Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

RfC: criticism in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus was definitely for excluding any mention of either issue in the lead paragraphs. However, there are some factors that need to be mentioned. First, this closing summary only applies to what should appear in the lead paragraphs, not in the rest of the article. Second, llywrch must point out the content under dispute proved difficult to identify & isolate; at one point the dispute appears to be over Mark Hamill's disagreement about how the character Luke Skywalker was portrayed, but after a couple of careful readings, llywrch saw this dispute also included other criticism that this movie was "unfaithful" to the previous movies in the franchise. Lastly, since this article is under ongoing development -- that movie has been out for 7 months & a sequel is in the works -- if new information appears that raises the importance of these two issues, this matter obviously should be discussed once again. -- llywrch (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Should we mention the criticism, divisiveness, and/or controversy surrounding The Last Jedi in the lead section of the article?

AfD hero (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section
The criticism, divisiveness, and controversy surrounding The Last Jedi have been given substantial coverage in numerous reliable secondary sources, as the links within the audience response section and the previous RfC will attest. This is a major part of the subject, we need to include it in the lead. AfD hero (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No. - Consensus has been very clear in numerous discussion since against placing undue weight on specific topics. The so-called audience controversy doesn’t exist. Reputable polling metrics, as demonstrated it the article, found high approval. Moreover, there is plenty of prededent for movies that received critical acclaim to not mention specific criticisms in the lede. If audience response is somehow needed, I would supporting adding only a mention of the film’s positive reception from audiences, per reliable polling methods. Toa Nidhiki05 19:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no clear concensus yet. Several people voiced their opinion for inclusion in the lead, several people against. It is simply deadlocked over several months. But the arguments for inclusion are strong and based on policy and reliable sources, whereas the arguments against are weak and subjective, based on personal interpretation of polls and other original research. AfD hero (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The only active participants championing the cause to add it to the lead have been yourself and Boundarylayer. One other drive-by editor did as well, but they left about as quick as they joined. Keep in mind the guideline surrounding user-generated polling, MOS:FILM#Audience response, which illustrates the community's stance against giving these poll scores prominence. An article body mention? Rarely. In the lead? Not a good idea. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not advocating inclusion based on polls. I am advocating it based on substantial coverage of the controversy in numerous reliable secondary sources, including Vox, the BBC, and the Washington Post, (among others) which have all run full-length articles about the controversy specifically. Anyone who denies that there is a controversy (regardless of their opinion on the movie) is out of touch with reality. Have they been living under a rock? There is a difference between disagreeing with the controversy vs. saying it doesn't exist. AfD hero (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The purpose of the lede is to provide the big picture. Part of the reason why this hasn't been added to the lede is that it's hard to tell what the big picture is. The closest we have for this purpose are scientific polls. 2.100.198.43 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well that actually adds some much needed clarification. You are not basing the information's merits on the polls, but the reliable sources you're banking on certainly are for the most part. Being one step removed doesn't make the conclusions drawn any more reliable. I think we all agree that the controversy exists to some extent, but we also know that in the grand scheme of things, the controversies among fans in the early weeks matters much, much less than other aspects about the topic: professional critic reception, profitability, marketing, production, awards, and other reliable statistics acquired in an accredited manner. It just so happens a lot of media outlets based their stories on unreliable data. They are somewhat biased as well, because controversy sells and generates more traffic. We attempt to take a more unbiased approach, preferring thorough research and careful interpretation over some reporter's thoughts surrounding comments they noticed on Twitter. Research months or years later usually holds more weight.
Just look at what people were saying when Empire Strikes Back was first released compared to what was written about it years later (example). If the internet was around back then, we would have seen a similar amount of knee-jerk speculation on how fanboys were split at first, yet we know they converged years later. It's not the end of the world if we keep it out of the lead. It will eventually be added if long-term coverage favors it. If you had included a proposal in the RfC description, written cautiously with all this in mind, it may have persuaded some of the 'No' responses to have voted 'Yes'. Food for thought in case this is ever revisited in a future RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Not until a definite proposal has gained consensus. The lead is already long enough and the topic is covered appropriately in the Audience reception section. To me, it seems a bit WP:UNDUE in the lead. So until I see what is actually being proposed I say no. Jschnur (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak No – based on the way this RfC is worded. We need to see a specific proposal, which I would be open to. A small, half-sentence or less that mentions the criticism from professional critics could be acceptable, but as Jschnur points out, we need to avoid bloating the lead. A well-established, reputable source should aggregate and summarize that criticism for us (we can't do that ourselves). Audience divisiveness is an entirely different conversation that I believe lacks the support necessary to be mentioned in the lead. It isn't supported by the most reliable sources from that section (CinemaScore, PostTrak, SurveyMonkey, etc.). We cover it in the article, because of the amount of press coverage the minority POV received. That coverage, however, doesn't override the fact that the articles were basing their observations on unreliable statistics from an unscientific poll. There is no escaping that fact. If it were to be mentioned, the statement would have to be very clear that reliable data shows positive feedback despite what media outlets wrote about. Without a specific proposal, it is difficult to say for sure one way or another. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Responses here were moved to the discussion section below --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The responses came about due to me reminding editors that the audience reception material that concerns criticism is not solely about observations made based on unreliable statistics from unscientific polls. There are genuine criticisms included that have nothing to do with the Rotten Tomatoes stuff or other polling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No Tempest in a teacup. Alaney2k (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes When lead actors of movies come out and say "he's not my Luke Skywalker". When petitions on a movie get past 100,000 signatures, to have it removed "from canon"/"re-written". When the director of the movie apparently continues a plot-hole "apology tour", to attempt to buttress the movie up against the controvery of all the plot-holes. When a massive divergence between user-generated scores occurs and then some absurd, essentially red-scare hysteria is manufactured, that then starts claiming there is an "alt-right" conspiracy behind this low-user-generated score...when in actual fact there is and remains literally no evidence that supports this, at all. The movie meets the criteria of controversial, amongst its lead actor and amongst the divergence between movie-goers who are the type motivated enough to write about the movie online and those other type of movie goers who enjoy the likes of the transformer movie franchise.Boundarylayer (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No Unless it's a notably poor or dislike film, like The Room (film), there's no need to do this.--JOJ Hutton 11:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No - Summoned by bot. Adding criticism to the lead would be WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains(talk) 01:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No Anywikiuser (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No Undue weight. DonQuixote (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE actually supports the opposite conclusion. Quote, emphasis mine:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

— Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight
The controversy is extremely prominent in the reliable secondary sources. If reliable sources in the audience reception section are not convincing to you (see, for example note 157), just do a google news search for "the last jedi", click on 10 random news articles, and see what they say. They almost all talk about the controversy, the divisiveness, the fan backlash, or similar. AfD hero (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The controversy is extremely prominent in the reliable secondary sources.
Sorry to break it to you, but it's not that prominent. If it were, then I wouldn't need to google it--the media would already be all over it. Also, I just did what you suggested, and nope--nothing about any controversy. So that doesn't support your claim either. Bottom line--it's adequately covered in the article as-is and giving it more attention will be giving it undue weight. DonQuixote (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, wikipedia policy supports the exact opposite conclusion. The fact that we have a section about it is a point *in favor* of mentioning it in the lead. See MOS:LEADREL, as Wumbolo points out below. AfD hero (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Er, yeah, no. You saying that it's important doesn't make it so. Both WP:UNDUE and MOS:LEADREL state that it should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources (emphasis mine). To repeat, according to published reliable source--that is to say, not according to you. To be clearer, you should separate how you feel about the subject with how the subject is discussed in reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any feelings about it, I just want wikipedia to present an unbiased view. I thought the movie was entertaining but nothing special. But this is irrelevant; you can look at all of my arguments here on the talk page and see that they are all based on policy and reliable sources, not my personal opinion. The current presentation in the lead is comically out of touch with reality and the reliable sources, which do support the divisive narrative. You can keep repeating that they don't, but this is like saying the sky isn't blue. AfD hero (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The current presentation in the lead is comically out of touch with reality and the reliable sources
You have yet to show that this is actually the truth. DonQuixote (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

As noted in those discussions, a suggestion on what people want added to the lead needs to be put forth and agreed on. This is less about "yes" and "no" as it is about what exactly the proposal is. Without one, this RfC isn't going to accomplish much. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEDE summarizes the article. So a summarization of what is in the audience-response-section, is all "what people want [to see] added". We really don't want this to turn into a whole re-run of the controversial & glacial amount of time it took for that very - Draft:Star Wars Last Jedi audience response-section to be written here, again. Another editor has edited the lede to summarize in the last few weeks. What was wrong with their addition in sentiment?
Considering the number of reliable sources that cover it, the focus of the change. org petition and the low user generated score. Mark Hamill's criticism, with "disagreeing with every decision made" by Rian Johnson, is WP:NOTABLE, yet isn't being mentioned, neither in the body of the article nor the Lede. Main-actors disagreeing with the direction of their famed character, independent petitions to that same effect and reviewers frequently commenting on the poor-writing and the numerous redundant plots and plot-holes, Rian Johnson going on an "apology tour" about the latter, all you would think and see to be WP:DUE, yet are all conspiciously absent from both body and lede of this article.
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Essentially, this RfC is going to determine whether or not certain minor elements THAT ALREADY EXIST in the body should also be mentioned in the lead. It is clear that you are in favor of that. If you are also trying to get other minor elements added to the body (like you have unsuccessfully in previous discussions), you've come to the wrong place. That would be a diversion from this RfC's description, which clearly states this is about the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
GoneIn60, Boundarylander has been trolling here trying to get random stuff added to this article because he personally didn't like the movie. We've discussed this multiple times, including when he's tried to promote an inherently unreliable Change.org petition as anything worth mentioning. He's also seemingly accused everyone else here of being payed off by Disney to promote the movie, which is silly (I'd love some Disney cash though - will help me pay down my student loans!). It is best to ignore him. Toa Nidhiki05 23:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Anybody besides me think we should propose a topic ban for this guy. Because this really is a waste of our time with this childish petition bullshit. oknazevad (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I think a topic ban should definitely be considered. A lot of good work has been done here to improve this page, but Boundarylayer has been a constant disruptive presence and he's not really shown a willingness to work with others because we're all paid shills or something. Toa Nidhiki05 16:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh look caricatures and mischaracterization, along with diversionary discussions unrelated to the article and more tree-house fanclub advice? "best to ignore him". Do you need reminding of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH? Articles such as these are written by those in the fanclub, nothing more really needs to be invoked to explain why the criticism section took so long to be decided upon. It is also an invariable case of the editorializing-beast, that due to who is penning the majority of the article, they will be promotional for that reason. You need not be getting paid by Disney to have a bias. A bias that every other editor has noted FYI.
Boundarylayer (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You need not be getting paid by Disney to have a bias. A bias that every other editor has noted FYI.

Here's a challenge: find me two, not including yourself, that have said that. Good luck! Toa Nidhiki05 00:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
A "challenge"? Are you some kind of comedian? Other editors, have even started talk-page headings to that effect, not least those that have mentioned it in sentiment if not explicitly. We have noted the positive-promotional-bias to this article. However out of interest I looked at the editor polling circa 30 Dec 2017, in regards to the question/RfC about the inclusion of the widely covered audience scores, it appears you in particular Toa were attempting to dissuade against that scores very inclusion and indeed against any criticism being mentioned in the body of the article. More recently you are opposed to the inclusion of any criticism in the lede and now alongside opposing the very obvious fact that the article is promotional you are here with your setting up of farcical "challenges", to achieve what exactly? Divert attention away from the actual editing that needs to be done, at hand...yet you claim the article and you as a principle editor are not positively-biased? Is that so?
Intriguingly, it appears that the criticism the lead actor, Mark Hamill has for the film, was at one naturally very brief length-of-time, actually in this article but it too was curiously removed. Now why was that done exactly? Could it be that this article is not neutral? It reeks of being positively-biased? How much time, resistance and attempts to push fringe-theories about the alt-right "being out to get us" has really gone into all these RfCs and farcical discussions every time it comes to the notion of adding something factually neutral or negative about the movie?
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct. I don't think the so-called audience scores are reputable methods at all, and I don't think they should be included in this article, as did many other people who I would assume you think are paid Disney shills.
I'll take the fact that you couldn't even find two people that agree with you (keep in mind you claimed everyone agrees with you that I'm biased/a paid Disney shill) as proof that you were wrong. I recommend you redact that claim - although given you never retracted your claims that this page is run by paid Disney shills either, I don't expect that to happen. Toa Nidhiki05 16:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a no-win proposition. As several people have pointed out, the concept is no good without a prototype. And it looks like it would be very difficult to build a single sentence that could encapsulate this that would pass consensus. Any more than a single sentence is surely too much. When millions go willing to a movie, (over several months) yet a hundred thousand (the number cannot be verified, btw) dislike it intensely, how can you seriously call it divisive to people outside a sub-group of SW fans. An actor disliking how his character is written or portrayed is surely not unique in any way. I'm not even sure if Mark Hamill is at any point being genuine, the way he has gone back and forth. I think if you say those things are seriously notable, it can only be because we have social media nowadays. And it is easy to propagate all sorts of fake news and fake statements and non-reputable numbers to a certain percentage that was inaccessible or disconnected in the past. So, to take this back to this particular discussion, the only thing legitimate to say is that a small percentage or core of SW fans disliked it. Is that of any value in this lead? Alaney2k (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Alaney2k: If there was a like button, I'd press it! The only reliable numbers we have in this regard are from CinemaScore, PostTrak, and SurveyMonkey – all of which say the audience response was overwhelmingly positive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be best to just stay within the confines of what we do know, that a large number of user-generated reviews criticized the movie (for the manner in which it treated characters and plot). I think something like that would be fairer, rather than just assume that anyone who criticizes has to be "oh they're all core SW fans" as you're doing here Alaney2k. They could very well not all be "core SW fans" as you suggest and instead simply be writers, screenwriters, movie-goers, and actors(like Mark Hamill) who just disliked the "inadequacies" and "poor writing", you know?
I mean we're not suggesting anything more than what has been covered in the media by reliable sources since Dec 2017. It is instead Rian Johnson who appears to want to paint anyone who critizes his movie as "oh just a core SW fan", or more ingratiating "oh just the alt-right". I find this a little transparent to be honest actually, it seems that instead they're more like the same people who didn't like the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen film, despite it making lots of cash and likewise having a B+ CinemaScore, user generated reviews aren't so glowsome. This is not because they were all dyed-in-the-wool transformers fans, but that they just didn't like a crappy movie with emotional emptiness, poor writing, internal inconsistencies and pointless plots, etc.(you know, in their opinion of course). Would anyone suggest that you have to be a "core transformers fan", or "in the alt-right" to dislike that movie? Strange suggestion that we really have no way of knowing, did some core SW fans dislike the movie, definitely but was everyone who wrote a bad review a "fan of SW"? Rian Johnson, ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ director, responds to fan backlash "Perturbed by what they interpret as inadequacies with character development and plot".
The good, the bad, and the politics of The Last Jedi... Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics - I can only surmise but he's doubtful a "core SW fan", you know. Though could be wrong.
Similarly in respect to the repeated attempt to paint everyone who disliked the movie as "alt-right"/misogynist etc. etc. something that Rian Johnson and others seem to really enjoy suggesting. A bit of thinking about the movie, or a reading of this might illuminate why even some self-described feminists didn't like it either(again, this is a criticism based on the poor plot and writing). "The Inclusive Illusion of Star Wars: The Last Jedi "(The movie) does not give any consideration to Rey’s emotions and choices, and even when it does, it is very weak. Even worse, Rey is forced to sympathize with Kylo Ren, who in-universe, a couple days ago, captured and violated her mentally, killed her father figure, and severely injured her friend to the point of a coma...In our current times, it’s disturbing how our female lead is expected to excuse a threatening and violent white man just because of his tragic backstory."
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It is important to you and a large number of people, yes. But the numbers seem to be less than the number of people in my neighbourhood, (I live in Toronto) a fraction of the audience. I think you could probably dig up the same proportion of dislike to any movie. I've not seen anything outside of normal criticism of a movie in critical response to Last Jedi. The concerns about Rey's parentage are only those of the hard-core fans. I would not think the average filmgoer who is not emotionally involved with Star Wars would all of a sudden jump up and complain about Yoda burning down the tree. So yeah, it is mainly hard-core fans. At any rate, we can't nail even that down with any precision anyway. The editors here after a lot of effort were able to include some paragraphs about this topic. I think we probably included too much, all things considered. Propose a sentence for us. As others have suggested. Alaney2k (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of the reasons for the low scores, user-generated ratings from sites like RT and MC are not generally accepted on Wikipedia as reliable. This is covered in WP:USERG and MOS:FILM#Audience response. We are including them in the body of this article based on the amount of media coverage they have received. To conclude that these low scores actually reflect the true audience response would be overstepping the guidelines we have against that. They would also be contradicting the reliable sources we have – CinemaScore, PostTrak, and SurveyMonkey – that obtained results through accredited methods which paint a very different picture. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
We do know, that a large number of user-generated reviews criticized the movie (for the manner in which it treated characters and plot)....there is even a petition to that effect, along with numerous reviews and even professor's of international politics, parroting this very fact. Perhaps the best way to view this is, again the film Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen which just like the Last Jedi sure made lots of cash and likewise has a positive B+ CinemaScore but when it comes to the user generated reviews, they aren't so favorable to say the least. The Lede of the article on that movie correctly conveys why the movie isn't liked by online reviewers etc. Why should The Last Jedi be any different?
Boundarylayer (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
B+ is a negative CinemaScore for a tentpole movie and it did badly at the box office and was panned. An "A" is, by contrast, strongly favorable. The Last Jedi, by was a box office and critical success, and every reliable polling metric gives high audience marks too. For films with a 90% approval on RT and very high on Metacritic, it is not uncommon to not list specific criticisms - and it is unheard of to use poor quality metrics like RT audience polls. Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a bad comparison. Low user ratings on Rotten Tomatoes is not mentioned anywhere in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
For now, I'm opposed to adding something along those lines. A possible future scenario is that it might be appropriate to include something like that: "Although polls suggested that the vast majority of viewers liked the film, a vocal minority disapproved of it, which became a dominant topic in the film's media coverage and led to [insert consequence here]." But I would only switch to agreeing to include something like this is if the detractors had a lasting impact; it is equally possible that the whole affair could be forgotten altogether. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

GoneIn60/Flyer22 Reborn discussion moved from above

I'm not going to vote, but I want to remind editors that the audience response material that concerns criticism is not solely about observations made based on unreliable statistics from unscientific polls. There are genuine criticisms included that have nothing to do with the Rotten Tomatoes stuff or other polling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, but every film has some amount of criticism. It would be unorthodox for a film that was widely viewed as positive to mention this criticism in the lead. That's when arguments start looking at the polls, both reliable and unreliable to support their stance, hence my comments above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
When it comes to the viewpoints not involving critics, the divide appears to be between the general audience and fans, or the general audience and diehard fans, or it's the general audience and fans vs. diehard fans. Whatever the case, we have to wait until sources cover the matter in that detail. Like I noted before, I have no doubt that the divisive stuff concerning this film will make its way into academic books, just like prequel stuff did. Disregarding the first film, the prequels also did well with critics, but not with fans...after sometime at least. And we can see in all three of those prequel articles that the films got a good score on CinemaScore despite sources often reporting that the prequel trilogy is generally disliked by the Star Wars fandom. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It would be a watered-down comparison to leave out the first film if you're going to refer to the prequels as a whole. All three are nowhere near TFA and TLJ in terms of critical reception, even with the decent scores Sith received. Therefore, it's best to avoid linking any patterns between the general audience and critics this time around with the way things worked out last time. As for your comment about waiting "until sources cover the matter in that detail", I couldn't agree more. Throwing it in the lead at this point in time is likely a premature move. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Since we are only two films into this latest franchise, I don't feel that it was a watered-down comparison. Either way, my point on that was that the prequel films did well with critics, even though the first did more so okay, and they rated well on CinemaScore despite sources often reporting that the prequel trilogy is generally disliked by the Star Wars fandom. So the CinemaScore argument is not a strong one for me. It seems that films generally do well or okay with CinemaScore, and that includes the Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice film that most or many fans (and critics) say is a bad film. For the prequels, it might also be that the critics' scores have gone down over time since I remember higher scores for all three films. But, yes, this latest franchise is currently doing better with critics and the general audience (whether many of them are fans or not). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
What should stand out here is that the general audience (GA) and critics agree by all reliable metrics. The division amongst casual and hardcore fans, which almost always exists to some extent, is not measurable by the same standards. If it was, then we could better evaluate its significance and argue in favor of its inclusion in the lead. It sounds like you and I agree for the most part that until better sources covering this aspect are available, we can only guess how prominent the division really is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
How are we defining "general audience (GA)," though? That's why I stated "general audience (whether many of them are fans or not)." I would think that most of the general audience are fans, but some might define the general audience as "people who are indifferent to the franchise." All I'm saying is that the general audience (GA) and critics generally liked the prequel films too, and now those films are generally looked upon unfavorably. Yes, we have to wait for more on the matter when it comes to the latest franchise. But I'm not opposed to some wording about it being in the lead, as long as it's brief. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You know me, Flyer, I'm a numbers guy. The metrics we've been talking about (CinemaScore, PostTrak, SurveyMonkey) cover the entire audience. Couple their positive results with the strong box office performance that didn't taper off like it has with other mediocre blockbusters, and you've got a really strong argument for a heavily-satisfied GA that wasn't just during opening weekend. The downside is that we don't have any hard data that shows exactly what percentage are casual, average, and hardcore fans, and what percentage of those are disgruntled. It seems very speculative right now to say that the amount of disgruntled fans is significant. We know they're out there, just not to what extent. As for the critics, the response to TFA and TLJ has been overwhelmingly positive thus far. The numbers on RT and MC are 93%, 81, 91%, and 85 respectively. It's way too soon to know if the long-term view will eventually take a different perspective.
The prequels are harder to judge IMO, because we don't have all the same metrics to look at. However, what we can look at on RT and MC, the numbers show that the critics had a mixed/average view of the first two (55%, 51, 66%, and 54 respectively) and a "generally favorable" view of the third (79% and 68). The notion that the long-term view of the prequels has also been mixed or average means the critics were actually spot on to begin with. I know you use the term "unfavorably", but I'm not sure this really differs from "mixed" unless you can back that up with solid data. Also Flyer, you know I have a lot of respect for you, but perhaps we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one, and that's fine too. I fully supported in the last RfC to include a brief mention of the divisiveness in the body, but I'm definitely leaning against its inclusion in the lead – the significance surrounding audience divisiveness is unknown and unmeasurable by any of the reliable sources we have available. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
At the time, it seems like critics were generally for the last two prequel films. I think that the critical view of them has become harsher over time. As for the long-term view of the prequels, I wouldn't state "mixed or average," given how often the films are criticized in reliable sources. We don't need the type of solid data you are speaking of to state that the prequels are generally disliked by the fandom; all we need are reliable sources stating so. And there are plenty of them, like this 2017 Screen Rant source, which states, "It has for the longest time been an accepted fact that they're bad, a single point of agreement in the debate-loving movie community. Everyone hates the Star Wars prequels, almost as much as Anakin Skywalker hates sand." Or like this 2017 Inverse.com source, which states, "Some events in a galaxy far, far away are more universally accepted than others in our own galaxy. For years, George Lucas’s prequel trilogy — set a few decades before his original ‘70s-era Star Wars trilogy — has been reviled by Star Wars fans." That stated, both sources also claim that the prequels are now accepted or cool. For example, the first source also states that Star Wars fans don't hate the prequels because when you "[b]ring up pod racing, Dexter Jettster or younglings in online conversation today [...,] you’ll find the vitriol that for the better part of two decades has dominated discussion of The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith has seemingly dissipated, or at the very least chilled." Anyway, it's not just media sources noting the hate either, it's academic or decent book sources too, like this 2017 "Superfandom: How Our Obsessions are Changing What We Buy and Who We Are" source, from W. W. Norton & Company, page 147, which states that "Star Wars fans [decided that] they hated the prequels." Or this 2006 "Finding the Force of the Star Wars Franchise: Fans, Merchandise, & Critics" source, from Peter Lang, page 243, which takes it a step further and states, "That The Phantom Menace (1999) disappointed Star Wars fans is a cultural commonplace. Yet the critical failure of the first prequel trilogy film has been belied by the movie's actual box-office performance. [...] It is notable that the fans of the original franchise have been the most vocal critics of the new films. [...] The worldwide popularity of the Star Wars franchise has assured that criticism of TPM and later, Attack of the Clones (2002), would expand beyond the purview of nitpicky fans and affect the pubic at large." In cases like this one (analyzing reception to the prequel trilogy), or if there are sources talking about what most critics hate, we can't state that we need scientific data to report the matter as is stated by the sources. But, again, there are yet no such sources for The Last Jedi (other than simply noting that there has been backlash to the film). And in terms of book sources, I suspect that such sources won't state that most fans hated The Last Jedi either, but they will note the hate...and it won't solely or mostly be based on unscientific polls. I'm not basing whether or not to mention the Last Jedi discontent in the lead on polling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
While I tend to agree that most hardcore fans are unhappy with the films outside of the original trilogy, we need to keep in mind that as the years go by and new films are released, the original hardcore fan base is an ever-shrinking minority on a declining trajectory. New fans from newer generations are entering the fold, and with them come different tastes and expectations. My kids, for example, were never crazy about the pacing in the original trilogy, especially the first half. It was hard for them to devote the attention needed to understand and truly appreciate them in the way that older generations do. They actually thought the prequels were worse as well, but they absolutely love the fresh perspective in the newest films. I've heard similar experiences from other parents, and while it's a small observation on my part, it's not the least surprising considering how much society has changed in the last four decades.
I think that Anywikiuser said it best: "...what we're seeing is a rift between a silent majority and a vocal minority. There's the issue that the Internet tends to amplify negativity."(diff) I mean, just watch this short video on the way hardcore fans initially reacted to Phantom Menace, and then read this short article. Many in this shrinking yet vocal minority are just never going to find the kind of satisfaction they had in their childhood, because unlike the newer generations that aren't tied to decades of publications detailing the expanded universe, they have a heavier investment in how film portrayals fit in with their premeditated beliefs and desires. Maybe that's a good thing, that we're seeing the fan base diversify in different ways. We don't need to spend a lot of real estate on how the minority feels. Yes, it should receive adequate coverage in the body per WP:DUE. But in the lead? I'm not fully convinced it belongs there in the new film articles, at least not without the clarification that this in fact a minority by all reliable indicators. I appreciate the spirited debate, but I think the focus needs to remain on the lead, how some want to see it changed/modified, and to what extent we should allow that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Like you, I don't see anything left to state on this matter, but I do want to go ahead and emphasize that I was not simply talking about hardcore fans with regard to the prequels or the new films. And I was clear that we have enough sources noting general fan dissatisfaction with regard to the prequels. If the sources want to analyze what newer generations think of the prequels, we can obviously include such content as well, but most don't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, hardcore really isn't the only term that fits above. I could have excluded it altogether in some places and just said "original fan base". I hear you though, and I don't totally disagree with all the points you were making. It's just seems a bit more complicated to me on how that all relates to the new films and what we're seeing unfold. In a nutshell, I see the number of dissatisfied fans as a slice of a much larger pie, and a lot of the focus in sources so far is zooming in on this one slice and picking it apart. Down the road, we may have a clearer picture as more unbiased sources become available (particularly books). --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that we should add informations about controversies, fan backlash and criticism surrounding The Last Jedi.Temuera (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Temuera
It's correct to point out that the reputation of films can change, both among the public and the critics. We can't predict what will happen, but we will have to be prepared to adjust the article if necessary. 81.145.136.27 (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2018 (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.

We should add informations about fan backlash

I read about fan backlash against this film. These fans strongly condemn The Last Jedi. The informations about this might be useful.Temuera (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Temuera

Have you read Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Audience reception? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Understandable since there is not ANY subtitle. Adding the proper "Fan backlash" subsection to the Audience reception section.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The subtitle is "Audience reception". Fans are in the audience. See WP:STRUCTURE for why "folding debates into the narrative" is the policy-supported approach. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I feel like Wikipedia is failing its own neutrality guidelines, as instead of including fan criticism, it only includes RESPONSE TO and criticism f fan criticism, much of which is actually smokescreen by unreliable magazines that Wikipedia should not file under reliable in the first place. Reading the article there is nothing that tells you how widespread criticism of the writing of this film is, but rather an illusion that it is an excellently written film with usual average expected levels of negative response. The article is just not neutral or trustworthy in its current form. Vree (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no "widespread criticism". It's a vocal and Internet-savvy minority. That doesn't count. That's why the properly-conducted polls lead that section and reflect that the film was well-received. I doubt there is a good way to measure the criticism with online means due to problems of vote-stacking and demographic skew. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. The article's audience reception section describes the disgruntled divisiveness that you say is missing. If you think a change is needed, you need to be more specific on what you'd like to see changed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. The subsection's title is "Audience reception". The "Fan backlash" subtitle to that subsection is necessary since everything included in that area has acknowledged the Fan backlash. If you don't, sorry for you but the backlash is a fact and is real. Denying it is being biased and not neutral at all. The article makes The Last Jedi seem like a flawless perfect film, which is not. Maybe according to critics is perfect, but the film has generated backlash from some fans that has affected the whole franchise. That is a proven fact and experts have recognized it.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know everything I posted was from a reliable source and backed up by proper internet references. I even included a quote by a movie journalism professional. Besides, the information in the audience response and each and every publication used as reference there has acknowledged the fan backlash. Denying it is being biased. So good for neutrality.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
There was extensive community discussion that led to the current state of the article.. you cant just decide you dont like that and write your own version. Spanneraol (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your insertion of the subsection header, "Fan backlash". Aside from being a heavy-handed, non-neutral phrase, it just doesn't make sense to further divide an already-short section. Also, the material you attempted to add at the end of the section may be worth a look, but I'm not sure the way you phrased it is an accurate assessment of what the sources are saying. The LA Times article theorizes that the divisiveness from Last Jedi could have "dampened excitement" for Solo, but it in no way makes this on par with "Star Wars fatigue" and the film's troubled production history. The latter two are definitely regarded as more significant by both sources. Furthermore, this isn't an article about the Solo film. We've given the audience reaction a limited space in this article for good reason per WP:DUE. We have to be mindful on the amount of space we have allotted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
"Fan backlash" is a term multiple reliable and objective professional film journalism media sites and works are using to clasify the current state of the SW franchise due to The Last Jedi and they are all referenced in the Audience reception section. The Solo articles are related to this article because everything happening to the Solo film is a ramification of the process started by TLJ. "We have to be mindful on the amount of space we have allotted"... that's why I erased the whole "the best Star Wars film since Empire Strikes Back" line (which you promptly added again) since it is redundant (the line about critics giving it good reviews should suffice) and also makes the film seem like a flawless perfect Star Wars film, which is not. Again, manipulating the article so it suits the shills' intentions. Good work. Pet the article all you want, it won't matter at all. Solo is a box office bomb/flop, the franchise is commercially ruined. And even after stating all these obvious facts I am just being simply neutral.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It seems like you're following an agenda to disparage the film beyond what's stated in the sources. The two you have provided do not go to the extent that your proposed wording indicates they do. In fact, the LA Times source simply calls the disgruntled fans a "vocal subset", not a majority or even significant minority. For all we know, the number of fans involved in the so-called "backlash" could be very small, despite receiving a lot of press coverage. As for the line you tried to remove from the lead section, I don't feel too strongly about the need to keep it, but I know others did above in a previous discussion. I restored it on the premise that its removal was unexplained. If you'd like to elaborate in more detail why you feel it should be axed, please do, and if consensus agrees, I won't stand in the way of its eventual removal. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
In a previous discussion there seemed to be consensus for removing the line about "best since Empire" so i actually thought it was already gone.. someone must have restored it... I definitely support that removal... The stuff about "Solo" is more appropriate on that page. Spanneraol (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Kronnang Dunn, please read WP:STRUCTURE. Based on your response, it does not appear that you did. Furthermore, the polls are much more reliable than Internet comments, even when they seem to be in the aggregate. The world is not whatever forum you frequent. In regard to Solo, I've read a variety of sources with varying theories about Solo's failure (e.g., marketing too late, positioning wrong weekend, etc) so the LA Times theory should not be framed here as conclusive. And there is no consensus from others to have a "Fan backlash" section. It frames that part of the section too prominently as undue weight (see WP:UNDUE). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Erik... Again, the "Fan backlash" term is being used by several articles and references already in the Audience reception section, not "internet comments". But of course, you already knew that. I guess a "Fan backlash" section would not look too good in your beloved "The Last Jedi Fan Page"... Kronnang Dunn (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I have no doubt that there are people out there who hated the movie. However, polls show that the movie was overall well-received. The people who hated it have their say in the article, but to grant that vocal minority their own section heading is undue weight and goes against WP:STRUCTURE. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Erik... Again, is not "grating a vocal minority their own section heading" (or to benefit some "agenda"). Is simply making the already long and complex article easier to navigate, explore and read by users who are not fans of The Last Jedi or know anything at all about this film (which given current events I suppose most contributors watching this page aren't), as requested by Temuera. The term "backlash" has already been used in the titles of several articles in the references of the area of the Audience reception section that refer to that issue. And since those very same articles mention most of that "backlash" coming from "fans" among the general audience, ergo, the most logical subtitle should be "Fan backlash". If you and other people think this is being biased or giving The Last Jedi haters any credibility, then you are basically rejecting anything that could hinder the reputation of the film, automatically making it seem that you are turning this article into your personal pet Disney fan page. The negative reactions among fans and divisiveness that resulted from this film are fact and denying those things is simply being biased toward the positive aspects of it. Kronnang Dunn (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the only thing that could possibly be added here is a paragraph, without heading, in the Audience Reception section. (Why without heading? Because headings over a single paragraph don't make sense) Something like "The movie was received extremely poorly by one segment of people, who claimed to be the "true" fans of the franchise. They created an on-line petition asking Disney to remake the movie. One person created an edit of the film without the women in the movie. Star Kelly Marie Tran exited social media over cyber-bullying. A group of people sought investors to make a remake. ... etc ... any other stuff they've done that's been reported". Now, is this topic encyclopedic, or simply giving voice in this article to the bad behaviour of a segment of people? It's true that it has been reported on, but it's not about the movie, instead it's about some bad behaviour. Alaney2k (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You are editorializing the segment of people. Furthermore, there is no proof about who is behind that anonymous "online petition" to remake the movie. Therefore without sources it would be posting false information. Testefye (talk)

Best film since empire?

Why are we keeping the line about the film being the best film since Empire in the lead? That exact quote was only in a very small percentage of the reviews and there is no reason to give the handful of reviews undue weight. In a previous discussion no one seemed to be opposed to removing it as it doesnt really affect the overall content of the lead. A mention that some critics thought this isnt even included in the critical response section so there is no reason for it to be in the lead. Spanneraol (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. Seems a bit much for the lead section and more appropriate for the Critics' section. Alaney2k (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, it should not exist in the lead without also existing in the body (and I don't see it mentioned there). On that basis alone, I say we move it to the "Critical reception" section. I don't think we need to necessarily wait either. If someone can provide a reasonable explanation of why it should be in the lead, we can always revisit the issue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I took it out of the lead... what if anything should be added to the critics section i'm gonna leave up to others. Spanneraol (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I think that's fair. The lead should focus on what a vast majority are saying, not what "some" are saying. Toa Nidhiki05 can take the initiative of placing it in the "Critical reception" section with appropriate references if desired, but for it to be placed in the lead, it's clear we're going to need to discuss that further. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
That line (and the overall structure of the page) make it seem like a "The Last Jedi Fan Page"... so much for unbiased information. I bet Disney must be very very happy... Kronnang Dunn (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
That line is now gone... the bulk of the page is plot summary and factual information about the production.. the critical and audience response sections are only a small part of it.. that doesnt make it a "fan page" but a factual unbiased article on the movie. Spanneraol (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I have two nephews who absolutely despise the film, and are completely unwilling to accept that it is regarded as a good film. (I wonder if this is what it was like when 2001 came out) I think this editor may be the same way. The effort on the part of editors on this article has been very large, especially in the discussion of audience response. In a sense, those who have worked on the Star Wars articles -are- fans, but we do follow the principles in the film project and Wikipedia. There could be room for more, possibly a paragraph on the actions a minority of "fans" have done in protest. But I don't think those actions are more important than the film itself, contrary to what some people think. I think it could be hard to come to consensus. But by and large, the film and production itself has been covered in this article. Alaney2k (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Alaney2k, last time I checked, 2001 was not part of a franchise which it ruined, nor it did divide any fandom at all. Kronnang Dunn (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits to the “Critical reception” and “Audience reception” sections

Testefye has recently been edit warring over a number of questionable edits to controversial and highly contested sections of the article. Here are the main problems; I will attempt to reference the most recent versions of the changes, though the edit history is a bit messy:

  1. These edits to the “Critical reception” section are both misplaced and vacuous. Good expository writing requires good structure. In the spirit of WP:DUE, the section had given prominence of placement and extent of discussion to positive critical reception. Positive reviews are discussed first, broken up into paragraphs due to length, and negative reviews are discussed manageably in the final paragraph. That final paragraph is where this negative material belongs. Furthermore, the only purpose of the material seems to be to call the film as bad as AOTC is supposed to be. No indication from the source is provided as to why that may be. The material is therefore little more than a vacuous schoolyard fanboy insult. At the very least, the material needs to be moved and rewritten, if not outright deleted.
  2. This edit to the “Audience reception” section misrepresents the cited source, which presents the material as reflecting positively on the film, not as a matter of “only 53%” or “a slim majority.” These are purely editorial comments constituting original research that must either be removed or be recast to reflect positively on the film (as the source would have it).
  3. Given the amount of controversy the “Audience reception” section and so-called fan reaction has attracted throughout the talk pages, especially archives 2, 4, 5, and 6, I believe this edit requires discussion on the talk page so interested and knowledgeable editors can chime in before the change is made.
  4. Despite the fact that the “Audience reception” section contains the hidden editorial comment, “NOTE: This section is the result of thorough discussion and RfC consensus from the article's talk page. To help avoid or settle disputes, please consider discussing any significant changes to this section on the article's talk page before making them,” despite the fact that I twice reverted Testefye’s edits, despite the fact I had told him or her to take matters up on the talk page, and despite the fact I had placed a soft edit warring notice on his or her talk page, Testefye nevertheless chose not to discuss matters or seek consensus on this talk page.
  5. Note that Testefye had originally made, then moved, and restored this edit to the “Audience reception” section before eventually abandoning it. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. These edits are both positive and negative, therefore they are placed in the middle of the section. The purpose of the statement is to accurately convey the original source material without editorializing. It's not considered proper etiquette to ad hominem someone by characterizing their good faith efforts to improve the article's accuracy as done with the phrase "vacuous schoolyard fanboy insult." That language belies proper etiquette among editors.Testefye (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. This edit may need to be reverted based on your argument.Testefye (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. this edit is a great example of correcting previous editorializing and also this edit removes vacuous and irrelevant references to off-topic material. Testefye (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Your fourth point is mischaracterizing my understanding the edits to my talk page. I did not "choose" to take action while knowing what you assert I knew. Therefore I was not liable for knowledgeable bad faith efforts. Please take this up on my talk page for further commentary. Testefye (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I’ll offer a few points. The numbers below will correspond to yours above, as has been our practice:
  1. Ordinarily, as in the “Critical reception” section, film reviews contain at least some positive and some negative comments. They are categorized and placed according to the general thrust of their analysis. There can be no question that the general thrust of your edit, as of the source it cites, is negative. I can see no point in belaboring that obvious point. Your edit therefore belongs in the final paragraph. Unfortunately, it is vacuous. Why is the film considered as bad as AOTC by your source? It does generally say. Your edit should provide some indication of this, if it is to remain, in the last paragraph.
  2. I’m glad to see we’re coming to agree here. After giving other editors a moment or two to chime in, one of us can delete this material.
  3. Now that you’ve had a chance to browse the talk-page archives and the hidden editorial note mentioned in my point 4, you will understand that the editors who anguished over the text of the “Audience reception” section may not agree with you. You should hold off on this until they and other editors have chimed in. We may have to ping them. Let’s see.
  4. Actually, only one phrase of my point 4 has anything to do with your talk page. The rest of it has to do with this talk page and the editing of the article. When you edit a section of an article, you can see any hidden editorial notes appended to that section. You are responsible for reading them and paying them some heed. You are responsible for noticing you’ve been reverted. You are responsible for reading any editing comments editors make while editing. And, yes, you are responsible for reading the clear and explicit text of any template notices placed on your talk page and paying them some heed. I simply can’t understand your claim of ignorance here. What precisely did you not understand? How did you not choose to refrain from reaching consensus on this talk page? In any case, presumably, you do understand now. That new understanding requires some changes in your stance here, does it not? Antinoos69 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted Testefye, per previous extensive discussion. I see nothing wrong with the consensus version, and it is up to Testefye to convince us to make changes. Yes, consensus can change, but it has not in this case. If Testefye continues to WP:Edit war, Testefye can be expected to be reported at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard and likely WP:Blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the revert. The edits in question struggle to find an encyclopedic tone and attempt to shift the balance from neutral to negative. I would also caution that this is a new editor (account created two years ago but with less than 20 article namespace edits) lecturing other experienced editors about "proper etiquette among editors". Since Testefye is so well-versed in proper etiquette, I expect that the edit-warring behavior in the article will stop, and he/she will instead focus on forming a new consensus on this talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Disagreed. Basically any attempt at adding information that somehow makes this film look bad gets instantly deleted, regardless of the veracity of the sources and/or references. The Last Jedi is not a flawless Star Wars film and this article is not an advertising page. There is Fan Backlash, there is divisiveness among audiences regarding this film and that same backlash has caused the whole franchise be affected negatively by it, making audiences stop watching subsequent films like SOLO. But none of that is in the article, despite being relevant to it. So much for objectiveness and neutrality.--Kronnang Dunn (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The following sentence about Thor reviews needs to be stricken from the Audience Reception section. It really has nothing to do with Star Wars: The Last Jedi:

Quartz noted that some new accounts gave negative ratings to both The Last Jedi and Thor: Ragnarok, while Bleeding Cool stated that reviews for Thor had tapered off up to that point but skyrocketed afterwards.

--Testefye (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That sentence is wedged between two other statements about possible tampering, and it's presented in a factual manner with proper sourcing. It's a significant finding that correlates to the tampering claims made in the previous sentence. For balance, we have also provided RT's statement that they didn't detect any unusual activity. Both sides are adequately represented here. Removing one would tip the balance, so I see no reason to do so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that this sentence is giving undue weight to the notion that there was tampering. According to wikipedia policies, it can be inferred that maintaining neutrality does not require a sentence for sentence equivalency for a given issue, instead minority viewpoints shall not be juxtaposed in such a way to mislead the readers. Furthermore, whether or not a sentence is presented "factually and sourced" is irrelevant to the relevancy of a topic, which, at hand, is "Audience Reception" of Star Wars: The Last Jedi.Testefye (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
It is a widely-accepted view that online audience scores (RT, MC, IMDB, etc.) are not generally reliable: they aren't scientific and can be gamed. Also, a significant number of reliable sources that are cited within the article also mention the skepticism surrounding RT's audience score. And finally, MOS:FILM#Audience response clarifies this in more detail, suggesting that the scores from CinemaScore, PostTrak, and other accredited polls are the most reliable. I'm sorry to hear you think this is a minority viewpoint, but it's not. The only reason we have an audience reception section to begin with is due to the amount of the media coverage it received. We actually had to have an RfC discussion to give the OK before including it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Any debate on the accuracy of scientific polls over unscientific polls, a silly debate in the first place, is irrelevant to the issue of the topicality of the "Thor" ratings information at hand. Your argument boils down to maintaining information irrelevant to the Star Wars: The Last Jedi audience reception in the Audience Reception section. If the section were not entitled "Audience Reception," but something closer to the suspected tampering issue, perhaps I could agree with your stance, however, it is not. In the life of an article, debate and improvements being natural, the previous RfC engagement is all well and good. If you would like to engage in an RfC or further dispute resolution on this specific edit, I would first like to ask for more editors to weigh in.--Testefye (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Although the section is entitled "Audience reception", that doesn't mean we shouldn't include controversy and analysis surrounding the scores. The findings by Quartz (which in turn mentions Bleeding Cool) was picked up and reported by highly-reputable sources: The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Motley Fool, and Insider. Leaving out the analysis here would be a disservice, and I'm not sure why you think the spike in Thor reviews is irrelevant; it's a core part of the finding itself. Let's see what others have to say. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
While we await others to chime in, I would like to address a number of the presented source materials: The Washington Post finds that there was "suspicion" of tampering, based on anonymous users. Not that there is evidence of tampering. There is a clear conflict of interest in the The Motley Fool material, and given that there are plenty of other sources, the effort to maintain neutrality advises against using it. Finally, the Insider piece, is highly problematic because it derives a conclusion from a Deadline article that gives no supporting evidence as to the magnitude of trolling in the following claim:

The consensus from non-Disney sources this morning is that “trolling” occurred here in regards to the online reaction to Last Jedi.

That Internet_trolling occurs, is a virtual certainty for any movie, however the magnitude of the effect of trolling has not been discussed except that Rotten Tomatoes denied any trolling efforts substantially affected the votes. Therefore, giving claims of anonymous trolls undue weight is disadvantageous to the truthfulness of the Star Wars: The Last Jedi article.--Testefye (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't waste your time researching the claims and deciding whether or not you agree with them. That's not how this works. See WP:TRUTH. The fact that the suspicion exists and has been published by reliable sources is all we're talking about here, and it's precisely why it's been included in the article. We cannot include the scores without including the controversy. Controversy, by the way, doesn't have to be conclusive to be included. Wikipedia is a reflection of what exists in reliable sources.
On a side note, I think you missed the Bleeding Cool reference in the Insider source. That's the reason I listed it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Maintaining civility of this discussion requires that you steer away from mischaracterizing my representation of source material as a " decision making process " instead of what I was doing, reporting the facts contained within the source material you put forward; moving ahead, I thank you for conducting this discussion in that context. To get back to the primary contention, the sentence I propose striking, as you have admitted yourself, is acting as a countercheck against the status quo view that there was no significant manipulation of user scores or that suspected manipulation had minimal or no impact on said user scores, thus making the speculation that malpractice significantly impacted the user scores a minority view. Taking into account WP:TRUTH's own guidelines,

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views

As such, the minority view in question, does not deserve the same weight in the Audience Reception section as the majority view, of which we have primary source material, à la Rotten Tomatoes themselves. Thus, to maintain Wikipedia's goal of presenting competing theories fairly, the minority view is required to have a less substantial place in the article. We can build consensus around your previously suggested metric of "sentence quantity" extrapolated from your words:

wedged between two other statements .... For balance, we have also provided RT's statement .... Removing one would tip the balance

and agree that in such an algebraically-inspired model, the minority view shall require less sentences than the majority view. I am totally "OK" with it. Let's see what others can chime in here before we make any changes.--Testefye (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
And there's the issue: you believe the "majority view", or the "status quo view" as you've also now put it, is represented by RT's statement. With all the in-depth, painstaking analysis you've taken the time to provide, it's somewhat surprising you're holding the primary source's claim above all secondary source analysis. You do realize RT has a stake in maintaining its reputation, and therefore would be a biased source, right? Also, its claim is that it didn't detect anything unusual, not that anything unusual isn't possible. The point is that we should represent other viewpoints equally, and if anything, we should be giving the edge to secondary sources that are unbiased, not the other way around. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree in that regard. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


Doesn't the massive length of this talk page - and the vitriol contained in it - suggest that there is indeed a deep divide between those who liked and those who hated The Last Jedi? It's a major fan war about TLJ... concerning whether a major fan war about TLJ exists, and therefore whether it should even be mentioned. Now, almost a year after release, the idea that it was some kind of "vocal minority" or using the term "so-called" in reference to the controversy just seems evasive in the extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.6.247 (talk • contribs)

No, because it's only from a handful of people--which isn't enough to extrapolate anything. That's why we rely on reliable sources, which state that this is a very small minority. DonQuixote (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
This is really is a good case of "internet reality" because every controlled sample of people who saw the film in questioned showed an overwhelming number of people liked it. Obviously, this could change over time, but it appears that the group that hates it was less than 10% of the people who saw the film. However, that angry minority is over-represented on the internet so it makes the divide much worse.Nemov (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Nemov, as seen in the discussion I had with Erik (now located at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 4#Discussion #) and the discussion I had with GoneIn60 (seen at #GoneIn60/Flyer22 Reborn discussion moved from above), I'm just not sure that the dissent is as minor as some on this talk page have made it out to be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen data to back it up. The controlled samples from one year ago didn't support it. Even a controlled sample from July didn't support it. The recent peer reviewed study about Rian Johnson's twitter feed suggested that most people interacting with him about the film enjoyed it. Based on demographic information the grout that liked the film the least is over represented on sites like Twitter/Reddit/YouTube. Plus the group continues to generate content and click on anything that supports their position. It's a very motivated group and motivated groups are valuable for ad revenue.Nemov (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Nemov, like I've stated before, I don't doubt that the general public enjoyed the film. But the general public doesn't automatically equate to "fans." And it especially doesn't equate to "hardcore fans." I enjoyed the film, but I'm not a Star Wars fan. The aforementioned discussion I had with GoneIn60 shows where I'm coming from. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Flyer22, I'd consider myself a hardcore fan and samples I've seen on Star Wars fans sites do confirm that a slightly larger percentage of people who don't like the film. However, it's still a pretty small minority. I'd estimate probably around 15% and no more than 20%. Star Wars is a huge property so while these are very tiny minorities that's still a huge number of people and it's predominantly men over the age of 30 if the IMDb demographics can be trusted.Nemov (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I concur. The serious (even "hardcore") fanbase is more or less split, but in terms of EVERYONE who saw the film, the majority liked it. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Lucas' comments

I think the first paragraph of the three that were added, then deleted, could stay. The rest are not about Last Jedi. Alaney2k (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think George Lucas’ views on the sequel films is certainly notable. I imagine a simplified version of the first paragraph of the originally proposed text would be appropriate, something like the following:
Creator of the franchise George Lucas, who wasn't involved with the film's production, described The Last Jedi as "beautifully made" shortly after its release.[1][2] His reaction to Star Wars: The Force Awakens was generally more negative.[3][4]

References

  1. ^ Dumaraog, Ana (December 12, 2017). "George Lucas Says Star Wars: The Last Jedi Was 'Beautifully Made'". ScreenRant. Retrieved August 21, 2018.
  2. ^ Parker, Ryan (December 12, 2017). "George Lucas Thinks The Last Jedi Was 'Beautifully Made'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved August 21, 2018.
  3. ^ Child, Ben (December 31, 2015). "Attack of the Moans: George Lucas Hits Out at 'Retro' Star Wars: The Force Awakens". The Guardian. Retrieved August 21, 2018.
  4. ^ Peterson, Jeff (January 7, 2016). "George Lucas Elaborates on His Reaction to The Force Awakens". Deseret News. Retrieved August 21, 2018.
The issue is where to put it. I don’t really like the idea of a separate George Lucas section. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
In Force Awakens, Lucas' comments after the film was released were included at the end of the Critical reception section. I suppose that's where we can include them here. However, I would stress that 2-3 sentences at most would suffice in accordance with WP:DUE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Presumably, Lucas’ comments were placed as they were in the Force Awakens article due to their negativity. The last paragraph of the “Critical reception” section describes negative reception, so Lucas’ comments were placed immediately below it. Here, Lucas’ comments are positive. An analogous placement here would be either at the end of the penultimate paragraph or alone as the penultimate paragraph of the “Critical reception” section—that is, at the end of the positive reception portion of the section. At two sentences, my proposed text seems to meet your length specifications. Antinoos69 (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
So it seems maybe at the end of the 4th paragraph, but since the 5th starts with "Conversely", mentioning his negative reaction to Force Awakens may cause a bit of a rough transition there. Do we really need to contrast it with TFA in this article? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, the negative bit on TFA provides a beautiful transition to the negative reviews of TLJ that immediately follow. And, yes, we do need to contrast with TFA. See below. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't flow smoothly when stated in this order:
1. Lucas described TLJ positively
2. He had a generally negative take on TFA -- (transition)
3. "Conversely, blah, blah, blah..." -- (sudden stop/transition)
The adverb "Conversely" should immediately follow a positive statement, since it's about to introduce negative reception. If you are determined to keep the TFA statement for contextual purposes, then "Conversely" needs to go in favor of a better term that builds upon the transition introduced in the previous paragraph. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
You’re conceiving of it improperly, or stating the wrong order. “Conversely,” regarding TLJ, does follow a positive statement on TLJ. And “conversely” here begins a paragraph, invoking an entirely different hierarchy, namely the broader structure of the section, not of a single paragraph. You are merely imagining some otherwise unknown rule to the effect one cannot briefly interject any material structured in any way between the two. So we actually go from positive-TLJ (section structure hierarchy), to negative-TFA (paragraph content hierarchy), to negative-TLJ (section structure hierarchy). That looks great to me. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC) In other words, in terms of your three-point “order,” you present your three points as though they exist on the same level. They don’t. Only points 1 and 3 can be said to do so, rendering point 2 essentially parenthetical at a lower level. Consequently, there is no problem with “conversely.” Antinoos69 (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC) The true “order” looks more like this:
1. Positive reception of TLJ
. . .
z. “Lucas described TLJ positively”
(1) “He had a generally negative take on TFA”
2. “Conversely,” negative reception of TLJ.
Antinoos69 (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, fair point. The flow didn't seem very smooth on the surface, and that there may be room for improvement, but if it technically works, then it technically works... --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason to have more than a one sentence line about Lucas opinion of the movie.. a longer dissertation on his thoughts can possibly be included in his article.Spanneraol (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps Antinoos69's suggestion minus the 2nd sentence would be fine. I'd be on board with that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
No, the bit on TFA provides essential context and meaning. Is Lucas’ positive comment here merely a generic, boilerplate platitude that he is contractually obligated to provide by agreement with Disney, or does Lucas still have actual opinions that he feels free to express? The bit on TFA aids readers trying to figure that out. Nor does one short and rather vague sentence constitute a “dissertation,” “longer” or otherwise. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Additionally, both sentences are highly relevant here, given the broader context of the “Critical reception” and “Audience reception” sections and the controversies they have spawned. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • From my point of view, Lucas made very clear his opinion of The Force Awakens, he did not like how J. J. Abrams copy/pasted his original work, as he complained mainly by saying in his film everything was 'new'. He clearly liked his films, The Last Jedi and Rogue One way more. Had he not liked a film, he would have made it known one way or another. When comparing a film whitin a franchise the most common thing to do is to compare with a previous films within the franchise. No matter how many complain about the film, the Lucas opinion is the most important, and the mot objective thing to do is to add his opinion as it is, and that is that he liked The Last Jedi and Rogue One way more than The Force Awakens. None of those are my words, is all based on what the article says, if you react to a film negatively, and react to another positively, is clear which one you like more.Rosvel92 (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)rosvel92
So are you saying you're fine with the two-sentence proposal from Antinoos69 above? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I say add as much information as possible ABOUT Lucas opinion, adding Lucas opinion about the previous films, does help give a better context on his opinion, where you talking about any critic, I would say stick to his opinon of this film. But this is the creator of the saga, I believe his opinon deserves a little more context than the one of critc reviewers. And Lucas is its own third critical respnse section, I would say.Rosvel92 (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[User:Rosvel92|Rosvel92]]
You may want to review WP:DUE as to why we've shortened this. While it deserves being mentioned in the article, we want to avoid taking up too much space. We have consensus for at least one sentence, and by the looks of it, two may end up in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Would you prefer my two-sentence addition to the “Critical reception” section rather than the one-sentence version (the first sentence only) and rather than no addition to the article at all? At this time, those seem to be the only viable options. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

NOTICE: Unless there are any further objections, I will add my proposed two sentences at the above indicated point in the article in two days. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi/Archive_7&oldid=1065957732"