Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Comment about article

WIKi:PROMOTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change to Audience Reception

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

Audience Reception Section Inaccurate

This section below is inaccurate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Force projection

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

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

Academic source for the Audience response section

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