Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.78.198.193 (talk) at 16:44, 31 July 2023 (Budget keep the extra information). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Audience reception measured by scientific polling methods was highly positive."

I was wondering when we can stop blatantly lying in this article? Skcin7 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest of us are wondering when you'll start being more specific. That opening comment is not exactly a conversation-starter, lol --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

Requested addition: after the mention of the critic scores, a mention of the mixed audience scores on rotten tomatoes would be helpful to prevent misinformation about the public’s view of the movie. Editor for this specific article to fix one specific thing (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Check out the article. There is already a whole 3 paragraph section on Audience reception, one of which leads with "User-generated scores at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic received considerable coverage for being more negative." Cannolis (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi&oldid=1168074217"