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 78.149.121.207 (talk) at 15:23, 17 July 2022 (→‎Recent analysis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Add details on the harassment faced by KMT?

There is currently no mention in the article of the harassment directed towards Kelly Marie Tran in the aftermath of her poorly-received role as Rose Tico. Dislike of the casting and characterization boiled over into rampant racist & sexist harassment directed at Tran, who limited her social media presence as a result. I think this deserves at least a mention in the "Audience reception" section. (also, 11 fckn archives? This movie pissed people off that much huh?) --Trans-Neptunian object (HK is Chinese) (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is covered at Kelly Marie Tran so it probably doesn't need to be discussed here. Sadly this IP has a long toxic history fueld by a very vocal, very small, very unhinged, and very online community. Nemov (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, wouldn't object to a brief mention but perhaps that would be seen as not doing it justice, and a broader section would be too out of scope. Having said that, yes, a most disgraceful faction of an otherwise tolerant and open fandom.--Trans-Neptunian object (HK is Chinese) (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

CLOSED
There doesn't appear to be WP:RS to justify this for inclusion. The rest of the conversation isn't going anywhere productive in regards to the initial question. Nemov (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since the movie's release, The Last Jedi's reception has improved dramatically. And, many people have praised the movie highly. Therefore, I feel like there should be a section describing the movie's recent reappraisal. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources stating that. Do you have any to share? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I am quite busy now so I don't have time to look for them. I will share them when I am next available - although I don't mind others finding sources themselves and sharing them before me. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently going through sources to share. How many primary sources and how many secondary sources should I share? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While there may be some fans who have re-assessed the film and gone on to say they now enjoy it, I would estimate that most of those who don't like it, still don't. I've found no examples of reliable sources that have noted a "dramatic" shift in the film's reception since its release, only one questionable pop culture website that cited a single recent Reddit thread where there was general praise for the film from users (see also WP:USERG, as primary sources from social media users are not considered reliable). This is also just taking into account the audience side, as the critic's side has certainly not been reported to have shifted, considering most of them liked/loved the film when it released. Either way, it's not even been 5 years, and in my opinion, this is far too early to talk about reappraisal of a film's reception, much less its own subsection (the vast majority of cases seem to happen over a period of 15-20+ years). Regardless, I'm slightly confused as to how you are attempting to illustrate this reappraisal, as your edits to the article since simply added articles from publications/critics that had included The Last Jedi in their best films of the decade list, which were only published two years after the film's release and is certainly no indication of a reappraisal. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be cited by WP:RS. Based on the data available that's included in this article I don't see how a shift like this is even possible. Most people liked the film. There could be a shift in the discussion online, but that would come much, much later down the road. Nemov (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and we have to rely on reliable sources, namely film critics and the mainstream media, it is difficult to say this film was anything other than critically acclaimed from the start. This makes it almost impossible to say reception has improved dramatically. It is difficult to say that opinion of this film has changed much at all in any direction. If you are talking about fan opinion that is difficult to assess, and even harder to find reliable sources. (Unreliable sources don't seem to have shifted hardly at all either, the Rotten Tomatoes audience score has not varied more than a percentage point or two in the past 5 years.[1]. Discussions on unreliable sources like WP:REDDIT do not make me think opinions about this have changed either.) Opinions of the prequel trilogies shifted over time, after years of Clone Wars content and after the young fans grew up. (The original trilogy had plenty of critics too, there were always a vocal few who hated the Ewoks.) Even the unreliable sources seem to still be presenting much the same balance of opinions as existed when this film was released. I can only agree with the other editors that it is too soon to be able to say there has been any significant shift in opinion in any direction for this film yet, but I'd still be interested to see what sources ip92 was considering. -- 109.79.163.154 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most people liked the film. Citation needed for this utterly ridiculous statement. Most professional critics liked it, most of the audience hated it. It's hard to document this with RS, for the exact reason that RS are dominated by the critics, not the audience. However, there are a great many blog-like sources making the unequivocal case that most fans hated this film. While I can't submit those as RS, it leads me to believe that there's a difference between the curated, approved version of reality (where most people liked an awful film with the correct politics) vs actual reality (most people hated it except paid shills, critics, and MSM). This blog-like source [2] is an example. The fact that the RT audience score is so much lower, despite possible inflation (5 star bot reviews, not counting 1 star reviews, etc) is more evidence that there's a huge dichotomy in reception between critics and audiences. My posts on this talk page earlier were focused on highlighting this dichotomy. Xcalibur (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it laughable that you are so trustworthy of online backlash, pointing to things like the RT audience score, blogs, and forums. These places are a magnet for those who feel wronged in some way and want to publicly express that frustration. Any evidence in these nooks and crannies are anecdotal, and you see this in various walks of life, not just with film. I think Scooter Campbell sums it up quite nicely at that link you posted:
There is a psychological effect in which people tend to get really loud and noticeable when they are wronged. Do you give McDonalds a good review every time they get your order right? Do you thank a teacher just for doing their job? Do you thank your doctor after every procedure or appointment? Do you write to your elected officials and tell them that you are happy with them in office? No. You go on the warpath when something goes wrong at McDonalds. You cry for blood and try to get the teacher fired when you think they are being lazy or mean to your kid. You call out a doctor every time they lose a patient or misdiagnose something. You rally in the streets and demand the execution of political leaders who offend you.
Yep, some fanboys of the original franchise can get pretty loud, and nothing annoys them more than to learn average folk/families generally enjoyed a film they wished was never made. Even if published polls were wrong, who cares? We cover all sides of the debate in this article. We should expect that reasonable people will draw their own reasonable conclusions. Drop the stick bud. Rant time is over. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed for this utterly ridiculous statement. It's already well covered with reliable sources in the article. If you believe all the scientific polling that the industry pays millions of dollars for was was wrong, that's your prerogative, but the article can only cover what is reliably sourced. Nemov (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that criticism and negative backlash naturally outweigh the positive. That's true of alot of things, and those most passionate tend to have the most influence over popular response. However, that doesn't entirely explain away this case, due to the sheer volume of negative responses I've seen in various venues. I could post more blog-like sources, but there's no need. As for the "scientific polling", there may have been flaws in their methodology. Reading one of the RS for it, I come across blatant lying by Disney via a false-flag facebook page, which casts even more doubt on this.
Even assuming the polls were accurate, all we can say for sure is that a sample of people in major cities liked the film on opening weekend, that's it. The claim that most people in general liked it is divorced from reality. Given that there's a serious disconnect between industry insiders and audiences, how would popular backlash get out there, other than through anecdotes? Unless you think it's literally impossible that a large chunk of the audience disapproved (not all, but a significant amount) or that it's impossible for opening weekend polls to be wrong, or for a corporation to lie.
My concern is documenting reality, which is why I responded to the fatuous claim that most people liked this, when there are many indications to the contrary. Encyclopedia articles should strive for honesty, even if the RS are admittedly lacking due to structural reasons. Xcalibur (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you rather enjoy this! Perhaps your problem is the need to take sides. As fans, that's fine. As editors, it's not. The ultimate goal isn't honesty, which may surprise you. Articles simply act as a summary and reflection of what's been reliably-published, positive and negative, right or wrong. Tough pill to swallow for some. In case you missed that link earlier, here it is again: WP:DEADHORSE --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did drop the stick, I only responded because of an absurd claim being made, that most fans liked the film, despite the avalanche of negative responses in informal venues (eg you can find scathing reviews of TLJ on youtube with 1 million + views and overwhelming positive interaction). There's more evidence too, like the precipitous drop-off in box office returns (but that would be OR without RS). But as you say, this place exists to summarize RS, which naturally are lacking for grassroots sentiment in opposition to the industry, who dominates RS. In the meantime, I think the article should emphasize the controversy, and mention the limitations of what we know. Xcalibur (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're suited for editing Wikipedia articles if you believe you're the arbitrator of understanding "YouTube views" and "grassroots sentiment." Your overall issue isn't the article, it's with Wikipedia. You've made your point over and over. This is approaching WP:IDHT. Come back when you have reliable sources. Until then move on to something else. Nemov (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the arbitrator, it's common sense. The problem isn't WP, it's with a curated, sanitized version of reality being documented over actual reality. But that's all for now. Xcalibur (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, dude, you need to step out of your bubble and take off your tinfoil hat. The "actual reality" is that most people don't actually care about Star Wars lore. They only cared that it was a decent film. DonQuixote (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead

I've reverted @109.79.163.154's previous edit, but I wanted to discuss our dispute over the line "It is frequently listed by critics on lists of the best films of 2017 and the 2010s" over here to prevent an edit war. That line does not seem like undue weight to me. Not only are the sources reliable, but they contain a plethora of other sources in them that support the lead's claim. The lead was edited beforehand to include multiple citations to the various sources within - before another editor took that out because they thought the source were already given in the body. This clearly shows other editors agree with me and think the sources are not undue weight. Also, your line about Mad Max: Fury Road was vague and didn't provide a proper explanation for the revert. Why do you think that line is supported by undue weight? Gabrielle103 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That line was only very recently added[3] and puts a different emphasis on things, and feels like WP:PUFF when the older wording seemed more like WP:NPOV. The older wording was "and featured in several "best of the decade" film lists" which was fine, stable, and until recently very well sourced.[4] I don't think the change was justified and I would welcome returning to the WP:STATUSQUO before May 9. -- 109.77.202.118 (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were various lists of top films of 2017, and the Metacritic list of lists does show that Last Jedi was included on various lists[5] but it was not near the top of those lists. I mistakenly compared it to Mad Max Fury road, which was the film unequivocally topping film critics polls in 2015[6] but that was two years earlier at the time of The Forces Awakens not 2017. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Marie Tran

Is there a reason Kelly Marie Tran's highly publicized harassment isn't mentioned in the reception to this film? I ask because something similar has happened with Moses Ingram and the Obi-Wan Kenobi series. There's currently a discussion[7] at that article about whether to include it in the reception section. It seems like this kind of toxic fandom reaction should be a part of the reception section since it seems like these people are driving the online discussion of these films. I'm just trying to find some consistency here. If it's included there then Tran's harassment should be mentioned here. hanks! Nemov (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. It should probably have some coverage here. Perhaps start by collecting a few good sources that cover it in detail (ones that look at the big picture), then we can add it to the 3rd paragraph of "Audience reception" or create a new subsection underneath that section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the consensus is to include in that article so it makes sense to add it here as well. Nemov (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60 @Nemov I went online and found some good sources. Here are a few:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/resurrection-of-kelly-marie-tran-on-surviving-star-wars-bullying-the-pressures-of-representation-and-raya-and-the-last-dragon-4142178/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/movies/kelly-marie-tran.html
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kelly-marie-tran-racists-last-jedi_n_5a4400fee4b06d1621b6b2bb
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a21205523/star-wars-kelly-marie-tran-harassment-controversy/
These are a few I found, but there are a ton of sources about her harassment in KMT's article itself, so if there is any shortages of sources, feel free to go there. There's a plethora of sources that covers the topic well. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a starting point. Where should this be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemov (talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In June 2018, Kelly Marie Tran deleted all of her Instagram posts after being subjected to sexist and racist online abuse for her role as Rose Tico.[1] Tran, was the first woman of color to have a lead role in a “Star Wars” movie.[2] After Tran left social media, director Rian Johnson and Tran’s co-stars Mark Hamill and John Boyega were among those who came to her defense.[2] John Boyega and Daisy Ridley faced similar harassment when they were introduced in The Force Awakens.[3]
I think that's a good, brief excerpt for now. Just make sure there is an inline citation after each sentence (I added one above), and be sure to rephrase non-quotes in your own words before including. Not sure where the best place is, but creating a subsection titled "Bullying" or "Harrassment" under Audience reception would probably be good for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would warrant its own subsection or could it be added as its own paragraph? Regardless of which, you can just add it in, with properly cited sources. We can copy edit and fix any errors later. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More work is needed before it's ready for insertion (e.g. rephrasing as I suggested). Anyone who has the time to finish the final leg of it, feel free. As for where to insert it, I think it could fit as its own paragraph under Cast. The other two sections it could go – Reception or Audience reception – would require a new subsection IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said previously, we can work on it and edit it as necessary after insertion, but I do think we should refine it now so that we can insert it in one edit and minimize subsequent modifications. I am fine with inserting it in either place, just so long as it doesn’t disrupt the flow. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As it exists right now, those statements are plucked verbatim from their sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I plan on working on it later. Should we summarize the entire incident or just include the material presented in the excerpt? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like enough detail for this article. Most of the coverage should remain at Kelly Marie Tran. If our excerpt ends up getting its own subsection, then we can also hang a hatnote like one of these at the top. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be somewhere in the reception section because the racist abuse experienced by Tran is closely related to the online hate brigade in films like this... it's well documented and deserves a place in the conversation. Here's a remix of what's above in my own words.
After facing sexist and racist abuse on Instagram for her role as Rose Tico, Kelly Marie Tran left social media.[4] The incident highlighted the challenges faced by people of color who are in Star Wars.[5] Tran was the first woman of color to have a lead role in a Star Wars film and similarly John Boyega faced the same type of abuse when he was cast in The Force Awakens.[5][2] After leaving social media The Last Jedi's director Rian Johnson and co-stars Mark Hamill and John Boyega defended Tran against the harassment she received.[2] Nemov (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, well done. At first glance, it seems ready for insertion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I also think it should be noted that her NYT essay should be added into the sentence too. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the section as outlined above, but feel free to make changes. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Dcdiehardfan, I saw your recent edit was reverted. While I'm not sure the entire contribution needed to be undone, you basically doubled the size of the text. That's way too long for this article and WP:UNDUE. We should leave out specific examples and just summarize in 3-5 sentences. I'll add a hatnote to Tran's main article where it can be covered in more detail. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60 Oh ok, I’m sorry about that. Should I at least keep information about the op-ed she wrote? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think trying to mention it adds a lot of unnecessary length. We're already at the sweet spot of 4 sentences, and the NYT essay is already summarized at Tran's main article (which we've provided a link to). That's just my opinion. Perhaps others will weigh in differently. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, additions should be primarily centered on The Last Jedi.' Nemov (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would my last revision suffice? It discusses Tran's op-ed and - from my pov - conveys all the relevant info in one sentence 92.10.13.209 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fine on the Kelly Marie Tran article, but I agree it's WP:UNDUE for this article. Nemov (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how it's WP:UNDUE? The section is about racist and misogynistic harassment for being in this film - ergo it's relevant to Kelly's article and this one from my perspective. It's only one line. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And we cover that it happened, mention the general players involved, and describe what transpired in the immediate aftermath. That's plenty for this article. The essay she wrote 8 months later is a reflection from her point of view, which is significant, but it's best suited for her article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60 @Nemov Ok, that sounds good. Another question, is it ok if I enumerate the Wookiepedia and Twitter trolling in the article too, or is that WP:UNDUE also? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan unless it's specifically about this film or other actors in the film we don't need more information about Tran's harassment. It's sufficiently covered. Nemov (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan I'm not sure how comfortable people are with expanding on the toxic nature of the online backlash, but the fan who removed all women from the film received plenty of coverage.[8] Nemov (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, regardless, I think we have everything we need for that section, the refs have been properly formatted and we have all the information needed. I might adjust the prose a little bit or do some clean up and copyediting here and there, but I think we really covered the gist of the topic. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "how comfortable people are"? 92.10.13.209 (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest replacing the sentence X "The incident highlighted the challenges faced by people of color who are in Star Wars." with Y " The incident highlighted the challenges faced by people of color who are in Hollywood." In her New York Times testimonial she wrote "I had been tricked into thinking that my body was not my own, that I was beautiful only if someone else believed it, regardless of my own opinion. I had been told and retold this by everyone: by the media, by Hollywood, by companies". I understand the need to make the text relevant and specific to this film and this encyclopedia article but nonetheless I think it is more important to make it clear that Tran is talking about the problems she faced with not only this film but also with Hollywood as a whole. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is more suited for her article, the text is fine as it is, as it relates to the film. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Kelly Marie Tran: I Won't Be Marginalized by Online Harassment". New York Times. 21 August 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2022.
  2. ^ a b c d "Kelly Marie Tran Speaks Out About Online Harassment: 'I Won't Be Marginalized'". Variety. 21 August 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2022.
  3. ^ "The Resurrection of Kelly Marie Tran: On Surviving 'Star Wars' Bullying, the Pressures of Representation, and 'Raya and the Last Dragon'". The Hollywood Reporter. 3 March 2021. Retrieved 20 June 2022.
  4. ^ "Kelly Marie Tran: I Won't Be Marginalized by Online Harassment". New York Times. 21 August 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2022.
  5. ^ a b "The Resurrection of Kelly Marie Tran: On Surviving 'Star Wars' Bullying, the Pressures of Representation, and 'Raya and the Last Dragon'". The Hollywood Reporter. 3 March 2021. Retrieved 20 June 2022.

User Generated Content

Much of the audience response section deals with Rotten Tomatoes. Given that it's WP:USERGENERATED I would argue it's practically useless for determining what people think and the article even mentions that Rotten Tomatoes admitted it was vote bombed. It could be included in a section decided to online activity in regards to how some fans reacted online. There's quite a bit of coverage surrounding vocal fans online, the vote brigading on sites such as Rotten Tomatoes, and the harassment of actors who were in the film. I just don't think user generated content deserves inclusion when specifically discussing what actual audience thought of the film. Thanks Nemov (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this as well; it's very clearly outdated and was drafted before the Rotten Tomatoes review bombing was even admitted by RT, let alone before the rule change on audience scores. The entire section could be trimmed to just include a mention that the film was reviewbombed on Rotten Tomatoes upon its release. My proposal:

Following its release, The Last Jedi was targeted by a review-bombing campaign on Rotten Tomatoes,[1] Similar review-bombing campaigns were waged against films like Captain Marvel and Black Panther, and in 2019, Rotten Tomatoes would change its user review system to prioritize reviews from users confirmed to have bought a movie ticket.[2]

Toa Nidhiki05 03:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – MOS:FILMAUDIENCE existed as far back as 2013, and some form of it likely existed even longer. Same with WP:USERGENERATED, although prior to 2016, it gave examples like IMDB but did not specifically call out Rotten Tomatoes. So to be clear, there wasn't some recent guideline change that didn't exist prior to Last Jedi's release. For as long as I can remember, user ratings have always been frowned upon. However, there was an RfC that debated this and decided to allow it primarily on the grounds of WP:DUE, given the significant amount of coverage the user ratings received (link to 1st RfC). A drafting session for the Audience section soon followed, which involved a handful of editors, and then another RfC to lock it in (link to 2nd RfC). Given all the work, collaboration, and participation that went into its formation, I'd say it has a fairly strong consensus in its present form.
    And although RT eventually admitted to seeing evidence of review-bombing, we don't know the extent of what they found or how conclusive it was. And really, it doesn't matter. The details reported prior to RT's admission are still relevant, as they provide a historical narrative of the events surrounding the controversy. I don't believe they should be removed, and definitely not for the reasoning given so far. Consensus can change, sure, but a stronger argument is required. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue this should be reviewed again. It's already in Wikipedia guidelines that WP:USERGENERATED content is bad. In this case, it was included anyway after a debate link to 2nd RfC. Then later on Rotten Tomatoes admitted that it was vote bombed. The consensus was formed before that important piece of information came to light which I argue would have significantly changed the discussion. If it's to be included here it should be reworded precisely that user generated scores on line were targeted for vote bombing. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It has been covered[9].
    The details reported prior to RT's admission are still relevant, as they provide a historical narrative of the events surrounding the controversy.
    This isn't a controversy section. It's a section dedicated to audience reception. Wikipedia is supposed to cover this based on reliable sources. This section presents an even handed approach that puts scientific, industry sources against WP:USERGENERATED sources. If Rotten Tomatoes and other easily manipulated data is going to be included then it needs to be clearer that in the case of The Last Jedi that data was even more unreliable than usual. Nemov (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia is supposed to cover this based on reliable sources." That's exactly what we're doing here. Reliable sources overwhelmingly discussed the user scores, so Wikipedia should reflect the same in its coverage. If it was only covered by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, then you'd have a valid point; other films generally do not and should not mention them. Last Jedi, however, is an exception.
    The Audience section as written covers the chain of events surrounding user score coverage in secondary sources. We begin by describing the user ratings as "user-generated scores" and even prominently display a disclaimer that states: "Audience scores on such sites require only registration and do not ensure that contributing voters have seen the film." This is followed by several statements from sources that pick apart the scores, further adding to the notion they can't be trusted. Anyone reading this paragraph is not going to miss the obvious; that these scores are not trustworthy. More importantly, it documents RT's knee-jerk denial that there was a problem and shows them backpedaling a year later admitting there was. The likelihood that review-bombing occurred (which I 100% agree with) doesn't diminish the historical importance of how the coverage of this unfolded.
    Perhaps there's a way to trim it down a bit or make slight modifications, but reducing it to rubble of only 2 sentences goes way too far IMO. Also keep in mind that WP:DUE is policy while WP:USERG is a content guideline; the interests of policy will always override guidelines, especially when backed by RfC consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I dropped a discussion notice at WT:FILM#Last Jedi audience reception revisited. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    I agree there's enough coverage to mention it. Perhaps something like this is a better description? This is in place of the current 3rd paragraph:
    User-generated scores at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic were controversial. At Rotten Tomatoes, 42% of users rated the film 3.5 stars or higher, however, a Rotten Tomatoes spokesperson said the film had been "seriously targeted" by a review-bombing campaign.,[3][1] At Metacritic, the average user score is 4.2 out of 10.[4] Audience scores on such sites require only registration and do not ensure that contributing voters have seen the film.[5] Several reviewers speculated that coordinated vote brigading from internet groups and bots contributed to the low scores.[6][7] Quartz noted that some new accounts gave negative ratings to both The Last Jedi and Thor: Ragnarok (2017), while Bleeding Cool stated that reviews for Thor: Ragnarok had tapered off but then "skyrocketed".[8]
    The initial denial by RT doesn't seem relevant now to this article and just clutters the main points that are reliably covered. The main points are scientific measures showed audiences enjoyed the film and user generated polls were low because they were targeted with vote brigading. Nemov (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RT's early rebuttal fueled a significant amount of the coverage, which grew exponentially following RT's premature claim. I think their knee-jerk response played an important role. I'm not taking it off the table though. I'm also not sure if mentioning RT's 2019 confession prior to the 2017 media observations is the right path forward. Someone reading that for the 1st time may wonder why sources bothered to publish their findings after RT already said they were bombed. We may need to keep that chronological to avoid confusion.
    Curious to hear what others think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also suggest we need to rework the section on the fan critiques of the film. Many if not all of these articles were published in the interim before RT officially admitted the score had been tampered with, and so are based on a false dichotomy of "fans hating it, critics loving it". Toa Nidhiki05 12:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and the reason why most were published in the interim has to do with the fact that it took RT more than a year to release an updated statement. By then, many of these sources had moved on with very few circling back to re-analyze. Remember, we are describing the chronology of events from a 3rd-person perspective. We are not saying fans hated it. We are saying, "Hey look at all the coverage generated about Last Jedi's user ratings". We then describe how they're unreliable and finish by saying RT first denied review-bombing suspicions before eventually admitting they were "seriously targeted". At no point do we take sides. We are simply documenting what someone would find were they to research the history of the film's reception. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have some minor concerns that this article is listing the Audience scores as they stand now, (and editors seem to continue to change them) instead of listing the fixed audience scores as they stood when the WP:SECONDARY sources reported them as noteworthy at the time. These scores should not be updated, the most noteworthy version of the scores should be included (if the specific score should be included at all, rather than merely reporting on the discrepancy as a whole without any specific figures), same as we normally include only the top ranking the film achieved in a chart. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're about to be removed. See below. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the comment "I removed the scores completely" and looked at the article edit history for the relevant diff as I could see the scores were still included. I realize now you only meant that you removed the scores from the proposed text below that was suggested on July 5, but as of July 12 that change has not yet been made to the actual article. If those changes do go through my minor concern will be moot, but if the scores stay for some reason then they should not be updated and should be fixed based on what one of the reliable sourced reported at the time.[10] -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. To clarify, I suggested on 7/6 that we wait a week to see if there would be any additional feedback before implementing. Getting close now! ;-) -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ReviewBombing was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Alexander, Julia (May 23, 2019). "Rotten Tomatoes is changing audience review capabilities to tackle review bombing". The Verge. Retrieved June 28, 2022.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rotten Tomatoes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Metacritic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference VoxAudienceScores was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference VanDerWerff was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Alt-Right was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Booth was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Recent analysis

Instead of subtracting content from this section, it might be worth adding an additional sentence or two based on this Forbes source supplied by Nemov above. Mendelson blames the "attention-seeking trolls" and those that were either racist or sexist for the negative reactions online, and he even blames Disney for attempting to placate a "vocal minority" in its marketing approach and production of Rise of Skywalker. He essentially calls all the published backlash irresistible click-bait that didn't explain the financial success, which included the selling of more Blu-rays than even Avengers: Infinity War. Perhaps a slight expansion here is warranted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like this?
User-generated scores at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic received significant coverage for being more negative. Audience scores on such sites require only registration and do not ensure that contributing voters have seen the film. Several reviewers speculated that coordinated vote brigading from internet groups and bots contributed to the low scores, including analysis provided by Quartz and Bleeding Cool. In response to tampering claims, a Fandango executive claimed that Rotten Tomatoes detected no unusual activity on The Last Jedi aside from a noticeable "uptick in the number of written user reviews". In 2019, however, a Rotten Tomatoes spokesperson said the film had been "seriously targeted" by a review-bombing campaign. Scott Mendelson of Forbes labeled the negative reaction "alleged" that was based on "easily trolled online user polls", and he criticized Disney for placating the "vocal minority" in its approach to the sequel, Rise of Skywalker.
I removed the scores completely, as the numbers have changed a lot since they were first analyzed. The overall point is that they were negative, despite what the numbers actually were/are. I even shortened the parts concerning Quartz and Bleeding Cool. For Mendelson, I also pulled info from this source. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is exceptionally reasonable. I'd support this wording. Toa Nidhiki05 23:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Waiting on a response from Nemov, and we should probably let this marinate for a week before inserting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. This is an improvement over the current version. I still don't think Rotten Tomatoes' original denial of vote bombing is relevant for this article. The fact of the matter is the site was a target of brigading and they eventually confirmed it. That's all that matters in terms of the discussing of audience reception to The Last Jedi and Rotten Tomatoes. Nemov (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. What if we combine those RT statements into one: "After initially rejecting tampering claims, Rotten Tomatoes later said in 2019 that Last Jedi had been "seriously targeted" by a review-bombing campaign." That essentially reduces the entire sentence to 5 words. I still think it's important to show the denial in some form, as it is related to (and part of) the "significant coverage" stated in the opening line. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's an improvement if the initial RT denial remains. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we also write Mendelson's criticisms of the trolls being racist and sexist in the same sentence. We could have a brief sentence succeeding it mentioning how Black Panther and Captain Marvel were similarly targeted, and it would structure the article cohesively considering the 'Harassment' section is next 78.149.121.207 (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthening it any more probably crosses into WP:UNDUE territory. The current sentence is already straddling the line if you ask me. We need to keep in mind that audience reception is only one aspect of reception, and reception is only one aspect of the overall topic. The audience section is already consuming 10% of the entire article. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view we could add a mere few words, like "Scott Mendelson of Forbes labeled the negative reaction "alleged", saying it was based on "easily trolled online user polls", and he criticized Disney for placating a racist, misogynistic "vocal minority" in its approach to the sequel, The Rise Of Skywalker. Black Panther and Captain Marvel were later confirmed to have been review-bombed as well." That's only 15 words added and doesn't seem too much to me. 78.149.121.207 (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi&oldid=1098801440"