Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 3

"Dumbing down"
Pam-javelin, care to explain why writing Kylo strikes Luke but realizes he has been fighting Luke's Force projection instead of Kylo strikes Luke but he discovers that he has been fighting Luke's Force projection is - in the words of your edit summary - "dumbing down"? What necessary information does your version add? Popcornduff (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, "realizes" is not a great word for any article and there are far better descriptions to use and in the scene Skywalker does not fight Ren.

Pam-javelin (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with the perfectly neutral and straightforward verb "realize"?
 * What's the use of your additional words "he" and "that"?
 * What does your text alter about whether Skywalker is fighting Ren? Popcornduff (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not getting into an edit war - it's not worth it!

Regards

Pam-javelin (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No one's inviting you to edit war - just to explain your rationale. Popcornduff (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank God for that then - nothing worse than falling out over an article - A Lackluster sequal anyway so waiting for JJ and Episode 9!

Very first line of Article
I don’t understand why the article opens with “Star Wars: The Last Jedi...is an American epic space opera film released in 2017. Written and directed by Rian Johnson, the film is the second installment...” and not the “Star Wars: The Last Jedi... is a 2017 American epic space opera film written and directed by Rian Johnson. The second installment...” like quite literally every other film page on this site. Not trying to stir anything up, but GoneIn60 called it “grammatical nails on a chalkboard” which seems hyperbolic to me, and actually “it is an American film released in 2017” sounds awkward as heck to me. Maybe I’m wrong. TropicAces (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)tropicAces TropicAces (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge they're both grammatically correct. I personally like the wording you suggested as it's more concise and to the point.jmcgowan2 (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In the briefer wording the year is used as an adjective, which is a valid grammatical construction. oknazevad (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion is happening in a broader venue at WT:Manual of Style/Film. Before you weigh in with an opinion, I highly suggest reading the link I provided in the opening post, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

correct me if I’m wrong, but the end result of that discussion was “saying [2017 American drama film] is fine and proper”... TropicAces (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Darth Vader's lightsaber...
I didn't really want to change this bit without discussing first. Isn't it Luke's old lightsaber? I thought lost the one which originally belonged to his father when he lost his hand. Even if I'm wrong on that and this one also belonged to Anakin at some point in the past, isn't the lightsaber described consistently as Luke's in these films, which would surely be a better reference? Or even better, we could just describe it as Ren's lightsaber, which would be clearer in terms of describing the events of the film at that point. I don't see the provenance of the weapon to be particularly relevant to the plot and it seems a bit trivial. Scribolt (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the weapon built by Anakin (before he became Vader) and given to Luke by Obi-Wan. The same one he lost when Vader cut off his hand. Oh, and the young woman's name is Rey. Ren, that is Kylo Ren, is the villian. Not paying much attention, are you? oknazevad (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't blame anyone for mixing up the names in the sequel trilogy: Rey, Ren, Han, Finn, Ben... Popcornduff (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh, apparently not. Can I just refer to her as Daisy instead? Would make things easier. Huh, I remembered that Maz introduced it as Luke's lightsaber but I completely missed the bit about it belonging to his father. I even re-watched TFA in advance of going to see this one. So, someone (Maz?) just found it on the surface of Bespin or the cloud city waste ducts, pried off Luke's rotting hand and pocketed it? That scene definitely should have been included as a flashback. Guess there was probably another explanation somewhere that missed. Scribolt (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As Maz said in TFA, it's a interesting story, for another time. They haven't revealed how it got there, just that it did. I'm sure it will eventually be told in a future novel or comic book. oknazevad (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I want a 2 and a half hour film of someone rooting through space trash please. Thanks for your advice though, glad I checked with people first. Scribolt (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Who would want to go sifting through the rubbish and then come across an old used lightsaber with a severed hand stuck to it?

Considering it possibly fell from Cloud Ciry down to the planet I am surprised that it still worked - but that is the new plotlines for you.

Pam-javelin (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Critical response article needed
After returning from a late night viewing of this film in the theater (I was the only one in the screening room now that most fans have seen it) and I thought this movie might be notable for it's philosophy or philosophies. . Looking above, many people are arguing for all sorts of mentions that are notable, but I get the feeling that it would amount to too much for the article to handle so i'll suggest what I had suggested a few years ago that we need an article called Critical response to Star Wars where all sorts of critical responses can be includes. Other films have them. Star Wars is amongst the largest and highest grossing film franchise, so I don't see why an article about critical responses to them shouldn't exist. I just won't have the time and energy to write one up anytime soon. That is, if I'm the one writing them.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The wiki article claim ComScore reported audiences gave an 89% overall positive score and a 79% definite recommend. but the sources claims that the reports says TLJ received "a mindblowing five-out-of-five stars for the movie and a 90% overall positive with an 82% definite recommend". deadline.com/2017/12/the-last-jedi-star-wars-box-office-thursday-night-preview-record-1202227654/

Could you please make this correction so that people won't be misinformed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2480:b9c0:68b9:f46d:d473:bca9 (talk • contribs)

Recipient(s) and nominee(s)
"Recipient(s) and nominee(s)" please pick one but not both. If you are nominated for something you have received a nomination and are a recipient of a nomination, and if you must have been nominated if you have won an award, so it is utterly redundant to write both.

It would be my preference to also avoid the pedantic use of parentheses, as it is implied that a column contains at least _one_or_more_ Recipients but Wikipedia seems to consistently make pedantic use of parentheses all the time.

Again for emphasis please change the column header label be changed to use either "Recipient(s)" or "Nominee(s)" but not both. -- 109.77.200.44 (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Contrasting "returning cast members" with "introduced cast members" without saying "returning"?
Re this. I'm not entirely sure how you could "disagree" with my saying I think the wording you restored is confusing; I do think that, and I suspect many readers would think the same. It may be "verbose", but it changes a 24-word caption to a 27-word one, so I don't think it's that significant either way (hence why the first time I made the edit I marked it as minor).

If three extra words makes the image box too long and run into the next section, that is an indication that either (a) the prose on the left is too short or (b) there are too many or too large images. Having the section so tightly packed that only a tiny addition to the image caption ruins everything is not a good situation to be in, and the solution would probably be to expand the section's prose. The two massive paragraphs should be split anyway, as they are very difficult to read (and, due in part to this article's citation style, even more difficult to edit). They don't seem to be separated thematically or on any other consistent basis, and each of them is essentially a random grab-bag of information. Adding another two or three paragraph breaks would solve both problems.

I don't think I need to explain how the present wording relates to the old "... and introducing So-and-So as Little Timmy"; Tran had actually not done any major motion pictures before this, TTBOMK (I knew her from various CollegeHumor sketches), but Benicio Del Toro has a fairly sizeable filmography. We shouldn't just say "introduce" unless it's clear that we mean "introduce to the Star Wars franchise". It's also kinda misleading since Laura Dern's character is dead and so is unlikely to appear again, and I see know reason to believe Del Toro's character will either. Really, it "features" all of them the same and the distinction is between returning and new.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid I can’t find any relevant statement in all that verbiage with which I can agree. I can’t begin to fathom what you think the presence or absence of any castmember from the cast of Episode IX has to do with the matter being discussed here. We have a compound sentence consisting of two independent clauses sharing a subject. Your change to the first clause simply doesn’t do anything to the meaning of the second. “Introduces” remains whatever it is, regardless. They are and were intended to be two quite separate and independent statements, each complete in itself. If absolutely unable to let it go, you can add “to the franchise” to the end of the second clause, though I find it quite unnecessary within the broader context. Remember, all language is ultimately imprecise and derives much of its meaning from context and unstated assumptions. The very artful trick is to strike a reasonable balance. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please read my comment and respond to it, and keep your response focused to how we can improve the article, rather than trying to impress me with your knowledge of grammar? I can't for the life of me figure out how any of the above means the current status quo is easier to read than either (a) cutting "and introduces" or (b) adding "returning cast members". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you read comments before responding to them. My previous post responded to your comment. It actually suggested a concrete solution, should you continue to insist one is needed. Try actually taking a look before commenting again. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain how keeping "and introduces" but not introducing "returning cast members" is so important.
 * Please also explain how your edit summary's "runs into the next section on some devices" concerns would not be addressed by splitting the two long paragraphs in the "Cast" section into four or five shorter ones.
 * I know about compound sentences and independent clauses and subjects, but I don't see how that is relevant. We are clearly contrasting the two returning cast members with the three "new" ones, but we do so with a verb that, when discussing film casts, has traditionally been used for young actors in their first (significant) role, which is not the case here. Clarifying that we mean they are being introduced to the Star Wars franchise (unlike Hamill and Fisher) would, IMO, solve this problem.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, you really must learn to read what you are supposedly responding to. Note the following excerpt from a previous comment of mine: “If absolutely unable to let it go, you can add ‘to the franchise’ to the end of the second clause, though I find it quite unnecessary within the broader context“ (post of 07:59, 14 February 2018 [UTC]). Does that ring any bells? It should, as you offered virtually the same so-called solution, ”to the Star Wars franchise.” Your version is slightly more verbose. As for your second explanation request, you might have noticed I decided to drop it. As for your first explanation request, and as I’ve been attempting to explain, it is incorrect to attempt to “fix” the second independent clause by changing the first. You would have to change the second. Generally, I believe it is reasonably clear here what “introduces” means in this context, so I won’t be implementing any changes myself. Furthermore, I was not attempting to compare returning to new castmembers. I was attempting to pull out a reasonably small number of notable cast members. I decided on two who were now somehow dead and important (or featured) and on the major new characters, none of whom rises to the same level of importance as the first two (or definitely not featured) — and I was attempting to do all that briefly enough to avoid formatting problems, which my first draft ran squarely into. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Continued off-topic personal attacks aside, that suggestion contradicts your original revert rationale, which was that any increase in length of the image caption would make it run over into the next section. From that point of view, how is your solution any better than my original one? Or, for that matter, any of the other two I have since proposed? Anyway, the formatting problems could easily be addressed, no matter how we deal with the ambiguous "introduced", by splitting the paragraphs in the accompanying text, a thought that had occurred to me some weeks ago and I think I expressed somewhere on-wiki. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Antinoos, your comment is hard to parse.
 * Anyway, I agree that the word "introduces" is ambiguous - it could be taken to mean that these are previously unknown actors, as that's how "introducing" is often used in cast contexts. But adding "returning cast members" doesn't clarify that. Popcornduff (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the reason Antinoos's comment is so hard to parse and uses a lot of "big words", most of which are superfluous and don't add to the discussion, might be related to his two comments on my talk page that spun out of this discussion, here.
 * Anyway, I think my addition does solve the ambiguity problem, but how about just cutting "introduces" entirely, or perhaps "... features returning cast members Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher, as well as ..."?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You can both note my previous comment, though I can’t begin to imagine how my comment could be construed as difficult to parse. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fan Reaction is a must!
Why are you admins sabotaging this article? It is commom knowledge that the audience overall did not like this movie. All of the evidence is there. What more do you need? PaulG524 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The audience was more divided on it rather than overall disliking it. I believe what to include is still being discussed above. Spanneraol (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * PaulG524, see the discussion above. You can weigh in there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes is not a scientific measure. Hackers were shown to have lowered the score, as they're currently trying to do to Black Panther. 12.27.243.72 (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @12.27.243.72 Please share with us the proof that "hackers were shown to have lowered the score". My latest knowledge on the matter is that RT reviewed the audience score of TLJ and found no irregularities (-> "Rotten Tomatoes Dismisses Claim ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ User Ratings Were Skewed by Bots"). I'm perplexed by the apparently agreed upon notion that RT audience scores are merely entertained by RT to allow bots and vocal minorities to have their say. If these numbers were as useless as there are made out to be here, they would serve absolutely no purpose and would be eliminated accordingly. If it were clear as day -- as is apparently believed here by many -- that RT audience scores are fabricated then big film studious would have issued cease and desist letters already as there cannot be any denying that audience scores like 48% have to be considered to have the potential to hurt business. ClassA42 (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RT audience scores are not a scientific assessment of overall audience approval as only a small percentage of fans actually use the service to rate movies. RT is useful for critic ratings not for audience ratings, there are other more scientific methods that are preferable to use. I still disagree with your opinion that the overall audience did not like the movie. Also, the RFC up above is still ongoing and audience reaction shouldnt be added until that is resolved. Spanneraol (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @Spanneraol: You said you "disagree with your[i.e. my] opinion that the overall audience did not like the movie.". I never stated that the overall audience did not like the movie. I did not press for adding an audience reaction before the RFC has been resolved either. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth. N.B., as a scientist I subscribe to the idea that Cinemascore and PostTrak poll methods adhere to scientific methods in principle and that even RT's approach to selecting professional reviewers is sound, but my confidence in getting actually reliable data through these means is not very high due to the immense commercial pressure involved and potential conflicts of interest. However, that is a different discussion. ClassA42 (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is common knowledge that fans of anything who feel strongly one way or the other will form an echo chamber, mistake silence from the middle for agreement, and pretend that the opposing side is the real minority. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Add an audience reaction in the intro.
I think i shouldn't edit this without consulting. The introduction of the article is everything but neutral, including the line that says that some critics consider it the best film since Empire. My suggestion is: Just like other movies, we can add an "audience reaction" after the critics reviews. This due to the extremely polarizing reviews of the film. It could be a line like this: ";but it received mixed reactions from the audience who praised the visuals but critized the acting, continuity, pacing and writing.Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Lead, this is something that would be debatable. Some will feel that it's one of the article's most important points, especially because of the controversy aspect, while others will not. I don't feel strongly about it going in the lead. And others and I recently debated whether or not the leads of Wikipedia articles should usually have a piece for every section that exists. I was opposed to the proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would oppose adding it to the lede for now. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly why Wikipedia is a pseudo source and a joke.
Under critical response, posted everything including audience response from other sites, but not from Rotten Tomatoes? Because it is under 50%?

How is this not biased? Did Disney buy you guys out?


 * That's right. I've been living off my Disney Wikipedia salary since Christmas. Popcornduff (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow I can never get anything out of parents. I always go to my mate George! Robynthehode (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RT's audience score isn't reliable. Time and again, it's shown itself to be vulnerable to manipulation from persons or groups with an agenda. 12.27.243.72 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How does that mean it is not reliable? We are just saying it is the score from RT. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:FILM we can't add RT's score. -- Mia o w   17:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also per MOS:FILM Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's a little bit of miscommunication here. RT's critics scores are citable but the audience scores are not. DonQuixote (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. 12.27.243.72 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I find it funny when people upset that things didn't go their way say "well this is why Wikipedia's not a good source!" No, it's not because you didn't get your way.  We're not a reliable source because we're a summary of professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, but your ignorance of that and resulting sour grapes attitude is somehow a fault on our end and not yours? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: We can add RT's and Metacritic's user scores if reporting on them because reliable sources have reported on them. Specific mention of the user scores are in the draft options presented higher above, and one of those versions will be added to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I do find it interesting that despite the decision to include the user generated audience score reviews...at this moment in time, months have literally gone by now, without but the slightest sign of them getting incorporated into the article. While this is perhaps not a smoking gun of foul play. I do understand the OPs sentiments and share their incredulity. Though I think it easier explained by those egos working on the draft, attempting to inject their own slant and biases. That it is primarily this, which lays behind the cause of the chronic delay. Though the idea that some of the pedantic editors that have caused this delay are perhaps also paid to mount this, kind of a go-slow protest, is something that isn't exactly beyond the realm of impossibility. Especially given the money, PR campaigns and so on involved in the business. I mean how long is it going to be, before the scores get incorporated? Once the movie is out of all world-theaters? Food for thought.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018
In the Critical Response section, where it says that at Rotten Tomatoes the movie has an "approval rating of 90%" and that "it honors the saga's rich legacy", please add an additional line like:

"However, the Rotten Tomatoes AUDIENCE SCORE for that movie is much lower & generally says that the movie DISHONORS the legacy, MISTREATS the old cast and strongly suffers from BAD WRITING and PLOTHOLES. Many people also believe that the Audience Score percentage might not reflect the true (mostly negative) opinion of the audience, because when looking at the reviews, there are countless in-depth 'negative' half-star and one-star reviews, with only very few one- or two-line positive reviews in-between, yet the score remains frozen at currently 48% since weeks."

I think it's important to add that, because Rotten Tomatoes obviously does not 'count' correctly here, and because it's misleading if Wikipedia only quotes the opinion of the 'official critics'...

Sorry for errors in form/mistakes/whatever, my first ever edit request. 195.200.70.45 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Thank you for the edit request, but this edit can not be made to the article, as you have not provided any reliable sources that support your suggested edits to the article. If you can find any reliable sources that support the assertions made, feel free to re-open the edit request. Iffy★Chat -- 13:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)