1260:? By every acceptable measure the answer is yes. This topic has been covered extensively. Every controlled sample of the audience who has seen the film shows that the overwhelming majority of people liked it. The only people who object to his are people who dislike the film. The film was the most profitable film at the box office in 2017. As for the Brothers Bloom, neutral observers agree it wasn't well received. If you have a repultable source that refutes this please feel free to provide it. However, discredited online polls like Rotten Tomatoes are not a real measure of audience opinion. -
1988:
373:
352:
470:
449:
571:
262:
744:
719:
241:
2060:. I don't think it's a controversial or undue statement to say the film was somewhat divisive amongst audiences. I would argue that specifically naming his first films budget and box office is excessive and undue, but that's what's there in the lead at the moment: "grossed nearly $ 4 million on a $ 450,000 budget". Thoughts anyone? This isn't a hill I want to die on but I thought I'd pipe my two cents in. Cheers!
209:
272:
123:
95:
1944:
1095:
controversy, involving creators (including Rian
Johnson) lashing out at people criticising the movie. Knowledge should not be a platform for haters to express their frustration against a person, but it doesn't do its job when it is lying by omission. It would be good to add a summary (such as that reviewers found the movie to be divisive and that the audience response was mixed) of
64:
185:
2075:
reality (a month ago the internet told us no one cared about Avatar 2). The only real data we have are the box office numbers and the film surveys which show the audiences overwhelmingly liked the film. The film article can take a more in depth view of the audience, but this biography can stick to the hard data that supports a well received film.
2127:
no one disliked it" is being dishonest. It was a major topic of online discourse. As for the other issue, it's completely undue to go into the specific box office numbers. You could easily say that it was a "commercial and critical success". No need to go into specifics in the lead. You can find that information in the body of the article.
133:
1779:
mentioned there has been no news in years and news of actual films with real plans have come after). The question is if this public figure has some sort of "political correctness" brigade that will prevent such updates, in which case there is no point in making the effort before it's discussed here first.
1851:
after showed the overwhelming majority of people liked the film. With an IP this large if 15% hate something that represents a huge number of people. Is that really notable? If someone wants to carve out a explanation for vocal minority dissatisfaction with a successful film the place to have it noted at
1229:
These sources are all mainstream and numerical, the only objective way of measuring audience response is through the box office. mber 15, 2017, to initially positive reviews from critics and a mixed reception from audiences with a $ 151 million drop-off from its $ 220 million opening weekend.<ref:
1186:
The page contains bad material so it should be corrected - The audience was in fact not released to positive reviews to audiences the film as statistics have proven was
Average if not worse based on sources such as Rotten Tomato and metacritic. It should be protected from the controversy but history
2171:
Thanks for the discussion! I will say I'm not arguing whether they are reliably sourced, but my point is "controlled data" is just that. A small group with a specific perception that does not reflect the majority of audience perception. The film is divisive, and that's not a controversial statement.
2126:
I was referring to the majority of people who watched the film. Not a random assortment of test group audiences. "Loved the film?" Come on. When the film was released it divided audiences and to this day it continues to divide audiences to this day. To ignore that and simply say "People loved it and
1850:
This issue with this controversy claim is that with an IP as large as Star Wars what is notable about a tiny vocal minority? The profile of the typical vocal online Star Wars fan doesn't necessarily match the general public. Every scientific audience survey from when the film was released and months
2111:
That is incorrect. There are several industry survey companies who track this information when a film is released. The film industries pay millions for this information. Those scientifically controlled surveys showed the audience loved the film. As far as the box office is concered that's kind of a
2089:
I would like to point out that just because a film does well at the box office, that doesn't mean that everyone who watched the film enjoyed it. Although I do take your point that there is no statistical way of know whether they enjoyed the film. I however would come to the consensus that basically
2074:
The TLJ article does a good job of summarizing the audience reception and the main takeaway is that the film was well received while some film journalists characterized the reception as divisive. Those opinions are based an online observations. What the interent is talking about isn't reflective of
1913:
I mean that the production of
Johnson's Star Wars movie is speculative. I was under the impression that upcoming films should not be listed in a Knowledge filmography unless we know for sure that they are being made and by that person. Films that are supposedly in the early stages of production can
1818:
I have always been a fanboy of
Knowledge but at times there seems to be almost a phobia among contributors to handle controversy. Your response is assuring though, but I am surprised it's not mentioned already, especially considering that I imagine it indeed has been discussed expensively. My point
1778:
So my point is there ARE decent arguments to be made that the movie created spit opinions, on how Rian felt personally persecuted, the fairly unique reactions on large scale, the repercussions etc without referrign to rumours (like the assumption that the trilogy is cancelled but it can at least be
1740:
has added a neutrality dispute over the career section. Is it possible to outline the issue? One of your recent revisions was reverted after you added "Rumors also swirled of a large dispute in artistic direction between
Johnson and Executive Producer JJ Abrams" without citation. This appears to be
1303:
Very easy answer to your question. Rotten
Tomatoes admitted that their scores have been manipulated. They also changed how they measure audience reaction. Online polls aren't scientific or representative of the public. This is why they are not to be taken seriously and why studios spend millions on
1116:
What does this have to do with the constant vandalism of this page? Anyway, it seems weird to spend so much time discussing a "divided fanbase" when every objective/scientific measure of people who saw the film shows 89% of people liked the film. With an intellectual property as large as Star Wars
1767:
The way to measure success here is OK but it's rare that a film receives just THIS much vitriol as SW:FA. I mean even Luke
Skywalker (Mark Hamil) expressed negative comments about many of the choices of the film itself. The disappointment in SW:FA is more seen in the films that came shortly after
1893:
The "Untitled Star Wars film" should be removed from
Johnson's filmography section. It is years away from being released and it is questionable whether Johnson will actually direct it. I know Knives Out 3 has technically been confirmed but it is also at least a couple years away from release.
1763:
So I would like for this article to at least MENTION that there is plenty of controversy in regards to Rian and SW:FA. I don't think there is any point in making a well thought-through edit if there are logical arguments about this beforehand because someone will just revert it regardless of
1094:
Protection against vandalism is good, but it is just laughable when the only comment about "The Last Jedi" is that it "was released.. to positive reviews from critics and from audiences.". It is objectively true that "The Last Jedi" divided the fan base and resulted in a lot of social media
1034:
Star Wars fans are CONSTANTLY spamming and vandalizing this page with claims that he ruined Star Wars. No matter what you think of The Last Jedi, We should at least all agree that spamming and vandalism is bad and that we need to protect this page because this needs to
2258:
It's an extremely uncommon name in the US (where he's from), and many people with that spelling rhyme it with "Ian", not "Ryan". I'd say an uncommon, ambiguous name merits a pronunciation hint. I agree it should follow whatever MOS we have about pronunciation.
1898:
This is kind of strange request. You admit it's "years away" which means it's considered an "upcoming project." The project has been announced, it's sourced, and there's no official source saying it's canceled. It should remain until something changes.
1819:
was indeed adjacent to the reception of the film but more in line with the reaction to Rian himself. Are you claiming that if mention of the issue, with sources, is added, it's unlikely to be removed by what you call a "political correctness brigade"?
1329:
I'm not really sure what your point is? You asked about RT scores that they've admitted were manipulated. Now you've changed the subject to an actor in the film. The data is the data. If you have a real question please let me know. Thanks! -
636:
1914:
stay in that state for years without any real progress being made because they were cancelled without an official announcement. But if the rule is that an announced film should remain unless it is officially canceled, I won't argue.
1214:
has been discussed extensively on film article. There's no controlled sample data to support your claim that audiences didn't like the film. Please quit making edits suggesting otherwise until you provide a valid source. Thanks! -
1143:, was released on December 15, 2017, to positive reviews from critics, but mixed reviews from audiences. The movie spawned controversy among the fanbase due to its pacing issues and handling of Luke Skywalker's character."
1868:
Aside from that, my general view is "internet chatter" receives far too much attention in our culture than it deserves. Very rarely are 100% people going to love something. It's not a controversy when it's only around 89%.
2322:
199:
1771:
The new trilogy that Disney seemed to happy about is nowhere to be seen in the massive cornucopia of new Star Wars entertainment that is upcoming so even though we don't know it seems likely it's cancelled.
1117:
even if 90% of people like the film the 10% would still represent an enormous amount of people. A tiny minority being angry online really isn't relevant to Rian
Johnson or the overall reception to
2317:
685:
1464:
944:
750:
724:
2337:
223:
1633:
43:
2327:
1741:
gossip without any notable citations. It's certainly not neutral. My recommendation would be remove the NPOV unless there's compelling reason to change the section. -
2332:
1513:
976:
972:
958:
866:
862:
848:
604:
431:
1235:|title=10 Plot Threads ‘The Force Awakens’ Set Up that ‘The Last Jedi’ Blew Off|author=Phil Owen and Phil Hornshaw |date=March 15, 2018|work=[[The Wrap|The Wrap
2372:
1796:
So you believe there's a "political correctness brigade" preventing edits to this article? That's a bold claim to make. If you wish to discuss the reception to
421:
1426:
2307:
824:
673:
48:
2377:
194:
105:
31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
2387:
524:
514:
1586:
1487:
2357:
2094:
s mention in the lead, I don't think specific box office numbers should be named. It's undue and you can find that out within the body of the article.
1539:
945:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090517094541/http://chud.com/articles/articles/19420/1/RIAN-JOHNSON-LETS-SLIP-A-FEW-MORE-DETAILS-ABOUT-LOOPER/Page1.html
334:
324:
2046:
Hello! Yeah I noticed the reversions, and I find it bizarre that the films reputation and audience reaction isn't mentioned at all in the article of
397:
2392:
2347:
151:
23:
1454:
2367:
2362:
2342:
2029:
and it's certainly undue to mention in the biography of Rian
Johnson. Please find consensus before making similar changes to the lead. Thanks!
600:
1238:
If these citations aren't good enough why were the citations regarding the reaction/reception of 'Brown Brothers' left repeatedly unaltered??
1168:. If you're looking for a more nuanced view of the film that's where it should be noted. The film was a success by every conceivable measure.
948:
1050:
490:
155:
1403:
2382:
2312:
1972:
380:
357:
300:
2352:
1150:
159:
1058:
I agree. If Kathleen Kennedy's article has been protected, so too should Rian Johnston's; he is equally irking many a Star Wars fan.
954:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
844:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
150:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
1293:
689:
2209:
since it wasn't set up correctly. If someone more knowlegeable than me can sort it out I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! -
1994:
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
477:
454:
218:
146:
109:
100:
593:
285:
246:
1917:
The project was officially announced. It hasn't been canceled. Those are the cited facts. Anything else is speculation. -
825:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060406231956/http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/entertainment/homepage/article_1082381.php
834:
1019:
909:
650:
Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..."
583:
75:
1121:. As far as Rian Johnson "lashing out at people," that could be added in a controversy section if it actually happened.
396:, and related topics on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1773:
1455:"'Last Jedi' Now At $ 99M, 'Jumanji' Huge At $ 72M+; 'All The Money in the World' Opens To $ 2.6M – Christmas Weekend"
644:
1634:"Star Wars: The Last Jedi: Do audiences actually hate Episode 8? Explaining the negative Rotten Tomatoes user scores"
814:
1995:
1971:
they say this movie is a space opera but it is not an opera it is a movie I do not know why this person said this!
1232:
828:
1833:
1786:
975:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
865:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
2177:
2150:
2149:. That's the significant viewpoint when it comes to audience reception. That topic has been beaten to death at
2132:
2099:
2065:
2057:
2052:
2026:
1852:
1797:
1315:
And Mark Hamill, whose opinion is shared by pretty much every fan, doesn't agree with it why according to you?
1257:
1211:
1165:
1140:
1046:
661:
612:
2281:. The status quo should remain until you find support for your edit and/or it's included correctly. Thanks! -
1976:
1950:
1154:
1010:
936:
900:
806:
32:
1367:
Please avoid an edit war over this topic. If there are changes to be made find a consensus here. Thanks! -
949:
http://chud.com/articles/articles/19420/1/RIAN-JOHNSON-LETS-SLIP-A-FEW-MORE-DETAILS-ABOUT-LOOPER/Page1.html
2154:
1829:
1782:
1278:
Rotten tomatoes discredited lol....by whom? by the 7 year olds that were polled who liked the Last Jedi?
1063:
932:
802:
1042:
1251:
1244:
1205:
1198:
994:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
982:
884:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
872:
81:
2112:
separate topic. I can understand why it's mentioned in the context of it being Johnson's biggest film.
935:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
805:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
489:
saga on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2264:
2109:
Although I do take your point that there is no statistical way of know whether they enjoyed the film.
1828:
Or will someone have to make actual scientific literature contributions before the topic is updated?
1320:
1289:
1281:
1146:
1038:
755:
729:
680:
42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
63:
2173:
2128:
2095:
2061:
2019:
299:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2172:
It's misleading and disingenuous to say that its beloved by all or even a majority of audiences.
2142:
2003:
1459:
1431:
1427:"Did Audiences Enjoy 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi'? Deciphering Online User Reviews From Exit Polls"
1139:
We should just change it to say "Johnson confirmed the report that following month and the film,
1103:
46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
1514:"'The Last Jedi' Rises To #16 On All-Time WW Chart, But China Force Is Not Strong With This One"
979:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
869:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1395:
1076:
I agree. I just visited this page for the first time and immediately had to clean up vandalism.
995:
885:
2278:
2240:
1701:
1652:
1605:
1558:
1059:
629:
1735:
1355:
138:
1488:"'The Last Jedi' had a historic $ 151 million decline in its 2nd weekend at the box office"
1002:
892:
2286:
2260:
2248:
2229:
2214:
2162:
2117:
2080:
2034:
1922:
1904:
1874:
1805:
1746:
1716:
1665:
1618:
1571:
1372:
1335:
1316:
1309:
1285:
1265:
1220:
1173:
1126:
1081:
277:
39:
372:
351:
1680:
961:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
851:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
655:
570:
1001:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
891:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
835:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070826231006/http://www.rocktag.us/article.php?article=3
2301:
2274:
1999:
1099:
386:
208:
2146:
2047:
1774:
https://www.looper.com/294618/whatever-happened-to-rian-johnsons-star-wars-trilogy/
928:
798:
469:
448:
392:
2239:
include a pronunciation. However, if the consensus is to include it should follow
2235:
This addition would seem unnecessary. None of the other articles for people named
815:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131104131214/http://paiff.net/pdf/press/8-16-12.pdf
2025:. The audience reception to the film isn't even mentioned on the article of the
1800:
you can proceed to the talk page there where it has been discussed extensively.
1362:
1233:
https://www.thewrap.com/plot-threads-force-awakens-last-jedi-blew-off-star-wars/
968:
858:
2153:
and the consensus there is to not include "online discourse" in the lead. I'll
829:
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/entertainment/homepage/article_1082381.php
743:
718:
637:
Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction
261:
240:
122:
94:
2282:
2244:
2210:
2158:
2113:
2076:
2030:
1918:
1900:
1870:
1801:
1742:
1681:"Is STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI's Fan Backlash A Problem Of Disney's Own Making?"
1368:
1331:
1305:
1261:
1216:
1169:
1122:
1096:
1077:
967:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
857:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
838:
290:
267:
128:
484:
818:
295:
184:
2277:
guidelines. Your initial edit has been challenged. It doesn't follow
2290:
2268:
2252:
2218:
2181:
2166:
2136:
2121:
2103:
2084:
2069:
2038:
2007:
1980:
1926:
1908:
1878:
1837:
1809:
1790:
1750:
1540:"Four Reasons Why 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' Isn't One for the Ages"
1376:
1339:
1324:
1297:
1269:
1224:
1177:
1158:
1130:
1107:
1097:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi#Audience_reception
1085:
1067:
1024:
914:
158:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
2236:
622:
618:
1685:
1938:
1587:"'The Last Jedi' is a hit but how much did audiences like it?"
57:
38:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
15:
2228:
I rolled back the pronunciation addition made to the lead by
207:
183:
939:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
809:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
589:
Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the
2323:
Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
481:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
289:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
2233:
2207:
2023:
1396:"Rotten Tomatoes Says Last Jedi User Score is Accurate"
765:
Knowledge:WikiProject University of Southern California
559:
554:
549:
544:
768:
Template:WikiProject University of Southern California
2145:
data that's trusted by the film industry and they're
2050:. However it is explicitly stated in the article for
2090:
says "If they say it they must've liked it". As for
384:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
971:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
861:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
2318:C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
599:banner. Update the classification of articles in
753:, a project which is currently considered to be
1935:Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022
957:This message was posted before February 2018.
847:This message was posted before February 2018.
605:Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles
2338:Low-importance biography (musicians) articles
751:WikiProject University of Southern California
8:
1453:D'Alessandro, Anthony (December 26, 2017).
1425:D'Alessandro, Anthony (December 17, 2017).
839:http://www.rocktag.us/article.php?article=3
1144:
1036:
927:I have just modified one external link on
771:University of Southern California articles
713:
578:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
532:
443:
346:
235:
89:
2328:Actors and filmmakers work group articles
2206:I rolled back the archive with this edit
797:I have just modified 3 external links on
1768:where fans more or less boycotted them.
1424:
1386:
715:
445:
348:
237:
91:
61:
2333:C-Class biography (musicians) articles
2157:there and let others comment. Thanks!
2108:
1711:
1710:
1699:
1661:
1650:
1614:
1603:
1567:
1556:
1538:Gleiberman, Owen (December 17, 2017).
1512:Tartaglione, Nancy (January 5, 2018).
1486:Guerrasio, Jason (December 24, 2017).
1467:from the original on February 23, 2018
1406:from the original on December 23, 2017
1030:We seriously need to protect this page
920:External links modified (January 2018)
819:http://paiff.net/pdf/press/8-16-12.pdf
635:Remove any In-universe information at
601:Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles
7:
2373:Low-importance screenwriter articles
1632:Shepherd, Jack (December 18, 2017).
1164:This has been discussed to death at
749:This article is within the scope of
475:This article is within the scope of
378:This article is within the scope of
283:This article is within the scope of
144:This article is within the scope of
2308:Biography articles of living people
1759:Regarding the Star Wars controversy
1679:Gus Edgar-Chan (January 18, 2018).
1256:The question is did audiences like
406:Knowledge:WikiProject Screenwriters
80:It is of interest to the following
2378:WikiProject Screenwriters articles
1660:Cite has empty unknown parameter:
1613:Cite has empty unknown parameter:
1566:Cite has empty unknown parameter:
1394:Chapman, Tom (December 20, 2017).
409:Template:WikiProject Screenwriters
14:
2388:Low-importance Star Wars articles
1585:Coyle, Jake (December 18, 2017).
931:. Please take a moment to review
801:. Please take a moment to review
762:University of Southern California
725:University of Southern California
686:Articles with notability concerns
195:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
2358:Low-importance Maryland articles
1986:
1942:
742:
717:
569:
468:
447:
371:
350:
270:
260:
239:
131:
121:
93:
62:
21:This article must adhere to the
519:This article has been rated as
499:Knowledge:WikiProject Star Wars
426:This article has been rated as
329:This article has been rated as
168:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
2393:WikiProject Star Wars articles
2348:WikiProject Biography articles
1452:
502:Template:WikiProject Star Wars
309:Knowledge:WikiProject Maryland
171:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
2368:C-Class screenwriter articles
2363:WikiProject Maryland articles
2343:Musicians work group articles
2291:03:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
2273:I'd kindly remind you of the
2008:23:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
1981:22:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
1879:16:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
1838:11:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
1810:22:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
1791:11:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
1751:21:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
1377:22:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
1086:02:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
493:and see a list of open tasks.
400:and see a list of open tasks.
312:Template:WikiProject Maryland
303:and see a list of open tasks.
216:This article is supported by
192:This article is supported by
24:biographies of living persons
2269:22:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
2253:03:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
2219:03:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
1686:https://www.filminquiry.com/
1298:08:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
1270:13:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1225:00:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1025:01:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
915:10:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
536:WikiProject Star Wars To-do:
156:contribute to the discussion
2182:00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
2167:00:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
2137:23:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2122:20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2104:19:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2085:18:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2070:16:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2039:14:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
1965:to reactivate your request.
1953:has been answered. Set the
1927:19:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
1909:16:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
1068:15:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
36:must be removed immediately
2409:
2383:C-Class Star Wars articles
2313:C-Class biography articles
1340:12:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
1325:05:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
1131:22:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
1108:00:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
988:(last update: 5 June 2024)
924:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
878:(last update: 5 June 2024)
794:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
525:project's importance scale
432:project's importance scale
335:project's importance scale
2353:C-Class Maryland articles
2143:scientifically controlled
1210:The audience reaction to
1178:16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
1159:04:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
737:
531:
518:
463:
425:
381:WikiProject Screenwriters
366:
328:
255:
215:
191:
116:
88:
2151:Star Wars: The Last Jedi
2053:Star Wars: The Last Jedi
1853:Star Wars: The Last Jedi
1798:Star Wars: The Last Jedi
1304:scientific survey data.
1258:Star Wars: The Last Jedi
1212:Star Wars: The Last Jedi
1187:should not be rewritten.
1166:Star Wars: The Last Jedi
1141:Star Wars: The Last Jedi
662:Category:Star Wars stubs
790:External links modified
2022:'s change to the lead.
690:WikiProject Notability
212:
188:
70:This article is rated
2141:The film surveys are
594:WikiProject Star Wars
478:WikiProject Star Wars
412:screenwriter articles
219:WikiProject Musicians
211:
187:
147:WikiProject Biography
106:Actors and Filmmakers
2232:and it was reverted.
2224:Pronunciation Change
2058:"Audience reception"
969:regular verification
859:regular verification
286:WikiProject Maryland
959:After February 2018
849:After February 2018
1460:Deadline Hollywood
1013:InternetArchiveBot
964:InternetArchiveBot
903:InternetArchiveBot
854:InternetArchiveBot
505:Star Wars articles
213:
189:
174:biography articles
76:content assessment
2202:Malformed Archive
1969:
1968:
1709:External link in
1284:comment added by
1161:
1149:comment added by
1054:
1041:comment added by
989:
879:
787:
786:
783:
782:
779:
778:
712:
711:
708:
707:
704:
703:
700:
699:
442:
441:
438:
437:
345:
344:
341:
340:
315:Maryland articles
234:
233:
230:
229:
56:
55:
2400:
2147:reliably sourced
1998:if appropriate.
1990:
1989:
1960:
1956:
1946:
1945:
1939:
1764:citations etc.
1739:
1721:
1720:
1714:
1713:
1707:
1705:
1697:
1695:
1693:
1676:
1670:
1669:
1663:
1658:
1656:
1648:
1646:
1644:
1629:
1623:
1622:
1616:
1611:
1609:
1601:
1599:
1597:
1582:
1576:
1575:
1569:
1564:
1562:
1554:
1552:
1550:
1535:
1529:
1528:
1526:
1524:
1509:
1503:
1502:
1500:
1498:
1492:Business Insider
1483:
1477:
1476:
1474:
1472:
1450:
1444:
1443:
1441:
1439:
1422:
1416:
1415:
1413:
1411:
1391:
1366:
1359:
1300:
1255:
1248:
1231:{{cite web |url=
1209:
1202:
1023:
1014:
987:
986:
965:
913:
904:
877:
876:
855:
773:
772:
769:
766:
763:
746:
739:
738:
733:
721:
714:
598:
592:
573:
566:
565:
533:
507:
506:
503:
500:
497:
472:
465:
464:
459:
451:
444:
414:
413:
410:
407:
404:
375:
368:
367:
362:
354:
347:
317:
316:
313:
310:
307:
280:
275:
274:
273:
264:
257:
256:
251:
243:
236:
176:
175:
172:
169:
166:
152:join the project
141:
139:Biography portal
136:
135:
134:
125:
118:
117:
112:
97:
90:
73:
67:
66:
58:
44:this noticeboard
16:
2408:
2407:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2298:
2297:
2226:
2204:
2155:WP:DROPTHESTICK
2016:
1996:reliable source
1987:
1958:
1954:
1943:
1937:
1891:
1830:Leord Redhammer
1783:Leord Redhammer
1761:
1733:
1731:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1708:
1698:
1691:
1689:
1678:
1677:
1673:
1659:
1649:
1642:
1640:
1631:
1630:
1626:
1612:
1602:
1595:
1593:
1584:
1583:
1579:
1565:
1555:
1548:
1546:
1537:
1536:
1532:
1522:
1520:
1511:
1510:
1506:
1496:
1494:
1485:
1484:
1480:
1470:
1468:
1451:
1447:
1437:
1435:
1423:
1419:
1409:
1407:
1393:
1392:
1388:
1360:
1353:
1279:
1249:
1242:
1203:
1196:
1194:
1032:
1017:
1012:
980:
973:have permission
963:
937:this simple FaQ
922:
907:
902:
870:
863:have permission
853:
807:this simple FaQ
792:
770:
767:
764:
761:
760:
727:
696:
596:
590:
564:
504:
501:
498:
495:
494:
457:
411:
408:
405:
402:
401:
360:
314:
311:
308:
305:
304:
278:Maryland portal
276:
271:
269:
249:
173:
170:
167:
164:
163:
137:
132:
130:
103:
74:on Knowledge's
71:
12:
11:
5:
2406:
2404:
2396:
2395:
2390:
2385:
2380:
2375:
2370:
2365:
2360:
2355:
2350:
2345:
2340:
2335:
2330:
2325:
2320:
2315:
2310:
2300:
2299:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2225:
2222:
2203:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2174:The One I Left
2129:The One I Left
2096:The One I Left
2062:The One I Left
2020:The One I Left
2018:I rolled back
2015:
2014:Change to Lead
2012:
2011:
2010:
1967:
1966:
1947:
1936:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1911:
1890:
1889:Upcoming films
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1813:
1812:
1760:
1757:
1755:
1730:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1671:
1624:
1577:
1530:
1504:
1478:
1445:
1417:
1400:Screenrant.com
1385:
1384:
1380:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1273:
1272:
1193:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1111:
1110:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1071:
1070:
1043:207.172.180.75
1031:
1028:
1007:
1006:
999:
952:
951:
943:Added archive
921:
918:
897:
896:
889:
842:
841:
833:Added archive
831:
823:Added archive
821:
813:Added archive
791:
788:
785:
784:
781:
780:
777:
776:
774:
747:
735:
734:
722:
710:
709:
706:
705:
702:
701:
698:
697:
695:
694:
693:
692:
664:
651:
640:
625:
613:Citing sources
608:
577:
575:
574:
563:
562:
557:
552:
547:
541:
538:
537:
529:
528:
521:Low-importance
517:
511:
510:
508:
491:the discussion
473:
461:
460:
458:Low‑importance
452:
440:
439:
436:
435:
428:Low-importance
424:
418:
417:
415:
398:the discussion
376:
364:
363:
361:Low‑importance
355:
343:
342:
339:
338:
331:Low-importance
327:
321:
320:
318:
301:the discussion
282:
281:
265:
253:
252:
250:Low‑importance
244:
232:
231:
228:
227:
224:Low-importance
214:
204:
203:
200:Low-importance
190:
180:
179:
177:
143:
142:
126:
114:
113:
98:
86:
85:
79:
68:
54:
53:
49:this help page
33:poorly sourced
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2405:
2394:
2391:
2389:
2386:
2384:
2381:
2379:
2376:
2374:
2371:
2369:
2366:
2364:
2361:
2359:
2356:
2354:
2351:
2349:
2346:
2344:
2341:
2339:
2336:
2334:
2331:
2329:
2326:
2324:
2321:
2319:
2316:
2314:
2311:
2309:
2306:
2305:
2303:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2250:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2231:
2223:
2221:
2220:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2201:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2110:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2055:
2054:
2049:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2021:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1973:72.207.188.42
1964:
1961:parameter to
1952:
1948:
1941:
1940:
1934:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1915:
1912:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1888:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1854:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1775:
1769:
1765:
1758:
1756:
1753:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1737:
1728:
1718:
1703:
1688:
1687:
1682:
1675:
1672:
1667:
1654:
1639:
1635:
1628:
1625:
1620:
1607:
1592:
1588:
1581:
1578:
1573:
1560:
1545:
1541:
1534:
1531:
1519:
1515:
1508:
1505:
1493:
1489:
1482:
1479:
1466:
1462:
1461:
1456:
1449:
1446:
1434:
1433:
1428:
1421:
1418:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1390:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1364:
1357:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1311:
1307:
1302:
1301:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1253:
1252:80.233.62.151
1246:
1245:80.233.39.145
1241:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1213:
1207:
1206:80.233.62.151
1200:
1199:80.233.39.145
1192:The Last Jedi
1191:
1185:
1184:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1119:The Last Jedi
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1093:
1092:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1029:
1027:
1026:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1004:
1000:
997:
993:
992:
991:
984:
978:
974:
970:
966:
960:
955:
950:
946:
942:
941:
940:
938:
934:
930:
925:
919:
917:
916:
911:
906:
905:
894:
890:
887:
883:
882:
881:
874:
868:
864:
860:
856:
850:
845:
840:
836:
832:
830:
826:
822:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
808:
804:
800:
795:
789:
775:
758:
757:
752:
748:
745:
741:
740:
736:
731:
726:
723:
720:
716:
691:
687:
684:
682:
678:
677:
675:
671:
669:
665:
663:
660:
658:
657:
652:
649:
647:
646:
641:
638:
634:
632:
631:
626:
624:
620:
617:
615:
614:
609:
606:
602:
595:
588:
586:
585:
580:
579:
576:
572:
568:
567:
561:
558:
556:
553:
551:
548:
546:
543:
542:
540:
539:
535:
534:
530:
526:
522:
516:
513:
512:
509:
492:
488:
487:
486:
480:
479:
474:
471:
467:
466:
462:
456:
453:
450:
446:
433:
429:
423:
420:
419:
416:
403:Screenwriters
399:
395:
394:
393:screenwriters
389:
388:
387:screenwriting
383:
382:
377:
374:
370:
369:
365:
359:
358:Screenwriters
356:
353:
349:
336:
332:
326:
323:
322:
319:
302:
298:
297:
292:
288:
287:
279:
268:
266:
263:
259:
258:
254:
248:
245:
242:
238:
225:
222:(assessed as
221:
220:
210:
206:
205:
201:
198:(assessed as
197:
196:
186:
182:
181:
178:
161:
160:documentation
157:
153:
149:
148:
140:
129:
127:
124:
120:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
99:
96:
92:
87:
83:
77:
69:
65:
60:
59:
51:
50:
45:
41:
37:
34:
30:
26:
25:
20:
18:
17:
2243:. Thanks! -
2227:
2205:
2091:
2051:
2048:Rian Johnson
2017:
1991:
1970:
1962:
1951:edit request
1892:
1781:
1777:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1754:
1732:
1690:. Retrieved
1684:
1674:
1641:. Retrieved
1637:
1627:
1594:. Retrieved
1590:
1580:
1547:. Retrieved
1543:
1533:
1521:. Retrieved
1517:
1507:
1495:. Retrieved
1491:
1481:
1471:December 27,
1469:. Retrieved
1458:
1448:
1438:December 17,
1436:. Retrieved
1430:
1420:
1408:. Retrieved
1399:
1389:
1381:
1352:
1280:— Preceding
1237:
1228:
1195:
1151:49.147.117.2
1145:— Preceding
1118:
1060:Wikibenboy94
1037:— Preceding
1033:
1011:
1008:
983:source check
962:
956:
953:
929:Rian Johnson
926:
923:
901:
898:
873:source check
852:
846:
843:
799:Rian Johnson
796:
793:
754:
688:, listed at
679:
674:things to do
667:
666:
654:
653:
643:
642:
628:
627:
611:
610:
582:
581:
520:
483:
482:
476:
427:
391:
385:
379:
330:
294:
284:
217:
193:
145:
82:WikiProjects
47:
35:
28:
22:
1736:Prisencolin
1692:December 1,
1643:December 1,
1638:Independent
1596:December 1,
1549:December 1,
1523:December 1,
1497:December 1,
1356:Prisencolin
2302:Categories
2279:WP:MOSPRON
2261:Gendralman
2241:WP:MOSPRON
2230:Gendralman
1955:|answered=
1410:January 7,
1382:References
1286:Renassault
1020:Report bug
910:Report bug
681:Notability
672:* See the
291:U.S. state
1992:Not done:
1317:Cornelius
1003:this tool
996:this tool
893:this tool
886:this tool
496:Star Wars
485:Star Wars
455:Star Wars
165:Biography
110:Musicians
101:Biography
40:libellous
2000:Cannolis
1702:cite web
1653:cite web
1606:cite web
1559:cite web
1465:Archived
1432:Deadline
1404:Archived
1294:contribs
1282:unsigned
1147:unsigned
1100:ClassA42
1051:contribs
1039:unsigned
1009:Cheers.—
899:Cheers.—
756:inactive
730:inactive
645:Copyedit
306:Maryland
296:Maryland
247:Maryland
1544:Variety
1518:Variety
933:my edit
803:my edit
630:Cleanup
550:history
523:on the
430:on the
333:on the
72:C-class
2275:WP:3RR
2092:Brick'
2056:under
1729:Career
1712:|work=
1591:APNews
1363:Calton
584:Assess
78:scale.
2283:Nemov
2245:Nemov
2211:Nemov
2159:Nemov
2114:Nemov
2077:Nemov
2031:Nemov
1959:|ans=
1949:This
1919:Nemov
1901:Nemov
1871:Nemov
1802:Nemov
1743:Nemov
1369:Nemov
1332:Nemov
1306:Nemov
1262:Nemov
1217:Nemov
1170:Nemov
1123:Nemov
1078:Nemov
1035:stop.
676:page
668:Other
656:Stubs
560:purge
555:watch
2287:talk
2265:talk
2249:talk
2237:Rian
2215:talk
2178:talk
2163:talk
2133:talk
2118:talk
2100:talk
2081:talk
2066:talk
2035:talk
2027:film
2004:talk
1977:talk
1923:talk
1905:talk
1875:talk
1834:talk
1806:talk
1787:talk
1747:talk
1717:help
1694:2019
1666:help
1645:2019
1619:help
1598:2019
1572:help
1551:2019
1525:2019
1499:2019
1473:2017
1440:2018
1412:2018
1373:talk
1336:talk
1321:talk
1310:talk
1290:talk
1266:talk
1221:talk
1174:talk
1155:talk
1127:talk
1104:talk
1082:talk
1064:talk
1047:talk
623:Sith
619:Jedi
603:and
545:edit
154:and
1957:or
1662:|1=
1615:|1=
1568:|1=
1230:-->
977:RfC
947:to
867:RfC
837:to
827:to
817:to
515:Low
422:Low
325:Low
293:of
29:BLP
2304::
2289:)
2267:)
2251:)
2217:)
2180:)
2165:)
2135:)
2120:)
2102:)
2083:)
2068:)
2037:)
2006:)
1979:)
1963:no
1925:)
1907:)
1877:)
1836:)
1808:)
1789:)
1749:)
1706::
1704:}}
1700:{{
1683:.
1657::
1655:}}
1651:{{
1636:.
1610::
1608:}}
1604:{{
1589:.
1563::
1561:}}
1557:{{
1542:.
1516:.
1490:.
1463:.
1457:.
1429:.
1402:.
1398:.
1375:)
1338:)
1323:)
1312:)
1296:)
1292:•
1268:)
1223:)
1176:)
1157:)
1129:)
1106:)
1084:)
1066:)
1053:)
1049:•
990:.
985:}}
981:{{
880:.
875:}}
871:{{
621:,
597:}}
591:{{
390:,
226:).
202:).
108:/
104::
2285:(
2263:(
2259:—
2247:(
2213:(
2176:(
2161:(
2131:(
2116:(
2098:(
2079:(
2064:(
2033:(
2002:(
1975:(
1921:(
1903:(
1873:(
1855:.
1832:(
1804:(
1785:(
1745:(
1738::
1734:@
1719:)
1715:(
1696:.
1668:)
1664:(
1647:.
1621:)
1617:(
1600:.
1574:)
1570:(
1553:.
1527:.
1501:.
1475:.
1442:.
1414:.
1371:(
1365::
1361:@
1358::
1354:@
1334:(
1319:(
1308:(
1288:(
1264:(
1254::
1250:@
1247::
1243:@
1219:(
1208::
1204:@
1201::
1197:@
1172:(
1153:(
1125:(
1102:(
1080:(
1062:(
1045:(
1022:)
1018:(
1005:.
998:.
912:)
908:(
895:.
888:.
759:.
732:)
728:(
683::
670::
659::
648::
639:.
633::
616::
607:.
587::
527:.
434:.
337:.
162:.
84::
52:.
27:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
