done exactly what you said, I brought sources from both within and outside the article and all are reputable sources.

I believe that either Mark Hamill's or Adam Driver's performance should be included as bullet points in the article or both. I would also change the term Action Sequences for Cinematography(Or at the very least add it) as that term implies that only the action sequences were praised, which is doing a huge disservice to The Last Jedi's visual merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomFelix21 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

For other editors' reference, this stemmed from a talk page discussion at: User talk:wallyfromdilbert#In reference to the revision you made in The Last Jedi

PhantomFelix21, personally I think at first glance, this may be enough to mention it in the body of the article, but I'm not so sure I agree with its prominence in the lead section. It is one aspect, and while several critics mention it, quite a few did not. That puts its significance into question. Let's see what other editors have to say. And for future reference, it's usually best to leave the article as it was before your contested edit while the matter is under discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning Hamill's performance since much the film centered on his character. Not sure there's a compelling reason to add Driver. Nemov (talk)

I agree that adding content to the body of the article could be useful, and it would certainly need to be in the body before anything about it could be added to the lead. However, based on what PhantomFelix21 has described, the content does not seem to have the widespread support in the critical reviews that would be sufficient to include it in the lead (see WP:FILMLEAD). Picking and choosing a few individual reviews to reach a conclusion about what critics felt generally is a form of original research. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nemov I would be content with either appearing, I agree that Hamill's performance is worth mentioning as technically the film's title refers to his character. Though I think you could also make an argument for Driver's performance as the two reviews shown above demonstrate. – PhantomFelix21 (talk)

Wallyfromdilbert Then I will add this on the Critical Reception section. however, I chose three reviews from within the article and one found in another Wikipedia article, I doubt you can call that "Picking and choosing a few individual reviews". – PhantomFelix21 (talk)

PhantomFelix21 Please refrain from making further edits to the article in regards to this topic until there's a consensus to do so. Nemov (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Has "The Council Of Elders" reached a verdict? – PhantomFelix21 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

There's no council, judge, or jury here. Just editors like yourself that operate by consensus.

A source that says something along the lines of "most critics" is needed for that claim. We cannot look at 3, 4, or even 20 sources and draw that conclusion ourselves. However, we can always add Hamill's or Driver's rave review (or both) in the summary of the corresponding review that mentions it, down in the "Critical response" section. I would be cautious about taking that too far though. The summaries should focus on the most relevant points made by the critic, not ALL points made, in order to keep the review summary concise. Which review summary or summaries do you propose modifying? --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60 Here's how I would personally write it in a way to keep it brief but still give it the due credit it deserves in the "Critical response" section:

Particular praise was given to the performances of Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker and Adam Driver as Kylo Ren. Peter Travers called Hamill's performance the best of his career and Owen Gleiberman for Variety praised it by saying "Hamill’s burnt-out, faith-challenged Luke (the most resonant character in the movie)". While Driver was praised by David Edelstein of Vulture who wrote, "the core of The Last Jedi — of this whole trilogy, it seems — is Driver's Kylo Ren, who ranks with cinema's most fascinating human monsters.", as well as BBC News' Will Gompertz who said "Adam Driver's performance as the conflicted and recently scarred Kylo Ren is not far behind."

There, clear and concise. – PhantomFelix21 (talk)

Well, no I don't think creating a new paragraph only dedicated to actor performances is going to gain consensus here. That would be a break from how the critical response section is normally written. Also, Travers' review is already summarized in the 2nd paragraph. So to add his take on Hamill's performance, you could modify that summary to read:

Writing for Rolling Stone, Peter Travers gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, praising Johnson's direction and cast performances, particularly Hamill's, and concluding that the film "ranks with the very best Star Wars epics (even the pinnacle that is The Empire Strikes Back)"

So instead of breaking off the Hamill praise into its own paragraph, it would be preferred to insert it into the existing summary. Gleiberman's comment, however, is more questionable. He's calling Luke the most resonant character in the movie, but is that really praise for Hamill's performance? Sounds like he's just describing the character by calling Luke (not Hamill) the most identifiable. As for Driver's performance, I'm on the fence. Gompertz's review mentions multiple cast members, and he actually praises Benicio Del Toro's performance the most. Edelstein's review isn't currently in that section at all, so it would be a new add altogether that may need more discussion.

So to recap, we're considering modifying Travers, leaving Gleiberman's and Gompertz's alone, and waiting to see what others think about adding Edelstein's. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60 That seems fine by me, I would add Edelstein's review but I guess more people should weigh in on the matter. – PhantomFelix21

Refs mentioned above

References

Add details on the harassment faced by KMT?

There is currently no mention in the article of the harassment directed towards Kelly Marie Tran in the aftermath of her poorly-received role as Rose Tico. Dislike of the casting and characterization boiled over into rampant racist & sexist harassment directed at Tran, who limited her social media presence as a result. I think this deserves at least a mention in the "Audience reception" section. (also, 11 fckn archives? This movie pissed people off that much huh?) --Trans-Neptunian object (HK is Chinese) (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This topic is covered at Kelly Marie Tran so it probably doesn't need to be discussed here. Sadly this IP has a long toxic history fueld by a very vocal, very small, very unhinged, and very online community. Nemov (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, wouldn't object to a brief mention but perhaps that would be seen as not doing it justice, and a broader section would be too out of scope. Having said that, yes, a most disgraceful faction of an otherwise tolerant and open fandom.--Trans-Neptunian object (HK is Chinese) (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since the movie's release, The Last Jedi's reception has improved dramatically. And, many people have praised the movie highly. Therefore, I feel like there should be a section describing the movie's recent reappraisal. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

We need reliable sources stating that. Do you have any to share? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, although I am quite busy now so I don't have time to look for them. I will share them when I am next available - although I don't mind others finding sources themselves and sharing them before me. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I am currently going through sources to share. How many primary sources and how many secondary sources should I share? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

While there may be some fans who have re-assessed the film and gone on to say they now enjoy it, I would estimate that most of those who don't like it, still don't. I've found no examples of reliable sources that have noted a "dramatic" shift in the film's reception since its release, only one questionable pop culture website that cited a single recent Reddit thread where there was general praise for the film from users (see also WP:USERG, as primary sources from social media users are not considered reliable). This is also just taking into account the audience side, as the critic's side has certainly not been reported to have shifted, considering most of them liked/loved the film when it released. Either way, it's not even been 5 years, and in my opinion, this is far too early to talk about reappraisal of a film's reception, much less its own subsection (the vast majority of cases seem to happen over a period of 15-20+ years). Regardless, I'm slightly confused as to how you are attempting to illustrate this reappraisal, as your edits to the article since simply added articles from publications/critics that had included The Last Jedi in their best films of the decade list, which were only published two years after the film's release and is certainly no indication of a reappraisal. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This needs to be cited by WP:RS. Based on the data available that's included in this article I don't see how a shift like this is even possible. Most people liked the film. There could be a shift in the discussion online, but that would come much, much later down the road. Nemov (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

As this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and we have to rely on reliable sources, namely film critics and the mainstream media, it is difficult to say this film was anything other than critically acclaimed from the start. This makes it almost impossible to say reception has improved dramatically. It is difficult to say that opinion of this film has changed much at all in any direction. If you are talking about fan opinion that is difficult to assess, and even harder to find reliable sources. (Unreliable sources don't seem to have shifted hardly at all either, the Rotten Tomatoes audience score has not varied more than a percentage point or two in the past 5 years.[5]. Discussions on unreliable sources like WP:REDDIT do not make me think opinions about this have changed either.) Opinions of the prequel trilogies shifted over time, after years of Clone Wars content and after the young fans grew up. (The original trilogy had plenty of critics too, there were always a vocal few who hated the Ewoks.) Even the unreliable sources seem to still be presenting much the same balance of opinions as existed when this film was released. I can only agree with the other editors that it is too soon to be able to say there has been any significant shift in opinion in any direction for this film yet, but I'd still be interested to see what sources ip92 was considering. -- 109.79.163.154 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Most people liked the film. Citation needed for this utterly ridiculous statement. Most professional critics liked it, most of the audience hated it. It's hard to document this with RS, for the exact reason that RS are dominated by the critics, not the audience. However, there are a great many blog-like sources making the unequivocal case that most fans hated this film. While I can't submit those as RS, it leads me to believe that there's a difference between the curated, approved version of reality (where most people liked an awful film with the correct politics) vs actual reality (most people hated it except paid shills, critics, and MSM). This blog-like source [6] is an example. The fact that the RT audience score is so much lower, despite possible inflation (5 star bot reviews, not counting 1 star reviews, etc) is more evidence that there's a huge dichotomy in reception between critics and audiences. My posts on this talk page earlier were focused on highlighting this dichotomy. Xcalibur (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I find it laughable that you are so trustworthy of online backlash, pointing to things like the RT audience score, blogs, and forums. These places are a magnet for those who feel wronged in some way and want to publicly express that frustration. Any evidence in these nooks and crannies are anecdotal, and you see this in various walks of life, not just with film. I think Scooter Campbell sums it up quite nicely at that link you posted:

There is a psychological effect in which people tend to get really loud and noticeable when they are wronged. Do you give McDonalds a good review every time they get your order right? Do you thank a teacher just for doing their job? Do you thank your doctor after every procedure or appointment? Do you write to your elected officials and tell them that you are happy with them in office? No. You go on the warpath when something goes wrong at McDonalds. You cry for blood and try to get the teacher fired when you think they are being lazy or mean to your kid. You call out a doctor every time they lose a patient or misdiagnose something. You rally in the streets and demand the execution of political leaders who offend you.

Yep, some fanboys of the original franchise can get pretty loud, and nothing annoys them more than to learn average folk/families generally enjoyed a film they wished was never made. Even if published polls were wrong, who cares? We cover all sides of the debate in this article. We should expect that reasonable people will draw their own reasonable conclusions. Drop the stick bud. Rant time is over. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed for this utterly ridiculous statement. It's already well covered with reliable sources in the article. If you believe all the scientific polling that the industry pays millions of dollars for was was wrong, that's your prerogative, but the article can only cover what is reliably sourced. Nemov (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It's true that criticism and negative backlash naturally outweigh the positive. That's true of alot of things, and those most passionate tend to have the most influence over popular response. However, that doesn't entirely explain away this case, due to the sheer volume of negative responses I've seen in various venues. I could post more blog-like sources, but there's no need. As for the "scientific polling", there may have been flaws in their methodology. Reading one of the RS for it, I come across blatant lying by Disney via a false-flag facebook page, which casts even more doubt on this.

Even assuming the polls were accurate, all we can say for sure is that a sample of people in major cities liked the film on opening weekend, that's it. The claim that most people in general liked it is divorced from reality. Given that there's a serious disconnect between industry insiders and audiences, how would popular backlash get out there, other than through anecdotes? Unless you think it's literally impossible that a large chunk of the audience disapproved (not all, but a significant amount) or that it's impossible for opening weekend polls to be wrong, or for a corporation to lie.

My concern is documenting reality, which is why I responded to the fatuous claim that most people liked this, when there are many indications to the contrary. Encyclopedia articles should strive for honesty, even if the RS are admittedly lacking due to structural reasons. Xcalibur (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I suspect you rather enjoy this! Perhaps your problem is the need to take sides. As fans, that's fine. As editors, it's not. The ultimate goal isn't honesty, which may surprise you. Articles simply act as a summary and reflection of what's been reliably-published, positive and negative, right or wrong. Tough pill to swallow for some. In case you missed that link earlier, here it is again: WP:DEADHORSE --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I did drop the stick, I only responded because of an absurd claim being made, that most fans liked the film, despite the avalanche of negative responses in informal venues (eg you can find scathing reviews of TLJ on youtube with 1 million + views and overwhelming positive interaction). There's more evidence too, like the precipitous drop-off in box office returns (but that would be OR without RS). But as you say, this place exists to summarize RS, which naturally are lacking for grassroots sentiment in opposition to the industry, who dominates RS. In the meantime, I think the article should emphasize the controversy, and mention the limitations of what we know. Xcalibur (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're suited for editing Wikipedia articles if you believe you're the arbitrator of understanding "YouTube views" and "grassroots sentiment." Your overall issue isn't the article, it's with Wikipedia. You've made your point over and over. This is approaching WP:IDHT. Come back when you have reliable sources. Until then move on to something else. Nemov (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the arbitrator, it's common sense. The problem isn't WP, it's with a curated, sanitized version of reality being documented over actual reality. But that's all for now. Xcalibur (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, dude, you need to step out of your bubble and take off your tinfoil hat. The "actual reality" is that most people don't actually care about Star Wars lore. They only cared that it was a decent film. DonQuixote (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kelly Marie Tran

Is there a reason Kelly Marie Tran's highly publicized harassment isn't mentioned in the reception to this film? I ask because something similar has happened with Moses Ingram and the Obi-Wan Kenobi series. There's currently a discussion[7] at that article about whether to include it in the reception section. It seems like this kind of toxic fandom reaction should be a part of the reception section since it seems like these people are driving the online discussion of these films. I'm just trying to find some consistency here. If it's included there then Tran's harassment should be mentioned here. hanks! Nemov (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. It should probably have some coverage here. Perhaps start by collecting a few good sources that cover it in detail (ones that look at the big picture), then we can add it to the 3rd paragraph of "Audience reception" or create a new subsection underneath that section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears the consensus is to include in that article so it makes sense to add it here as well. Nemov (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 @Nemov I went online and found some good sources. Here are a few:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/resurrection-of-kelly-marie-tran-on-surviving-star-wars-bullying-the-pressures-of-representation-and-raya-and-the-last-dragon-4142178/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/movies/kelly-marie-tran.html

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kelly-marie-tran-racists-last-jedi_n_5a4400fee4b06d1621b6b2bb

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a21205523/star-wars-kelly-marie-tran-harassment-controversy/

These are a few I found, but there are a ton of sources about her harassment in KMT's article itself, so if there is any shortages of sources, feel free to go there. There's a plethora of sources that covers the topic well. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's a starting point. Where should this be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemov (talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

In June 2018, Kelly Marie Tran deleted all of her Instagram posts after being subjected to sexist and racist online abuse for her role as Rose Tico. Tran, was the first woman of color to have a lead role in a “Star Wars” movie. After Tran left social media, director Rian Johnson and Tran’s co-stars Mark Hamill and John Boyega were among those who came to her defense. John Boyega and Daisy Ridley faced similar harassment when they were introduced in The Force Awakens.

I think that's a good, brief excerpt for now. Just make sure there is an inline citation after each sentence (I added one above), and be sure to rephrase non-quotes in your own words before including. Not sure where the best place is, but creating a subsection titled "Bullying" or "Harrassment" under Audience reception would probably be good for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you think it would warrant its own subsection or could it be added as its own paragraph? Regardless of which, you can just add it in, with properly cited sources. We can copy edit and fix any errors later. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

More work is needed before it's ready for insertion (e.g. rephrasing as I suggested). Anyone who has the time to finish the final leg of it, feel free. As for where to insert it, I think it could fit as its own paragraph under Cast. The other two sections it could go – Reception or Audience reception – would require a new subsection IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said previously, we can work on it and edit it as necessary after insertion, but I do think we should refine it now so that we can insert it in one edit and minimize subsequent modifications. I am fine with inserting it in either place, just so long as it doesn’t disrupt the flow. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. As it exists right now, those statements are plucked verbatim from their sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yea, I plan on working on it later. Should we summarize the entire incident or just include the material presented in the excerpt? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems like enough detail for this article. Most of the coverage should remain at Kelly Marie Tran. If our excerpt ends up getting its own subsection, then we can also hang a hatnote like one of these at the top. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this should be somewhere in the reception section because the racist abuse experienced by Tran is closely related to the online hate brigade in films like this... it's well documented and deserves a place in the conversation. Here's a remix of what's above in my own words.

After facing sexist and racist abuse on Instagram for her role as Rose Tico, Kelly Marie Tran left social media. The incident highlighted the challenges faced by people of color who are in Star Wars. Tran was the first woman of color to have a lead role in a Star Wars film and similarly John Boyega faced the same type of abuse when he was cast in The Force Awakens. After leaving social media The Last Jedi's director Rian Johnson and co-stars Mark Hamill and John Boyega defended Tran against the harassment she received. Nemov (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep, well done. At first glance, it seems ready for insertion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I also think it should be noted that her NYT essay should be added into the sentence too. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added the section as outlined above, but feel free to make changes. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Dcdiehardfan, I saw your recent edit was reverted. While I'm not sure the entire contribution needed to be undone, you basically doubled the size of the text. That's way too long for this article and WP:UNDUE. We should leave out specific examples and just summarize in 3-5 sentences. I'll add a hatnote to Tran's main article where it can be covered in more detail. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 Oh ok, I’m sorry about that. Should I at least keep information about the op-ed she wrote? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think trying to mention it adds a lot of unnecessary length. We're already at the sweet spot of 4 sentences, and the NYT essay is already summarized at Tran's main article (which we've provided a link to). That's just my opinion. Perhaps others will weigh in differently. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, additions should be primarily centered on The Last Jedi.' Nemov (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Would my last revision suffice? It discusses Tran's op-ed and - from my pov - conveys all the relevant info in one sentence 92.10.13.209 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be fine on the Kelly Marie Tran article, but I agree it's WP:UNDUE for this article. Nemov (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's WP:UNDUE? The section is about racist and misogynistic harassment for being in this film - ergo it's relevant to Kelly's article and this one from my perspective. It's only one line. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

And we cover that it happened, mention the general players involved, and describe what transpired in the immediate aftermath. That's plenty for this article. The essay she wrote 8 months later is a reflection from her point of view, which is significant, but it's best suited for her article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 @Nemov Ok, that sounds good. Another question, is it ok if I enumerate the Wookiepedia and Twitter trolling in the article too, or is that WP:UNDUE also? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan unless it's specifically about this film or other actors in the film we don't need more information about Tran's harassment. It's sufficiently covered. Nemov (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan I'm not sure how comfortable people are with expanding on the toxic nature of the online backlash, but the fan who removed all women from the film received plenty of coverage.[8] Nemov (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I see. Well, regardless, I think we have everything we need for that section, the refs have been properly formatted and we have all the information needed. I might adjust the prose a little bit or do some clean up and copyediting here and there, but I think we really covered the gist of the topic. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "how comfortable people are"? 92.10.13.209 (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to suggest replacing the sentence X "The incident highlighted the challenges faced by people of color who are in Star Wars." with Y " The incident highlighted the challenges faced by people of color who are in Hollywood." In her New York Times testimonial she wrote "I had been tricked into thinking that my body was not my own, that I was beautiful only if someone else believed it, regardless of my own opinion. I had been told and retold this by everyone: by the media, by Hollywood, by companies". I understand the need to make the text relevant and specific to this film and this encyclopedia article but nonetheless I think it is more important to make it clear that Tran is talking about the problems she faced with not only this film but also with Hollywood as a whole. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This is more suited for her article, the text is fine as it is, as it relates to the film. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

References