Talk:Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Here's the source. Whats your thoughts on this? Npamusic (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Star Wars Episode 9.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it confirmed that Hamill returns as Skywalker? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the announcement. Only that he is in the cast. Not especially serious, just that his character is supposedly dead. Alaney2k (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Being dead isn't a show stopper in the context of the Star Wars universe. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

So we seem to have avoided the use of the term "Skywalker saga" in the leads of all the original and prequel trilogy articles, as well as The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. Myself and others have continuously reverted the many IPs who have added "the final installment of the Skywalker saga" to this article, even though some sources describe it as such. The wording was recently added again by an actual registered editor, UpdateNerd, who has contributed to many Star Wars articles, so I thought it was time to open a discussion about its use here. I personally think it reads a little fanboyish, since I don't believe the series is thought of as "the Skywalker saga" in the mainstream. I wouldn't mind, however, something in the Development section establishing that this film has been described as "the final installment of the Skywalker saga", with some context for non-fan readers about what this means. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 16:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for avoiding it in the lead, except maybe within a note to help explain what is meant by "the main Star Wars film franchise". I think it mostly makes sense to use in context, such as Star Wars#Standalone films, where it's used to distinguish the anthology from the main series. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion it's time to give this article semi-protected edit status since it gets vandalized or pointlessly adjusted on a near-daily basis by unregistered users. Anyone else? UpdateNerd (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Taking this to the talk page for discussion for a hope to avoid an edit war because surely we can not keep adding characters to the current films that are not in that production - in this case Episode 9?

"The late" should not be used and adding both Han Solo & Darth Vader constantly to the article is simply excessive clutter and both are currently (until we learn the plot) irrelevant to the article.

The only time Han Solo should be mentioned is the article in the cast list regarding Kylo Ren.

In the line for Lando Calrissian - Solo is gone and the only characters in the film that know of him are Luke, Leia, Chewbacca, C3PO & R2D2.

Adding The grandson / grandfather info to the cast list about Darth Vader is excessive as he died back in Episode 6 and now we are on 9.

Any responses on this subject would be welcome.

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU for opening this discussion. I totally agree that namedropping Han and Darth Vader constantly through the cast list is unnecessary clutter. Also, we don't refer to real-world people as "the late XX" in our biographical articles, so we should not do so for fictional characters. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

For future reference, is there a MOS guideline saying that we shouldn't "the late" when referring to the deceased? To me it seems to depend on the context. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, otherwise there would be literally millions of Wikipedia articles all starting with the late" and fictional or not it is not really relevant.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I was certainly not implying it should always accompany the name of anyone who has died. It depends on the context. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, cool, I was not looking at starting either an online argument or an edit war so please don't take any offence to my previous reversions.

However, on the Todd Fishers reversions, which fisher died she was not married and legally meant that all decisions regarding Carrie Fisher's remains and her estate unless their was was Will or Lasting Power of Attorney by law immediately fall to her daughter Billie.

So in that case is there any way that the article (with your input) could be reworded?

Juanpumpchump (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't take anything as an argument; I just can't help but respond to conversations on my watchlist. :) As far as the Billie Lourd rewording, I think the current version actually reflects your interpretation of events. While I'm not an expert of law (and a posting a source supporting your claim here would be welcome), I just made sure to attribute the revealing to Todd, and the legal action to Fisher's daughter. Does it seem to look right in the article now? UpdateNerd (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The article states that Rey is the last pupil of Luke Skywalker. This is verifiably false. Kylo Ren was trained under the tutoriage of Luke Skywalker as mentioned in both the prior two films. Additionally in The Last Jedi Luke references "a handful of students" who went away with Kylo who's fate is unknown however they very well could be alive making Rey not only the second last pupil of Luke but also perhaps not even that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.136.96 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused by your logic; I think last is meant to mean the last one before Luke "died", not the last remaining pupil alive.— TAnthony^Talk 19:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The new film title is not sourced now. This should be done soon before before people try to back to Star Wars: Episode IX. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• https://screenrant.com/star-wars-9-trailer-poster-title-rise-skywalker/
• https://www.cnet.com/news/star-wars-episode-9-trailer-title-how-to-watch-panel-livestream-here-celebration-chicago-the-rise-of-skywalker/

Here are two sources above. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

With the film being intended as the definitive end of the Skywalker saga, why is it to be called: "The *Rise* of Skywalker"?? 83.251.175.218 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

is now listed in the cast at IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527338/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm 165.225.50.178 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

IMDB typically isn't a reliable source for casting. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Far more reliable and with better use (and fact-checking) of their sources than your average journalist or pundit, the kind that's often touted as a "reliable source" for whatever windbag statements on Wikipedia. 83.251.175.218 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no. IMDB is a user-edited site now, and has really poor fact-checking. It was originally a good source, but they're decision to accept user submissions makes it unreliable. oknazevad (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I've seen Wikipedia users (with serious credentials and barnstars, you know) slamming IMDB as "unreliable" back when it was still a thoroughly fact-sifted and moderated site...oh by the way, WP isn't a user-edited site, right? :D Wikipedia has been rotting from within for a decade or so. 83.251.175.218 (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Both external and internal user editable sources are unacceptable; see
  WP:CIRC. -Fnlayson (talk
  ) 23:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As I hit enter before I could finish my summary, here it is. The director's direct quote about facing the greatest evil is possibly redundant from facing the First Order, which he didn't specify that he wasn't talking about. It's also possibly covered by "their own inner turmoil", which refers to the conflict of light and dark within them that he mentioned in the same quote. Dark ≅ greatest evil.

As for Luke's vanishing, yes he visibly vanished in the film, which the link to the Force#Force ghosts also explains. Saying explicitly that he died is more speculation than saying he simply vanished, with a link to what that's meant in-universe before, seems more appropriate. See also Star Wars (film)#Plot which says "Obi-Wan sacrifices himself", not that he was killed. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

PlayStation-San (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, I have found a High quality image of the Logo for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker and I was hoping I could add it to the Wikipedia page for the film.

 Not done: Requests for files to be uploaded should be made at

Image Use Policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?

) 17:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Statistics have been revealed for how many global view the trailer for The Rise of Skywalker did in it's first 24 hours, which is revealed to be 111 million views :https://deadline.com/2019/04/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-teaser-clocked-111m-in-first-24-hours-more-viral-than-last-jedi-force-awakens-1202601505/.

I hope we can add that into the film's wiki page and into the list of the most-viewed trailers of all-time in 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.57.2 (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just thought we should preserve this for posterity. Ahecht removed a suspected copyvio, which contained language from an Express article. UpdateNerd subsequently restored it, asserting that our version was original writing. The phrasing appears to have been first introduced by an IP on April 13, 2019, and was then copyedited into something close to its current form by UpdateNerd on April 14, 2019, including distinctive wording. The Express article which uses this language verbatim was published on April 16, 2019.— TAnthony^Talk 21:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

https://www.polygon.com/star-wars-celebration/2019/4/15/18311680/star-wars-episode-ix-emperor-palpatine-dead-theory-rumors-rise-of-skywalker To anyone actually capable of editing this article...could you please replace the words “seemingly died” with “died” in Palpatines character bio? Because, at least according to what Ian says in this interview, the emperor is DEFINITELY 100% dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.147.99 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that's what the source seems to be saying, but since Lucas didn't explicitly say he died during the film, I say we leave it. But I have added a note with Lucas's comments. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Palpatine is a recording, the entire script got leaked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.33.236 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please back your claim up with sources. QueerFilmNerd^talk 21:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please don't add such alleged leaks to the article unless they're reported by

RS, not underground fansites. UpdateNerd (talk

) 06:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that intentional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:b128:d12e:cc0e:c154:75f7:bb94 (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It was vandalism that has already been reverted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Time will tell if this was vandalism or simply clearvoyance.212.247.105.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for leaks of unreleased copyrighted material, so I suggest that somebody with the ability hide such revisions from the article history, including the most recent one, fake or not. These are not good-faith edits since anyone trying to leak the plot would be violating their legally binding NDAs, and probably other laws. Wikipedia didn't sign any such agreement, but I for one don't want a website I respect to ever represent such bad faith. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, any claims of being at test screenings are lies as Star Wars films don’t have test screenings. Toa Nidhiki05 03:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add some reports to this page. 77.100.106.84 (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. NiciVampireHeart 12:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Marketing : An international trailer is set to debut on 11th November. Raja7ricky7 (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 07:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is some out of date information on this page. So please allow edits now. 77.100.106.84 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Requests for changes in protection can be made at

WP:RFPP. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos

) 19:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2019

This edit request to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please allow edits because some information is out of date on this page. 77.100.106.84 (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 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

^📞

09:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It has information about the International trailer being released on November 11th and it's November 16th now and needs to be updated. 77.100.106.84 (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It should say "Plot", not "Premise". 77.100.106.84 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: It hasn't been released yet, so "Premise" is correct until that time - FlightTime (open channel) 20:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, some actors are only required during part of the filming period. Some will start a later and some will finish earlier. I think it's too much detail to mention for each specific actor when they started or finished filming their role. That's why i removed this bit. If we re-add it, we should explain why this is specifically important imho.

On January 28, 2019, Anthony Daniels finished filming for his role as C-3PO in the film.^[1]

PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that text is no longer needed since all filming has been completed. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Juanpumpchump: I think they were married. You could definitely consider them to be spouses. I believe that Han is referred to as Leia's husband in Star Wars: Bloodline. This is mentioned on Wookiepedia. So I don't think you should object to considering her to be the widow of Han Solo. Maybe it is somewhat irrelevant though. Alaney2k (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

lets be honest - unless it is in the film not Wookiepedia etc then it really isn't canon, therefore it is not a true fact regarding the characters background (even though it is fiction).

Juanpumpchump (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No, User:Alaney2k is citing a real SW book, Bloodline, with more info on a Wookiepedia page. This book is SW cannon now, I believe. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a Legends title. The plot of the Bloodline Wikipedia article says Leia's husband Han Solo. Alaney2k (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of canon otherwise we should stick to what we see on the silver screen (or DVD!)?

I am also not being picky but both of you keep quoting "Wookiepedia" and that is nothing more than a fan site and is not owned or controlled by either Disney or Lucasfilm.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Seems irrelevant to the movies, as the movies did not mention it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

So in that case there is no mention of any marriage in the film, is their any mention in the official Disney/Lucasfilm novelisation?

Juanpumpchump (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That's already been answered above. Recent books released in 2014 and later are canon per

Star Wars expanded to other media#2014–present: The sequel trilogy and anthology films. -Fnlayson (talk

) 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

And it is mentioned in the WIKIPEDIA article: Star Wars: Bloodline. Alaney2k (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have looked at your evidence offered up and I agree with what you state. The books would have had to have been licensed so then that is good enough for me.

Let's hope that JJ can repair the damage to the franchise that Rian Johnson did. 👍 Juanpumpchump (talk)

From what I've heard, Lucasfilm brought in George Lucas as a fixer because they were not happy with Abrams' first cut. Alaney2k (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please remember

WP:NOTAFORUM. This is not the place to go ragging on about how much you hate the sequel trilogy--Simmerdon3448 (talk

) 19:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If we get confirmation on Lucas being brought in, it will be a point to add to the article. Alaney2k (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

But that’s completely irrelevant--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s also fake news. Mike Zeroh and Bounding into Comics are, to say the least, not remotely reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 20:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Not "ragging on" just looking forward to JJ polishing off the sequel trilogy!

Hope that you and your families have a good Christmas.

All the best

Juanpumpchump (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The above comment is not made in good faith. Just because someone says “Merry Christmas” doesn’t mean context shouldn’t be taken into account--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• The main issue here is using this talk page as forum (WP:Wikipedia is not a forum) and is counter to Talk page guidelines. Article talk pages are meant to help improve articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That’s exactly why I removed the comment in the first place, but I was reverted for “not assuming good faith”--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Post spoilers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.157.233 (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I created a separate article for John William's score here:

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (soundtrack)

Feel free to contribute. ( Nwyde (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC) )

Here is a plot summary which I, however, apparently can't add myself:

Kylo Ren comes into the possession of a wayfinder, which reveals to him the whereabouts of Palpatine in the unknown regions. He visits him and learns that he never really died and has always been the mastermind behind Snoke and the "First Order". Palpatine promises Kylo to provide him with his fleet on the condition that he destroys Rey.

Meanwhile, Rey trains with Leia Organa near the base of the resistance. The news that Palpatine is back spreads rapidly and Rey sets out with Finn, Poe and C3PO to find him. However, this requires a wayfinder, of which only two exist.

Rey and the other Resistance fighters then follow a lead from Lando Calrissian, who tells them about a ship once visited by Luke when he was following that wayfinder himself. However, their actions do not go unnoticed by the First Order and Rey and the others accidentally end up in a cave where they find a dagger engraved with Palpatine's position in Sith Runes. After leaving the cave, they meet the knights of Ren and Kylo himself, who fights a battle with Rey, in which Rey apparently, unintentionally, kills Chewbacca. C3PO is able to decipher the Sith Runes, but translating them would contradict his programming. So they leave the planet to find an engineer who can bypass C3PO's programming, which succeeds, but on the condition that his memory is erased.

The First Order reappears with a star destroyer on which Rey senses Chewbacca's presence. Rey, Poe and Finn are very relieved about the news that their friend is still alive and board the ship to save Chewbacca, which succeeds. On this occasion we learn that General Hux has worked as a spy for resistance because he has a grudge against Kylo. With Hux's help they manage to escape, but Hux himself is exposed and dies at the hands of Allegiant General Pryde.

On board the Millenium Falcon, they set off to one of the moons in the Endor system to search for the wayfinder in the ruins of the second Death Star. Rey finds it, but is surprised by Kylo, who grabs the wayfinder and destroys it. Both get into a lightsaber fight, which ends with Rey seriously hurting Kylo, then using her powers to heal the injury and leaving him alone. Kylo has a vision of his father, throws his lightsaber into the sea and decides against the "Dark Side". Meanwhile Leia dies.

Rey, emotionally devastated by the visions she showed as Sith she had in the Death Star, flies with Kylos Tie-Fighter to the island where Luke once lived and decides to stay because she sees herself as too dangerous. Luke's ghost appears to her and convinces her not to give up. With the help of the second wayfinder she finds in Kylos Tie-Fighter, she flies to Palpatine's planet, also transmitting her position to the Resistance.

Rey meets Palpatine there, who reveals to her that she is his granddaughter, he tries to convince her to kill him and thereby become a Sith and the new emperess herself. At the same time the Resistance manages to put together a considerable fleet, which now also arrives on Palpatine's planet. It fights a bitter battle with Palpatine's fleet of hundreds of star destroyers. Kylo arrives now and fights together with Rey against Palpatine, who was just about to accept his proposal to save her friends. However, Palpatine easily defeats them at first. By "sucking out" their powers, he regains his former form and power. Strengthened, he is now able to temporarily eliminate the entire resistance fleet with nothing but his own hands. Kylo and Rey start a last attempt to stop him, Kylo fails at first, but Rey succeeds in destroying Palpatine, strengthened by the voices of many deceased Jedi she hears, including that of Anakin. Very weakened she dies thereupon, but Kylo revives her with his last strength, but dies himself. Palpatine's fleet is then destroyed by the Resistance Fleet, which is now operational again after Palpatine's death.

Rey travels to Tatoine where she buries Anakins/Lukes and Leia's lightsabers and reveals her own yellow one. Henry Töpel (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone filled in the plot but only to about the halfway point of the movie. Should it be removed until it can be completed? --Ishmayl (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

the planet its named Exegol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:1016:9:B517:4117:A256:6366:E783 (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The film thus far has been critically acclaimed. There is an agenda going on here by certain groups to paint the picture that the movie has been received to a mixed response. Can we please make sure to source properly and ensure the positive reviews are gaining coverage. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:683A:D758:7D1D:306D:1BBE:823F (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• What is your source for this? Because there are very many reviews so far that, while not necessarily overly negative, are also very much not "critically-acclaiming." The Verge (reputable), Engadget (reputable), Business Insider (reputable), Time (reputable), and LA Times (reputable) have all so far given the movie NOT-critically-acclaimed reviews. Your message reads as though promoting a shill agenda instead of someone promoting wholesome Wikipedia ethics and agendas. Please provide your sources for your statements if you want to start a legit conversation. --Ishmayl (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It has 58% on RT, that definitely is "mixed" and is definitely not "critically acclaimed". 80.195.228.46 (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are verified critics, and the response they've given is most certainly not "critically acclaimed". You may be confusing this with one of the other Star Wars films that got reviewbombed on the audience score. 51.37.13.189 (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The dynamics look similar to what happened with Orville (where the audience reviews remained at a steady 90% or above; while the critic reviews, initially under 20% moved up over 60%). Currently, the audience reviews are at 86%, 6231 verified reviewers. This breaks down at 86% at 3.5-5 stars, 14% at 0-3.5 stars, and 4.33 stars overall average, which implies at least 4.465 stars average for the 86%. Taking into account the lower end of the 3.5-5 range, that comes out to probably 45-50% of the audience overall giving it a rating of 5/5 stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1401:84EF:222:69FF:FE4C:408B (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ending this conversation, the reviews are indeed incredibly mixed.  GrendelNightmares  (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this film released in 3D in non-IMAX theatre? --Ans (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, at least it is in the Netherlands. Also in Dolby Vision.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 18:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I added a Section on LGBTQ representation in the upcoming film that has been rejected, the reasons another user gave is that it was not tangible or interesting. I was very careful about the selecting sources considered reliable for giving quotes on what individuals said. I believe the information quite tangible for this reason. The information has been repeated by many other outlets suggesting a fair amount of interest. I do not believe the information fails to meet either of the criteria the user cited for these reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elixe54 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your addition contained nothing to actually verify the contents of the film itself, and one of the quotes want even about this film. There was nothing of substance here. Sorry. oknazevad (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

A sentence on it may be useful, depending on its overall impact. But definitely not a subsection. The movie isn't out yet, we have no idea what JJ is referring to. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that any content about that should wait until after release. There is no rush. I'm sure it will be widely discussed in the media, and that's how we determine if something is notable enough to put in the article. Alaney2k (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, we should definitely wait to see if the quotes turn out to be anything of note. It could end up being nothing notable, or it could end up being something to mention, but until then the quote is vague and doesn't really add too much to the article. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I concede, your points are valid.--Elixe54 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

There is now official confirmation of Star Wars Rise of Skywalker having the first Gay Kiss in Star Wars history. I added a small well cited mention of it in the intro section of the page but someone redacted it saying it was trivial details. What are others thoughts? Would it be considered a trivial detail? Thank you.Elixe54 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Having watched the film, there is indeed LGBTQ representation, but it's *very* minor (so minor that you would likely miss it if you weren't paying attention), and it isn't really deserving of an entire section of the article at all.  GrendelNightmares  (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Having seen the movie, it is a very minor moment but because it is a historic moment in the franchise history, I believe it warrants a mention but not an entire section. One line will do. Halyonix (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

In this case it was not a section but just a mention. This is the sentence in question(Although I am leaving them off here I did include citations) "Star Wars the Rise of Skywalker is notably the first Star Wars movie to feature an onscreen gay kiss between two lesbian lovers."Elixe54 (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The film just came out. Let's see what kind of reaction we get from the media and fans. Just because a movie has a gay character, who doesn't play a central roll in the film, doesn't mean it should be mentioned. The level of response will determine it's notability IMO. Dkspartan1835 (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Just checked, a google search of "rise of skywalker lesbian" has 2.9 million hits. So, I think it deserves a mention. Whether or not it belongs in the lede is up for debate. Dkspartan1835 (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Except this isn't the "first Gay Kiss in Star Wars history". This is only the first film same-sex kiss in Star Wars history. The MMO "Star Wars: The Old Republic" has been LGBTQ-friendly and had same-sex romance options in its stories for years now, which is yet another reason a lot of people don't consider it the newsworthy event certain loud groups are trying to proclaim it to be. WhiskeyOnMyBreath (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The scene isn't that important, but its censorship is. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This citation should be completely removed. Not only is the link going to an entirely different website than is claimed in the citation ( bbfc.co.uk instead of IndieWire), but that Indiewire article does not have any information on what the budget for the film is from any reliable source itself, they just threw out an "estimated" number based on nothing. The article link is here https://www.indiewire.com/2019/12/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-175-million-box-office-cats-1202198932/ Disney has not released any information on how much they spent producing this movie. So claiming the budget was $275M should be removed as there is no source for this. Charlemagnexiv (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

A Forbes article released today lists its budget is 250 million. I doubt that a secondary source is sufficient in this case though. As you said, "budget" should stay empty until Disney officially releases a number. -throast (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Studios very rarely will release the amount they spent on a film. As a result guesses or estimations from reputable sources are typically used. QueerFilmNerd^talk 23:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless they cite a reliable source, the made up numbers by some random journalist writer who has no involvement in the production should not be on a Wikipedia article entry. A journalist is not themselves a reliable source. Charlemagnexiv (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The rolling script at the beginning of the movie notes that the Emperor has sent a message to the galaxy, etc., etc. Does anyone agree that this point should be addressed in the section? Something like, "Investigating a mysterious message from the thought-dead Emperor, Kylo Ren obtains a Sith Wayfinder device and travels to the planet Exegol." Not sure if we bother with the intro script in Star Wars movies, or if this goes against WP:FILM rules. But it gives a reason for Ren to go to Exegol. Alaney2k (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I do see the word count for the section is at 740 words, a bit high already. Alaney2k (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That said, it's a complex and epic film, so it's okay to have some discretion with the guidelines. Anywikiuser (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason for the plot summary to be over 700 words. I've been editing Wikipedia film summaries for years, and have yet to see a movie that can't be sufficiently summarised in 700 words.

talk

) 23:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone realy belive that there were no testscreening? It is obvious, that abrams said that just to discredit some leaks about the story, wit some horrible testscreening, which all came truth, so it's clear that it was just a lie94.219.107.54 (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Please

reliable source. DonQuixote (talk

) 02:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about those leaks from multiple youtubechannels (for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BooFfgCvw1M ), where they reported about testscreening which were so bad, that people left the cinema. Most parts about the story are very accurate beside some details (like the millenium falcon didnt surive in that version), which are obvious changes because the bad . Abrams told 2 weeks later that there were no testscreenings, but he lied before, so who can belive him? --185.22.143.223 (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, cite a RELIABLE SOURCE and we can add it. We can't trust this random Youtuber. Star Wars has never had test screenings before, there's no reason for them to start. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The ENTIRE plot of the film, as well as screengrabs of scenes, was leaked onto reddit months ago. Your source is here, https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsLeaks/comments/dafpm8/the_basic_plot_of_the_rise_of_skywalker_updated/ Now that may not meet Wikipedia's standards for "reliable source" but it is an irrefutable fact that this leak happened, and the source claimed it was from a test screening. Furthermore it is factually incorrect to say the do not have screenings. To get an MPAA rating it has to be screened for an audience independent of Disney. Someone who clearly knows nothing about how the film industry operates should not be debating this. Charlemagnexiv (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a silly debate. Leaks occur all the time, and they often involve stolen copies of the script (Boyega fell victim, for example) and captured stills from post-production (the leaker could have worked on the team applying visual effects). None of that necessarily means it came from test screening footage, and attempting to draw that correlation is strictly an opinion. Did test screening occur because the leaks occurred, or vice versa? Nothing we have at the moment makes that connection.

Also, don't introduce the strawman argument by stating, "it is factually incorrect to say the(y) do not have screenings". No one is making that claim, and neither is the article. It says according to reports, there weren't any "test" screenings. That is a statement of fact in the way it is worded. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Test screenings in this case, refer to screenings done just for audience reception. It's done to gauge about how well films are received at a given point in production. Usually filming is complete but CGI/effects may not be complete. I don't mean for the MPAA screenings, I mean these screenings. Disney and Lucas Films would probably not have held test screenings due to fear of a plot leaking (minus the fact that it did, still too risky). Studios do them all the time to see how an audience likes or doesn't like a film, and sometimes they'll change things accordingly. See Test screening. Test screenings aren't for film MPAA ratings, they're for audience reactions. QueerFilmNerd^talk 07:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It's literally called a screener at the MPAA. You're wrong. Charlemagnexiv (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Dude, there are literally different types of screeners. Specific test screenings, as being discussed here, are for audience reactions, and not something Disney is known for doing. This is different than the screenings they do for ratings, which are done by CARA, Classification and Ratings Administration. Test screenings, screeners (typically sent to the industry folks, like critics and what the Academy does for awards consideration), and screenings to get movie ratings. QueerFilmNerd^talk 04:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You're entire argument that there could not be any leaks is because there was no screenings for any SW films, and the article is claiming only J.J. and his family ever got to see it before it released to theatres so there couldn't be any leaks. That's a ridiculous because we know there was at least the screening for the MPAA for it to get rated. Stop being a bias apologetic just because facts conflicts with how you want things to be. The leaks had screenshots of completed CGI shots as they appear in the final film, it wasn't a script leak that occurred. It's cellphone photos taken inside of a theatre months before the film released to the public. (Charlemagnexiv (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC))

"You're entire argument that..there was no screenings"

No one said that. Provide a quote where this was stated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m not even arguing with you about whether or not there was a test screening. I really don’t care. I’m more arguing with you about the fact you clearly do not know the difference between a test screening and screening done for the MPAA. I’ve clearly sent you links and explained to you that they are TWO DIFFERENT SCREENINGS. Disney can’t have the public or whatever just come in and test screen it for an MPAA, that’s done by a different group, which I’ve clearly explained. I’m done arguing with you after this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerFilmNerd (talk • contribs) 00:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel like adding "Palpatine's Granddaughter" to Rey's description is not a good idea. For the unfortunate people who have not seen it should not see this in the cast description. This huge spoiler should be kept in the Plot section, nothing more. Bruh32123 (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a spoiler policy per

WP:SPOILER. QueerFilmNerd^talk

04:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

In addition: no-one in their right mind would look at that article if they wanted to avoid spoilers. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 05:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

On a sidenote to the discussion above: the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes isn't mentioned in the article. Should it be added? Especially relevant since the movie was initially review bombed. I'll go ahead and boldly add it. Edit: i found an interesting source that contrasts the critic and fan scores and then contrasts this to how the divide was opposite to Last JediPizzaMan ♨♨♨ 13:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No. The Rotten Tomatoes audience score does not provide a reliable measurement of how much the audience enjoyed it. Yes it sits next to the critic score, which is a reliable measurement of what the critics think. But the audience score can be skewed by

review bombing, self-selection bias, demographic bias and more. Anywikiuser (talk

) 22:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the reliability of the user reviews; the contrast between user and critic scores and how this is inversed from the previous film is interesting. And that's not my opinion, that's just summarizing the cited source. Note that this is a reliable secondary source, not just a link to Rotten Tomatoes and that the article has a more plausible explanation for this contrast than just the unreliability of user reviews. I'd say we stick to the sources and leave our personal interpretations of the user ratings and their relevance out of it.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 23:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The Last Jedi is an unusual case. The audience score is mentioned on its article because it received wide media coverage. Normally it would not be considered noteworthy for a film's article, in contrast to proper polls like CinemaScore and PostTrak. Anywikiuser (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Which makes the user and critic ratings being inversed in this movie all the more noteworthy. That's why it was the topic of the cited article. We should leave our own opinions out of it and just summarize the sources.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 11:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

For the record, my initial contribution wasn't just the ratings and the contrast with the previous film, but also the interpretation; all just summarizing the cited source. I propose adding Despite the review bombing and the critics scores, the film received and audience approval rating of 86% on Rotten Tomatoes. Thus the divide was the opposite of The Last Jedi, which had high critic and low audience scores. It was apparently Abram's intention to appease the unrest fans felt with Last Jedi, rather than to please critics.^[1] I much prefer such an interpretation by a secondary source to just linking to Rotten Tomatoes as the article currently does.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

My main complaint is seeing the RT audience score being used as a barometer for audience response. It is not. Perhaps it will eventually be noteworthy to say that RoS is not attracting review bombing the way TLJ did. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Should we judge if RT is a proper barometer or leave that up to the authors we cite? In this case, the author considers it a proper barometer.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 13:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Other reliable sources have over the years pointed out how easily these online review sites can be skewed by review bombing. That's why Wikipedia's guidelines for film articles do not hold them in high regard. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I know and understand that. That's a strong argument against directly quoting them. Which i agree, we shouldn't do. But is that a reason to block any mention of the scores, even when a journalist devotes a whole article to them? WP is about properly summarizing sources, not about imposing our own laws or views on what we should or shouldn't mention. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 14:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree we should include it. Yes, it's not normally done, but this is a good use of IAR here, because we specifically have third-party reliable source analysis of the scores. We are not doing anything new or OR in including them. (I'd leave off the sentence that includes "apparently", however, as that is not a fact but the author of the article's analysis.)

Plus leaving off the post-release scores creates a false impression that RT user scores are low because we already cover the review bombing of the trailer. To not include the post-release user scores leaves the section unbalanced, which we don't want. oknazevad (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the sort of wording you need:

"The Last Jedi had received low ratings on user-generated voting sites, including the Rotten Tomatoes audience score, which had been attributed to

review bombing

by fans who did not like certain story decisions. Months prior to the film's trailer release, Rise of Skywalker was review bombed on Rotten Tomatoes to the point where the "Want to See" percentage went down as far as 5% within a day, with many of them focusing on lingering negativity towards The Last Jedi. However, no significant review bombing was reported on these sites after the film's release. Humza Hussain at Screen Rant suggested that although Rise of Skywalker was not as popular with critics, the story decisions had generally appeased the detractors of The Last Jedi."

The downsides to this wording are that it doesn't mention the difference in CinemaScore and PostTrak scores or the two films' performances at the box office (we would have to wait a few weeks for that). Anywikiuser (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added the proposed wording above, but confined it with first mentioning the high user ratings, then how this contrasts to the previous film and then the above sentence. That sentence alone is too subtle, it doesn't clearly mention the audience/critics contrast and the contrast with the previous movie, which are emphasized in the article. But feel free to improve of course.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 08:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Abrams discussed this in an interview. Other than him stating he admires Rian Johnson, I'm struggling on how to incorporate this. It does emphasize the notability.[1]PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 08:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment – It is very possible that this film's RT user score will receive widespread media coverage as well, but in my opinion, we should wait for that. A handful of sources isn't enough to trump our MOS guideline at

I agree with this. It should be removed until a consensus is gained through an RfC. It very clearly states in the linked MOS that we don't add audience response. A simple talk here isn't enough to overpower an MOS. QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The MOS says (quote): Unless quoting an author from a reliable source citing public commentary, do not quote comments from members of the general public. Considering no one was bothered by mentioning the review bombing before release, we should definitely keep this in too, to paint the complete picture. Leaving in the review bombing before release, but not mentioning the positive scores after release feels to me like deliberately painting a biased, negative picture of audience perception. For now i've hidde the review bombing part as well.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 18:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

My comment is solely focused on user ratings. To also quote from that MOS excerpt: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." How that impacts the "review bombing" aspect is a separate concern, and not necessarily one that needs to be solved in this discussion. The unreliable audience score needs strong approval before inclusion, regardless of the effect its absence would have on related topics discussed in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Because quite a bit of the media coverage of TLJ was about the negativity online and this seems to have influenced some of the story decisions in TRoS, it will probably be notable to discuss whether there was a comparable reaction to TRoS. It's certainly interesting that TRoS has avoided this, even though the critical reception and audience polls haven't been as great, and the box office looks on course to be lower. Anywikiuser (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend someone start an RfC to have it included. Again, most FILM articles don't have audience scores for a reason: they're unreliable. We'll need strong RS and approval before adding them. They're very contentious. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. And again, those who intend to start an RfC over this might want to wait for a significant number of sources covering the RT audience score to appear. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

An rfc seems like a good idea to me, but let's wait a few weeks to see if the high user ratings relative to critic reviews get more press coverage. I can imagine journalists to wanting to raise the issue immediately after their colleague just gave the movie a low score. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 09:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, audience sources are almost never mentioned in articles even if they were positive. There are many films which have a high audience score stacked against a low critic score, those kinds of situations also aren't mentioned on Wikipedia unless the film hits cult classic status several years later like The Thing and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas did. This has been established for years, so it would out of the ordinary to mention that. I understand that people are writing articles about how high the audience score is, but it's really quite strange for film journalists to publish articles about individual cases like this. The situation was a bit different for TLJ, it was notable because the online discourse around that entire film was controversial, it wasn't just because of the negative audience score on RT. I do think an RfC might end up being the best option down the line if enough people feel there should be an exception, but I'm not fully sure what makes TROS different from the countless other films with similar critic/audience score situations. 51.37.13.189 (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean, TLJ had TWO RfC's to include an audience reception section (one to get it on the page, another for the wording). The reason was the stark contrast between critics and audiences was reported on by numerous reputable sources. However, you're right - it's not normally reported on. This is why I think another RfC should be held in the New Year to gain a consensus. QueerFilmNerd^talk 11:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The bar for notability should perhaps be set a little less high, because this is the successor of a movie where the relevance of audience scores has already been established, but we do need some references to justify an rfc. I'll keep on adding those as i find them. For what it's worth, the movement of people who did enjoy the movie now has their own hashtag lol: #THANKYOUJJABRAMS [2]. Anyway, i think we'll end up with plenty of sources to establish the notability: [3][4][5][6][7]. Note that Rotten Tomatoes is displaying a "verified audience score" fwiw, but the score being stuck on 86% without fluctuations did raise some suspicion, which will hopefully be sorted out before we start an rfc. [8] PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 10:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not necessarily my problem, like I said the entire discussion around TLJ was so controversial that it would be bizarre not to mention the situation, the audience score was just an aspect of that. TROS seems to have received an even more negative reaction, so the review score isn't apart of that wider discussion. Other audience review sites seem to reflect more mixed-to-average reactions to the film usually averaging around 6. If anything, RC's audience score seems like an anomaly. 51.37.13.189 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a huge problem with this. The Rotten Tomatoes user score is USELESS in this case. It has been locked at 86% indefinitely. You can check the internet archives but starting at 6,231 reviews it was at 86%, and it has not changed a SINGLE percent since that time, with nearly 51,000 new votes coming in. It's literally been locked. I won't try to suggest reasons WHY it's been locked (though they may be obvious to some) but what I can say is mathmatically there is absolutely NO chance that the user score is actually reflective of the user reviews. I'm actually quite annoyed they're getting away with this. 75.16.48.213 (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about whether or not the RT audience score is reliable. We already assume that it isn't per the MOS guideline I linked to above. That is why its inclusion needs strong support. Further comments about its reliability may be collapsed or removed. If someone believes the new "verified rating" system needs to be discussed further, take it to

WT:FILM. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This source [9] makes an interesting point: after discussing the RT user scores: Armed with strong word of mouth, The Rise of Skywalker is holding up better than recent installments. On Thursday, the seventh day of its official release, the film topped what The Force Awakens scored in ticket sales on the same day four years earlier.

The news gets even better when pitted against The Last Jedi: The latest film has outgrossed the previous entry in each of the past four days, including nearly doubling what The Last Jedi rang up in domestic ticket sales on the seventh day of its release. So there's a more general positive word of mouth with real implications on ticket sales.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 07:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing concrete in that report. Last Jedi was released five days earlier in the month than RoS. So seven days in, it hadn't even hit Christmas and was just barely into kids' Christmas breaks. Analyzing the first week of both film releases isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Good point, i wasn't aware of the difference in timing. Menawhile, last i checked still nothing from reliable sources on the RT audience ratings. While I'm very much for summarizing above mentioned sources on RT user ratings, especially given the established relevance for this movie's predecessor, the issue with the stuck ratings should first be resolved imho. Until then this discussion is, as far as I'm concerned, void.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 15:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

allegiant general pryde is the second in command of the first order not general hux, fix it 2A00:23C4:DB80:C900:5473:BEDE:3615:2FCC (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure where repeated attempts to add this are coming from. PluggedIn as a website is pretty much just designed to examine how acceptable a film might be to a family or Christian audience. I have used it as a source on occasion, for contemporary Christian music, but it holds little real weight as a source of reviews for secular media given that isn’t its focus. Toa Nidhiki05 18:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.. also.. Google is NOT "a neutral judge of what are considered "established, reputable, reliable sources."" There algorithms are secret.. but reputable and reliable are not part of it. Spanneraol (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources who have looked into this are quite convinced that the Dark Empire comic inspired Episode 9. I would expect some editors to say "doesn't matter, not relevant" and some editors (like the ones at The Dark Knight Rises) to disagree. Isn't this more interesting than box office numbers, announcement dates of casting decisions, etc? Connor Behan (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a book mentioned here. It seems it should at least have a section in the article, or that it should be part of a section.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a visual dictionary, vehicle cross section and location guide for every movie right? We should cover all 27 if we cover one. Connor Behan (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I know only about this one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Force dyad. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to open this up for broader discussion. There appear to be a few users watching this article who have a vendetta against mentioning the Rotten Tomatoes audience score in the "audience reception" section. I cannot fathom a reason for this. On nearly all movie articles on the entirety of Wikipedia, the RT audience score is at least briefly mentioned, but on here it's not appropriate? I think it's particularly worth mentioning on this article because of the stark contrast between the critic and audience score. Not to mention, on the article for The Last Jedi, the low RT audience score is mentioned, mainly to point out its contrast to the high critic score. Yet when I try to put the same thing on this article, it is repeatedly removed?

I don't see how this makes any sense, and the only answer I can get for why this keeps being changed is "the RT audience score isn't reliable." Says who? Considering RT audience scores are widely referenced across Wikipedia, I don't understand why there seems to be some vendetta against making note of the audience score on this article. At the very least, if it's going to be repeatedly removed from this article, then the same should be done for The Last Jedi article. Any outside thoughts on this matter? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As per

WP:UGC user generated reviews are to be avoided as being unreliable because they can be affected by vote brigading and other types of rigging of scores. Robynthehode (talk

) 17:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

See, the problem with that is, every other movie article on Wikipedia makes mention of the RT audience scores. Such as, like I said earlier, The Last Jedi. On that article, it is mentioned how the audience score is drastically lower than the critic score, and on this article, the reverse is the case. Why is it worth mentioning on that article, but not this one? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is it worth mentioning on that article, but not this one?

Because

due weight. If no reliable source is commenting on the audience score for this film, then this article shouldn't either. DonQuixote (talk

) 20:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, no, every article does not mention the RT score. I object to any measure of these scores in general, and sources that mention them, at least for the article, are based on fake premises usually (namely, that the results might be reliable). TLJ is a unique case in that the numbers are mostly there to demonstrate the reviewbombing campaign, not as a measure of reliability; the fact you interpret them the other way indicates my concerns about mentioning them were valid. Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

As well, it must be pointed out, I do believe it took ages to get an audience reception section on The Last Jedi. I remember the various discussions on it. It took at least two RfC's, if not more to get it finally on, along with weeks of discussions. QueerFilmNerd^talk 22:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

"...every other movie article on Wikipedia makes mention of the RT audience scores"

That's simply not true. It's an extremely rare occurrence. Last Jedi is an exception due to the amount of coverage the negative audience score received in reliable sources. Even with all that coverage, we still had to have an

RfC discussion to determine consensus for inclusion. See Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive 2#Should we include an Audience response section? --GoneIn60 (talk

) 02:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to those opposing including the audience score... it has no encyclopedic value. Spanneraol (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that the term "The Skywalker Saga", referring to the three Star Wars trilogies as one continuous story, (not including Rogue One or Solo, as evidenced by the Blu-ray box set) only began to be used during Episode IX's marketing, and was never used at all before it. It seems to have been made up by Disney's marketing team to connect the Prequel and Original trilogies with their Sequel trilogy. Should we mention this at some point in the article?

Dvdmovies123 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If you go to paragraph 2 of "Plot" and hover over the link to Ochi, it says, "everyone dies get recked." Can someone please investigate? --

When I was on the Disney+ app, I found it available early on May 3; a day ahead.
XSMan2016 (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Star+Wars%3A+The+Rise+of+Skywalker&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0

No. if you actually compare them, the only overlap is the title of the film, the names of the actors being listed in billing order, and a quote from the reviews, which is exactly attributed fair use and standard practice. Not an issue in the least. oknazevad (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC) PS, sign your posts, Moxy. You've been here long enough to know that.

This movie could not have possibly turned a $300 million profit whatsoever. Even if you didn't factor in the advertising budget, the profit still couldn't possibly get that high once you factored in theater take. Whoever wrote that simply made it up, because no reputable source would make such an easily disprovable claim.68.84.203.190 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@68.84.203.190: https://deadline.com/2020/04/star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-movie-profit-2019-lowest-for-lucasfilm-1202915179/. Total box office was over $1.07 billion, production costs were $275 million, total costs (including production, advertising, distribution, etc.) were $627 million. $1,074,000,000 - $627,000,000 > $300,000,000. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Studios only get a percentage of the box office. For Star Wars, that's around 65% domestically. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/21/business/media/star-wars-box-office-opening-weekend.html "Theaters typically keep about 55 percent of ticket sales, with the balance going to studios. But Disney will receive about 65 percent of ticket sales for 'The Rise of Skywalker.'" This film could not have generated a $300 million profit for the studio.68.84.203.190 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A reliable source estimated a net profit of $300 million. That's how it works. It's not for us editors to guess or do original research. Personally, I've never felt that movie studio accounting made any sense. There are lots of disputes around actor payments and like related to profit shares, etc. But nevertheless, wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Alaney2k (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

If you're just talking pure box office vs production/advertising, here's how it breaks down. The total revenue paid to Disney from global ticket sales was $519 million. Production costs were $275 million and advertising costs were $140 million, for a total expenditure of $415 million. So only looking at these numbers, the box office net profit is a paltry $104 million (519 - 415).

However, for blockbuster films these days, you can't really stop there. Deadline gathered the values of other known revenue streams, Worldwide Home Entertainment ($177m) and Global TV Net ($231m), as well as other expenditures including participations ($75m), video costs ($58m), interest & residuals ($79m). Now if you take these other numbers into account, you get $927m in total revenue minus $627m in total expenditures, for a grand total of $300 million in profit. The big picture these days includes items that may have an indirect relationship to box office performance, so it's no longer a simple percentage or cut of ticket sales (like the traditional 55% you always hear about). There's a lot more to it nowadays. The full breakdown from Deadline is here. Cheers. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

 Done removed Chompy Ace 23:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• The theatrical poster doesn't include any "Story by" credits, so that needs references.

 Done added with the BFI Chompy Ace 23:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Screenplay by" should be "Written by" per the theatrical poster credits.

 Done Chompy Ace 23:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• For writing, J. J. Abrams is credited before Chris Terrio on the poster.

 Done Chompy Ace 23:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, the use of "score" feels repetitive.

 Fixed Chompy Ace 23:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• The use of "although" and then "and turned" sounds off, maybe change the latter to "it turned".

 Done Chompy Ace 23:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• "and it turned" → "it turned

 Done Chompy Ace 00:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• "last time" → "last time for the franchise" or something similar

 Done Chompy Ace 00:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Plot

• Remove the comma after "nearby".

 Done Chompy Ace 23:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the comma after "on the Falcon".

 Done Chompy Ace 23:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Plot is under 700 words, so that passes
  WP:FILMPLOT
  .

Cast

• "include:" → "include"

 Done Chompy Ace 23:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Everything thing else looks good.

Production

• The reference after "May 24, 2019" isn't working.

 Done removed Chompy Ace 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• A source is needed for filming being "pushed back to August".

 Not done removed Chompy Ace 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The Hollywood Reporter reported" seems repetitive.

 Fixed Chompy Ace 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The next day" - You never mentioned the original date.

 Fixed Chompy Ace 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reference after "to December 20, 2019" isn't working.

 Done removed Chompy Ace 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of the note after "complete the story"?

 Done removed Chompy Ace 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Marketing

• In this section, and in the rest of the article, change "Star Wars Celebration" to "the Star Wars Celebration".

 Done Chompy Ace 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Add a comma after "December 18, 2019".

 Done Chompy Ace 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• "and was released" → "and were released"

 Done Chompy Ace 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• "cancelled" → "canceled"

 Done Chompy Ace 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• The last sentence in the section makes it seem like "the same day" refers to December 14, so try rewording.

 Not done per

WP:TRAILER Chompy Ace

23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Release

• Both subsections here look good.

Reception

• Remove the comma after "$300 million".

 Done Chompy Ace 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Add a comma after "October 21, 2019".

 Done Chompy Ace 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• "$205 million" → "$200 million" (source used)

 Done Chompy Ace 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Add a comma after "third weekend".

 Done Chompy Ace 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would use this reference for the Thursday night previews.

 Done added Chompy Ace 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of the following sentence?: "however, Deadline Hollywood did write that "we can't ignore" the less than stellar audience exit scores, which could affect the film's legs moving forward". Also, why is it written in present tense?

 Done removed Chompy Ace 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Update Rotten Tomatoes.

 Done Chompy Ace 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• "33%" → "32%" (source used)

 Done Chompy Ace 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• What is the category sorting rule in the award table? Try to make it consistent (importance, alphabetical order, etc.)

 Already done alphabetical order Chompy Ace 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• Every single source is archived.
• Link Den of Geek and don't put it in italics per consistency.

 Done Chompy Ace 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reference after "November 25, 2019" is missing a website (Screen Rant).

 Done Chompy Ace 23:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Progress

here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( lists ): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism ): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have suitable captions ):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Rian Johnson's portrayal of the Force

Rian Johnson, whom directed and wrote

Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi had stated that before doing the film, he had seen the Mortis Trilogy of episodes from The Clone Wars animated series, stating that they influenced his portrayal of the Force in his film, and that he had seen them due to a recommendation from the animator of that series Dave Filoni (whom also has directed episodes and is a producer on The Mandalorian).^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs

) 08:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "The Last Jedi Understood The Force Better Than The Other Star Wars Sequels (Because Of Clone Wars)". ScreenRant. November 26, 2020.