Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Fan backlash

I'm not seeing the problem with describing the reaction to Tran's casting as a "backlash". This wording is supported by several RSes, including Quiroga (2022): following the release of The Last Jedi, racist backlash again occurred due to the inclusion of the character Rose Tico, played by Asian American actress Kelly Marie Tran and Kempshall (2023), who describes harassment of Tran in the context of the most recent version of fan backlash relating to Star Wars. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's too broad of a term. She was indeed harassed, but the film itself was generally well received so I wouldn't characterize "fans" of the film harassing her. Your edit makes it sound like most fans of the film were harassing Tran so I don't see that an improvement to the article. Nemov (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

How you or I would characterize it is beside the point. We're here to summarize published, reliable sources as fairly and accurately as possible. and both these academic sources use the term "backlash". We could remove "fan" from the section heading if you think it unduly implies that most fans were involved, but frankly I think that's reading too much into it. There was a backlash among people described as "fans", so it was a "fan backlash" by any sensible definition. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the heading to Backlash against Tran's character. How does that work for you? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's been described as harassment from online trolls by the Hollywood Reporter ane the New York Times. That's how it was characterized by reliable sources before you made changes. There was nothing wrong with the section title and there was no reason to change it based on your additions. Nemov (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Harassment from online trolls and a "backlash" are not mutually exclusive. Besides, academic monographs are generally regarded as more authoritative than in-the-moment news coverage; see WP:SOURCETYPES. The article (and headings) should reflect the most reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

If anything, the term "harassment" is too broad in that it fails to convey the unfavorable reaction to the character that drove the harassment in the first place. "Backlash" more accurately connotes "a strong adverse reaction". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Please restore the section title to the status quo until there's support for your change. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Now please respond to the points raised in this discussion. To elaborate on the trolls-vs-backlash angle, here are a couple quotes I just came across (my bolding):

• "In the weeks after The Last Jedi, the big story was the backlash ... Kelly Marie Tran, who made her film debut in The Last Jedi ... promptly became the target of an overwhelming wave of online harassment." —AV Club
• "Tran was attacked for months by racist, and misogynistic trolls ... The backlash eventually became organized enough to warrant responses from Disney and The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson himself." —Esquire

As we can see, there's absolutely no contradiction. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, there are strong sources that call it harassment that stemmed from a backlash. Fair enough, but the section primarily focuses on Tran's harassment. If you rename the section "Backlash" or "Fan backlash", that's a more broad subtopic than what the section actually entails. It is narrowly focused on Tran's treatment, and therefore "Harassment" seems like a more accurate title for this section, considering it doesn't cover other aspects of the backlash. As for your recent additions, I think they are totally fine and appropriate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The material added actually says: The casting of Asian-American actress Kelly Marie Tran as Rose Tico spurred both a racial and misogynistic backlash against the film, including sexist and racist commentary about both Tran and her character. The bolded phrases describe more than just harassment of a single person. So I don't think you can actually say the text is narrowly focused on Tran's treatment. The subheading "Harassment" for a single paragraph in the § Audience reception section seems rather bizarre and unnecessary; it could mean harassment by the audience or harassment of the audience. Maybe the backlash-and-harassment paragraph should just be merged into the reception section, which already mentions the review-bombing campaign and the film's reputation as too "progressive". The latter complaint, which Kempshall (2023) alludes to as focusing on Tran's race believing her to be an indication of forced diversity by 'Socal Justice Warriors' (left-wing individuals who advance social progressive ideologies) a rallying call emerging directly from GamerGate, is included in the cited Vox source as part of a "backlash". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"So I don't think you can actually say the text is narrowly focused on Tran's treatment." – So here's where you're losing me. Your proposed title for the subsection is "Backlash against Tran's character", yet in the same breath, you are saying this isn't only about Tran. That's not making any sense to me. Also, part of what you quoted, "about both Tran and her character" would indicate that the actress was one of the targets, not just her character, which is another issue with the proposed title. I don't have any issues with the term backlash per se, as long as the title accurately reflects the scope of the section. What about a simple change to your proposal: "Backlash against Tran and her character"? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm now proposing we ditch the subheading and just merge the backlash-and-harassment material into the § Audience reception section. We don't need a separate subsection for just one paragraph. We can ditch the {{Further}} hatnote at the same time; readers looking for information about Tran can just follow the link to her bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning oppose, mainly because that section covers the broader topic of audience response as a whole. If merged, the Tran-related statements would need to be put in the proper context that a subset of the audience generated this backlash. We can't really quantify it or make it appear as if it was a significant percentage of the audience, and the subsection helps create that divide. An alternative approach would be to slightly expand the Tran section by 1-2 sentences and split into two paragraphs if one paragraph is the primary concern. Let's see what Nemov and/or others weigh in with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose as well. The Tran section really doesn't need further expansion. That could be addressed on that biography. I believe I've mentioned this before, but an article about this part of fandom could be created. This hate and harassment's is well documented on a variety of Star Wars projects. The Last Jedi wasn't unusual in that regard so adding more to that Tran section would be undue. Nemov (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

Requesting to edit page (Star Wars: The Last Jedi) to add a sub-bullet point under Mark Hamils credit to show him playing two characters. SamDavies47 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Tollens (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Budget more

Template:Infobox film warns not to cherry pick budget figures. A recent edit ignored the earlier sources and replaced them with a single source from Forbes.[1] This edit (diff) should be reverted.

Editors will need to make sure that readers are not being mislead about the total budget spend versus the net cost after tax credits. Also editors should take care, because the figures quoted might not include all production costs, and may only include UK based spending that has to be declared for tax breaks. USA spending and some post production might not be included in the financial records provided for UK tax credits. -- 109.78.198.193 (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You may want to review a recent discussion about these publications from Caroline Reid, particularly the comments from Betty Logan, which you may find helpful. See WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 81#Budgets revisited / Caroline Reid and Forbes.com. I had a concern about it as well until further analysis was provided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I read that discussion, and while I think the recent analysis gives us a clearer picture of at least how much was spent (older sources read those accounts too and) I remain sceptical that it gives us the full and true cost. While we do have to make the best of what the reliable sources say, we don't have to remove other reliable sources that put the costs higher. -- 109.78.198.193 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The infobox guideline advises not to cherry-pick conflicting estimates. However, the Forbes figures are not estimates, they are from the audited accounts submitted to the UK tax body. The relevant guideline here is actually WP:AGEMATTERS, in that Wikipedia shouldn't be retaining inaccurate estimates now the actual accounts are publicly available. Betty Logan (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, it's true that the accounts are a "snapshot" as of the tax year they are filed in, and more accounts can be filed in the following year. We will see this in the case of Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny: the accounts up to the first financial quarter of this year totaled $294.7 million, but it was still in post-production at the time, so the eventual cost will be higher. Deadline reported the final cost as being over $300 million, so that is an example of when an estimate is probably more accurate than the audited figure! There is a little bit of judgment involved sometimes. Really, what the infobox guideline is advising is to not arbitrarily select an estimate from your favored source, but sometimes we can make a valid argument for one source being more accurate than other, as I have just done for Indiana Jones. I note the IP has made further comments at Talk:List_of_most_expensive_films#Star_Wars, which I have responded to. Betty Logan (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarise not supplant the article body. The article body is already using the figures from Deadline ($317M) as the basis for the statement about the film being net profitable. We cannot always be entirely sure what the different figures represent or even if newer information is complete and there should be a clear consensus before removing this extra information. The newer information does give a clearer picture of at least how much they spent but it doesn't necessarily give the whole picture.
Ideally, as a reader, I very much appreciate when a film article can say that a project was greenlit at a certain budget, but ended up costing more in the end. Telling readers the total cost and also the cost after tax credits is often also worth explaining in the article body. Please restore the budget range in the lead and Infobox, but I would strongly welcome further explanation in the article body. -- 109.78.198.193 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The list of most expensive films has a hidden footnote, "The Last Jedi: $300 million ($362.6 million before applying the tax credit)" and I think the Production section of this article should at least clearly explain that this is the total spend, and not just as a hidden footnote but clearly shown as article text. Again though I would urge first restoring the details and keeping the range, then perhaps adjusting it to include the gross spending figure too. -- 109.78.198.193 (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the current lead. I don't think it's super important to this article to get into accounting details about the budget. Nemov (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Despite being rated as a {{Good aritcle}} this article still fails to include the budget in the article body. Please look at Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens#Filming for a better example of what should be done here. -- 109.79.171.34 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2023

82.55.16.13 (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The film receveid critical acclaim.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

the film receveid critical acclaim.

the film received critical acclaim. 82.55.16.13 (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No it didn't. Critics who don't have a clue about Star Wars liked it, while the fans hated it. That's not critical acclaim. Narcissistic critics pulled out every excuse they could make to make fans sound like the bad guys and that their opinions should be disregarded and they don't fool anyone, except it seems for whoever made the bias "audience reception" of this terrible false article. From a personal point, it is, to this day, the worst film I have ever seen. The words I have for it are too inappropriate to say on here. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This article includes reliable sources, box office results, and the results of scientifically controlled surveys. It discusses online reception of the film as well. Have you considered that opinions about a film are subjective? Nemov (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Subjective opinions are what sources are, they're not factual, they're just people telling you what their business wants them to tell them. If these "scientifically controlled" surveys are accurate, why did this article need to be extended protected, unlike The Force Awakens, which upon release was actually genuinely liked and only started getting disliked when more and more people realised it was a carbon of the original Star Wars, or The Rise of Skywalker, which because of this very film, people knew it could actually fail? Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

So...you have a way to verify that you're not a shill, right?--otherwise we have no reason to believe you over, say, CinemaScore. DonQuixote (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no credible way to believe anything anyone says is factual, so why have we picked and chosen coincidentally the few ones that liked it and not a single source of many that didn't like it? Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, we have no reason to believe your claims of 'few and 'many'. For all we know, you could be a shill paid by Disney to make fans look like raving lunatics...unless you have a way to verify that you're not.... DonQuixote (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Still, whether few or many, all the sources given defend it, and not a single one criticising it. It is not an article's job to defend something if people hate it. It should be unbiased. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There's literally three sources cited that criticise it...are you sure you're not a shill? DonQuixote (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You're thinking I'm a shill paid by Disney when I'm trashing Disney over their own failure. What isn't there is sources calling 💩 on polling methods that made reception sound positive whereas there is for sources calling 💩 on polling methods that made reception sound negative. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

As I have said, you could be a shill that makes vocal fans look like raving lunatics. For one thing, you just moved the goalpost. If you can find reliable sources casting negative criticism on CinemaScore et al., then go right ahead. No one's stopping you. DonQuixote (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

No goalpost has been moved. How typical that you tell me no one is stopping me yet this can be found right at the top of section.

<!-- NOTE: This section is the result of thorough discussion and RfC consensus from the article's talk page. To help avoid or settle disputes, please consider discussing any significant changes to this section on the article's talk page before making them. -->

That being said, nobody can seem to define "reliable". A single person declaring a source reliable and then a juxtaposing source unreliable comes off as narcissistic. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this comment, but if you have genuine concerns about reliable sources feel free to learn more about how Wikipedia determines what sources are considered reliable. You have quite clearly stated your aversion to this film so perhaps it would be wise to leave this article to people who can navigate this topic without personal bias. Thanks Nemov (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I know a single Star Wars fan IRL that likes this film. From my experience I would estimate that the vast majority of avid Star Wars fans dislike it for a multitude of reasons that the article glosses over or tacitly dismisses (half the Audience Response section is about ostensible review bombing). The fact that the first line of that section is that science says audiences loved it is bizarre and hilarious to me. You could distinguish between Star Wars fans and a general audience but the article doesn't even try to do that. Mainly just takes the narrative from professional critics and runs with it, but that is an issue with Wikipedia in general I guess. 82.163.239.230 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about what the article actually says. Online polls aren't scientifically controlled for accuracy. The industry uses scientifically controlled samples to get an accurate number. That is neither bizarre or funny, it's just how the industry does it. Nemov (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Science has just become another costume coporations put on so their words have authority , its a poll , asking pwople subjective questions. Automatically its disqualified from being science because you're not being objective. 2001:8003:E144:6F01:2E52:DD40:82C7:20A8 (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

See statistics. DonQuixote (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a logical fallacy to say, "Opinions are subjective, therefore any survey of opinion must also be subjective." This draws a false conclusion. While opinions are subjective, they can be collected, organized, and analyzed in an objective manner. The results of that analysis would then be considered objective, which can in turn be used to infer the properties of a larger population. This is at the core of how statistical inference works. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This may come as a shock: there are Star Wars fans who liked the film. It's not like the film Birdemic exactly, or Manos, or Battlefield Earth. Internet Informant (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The film industry pays millions to survey audiences so the companies like CinemaScore have a vested interest in accuracy. Star Wars has always had a very vocal fan base, it's a huge IP, so even a very vocal minories represents millions of people. What people are talking about online isn't always representative of the general public. Nemov (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It was critically acclaimed; the critics were also not shills. Fact: Episode VIII received stronger acclaim than Episode II by most metrics. Star Wars has its defenders and critics. That's never going to change. Internet Informant (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Episode VIII" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Episode VIII has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 15 § Episode VIII until a consensus is reached. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Film Controversies Topic?

Does The Last Jedi warrant being lumped in the same category for films affected by 'Film Controversies' or does it deserve it the same way The Prequel Trilogy does for some fans? Internet Informant (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow? What does this have to do with the article? Nemov (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)