Talk:Star Wars sequel trilogy

Reception section

@UpdateNerd: In comparison to your well-versed prose of the Reception section for the prequel trilogy article, I think the same section here for the sequel trilogy page needs a lot more work (unless of course you are planning to develop it further). There is definitely enough examples of sources to back up claims the films received polarising opinions, particularly for The Last Jedi, a lot of which are included in The Last Jedi's article I have (at least temporary) linked on this page. However, the problem we have in doing so is that these opinions are primarily audience-based and not from critics, which as you wrote yourself gave the two films generally positive reviews. There's not enough in this paragraph to claim that critics were polarised based on just two recently-published lists, one claiming the prequels are better than the sequels, and then another in response to that claiming the sequels are better than the prequels (and in some ways the originals). -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Thanks for linking TLJ feedback as that adds more detail. I actually didn't mean to summarize the critical response, which has its own section below, but reception in general. There has definitely been a lot of media coverage of the polarizing fan response, but perhaps better wording/sources can replace what I started with. (I was originally going to mention the claims that the films were better/worse than previous films, but found it unnecessary.) At any rate, we'll certainly see a rewrite once IX comes out. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: With regards to your recent edits, I agree that the section does need quite a bit of work, but still wish to contest the current version you reverted to that was written by an anonymous IP. To break my primary concerns down:

The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi were acclaimed by critics and audiences alike, while The Rise of Skywalker received mixed reviews from critics and a positive reaction from audiences.

The statement that The Last Jedi being "acclaimed" by audiences is only true if you ignore the fact that audience reactions were shown to be polarised as per sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, which a number of third-party sources have acknowledged (as per the Audience Reception in The Last Jedi article). Otherwise, scientific polling methods used for those companies like Cinemascore and PostTrak etc. demonstrate that audiences were positive about the film. It just depends on whether this section is going to source those articles that highlight the discord expressed by these vocal fans. Which brings me to my next point that the sourcing for this first paragraph is very poor; the edits have simply cited the Rotten Tomatoes pages for each respective film, as well as just listing the homepage of the Cinemascore website. Again, we should have third-party sources detailing these statistics.

Some critics and fans have made allegations, without evidence, that Lucasfilm lacked planning for the trilogy's overarching story.

Whether or not these articles are just considered opinion pieces, I still disagree with how this sentence is written. What is classed as "evidence" if not the articles that refer to the fact that there never appeared to be a clear overarching plan for the trilogy based on statements from Abrams and Johnson? I almost did write the prose so that the allegations were "perceived" (e.g. a "perceived lack of planning from Lucasfilm"). Regardless, if you just consider these articles opinion pieces, then should they be included at all? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Audience scores are never reliable sources. Period. Every single actual reliable audience polling metric (PostTrak, CinemaScore, SurveyMonkey) showed highly positive audience reception. The fact that some people seem to think audience scores are reliable is a sign they are not reliable sources on the topic. Toa Nidhiki05 15:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: That's fine, although now I'm reading over it again I think "acclaimed" sounds like puffery. "Positive reception" for example should suffice. What is your opinion on the trilogy-planning allegations as you didn't address my comment on this? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the entire section, as-is, is kind of lengthy. It's substantially longer than the Star Wars prequel trilogy or Star Wars trilogy, especially the long diatribe on filmmakers (for example, including responses to specific "fan complaints" like Chewbacca not getting hugged). The section is also disproportionately negative given only 1/3rd of the trilogy got mixed reviews. To me, this entire section needs to be reworked. Toa Nidhiki05 15:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: @UpdateNerd: As it's been almost 2 years since the wrapping-up of the trilogy, and I've been contemplating starting this for a little while now, I think now is a good time to seriously consider working on re-writing this section. I've concerns that it may still be a bit too soon for there to be enough sources that describe how general audiences found the sequel trilogy or praise for specific elements, but on the other hand you've raised enough issues with how the prose stands at the moment that there's definitely enough to work with. Does anything jump out you don't think needs to be mentioned? There definitely needs to be an introductory sentence on what aspects of the trilogy received praise (if it can be sourced), because at the moment it mainly just lists specific criticisms with each of the three films. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any major problems with the current prose of the section and think it's a pretty cohesive overview of how the three films were perceived as a unit. If anyone wants more specific positive/negative criticism of individual films they can navigate to those articles. Only thing standing out to me is the phrase "heavy fan service" regarding TRoS, which should be more fleshed out if it's worth mentioning. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Section needs to be steered to a more neutral POV. One of the article's headlines reads "It Was a Total Lack of Planning That Killed Star Wars". Seriously, "killed Star Wars?" What does an entire paragraph about planning have to do with the reception of the films? Two of the films did well with critics. The controlled surveys of audience reception shows two of films were received well with audiences (although The Last Jedi received a great deal of attention for being divisive online). The last film wasn't received well by critics or audiences. Much of the reception section is overkill. Nemov (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Critical response pointing to a perceived lack of overall planning led to a perceived weak third installment has five entire references. So I don't think it's undue or unwarranted to include. And we're not throwing out references because they have non-neutral headlines. If anything, the reception section spends too much time trying to defend the film from that perception by having a bunch of production information—which should probably be shuffled into a production information, and then a sentence in reception referring back to it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your thoughts and opinions on the matter, they have been duly noted. I think the paragraph about a lack of planning could be trimmed somewhat, or otherwise merged with new prose. The one on the outlined plot points could probably as you say be moved to Renewed Development, considering a lot of other examples conceived by Lucas have been included there. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It'd be easy enough to include the production info as footnotes where relevant, but yes that could also be incorporated into the development section. @Nemov: I have no problem with expanding the first paragraph of general film feedback somewhat if it adds depth, but again the individual film articles have their own detailed reception sections. We're talking about the trilogy's recption as a whole; as TenTonParasol pointed out, there are multiple sources, and the headlines alone aren't a good reason to exclude them. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: I'm in the middle of drafting the first paragraph, and have compiled numerous articles that praise individual elements of the film e.g. acting, effects, direction. However, the vast majority of these are reviews of the individual films. As I suspected and highlighted previously, there's very few articles that sum up how these elements of the trilogy were received with regards to the overall reception of the trilogy; instead, at present at least, they are just writing about the divisive nature of the trilogy and general disappointment from fans/critics. Would it be acceptable to source individual reviews? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, as long as you mind the consensus about not removing the overall trilogy feedback, and no need to go into too much detail on each film. Thanks! UpdateNerd (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: Still drafting the new section, sorry I only get a few hours a day in the week to work on it. Just to note I wasn't going to list the pro's and con's of each film, I was just going to begin with what aspects of the trilogy on the whole were generally praised; the only exception to this where I would mention individual reception of each film would be highlighting the contrast between the praise of the direction/themes of TFA and TLJ and the criticism of the safe, "fan-fiction" TROS. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: I've now completed the re-write, let me know what you think. My only issue is that the amount of refs might be a bit overbearing and WP:CITEKILL but perhaps for one or two examples we can merge them to avoid it looking cluttered. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Looks very nicely written – much more effective as an overview than what was there before. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Thank you for the ref merging too. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Marcia Lucas

I don't think Marcia's thoughts on the sequel trilogy are particularly useful here. She says "that Kennedy and Abrams "don't get" the franchise" which would be more useful if she didn't complain about the prequels in the same conversation. Based on the comments she didn't like any Star Wars project for which she wasn't involved. She's not a critic. She's an editor who worked on the first trilogy. - Nemov (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @UpdateNerd: as this was their addition to the article. I can see where you're coming from, but in any case the fact that she worked on the films and isn't a critic is the exact reason why, like George and J.J, she is included in this section on filmmakers (although it might be a stretch to label her as such). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn't even a stretch; her contributions to the OT form a major part of story-affecting decisions relevant to the entire saga. Having Obi-Wan die in the first film, making Han's return at the end of Ep IV a heroic moment, etc., are due to her direct influence. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: To address Nemov's thoughts though, you're happy with keeping this in, even if she criticized the prequels as well? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I'm happy with keeping it as-is. This isn't the prequel trilogy article. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: She's not a critic. That's the biggest issue. I mention the prequels because she also implied they were bad. Why is her opinion relevant? I don't downplay her involvement in the original trilogy, but the only reason her opinion received coverage was because of her relationship to Lucas and than she was an editor on a Star Wars film 35+ year ago. Certainly there's real critics out there that would be better to use than the ex-wife of George Lucas. - Nemov (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nemov: As Wikibenboy94 already pointed out, the subsection is for criticism of notable contributors to Star Wars films. The rest of the (parent) section is that for critics. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd:It's a stretch to call her a notable contributor. Abrams and Lucas I understand, but she's just not on that level with no film credits since 1983. I won't beat the dead horse further, but I find the justification for inclusion pretty weak. Thanks for responding though. Nemov (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Interpretation of Leia as the chosen one

Lucas did not want Leia to be the Chosen One of the jedi prophecy. "we would have the renewal of the New Republic, with Leia, Senator Organa, becoming the Supreme Chancellor in charge of everything. So she ended up being the Chosen One" means she was the chosen one to be the chancellor of the new republic and not chosen one of the jedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnFeige56 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-free tag

User:Moxy tagged this article with a non-free tag in July 2022 with this copyvios link below listed in the edit summary. But I cannot get this link to open now to investigate further. I'll keep trying. If anybody can get into this please post a summary or something. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Ran it through Earwigs myself and when it finally, finally loaded, and it seems that the thing is that WhatCulture and Star Wars sequel trilogy#Cancellation period are pinging are nonfree due to them pulling all the same quotes from difference sources. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Break down ...

• WhatCulture
• thedirect
• hedirect
• theronin
• starwarsthoughts ...

Moxy- 12:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)