Misplaced Pages

Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anywikiuser (talk | contribs) at 09:34, 20 December 2017 (→Neutral position with criticism.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:34, 20 December 2017 by Anywikiuser (talk | contribs) (→Neutral position with criticism.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Wars: The Last Jedi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFilm: American
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconStar Wars Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Star Wars To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDisney Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from Star Wars: The Last Jedi appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 March 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2016/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Star Wars Episode VIII.
Misplaced Pages


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not what the article said. It said Ep IX would be the last film of the sequel trilogy, which is accurate. On the other task, calling it the next film in the series is inaccurate, as between the release of The Last Jedi and Ep IX the Han Solo anthology film will be released, making it the next film released in the series (as a whole). oknazevad (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Nitpick: one could argue IX is the next in the series, but not the next in the franchise - depends on how you define "series". --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Space Bear - really?

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Mention title ambiguity?

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

Disney v Theaters controversy

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

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

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

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

Star Wars: The Last Jedi run time officially classified by the BBFC as 151 minutes and 38 seconds (2 and a half hours and a minute and 38 seconds), an estimated 152 minutes long

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

Minor Typos needing corrections by verified user

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

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

Semi-protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Marketing

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

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

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

Should this page be frozen until 12/15?

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

The appropriate guideline regarding spoilers can be found on Misplaced Pages:Spoiler. Strictly by itself, it is not grounds for full page protection (this article is currently only semi-protected to prevent disruptive editing from unregistered users). A group of well intentioned, regular Misplaced Pages editors from Los Angeles who have already seen the film should not be prohibited from adding it. What would definitely get this page protected would be an edit war/content dispute between such a group from LA, and another group of regular Misplaced Pages editors who remove the plot summary on grounds that it is not verified. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thus, my recommendation to editors who may have seen the film already is Misplaced Pages:There is no deadline#View three: Don't postpone dispute resolution. It is not worth getting into an edit war when the European release date is only in a couple of days on 13-Dec, and then the entire United States release is a couple days later on 15-Dec. If there is consensus to start adding it on 13-Dec (the European release date) instead of later on 15-Dec (the USA release date), then so be it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Just saw it. Attacking the section on :fr:. Thanks you for the gist. --Yug (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
See : on the French Misplaced Pages. You can take and translate. --Yug (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
69.159.9.129 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

200 million is two small you dumb ass its 300 million

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Scarfaceone (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

 Not done - attending a premiere does not mean the person is in the movie, unless you can cite a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
This post is the only edit by your account so I don't know which reverts you refer to but it is mentioned with sources in the last sentence of Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Cast: "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry and Tom Hardy all filmed cameo appearances as stormtroopers." PrimeHunter (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot

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

It just got open in Europe, and opens in the US on Friday. I just wrote a long version of the plot on the French Misplaced Pages.
I encourage English natives editor to use google translate to get a gist of the plot, and write a shorter one en English. --Yug (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I did it. Enjoy.
PS : copy edit for grammar is welcome ! Yug (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

BB8 not having actors attached

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

They are. The caption was incorrect. And the file was inappropriately used per WP:NFCC. It has been removed. oknazevad (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
If Ben Schwartz and Bil Hader are attached to it, it should appear in the Cast section, since they are behind a major character. Also, thanks Oknazevad and 198.70.2.200 for this info. :)
We could alternatively create a subsection "Puppets and CGI" characters.
The file is fair use and can be used here as long as it is to illustrate BB8 (character) and no other concepts (robots). Yug (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it can only be used to illustrate the BB-8 article, as non-free (including fair use) media must have a fair use rationale on the image page, and this image does not.oknazevad (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
oknazevad, I disagree with interpretation focusing on "image page". There is fair use on the image's context : talking about BB-8 as a character, within this film. Yug (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is not in line with Misplaced Pages's policy. Fair use rationales must be on a per-article basis. oknazevad (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'am putting together some sources for that. Yug (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC) 
Control by Dave Chapman and Brian Herring.”Initial “English dubbing” by Ben Schwartz. Voice by Bill Hader, modulated through a synthesizer by J.J. Abrams. Both Schwartz and Hader are credited as "voice consultants".
  1. Brooks, Dan (August 26, 2015), Droid Dreams: How Neal Scanlan and the Star Wars: the Force Awakens Team Brought BB-8 to Life
  2. Chitwood, Adam (November 17, 2016), Watch Ben Schwartz Provide the Voice of BB-8 in New ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ Featurette
I think its good now. It's much more real and complex than I initially though. I added facts to the BB-8 article and infobox. Yug (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Average user scores

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

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

Rotten Tomatoes audience score down to 56%

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

No, per WP:USERG. DonQuixote (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
While I certainly agree user reviews aren't as important as films critics, it should at the very least be noted in the article that the public reception wasn't as warm as the critical one. Many other articles do the same so it would be keeping in line with WP:CONSISTENCY. 78.152.250.63 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
It should only be mentioned when reliable secondary sources discuss the phenomenon so that we can cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Articles such as are beginning to mention the Rotten Tomatoes disparity, but we should wait for more coverage before we add something along the lines of <Fan Reactions>. I feel like the discussion is headed that way, though.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The link below should help explain the Cinemascore rating system.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment I'm of two minds on this. On the one side, I agree that the content as written was bad and needed to go. But I don't agree that the fan backlash is mere trolling. See, the real problem with what was there was that it presented it as Misplaced Pages so often presents such problems (in contravention of WP:WIAE), as whether this is a good movie that our readers should pay to see or not. What we should really be doing is summarizing what reliable secondary sources like this one are doing with the serious problems presented by the film. These not "problems" in the sense of "bad things about the film that mean you should not watch it" but in the critical scholarship sense. While some of the negative fan reactions definitely do come from trolls and/or obsessive fanboys who really wanted the film to be what they had already built up in their heads (even though Disney made it clear years before even The Force Awakens came out that these films would not be big budget fanfiction adaptations), it is definitely true that the previous film had actively encouraged fans to engage in that kind of speculation: it is therefore legitimate to point out that the film seems to be at odds with its own direct prequel on a number of these points, perhaps reflecting a lack of long-term planning on the part of the creators. Put simply, it seems J. J. Abrams's Star Wars sequel trilogy had a principal antagonist who was this big, powerful, ancient and mysterious figure, and a principal heroine whose parentage was some big, important secret probably tied in with the lore of the franchise, while Rian Johnson's Star Wars sequel trilogy did not, and some fans are annoyed that this film appears to be completely out of step with the previous one on these and similar points. (I should stress that I'm not one of that group of fans.) Pointing this out, while acknowledging that it has nothing to do with whether or not the film is "good" should not be that big a deal and should be easy, but the way Misplaced Pages covers recent American pop culture topics is artificially "hardening" it for us. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Addendum: It should be obvious, but my above proposal is a long-term solution. I think the source I cited is good enough for a sentence or two, but ideally we could one day address the whole problem with multiple reliable sources after all the smoke has cleared. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the Rotten Tonatoes Audience Score is that it is not a scientific poll. Anyone can chip in a review. That means if there is one small minority of viewers that is particulary determined to drive the rating up or down, they will have an outsized effect. They are also vulnerable to being manipulated, if someone organises an effort on social media to skew the result. Unless I'm wrong about how it's calculated, I am sceptical that the audience score means anything. Whereas the CinemaScore and ComScore polls are scientific surveys of the audience who saw it. Their responders may not be representative of the general moviegoing public, but at least they are representative of its target audience. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't change the fact that the score is 55%. Perhaps a note that the statistic is not scientific? 23:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UAIED (talk • contribs)
At some point, it might merit discussion here though. Even if only to dismiss it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Um, no, it's very clear from the film itself that Leia was using the Force to save herself. Not only in her body positioning, but through the music, which features both Leia's theme and Binary Sunset (the Force theme). oknazevad (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: Are you joking? If so, good one. Try going to WP:NORN and asking the folks there if it's okay to extrapolate from the soundtrack that she is using the Force and include it as a "given" in an uncited plot summary. The only reason we tolerate citation-free plot summaries like this one is that it is assumed Misplaced Pages editors will have more sense than to include obscure details like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not kidding. Just because the film doesn't actually have a character state she uses the Force verbally, doesn't mean the film doesn't make it as obvious as can be. oknazevad (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: This is fanboy stuff. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia for a general audience and the plot needs to be kept concise. The question is not whether Leia used the Force or not but whether including such detail is essential to a general audience in a plot summary. Robynthehode (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
It is, because her use of the Force is why she survives and no one else on that bridge did. Its a significant plot point. It's also literally three words that would be omitted, so conciseness is not an issue (and as someone who keeps coming back to trim down to just under 700 words, I know all about conciseness, thank you very much.) oknazevad (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Umm... what three words? My proposal was that Leia saves herself using the Force but is incapacitated be replaced with and incapacitating Leia, which would cut six words. And (as numerous users have already pointed out) it's not about arithmetic word count, but the level of extraneous detail we include in that word count. A fake-out death that is literally undone within two minutes is the very definition of extraneous detail. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Just because the film doesn't actually have a character state she uses the Force verbally, doesn't mean the film doesn't make it as obvious as can be Seriously, your comments look like you are joking -- it's literally impossible for it to be "as obvious as can be" with no one actually saying it in words.
Anyway, my main concern is that, given that the actress died while the film was in production, it seems really tasteless to throw off a reference to how the character appeared to be dead and then came back using the Force in the plot summary like this. I don't like extraneous detail in general, but the reason this particular point is problematic as we are covering it here is the real-world background.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
That's really not a reason to omit something from a plot summary. It may have been a reason for the filmmakers to omit it from the film itself, but they didn't, so clearly they don't agree with you. We don't leave out plot points just because you don't like the way they remind you of real-world events. oknazevad (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: Sorry if I upset you re the fanboy reference. I actually just thanked you for your edit on the plot summary. My point, prompted by your argument, for the inclusion of Leia using the force is whether it is essential. Using the reasons of body positioning and music are fanboy supporting reasons but there may be a good reason to keep Leia's use of the Force in the plot summary. Can't see one myself though. And I agree with you about your comment to Hijiri 88. Real world events are not a reason to exclude a fictional event from the plot summary. Robynthehode (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
(multiple (edit conflict)s) You're both missing the point -- it doesn't belong in the plot summary for a bunch of reasons, and my reason for bringing it up rather than the various other things wrong with the plot summary now a coupla days after the film's release is at best peripheral. If it isn't clear to the average viewer of the film then it can't be included in the plot summary with reference to a reliable secondary source (so "uses the Force" is out), and if it's not absolutely relevant to the plot, then it doesn't belong either. Actually, to turn the argument around for a moment, the fact that there was a "Holy shit, Princess Leia just died!" moment that was immediately undone is important to fans for real-world reasons, but is not a reason to include the fictional event in the plot summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
He events have material impact on the rest of the film's events, so I cannot agree that it's not an important event that can just be left out. In fact, that's a pretty absurd suggestion, no offense. oknazevad (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
He events have material impact on the rest of the film's events You're mixing up what I'm saying with what I specifically said I was not saying. The only way in which her near-death affects the other events of the story is that it incapacitates her, and I think we can get away with simply saying she "is incapacitated" rather than going into detail about how the soundtrack makes it clear that she uses the Force to survive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
As I said above, it is why she alone survives. That's a significant plot point in my mind. oknazevad (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Her alone surviving is not a reason to reference the Force, just noting she survives is enough. But if the plot keeps within 700 words I'm happy. Robynthehode (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I think we should just note she is incapacitated while others are killed. Saying "she survives" is redundant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the part that annoys me is people keep trying to put in Admiral Ackbar's name just because his name is specifically mentioned. That is an unimportant detail, as he's a minor character at best in this film and overall. We don't really need to not that he died in the First Order's trap. (Though you'd think he would know a trap when he sees one ;-) ) That's a case where it's verbally confirmed but not important, while Leia's Force use is as obvious as can be without verbalization and isn't important to the plot. Film is a visual medium; seeing something on screen is just as valid as hearing it in the dialogue. oknazevad (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Film is a visual medium; seeing something on screen is just as valid as hearing it in the dialogue. Sorry, but no. Unless something is explicitly stated, unambiguously, in words that every Misplaced Pages reader can understand, in the film itself, then the film itself is not treated as a reliable source for that claim on Misplaced Pages. And this is just a generality; here you are making a claim about the soundtrack, not something seen on screen, so that argument wouldn't even make sense if it wasn't out-of-line with the OR policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Rey's Parents

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

No. It's not an important enough plot detail that it's indispensible, and we need to cite reliable secondary sources for minutiae like that, no matter how important they are out-of-universe. If the plot section consisted of a combination of plot summary and sourced analysis, like my plot summary at Matsuranomiya monogatari, that would be another matter. But as this article is structures that would be untenable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that, per my long comment two sections up, I definitely think we should be giving this important problem more weight than we currently do, just not in an unsourced plot summary and not in a manner that makes our article read like a film review telling our readers whether it is a "good" or "bad" change. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
It's also not even confirmed in the movie. There is a story that Kylo tells, but as with the destruction of Luke's training program, Kylo may not be telling the truth or the entire truth. The only thing that can be verified is that the movie gives no conclusive evidence of who Rey's parents were. Danbert8 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This will veer dangerously close to WP:NOTFORUM territory (but it's MOS:FILM's fault for allowing us to write plot summaries based on primary sources, however dubious and unreliable and fictional they may be), but I don't think we can grant weight to the "Kylo Ren is an unreliable narrator" theory. I've heard it speculated (by Roth, of Screen Junkies) that what Kylo said was Johnson's decision that Abrams probably didn't like, and that Abrams might retcon it as a lie when Episode IX comes out. But in all honesty this isn't Yabu no Naka we're talking about, and this film's plotting was not that intricate or subtle. We were unambiguously told that Luke's account was untrue and Kylo's was a out-of-context but basically factual, and there was no hint that the other stuff Kylo said was a lie. Maybe we'll be told that everything he said was true "from a certain point of view", like how Darth Vader "betrayed and murdered" Luke's father was a metaphor for how he "ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader", but I don't think it will be revealed to be an outright lie. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Death of Skywalker

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

It was actually pretty straight-forward. He did what he needed to do, before ascending of his own will. TechNyanners (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@TechNyanners: What!? It was obvious to me that the Force projection (including Force projected lightsaber duel) was such a drain on him that he expired from exhaustion, and Leia and Rey's conversation was meant to imply that that was his intention the whole time. That's not the same thing. So yeah, it's not straightforward, and if you want to include your interpretation in the article you need to find a reliable secondary source that shares it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


@Hijiri88 The movie actually contained numerous cues that the vanishing of Luke's body was not brought on by the cessation of bodily functions. However, because it was not directly stated that he died or that he ascended, there remains some degree of ambiguity and it is perhaps better to simply state that his body vanished. Even in this case though, cues throughout made clear that Luke joined the Force. TechNyanners (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it is supposed to be that the strain killed him, but he was okay with that, as he made peace with his failures. The clue about the strain was early in the film, when Kylo and Rey have their first joint vision, where he states that Rey couldn't be behind it, as the strain would kill her. oknazevad (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
See, while one or both of you may be right on this or that obscure detail, the principle is that plot summaries such as these not include such obscure details without citation of a reliable secondary source. To do otherwise would violate WP:NOR. I would honestly prefer if we included a separate "analysis" section that included stuff like "some scholars noted hints that Luke did not die at the end of the film but rather ascend bodily to the Force" or some such, with appropriate citations, but we can't state such things matter-of-fact within an uncited plot summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot Summaries and Misplaced Pages Guidelines

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

The recommended word limit is meant to accommodate four-hour plot-dense epics, with "typical feature films" not needing to fill the 700-word quota. This film is much closer to the latter group. Discarding extraneous detail, in all honesty we could summarize the plot of this film in three or four sentences comprising less than 100 words. I am not saying we have to, just that we could. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the offer. Ok, I'll go ahead and post a somewhat verbose summary. Following, if you could condense or reduce it further, I'd be deeply appreciative. THANKS
TechNyanners (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Having checked both WP:PLOTSUM and WP:FILMPLOT I can see no information that says the the film plot range relates to 'typical feature films' nor 'four hour dense epics'. This is a POV assessment unless it can be shown otherwise. Yes the 700 word limit should be respected but maxing out this is up to the editors who edit the plot summary as far as I can see. Happy to be corrected on this point but it seems clear to me that the plot summary here can go to 700 words based on consensus of editors Robynthehode (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Robynthehode: Please see WP:CREEP for an explanation of why neither of those guidelines explicitly states that they apply equally to "typical feature films" and four-hour plot-dense epics. And the 700 word limit should be respected but maxing out this is up to the editors who edit the plot summary is what I meant by I am not saying we have to , just that we could; editorial discretion, guided by consensus, is assumed by all the guidelines and by everything I say. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Thanks for pointing me to this article. Don't see how this really applies to what I said. Are you trying to say your view relating "typical feature films" and "four hour plot dense epics" is correct? Has this view been reached by consensus already? Can you point to the discussion where this was agreed? Or is it just your POV? Robynthehode (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Robynthehode: I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. I stated the view that the same word-count guideline applies to both typical feature films and four-hour epics, you went through the guidelines and apparently found no explicit support of my view, and I cited WP:CREEP since it wouldn't normally be expected to explicitly support this view. And it should be clear from my comments elsewhere in this thread that I don't think there are key plot details missing: I think there are peripheral plot details currently included that, if it were up to me, I wouldn't include, but I'm not looking for an argument and so won't address them (except on the "Leia uses the Force to save herself" stuff). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit of TechNyanners because adding 200 words to the plot summary is not acceptable according to WP:PLOTSUM and WP:FILMPLOT. If you think key plot details are missing from the current summary I would suggest discussing them here first and reaching consensus before adding such major changes. Robynthehode (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The guidelines seem to strongly suggest that a plot summary for this particular film can be a bit on the longer side. Moreover, those very same guidelines communicate that it is NOT a matter of number of words, but rather a matter of making a concerted effort to remove specific items from inclusion of the plot summary which are not material. Said alternatively, the plot summary consists of those components that reflect the story arc's progression through time. Please further consult both https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot and https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary .
In any case, word count alone is not an appropriate basis for anything so severe as a reversion. Had that been the case, the guidelines would have said so directly. To wit, the guidelines do directly state that a plot summary that was a straight copy and paste from elsewhere on the Internet is impermissible.
Having said that, the guidelines do state clearly that excising specific components of a long plot summary is permissible and to be encouraged and I respectfully insist that this be attempted before more drastic steps are employed.
TechNyanners (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Word count is the usual means to keep plot summaries concise. Only in exceptional circumstances can this word count be expanded. Although your edit was in good faith please do not begin an edit war about this. TechNyanners you need to get consensus on the talk page before expanding the plot summary as much as you have. I can go through your edit in detail if you like and show you what I think is plot bloat but I will leave it for now for other editors to comment. Please leave the plot summary as it is until other editors have made their comments. Just to be clear here is the text from WP:FILMPLOT with the relevant section highlighted. 'Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.) Robynthehode (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Word count is the usual means to keep plot summaries concise. Only in exceptional circumstances can this word count be expanded. Although your edit was in good faith please do not begin an edit war about this. TechNyanners you need to get consensus on the talk page before expanding the plot summary as much as you have. I can go through your edit in detail if you like and show you what I think is plot bloat but I will leave it for now for other editors to comment. Please leave the plot summary as it is until other editors have made their comments. Robynthehode (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"I can go through your edit in detail if you like and show you what I think is plot bloat "
I would appreciate that very much, actually. I am inclined to agree that the plot summary I have drafted is too long, but in the spirit of reaching consensus and agreement, I respectfully request that specific improvements be implemented or at least discussed. To that end, while I do believe consensus can be achieved via presenting the case that the plot summary needn't be constrained to <700words, I feel the other path I am proposing, implementing or proposing specific improvements, is a slightly sounder mechanism for achieving consensus at present.
TechNyanners (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

vandalised

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

Audience Score

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

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

Point taken. I think pretty much everyone here already agrees we shouldn't cite any of them, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this. What you think about the Audience Score system is something subjective. You even use a link to support your claim about faking the score, but the same website admits that such a division between critics and audience, especially the fanbase, here: https://screenrant.com/star-wars-last-jedi-critics-audience-divide/ On the other hand, we could say the same about the critics, that their opinion is not reliable because it can be manipulated, they can be 'bought' by Disney, etc. That is all subjective (just look at your sentence 'There are better audience scores like IMDB score and Cinemascore'. So you just choose which scores are better with no empirical evidence? All of that is up to the wikireaders to decide, we only provide the info by editing the articles. The audience score has to be mentioned, it is relevant that one of the largest aggregators present such a gap, although I could agree that a note on the fiability of Rotten Tomatoes' voting system might be added. In anycase there has been 108.000 votes and you can read plenty of reviews to see, is plausible to think that the films is not as universally liked as it is presented, or that the fanbase is not agreeing with the general audience or the critics. I am pointing out this difference but also how Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score might not be reliable User:Jasandia 20:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jasandia: You clearly have read neither what I subjectively think of the matter nor the relevant guideline ... is what I was going to say before I examined your comment more closely. Please be careful how you indent your comments in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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

@Anywikiuser: I have read it and I see there is a disparity of opinions, but also that you get to chose that this whole matter doesn't deserve a mention even though I added a reference. That is not the Wikipedian approach, I conceeded you the reference to the Audience Score being unreliable (although it is a possibility, not a fact, you nor anyone have conducted an investigation on the topic, nor is there a thesis on the topic). Your response? Erasing the whole thing. Look, the fact is that there are signs that the film is not being unanimously acclaimed, and it should be reflected. On the other hand, you are determining which pollings are scientific and which are not. What is so scientific about them, that you have to register? Do you know I could own several mail accounts and log in for instance in IMDB? Your whole argument is subjective! Just by saying 'these are scientific and these are not' it doesn't turn that into something true! No worries, I just retrain from making any further additions to the Wiki, have it your way User:Jasandia 13:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
A 'scientific poll' is when the pollster makes sure its answers come from a representative sample of the relevant people, in this case people who have seen the film. CinemaScore hands out survey forms to people who have just seen the film. ComScore have a large pool of respondents that get invited to take part in online surveys, and they use several techniques to check they're getting a representative sample. Those are scientific polls. Not necessarily perfect ones. They aren't completely safe from participation bias, and ComScore can't be completely sure that a respondent has actually seen the film.
An 'open poll', where anyone can respond and there's no attempt to check that the respondents are a representative sample, is not a scientific poll. It's not a reliable measurement, for the reasons I have explained above.
The IMDB score is a difference case. It's somewhere in between. Anyone can add a review to it, so I would hesitate to describe it as a scientific survey even though there is some weighting. IMDB say that they use weighting to avoid ballot-stuffing and response bias, but unlike ComScore they keep these methods secret.
I'm not completely opposed to mentioning the Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score, but only if it is discussed in reliable and significant media, and we'd have to point out the issues discussed here. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
2601:2C1:8200:833C:BD63:64B9:9449:BBCD (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

Admiral Ackbar

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

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

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

  1. Not remotely relevant to the plot of this film.
  2. Not relevant to the plot of this film.
  3. Not remotely relevant to the plot of this film. He is not named in the film in the fashion that you imply (i.e., "it was an attack that killed Ackbar and incapacitated Leia").
  4. WP:NOR. Of you want to include it for that reason, you need to cite a reliable secondary source that says, among other things, that there aren't two vice admirals, the senior of whom was killed and the junior of whom came to power.
  5. Who did that? Misplaced Pages contains spoilers. Name-dropping Ackbar in the plot summary is much worse than "spoiling" the movie by saying he dies in a different section lower down in the article.
  6. Totally misses the point of the plot summary length guidelines. You added an irrelevant detail that only fans care about or would even notice; the arithmetic count is irrelevant by comparison.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Fan reaction

I have added a couple of sentences to the fan reaction section. First, I was not sure whether it is encyclopedic. I decided to add Mendelson's opinion, and I have added a source from Voxx. If we expand a bit, maybe we can decide whether to keep it? Is it significant? I didn't expect it to be divisive itself, but there you go. Alaney2k (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It isn't encyclopedic to me. It must be discussed here before adding it again. --Miaow 18:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand that fan reactions aren't as scientific, concrete, or reliable as the opinions of established critics; but when two of the most popular user review sites on the internet, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, show that about half of all user votes are overwhelmingly negative, it's relevant information. Wiki users who are unaware of the situation and backlash should at least be offered the information that many fans of the franchise are highly critical, so much so that on RT it has the lowest user score of any of the franchise's major films. This isn't just a vocal minority that are screaming loudly about how much they dislike the film, from what we've seen from user polls online a large portion of the audience straight up disliked the movie. And considering how far apart critics and fans opinions seem to be, I believe that it is information that should be included in the page; so maybe years down the line, when some of the anger may have subsided, there should be a record of how much fan criticism the film received. This doesn't appear to be a massive troll towards the film, like what we saw with 2016's "Ghostbusters," this seems to be legitimate fan criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSpepper1 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(edited) Hard to say whether it is trolling. It's been suggested elsewhere than at Forbes. Someone claimed to be behind it. In a smaller way, the 1998 Godzilla film, was a box office success, yet widely derided by fans. That article has mentions of that. I'd rather leave it in and edit to a better point, but there have been two editors who seem to be completely against it. I got through two sentences, then saw it reverted before I added a third. Now it's gone completely. I hope further discussion happens. Alaney2k (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

See discussions above. An 'open poll' that anyone can respond to can be skewed up or down by a vocal minority, especially if there is a campaign to skew it on social media. A survey like CinemaScore is a more reliable measurement. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Amywikiuser. There are an insanely large number of threads on this talk page opened on the same topic by various users popping up and assuming no one has been discussing it already. I kinda wish we could merge them all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
When there are lots of topics, you can't tune into them all. It's not a board, we're not 'users'. Alaney2k (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This recent source may be of relevance to those making assumptions or claims about audience reaction to the film. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, great. This clears it all up. I'd say thanks for wanting it in, but it seems to be like Mendelsohn said, it's trolling. A bit of fake news, like the times nowadays. I'm okay with finally stamping it out and not allowing a section to discuss it then. It has been discussed in the news, but it should blow over and be irrelevant. Alaney2k (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this and this, we include fan reaction (yes, CinemaScore as well), per MOS:FILM, and it can go either in the Critical reception section or have an Audience response section (if there is enough material for a standalone section and it does not fit best in the Critical reception section). Such sections are encyclopedic if done right. Professional critics are not the only aspect to critical reception. That stated, Erik did recently state that PostTrak is "more reliable than user scores (which have apparently been manipulated for The Last Jedi)." And I have seen many fans disliking this latest Star Wars film. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars fans have been disliking the latest Star Wars film and considering it the worst/worse Star Wars film since The Empire Strikes Back, if you’ll recall. I certainly recall having to keep my views of the relative merits of the first two films to myself to avoid rather vicious mockery and insult. Professional critics at the time were unkind to TESB. And you might also recall that Empire had the lowest original box office gross of the original trilogy films. Antinoos69 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The Empire Strikes Back is generally disliked by fans? I haven't known that to be the case. I think I've heard it be considered the worst in the original trilogy, and I assume that's what you mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I can't say that I've even heard The Empire Strikes Back referred to as the worst. I guess by "since," you simply mean "after" and are discounting the prequels? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Totally off topic comment: I've always heard it said that The Empire Strikes Back was actually THE BEST of the films (by many fans), and I never understood why because I never could see that as being true myself. My personal choices were always A New Hope and Revenge of the Sith. Anyway, I agree with Flyer22 and Erik that fan opinions have some kind of value, but it should be stated/positioned appropriately in accordance with Misplaced Pages structure. However, waiting a bit in this case, as suggested by other users, seems justifiable. Huggums537 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Fan reaction as discussed by reliable sources is warranted. I've seen a few sources analyze the the matter (like here), and they can be combined. However, fan reaction as derived by user scores should not be included at face value (per our guidelines). Meaning, don't lead with, "The film was heavily panned in user reviews. But! Some periodicals noticed this being at odds with the critics and the on-site polls." Just share more directly that sources noted a discrepancy and provide their assessment and reasons as to why (rigging, vote-stacking, bot manipulation, whatever). Beyond that, there's no clear-cut way to capture "fan reaction" beyond CinemaScore, PostTrak, and the film having "legs" at the box office (which sources tend to tie to word-of-mouth). Erik (talk | contrib) 22:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be best to wait until the dust settles a bit and more is actually known; otherwise, we would risk running afoul of WP:PROPORTION. Antinoos69 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Erik, thanks for weighing in. Antinoos69, I don't think it's a WP:Undue weight issue yet. I don't even think WP:Recentism needs to be applied. The matter of the fact is that we have professional critics giving generally positive reviews, and reports on fan response differing. We haven't waited to include the thoughts of professional critics. I don't see why we should wait to include the thoughts of fans. Regarding this revert of UAIED by DonQuixote, I see that a reliable source reporting on the Rotten Tomatoes score was included.
Anyway, I'll contact WP:Film about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Also alerted MOS:FILM. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I have a bit of a question: is it possible to wait a bit in time, perhaps another week or two? Given the apparent massive disparity between critic and fan reactions, it seems reasonable that in the next couple of weeks, we'll see more third-party articles talk about the fan reaction. Personally, my approach to these things of issues is to give it time to settle and see how it shakes out. Is that a viable option in this case? To just wait a little? I do think that at least a couple of sentences summarizing that RT and MC reported negative audience scores appears warranted. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Wait for at least a week. It's hard to distinguish from people just disappointed , and reasonably legitimate negative reaction. If its the latter, RSes will still be talking about it in a week. If its just the first, it will disappiate quickly. --Masem (t) 01:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens when the "dust settles", it's encyclopedic information. This fan reaction is being covered in numerous third-party sources. Even if it ends up being partially rigged, it's still a notable backlash/event due to its coverage in multiple sources. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Then that won't change in a week or a few week's time. From what I've gathered it is basically undue weight given to the actions of a small proportion of fans. That's not encyclopedic in nature. There are always going to be unhappy fans. Alaney2k (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Not really WP:Undue weight, judging by the sources and number of sources covering this. If there was this type of reaction to The Force Awakens, it would be in the The Force Awakens article as well. But the most criticism that film got is that it was a copy of past Star Wars films, or namely the first one. Some critics covered that, and we included that criticism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
But that criticism was from actual critics (Andrew O'Hehir, Scott Mendelson, Brian Merchant). What is being discussed here is an online poll of fans. Granzymes (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
That it was professional critics commenting on that matter was part of my point. They were still a minority aspect in terms of the overall positive reception. And in the case of The Last Jedi, it is not simply about an online poll of fans. Look at the sources on this matter via a simple Google search, such as the one I linked to above. Critics are reporting on this matter as well (and in depth). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is a unique situation where mentioning info about the audience scores are appropriate as it has become part of the larger story of the movie and we would be disservicing the readers if we didn't mention it. There's also mentions that voting manipulation tactics may have been used which also I think should be covered. --Deathawk (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Request Edit to Plot of Star Wars: The Last Jedi

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

Please cite a reliable source that says that. DonQuixote (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Fan-shipping in a Misplaced Pages plot summary? Good luck... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Adopting a neutral position over the score.

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

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

Neutral position with criticism.

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

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

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

Ratings altered by software? What? It's a given that people can vote multiple times on the RT audience rating, so it's unreliable and non-noteworthy. I think there is legitimate backlash against this film from some fans, but we need reliable sources that analyze it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
See discussions above; you are not the first to point this out. An 'open poll' that anyone can respond to can be skewed up or down by a vocal minority, especially if there is a campaign to skew it on social media. Our policy is not to cite these as evidence. A survey like CinemaScore is a more reliable measurement. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Categories: