This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Maryland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Screenwriters Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Star Wars Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Star Wars To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles. Citing sources : Jedi, Sith Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..." Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs Other : * See the things to do page Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability University of Southern California (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Southern California, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of Southern CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of Southern CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of Southern CaliforniaUniversity of Southern California

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rian Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104131214/http://paiff.net/pdf/press/8-16-12.pdf to http://paiff.net/pdf/press/8-16-12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060406231956/http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/entertainment/homepage/article_1082381.php to http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/entertainment/homepage/article_1082381.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826231006/http://www.rocktag.us/article.php?article=3 to http://www.rocktag.us/article.php?article=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rian Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive 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 to http://chud.com/articles/articles/19420/1/RIAN-JOHNSON-LETS-SLIP-A-FEW-MORE-DETAILS-ABOUT-LOOPER/Page1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 stop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.180.75 (talk • contribs)

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. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just visited this page for the first time and immediately had to clean up vandalism.Nemov (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 controversy, involving creators (including Rian Johnson) lashing out at people criticising the movie. Wikipedia 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi#Audience_reception ClassA42 (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 The Last Jedi. As far as Rian Johnson "lashing out at people," that could be added in a controversy section if it actually happened.Nemov (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should just change it to say "Johnson confirmed the report that following month and the film, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, 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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.117.2 (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed to death at Star Wars: The Last Jedi. 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. Nemov (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 should not be rewritten.

@80.233.39.145:@80.233.62.151:The audience reaction to Star Wars: The Last Jedi 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! - Nemov (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]}<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.thewrap.com/plot-threads-force-awakens-last-jedi-blew-off-star-wars/ |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

If these citations aren't good enough why were the citations regarding the reaction/reception of 'Brown Brothers' left repeatedly unaltered??

@80.233.39.145:@80.233.62.151:The question is did audiences like Star Wars: The Last Jedi? 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. - Nemov (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten tomatoes discredited lol....by whom? by the 7 year olds that were polled who liked the Last Jedi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renassault (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 scientific survey data. Nemov (talk)

And Mark Hamill, whose opinion is shared by pretty much every fan, doesn't agree with it why according to you? Cornelius (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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! - Nemov (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin:@Calton:Please avoid an edit war over this topic. If there are changes to be made find a consensus here. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: 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 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. - Nemov (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 citations etc.

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 where fans more or less boycotted them.

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. https://www.looper.com/294618/whatever-happened-to-rian-johnsons-star-wars-trilogy/

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 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.

Leord Redhammer (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Star Wars: The Last Jedi you can proceed to the talk page there where it has been discussed extensively. Nemov (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been a fanboy of Wikipedia 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 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"?

Or will someone have to make actual scientific literature contributions before the topic is updated? Leord Redhammer (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

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%. Nemov (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Nemov (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 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.

The project was officially announced. It hasn't been canceled. Those are the cited facts. Anything else is speculation. - Nemov (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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! 72.207.188.42 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back The One I Left's change to the lead.[1]. The audience reception to the film isn't even mentioned on the article of the film and it's certainly undue to mention in the biography of Rian Johnson. Please find consensus before making similar changes to the lead. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Rian Johnson. However it is explicitly stated in the article for Star Wars: The Last Jedi under "Audience reception". 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! The One I Left (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Nemov (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 says "If they say it they must've liked it". As for Brick'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.The One I Left (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do take your point that there is no statistical way of know whether they enjoyed the film. 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 separate topic. I can understand why it's mentioned in the context of it being Johnson's biggest film. Nemov (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. The One I Left (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The film surveys are scientifically controlled data that's trusted by the film industry and they're reliably sourced. That's the significant viewpoint when it comes to audience reception. That topic has been beaten to death at Star Wars: The Last Jedi and the consensus there is to not include "online discourse" in the lead. I'll WP:DROPTHESTICK there and let others comment. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. It's misleading and disingenuous to say that its beloved by all or even a majority of audiences. The One I Left (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back the archive with this edit [2] since it wasn't set up correctly. If someone more knowlegeable than me can sort it out I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back the pronunciation addition made to the lead by Gendralman and it was reverted.[3] This addition would seem unnecessary. None of the other articles for people named Rian include a pronunciation. However, if the consensus is to include it should follow WP:MOSPRON. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Gendralman (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd kindly remind you of the WP:3RR guidelines. Your initial edit has been challenged. It doesn't follow WP:MOSPRON. The status quo should remain until you find support for your edit and/or it's included correctly. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]