Talk:Solo: A Star Wars Story/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Backlash

"The film was greatly affected by The Last Jedi backlash with fans boycotting Solo to voice their dislike of The Last Jedi.[102]"

I do not find this clearly stated anywhere in the source cited. And, that source is a crappy tabloid-style article on what appears to be a clickbait site whose headline editors have only the feeblest grasp of English grammar, usage, and (especially) capitalization conventions; even if the source did say what this claims it says, it's hardly a high-quality secondary source of the sort Wikipedia ought to be relying on. 50.72.9.214 (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Inremoved it. Load of tabloid speculation bull$h!t that doesn't need to be in this article. oknazevad (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed several more unreliable opinion pieces and unverifiable statements; the section I removed had links to, among other things, tabloid rumors, an opinion blog from Medium, and sourcing from unreliable sources like Twitter likes and Grace Randolph, who isn't reliable at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 15:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Double the budget to break even?!?

Is there any source for the assertion that the movie has to make double the budget in box office to break even? Is that just some rule of thumb? Did it just get plucked out of the air? Is there any source for that statement at all?? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, scan through or search the article. $500 million is mentioned twice and was cited on the 2nd (now both mentions). -Fnlayson (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see the reference now. However, the reference just throws that number out there without any mention of how they got it. I'm having a hard time finding a reference that explains how you get a number like that. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, that article does not explain the doubling at all; this seems to be due to a 50-50 split of profits between the studio and movie theaters. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's widely accepted most movies have to earn twice their cost to break even and way more to actually turn a profit. But this is obviously dependant on how much the studio spent on promoting the film. In Solo's case (as well as most Disney/Star Wars/Franchise movies), it was obviously a lot; for some other movies, the distributors might get by with less. This is why a movie like Batman v Superman can earn 800 million on a 300 million budget and will still be considered as having "under performed". --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I just found a lot of info about it here: https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-blockbusters/ Basically, the twice-the-cost rule generally works, most of the time. The BFI has had a significant role in promoting this rule of thumb. -- Doctorx0079 (talk)

This place is getting worse and worse for facts and I will eventually stop bothering to check this encyclopedia for anything. I'm seeing online that the movie cost 275 million to make, and they spent an addition 150 million on marketing. Can some one verify this and then correct the article, because it looks really dumb that all over the internet sites are saying this movie will lose money while this article says the made back 129%. 50.70.236.24 (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can make back 129% and still lose money. You got that right. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The current reference is the ScreenRant article authored by Chris Agar.[1] He may be guessing correctly based upon customary production, marketing, and distribution accounting that is "known" in motion picture production circles. However, it is not a great reference for the assertion, as it not more than a guess. Based upon the rough figure the studio is giving + Box Office Mojo reports, it could lose money. It seems we will have to wait for the final summary from Disney. Group29 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Budget

Per Deadline Hollywood, the budget is "well north of $300M". Why are we still using $250M as budget and not $250-300M. I just did that and my edit was reverted. --137.59.193.81 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I commented above, it wasn't properly explained why your edit was reverted. I think precedent means the article should list both (even though I'd prefer to list only the most likely figure).

You might also need to make sure the figures aren't including other costs besides the production budget, like costs of prints and advertising or other marketing costs.

If I were you I'd start by expanding the article text to explain that others put the budget costs even higher than what Disney officially acknowledge. (Nevermind, already done) -- 109.79.135.219 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m normally a supporter of putting budget ranges (like on Tomb Raider or Jumanji) but here, Deadline is only source I see giving a figure above $250 million. And even they don’t list an actual number, just “above $300 million” which doesn’t seem concrete enough to warrant listing in infobox. I made a note a few days ago in the top of the Box office section, but unless multiple sources begin to list it or Deadline gives a more exact number in a future write up I think using the $250 million estimation is the best bet. TropicAces (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Deadline is THE leading trade when it comes to box office info, surely that counts for something instead of needing more sources for 300m number. --137.59.193.133 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I like that the Infobox is as specific as possible but that the article text expands further and explains that there are other conflicting sources. I think this article balances the available information well. The information is not being excluded and is in the article body, but also it is not being given undue weight by including it in the infobox. If more information becomes available later we'll see. Not that it matters, as part of a larger franchise this film brings in all kinds of other (difficult to measure) revenue beyond the raw box office figures. -- 109.76.133.22 (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Not only is Deadline not the leading trade, it isn't even considered as a credible source on trade information. It is a blog site. Nothing more. It has no real editorial oversight or in house fact checking. Most of its articles are clickbait without substance. 68.33.74.191 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Deadline is arguably the leading trade. And it's more than a blog. It's owned by Penske, who also publish Variety. They have multiple editors (who worked for NY Times, Variety, Hollywood Reporter and others) and there is oversight. Foodles42 (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

But my point/concern is they say “above $300 million” and don’t give an exact number, so putting the range up to $300 million in the infobox would be disingenuous since it’s (apparently) more than that. I think it’s picking at straws. Like how some sources have Avatar costing upwards of $450 million, but since most everyone else has it at $237 million that’s what it’s decided at. TropicAces (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

A potential source of error is that the highest estimates might include costs for things other than production (such as distribution). Anywikiuser (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

When are we supposed to use a range and when it is it acceptable to delete the old budget figure and replace it with another budget figure? -- 109.77.199.166 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Besides being widely said by people knowledgeable in the industry, it's a reasonable assumption - because the actual cost to the studio isn't total costs - like advertising, and Disney doesn't get the full price of ticket sales - obviously - the chains have to make their money off it too. I also suspect some of the studios are now turning to services like moviepass to prop up ticket sales initially to garner interest and make it look better then it is - like other media industries have been doing in promotion - but that costs.

Anyway, we are all interested in the real costs of the film to see how bad it sucked. And Disney studios is going to be just as eager to not give it likewise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.179.151 (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm interested in the real costs of the film to see how unlikely it is for a sequel to come out, since I liked it. :) -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Stats Rule Against "Poor Commercial Performance"

The fact that it may not meet production costs doesn't account for ticket sales. It topped the box office for two weekends and has earned over 200 million. The people who buy tickets to see rule over media hype.2601:447:4101:41F9:C0A6:EF53:8346:F11D (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The term "commercial" indicates profit/loss ratio, not if it generated any revenue at all. In commercial terms the performance was poor.Gold333 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The film would lose Disney "tens of millions of dollars" article statement

Statements like this should be really taken with a grain of salt. The movie will continue to make money long after it leaves the theaters - via home media releases (Blu-ray/DVD and digital sales), as well as via iTunes rentals, Netflix rights, later on TV rights, but also via a wide range of related merchandise products (Solo-related Star Wars toys, figures, books, comics, video games, costumes, etc.). When we take all of these additional sources of revenue combined with the global box office, it is only a matter of time when - and not if - Solo will break even. 137.82.108.34 (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

While true that it will likely move out of the red and into the black at some point, blockbusters are not made to simply break even or turn small profits; they're expected to take in a large haul. Investors want a considerable return on their investment, and they don't want to wait years to see small profit gains. Box office performance is a good gauge on how quickly those profits can be realized, and they can also impact future decisions surrounding franchises. A good example is Terminator Genisys. It broke even at the box office and even turned a small profit. The studio had a small window of time to decide whether or not to make another sequel before the rights to the franchise reverted back to Cameron. You can read all about it at the article, but the skinny is that the studio decided it wasn't worth the investment following an extensive market research analysis. At the end of the day, studios don't bank on breaking even at the box office, and they sure as hell don't want to lose money in that segment. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything that your wrote, but my point is that article statements like "estimated losses of up to $80 million" (with citations from the media) are very misleading here. The only possible conclusion is that Disney will lose tens of millions of dollars, but that is simply not true. A statement like that is purely based on the box office performance, but the end of the box office run is hardly where the financial story ends for a movie like this. The estimate is completely ignoring Solo's current and future home media revenues, merchandising takings and (yet-to-come) residuals of all kinds. This is a Star Wars movie, and these movies are a great example of The Long Tail model. For example, there are at the moment of writing some 120 different Solo-related products available just on the official Star Wars website (with things like expanded novelization, expanded comic book adaptation, more high end figures and ships coming out this fall, etc.). Even The Woodstock Festival, which ended up $1.4m in red back in 1969 (circa $9.7m in today's dollars) eventually broke even and went into black on the residuals (this happened in 1980, after 11 years). There is simply no way Solo won't eventually crawl back up into black despite what happened at the box office (and certainly much faster than Woodstock). Media treatment of Solo reminds me of the Waterworld scenario, where the myth of 'the largest ever financial loss' continues to be propagated even now despite the fact that the movie eventually broke even and even turned a small profit (and all of it without the countless side products that each Star Wars movie generates). It is very clear that Solo is a box office disappointment, but Disney will not lose a cent here. The real casualties are Solo 2 and 3, and Lando's solo movie after that, which now will not be made.137.82.108.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

lead, losses, sources

The lead contains currently the following line:

The film is the first in the Star Wars franchise to bomb at the box office, grossing only $392.9 million worldwide against a production budget of $275 million, with estimated losses of up to $80 million.

This seems rather problematic for number of reasons.

• To the average or "naive" reader this might confusing as 80 doesn't equal 392.9-275. Of course that equating is misleading as ticket sales differ from ticket profit and there is an advertisement budget to consider and other stuff. However the sentence imho at least should hint at such reason to provide readers with a better understanding. The Box office section ultimately remedies that, but imho the lead should at least provide at hint as well.
• None of 3 sources given for that line actually confirms the figure but they don't contain the figure at all or worse different figures. Assuming the figures are nevertheless correct and properly sourced by the sources in the Box office, then the line in the lead should either use no sources (the lead summarizing the sourced main article doesn't need sources of its own) or use the sources from the Box office section that actually confirm its content.
• The lead and the Box office section contain a different budget than the info box.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur. The line has now been removed. 87.227.218.167 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

By Star Wars standards it definitely failed, and I believe there was a source that indicated how much the film would have to make to break even for all the production issues they did have.Mcelite (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Home Video Sales

Should home video sales also be included in the financial total in the article? The numbers are starting to come in, and as of 11 November 2018 the movie made $40,292,471 in domestic US Blu-ray/DVD sales. That comes on top of the global box office cited there as $393,167,512. 137.82.108.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"Star Wars 6.5" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Star Wars 6.5. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Solo: A Star Wars Story/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll grab this one for review. I'm a big Star Wars fan and do a lot of work on these sorts of articles but actually haven't gotten involved with this one yet. I'll take some time to read through it and then come back here with some thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Full review

Coverage and neutrality look pretty good but definitely a few things that I would like to see improved before promoting:

Lead and infobox

• (or simply Solo) Is this necessary? Surely the reader doesn't need to be told that Solo is referring to Solo: A Star Wars Story. (I just checked Rogue One and I would say the same thing there).

On this front, it’s been known to be referred to either title. Same with Rogue One. I believe it’s there to make that distinction. Rusted AutoParts 01:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

What I meant was that Solo: A Star Wars Story and Solo are the same thing and shouldn't need to be stated like this in the lead. For another example, there are times in Raiders of the Lost Ark where that film is simply referred to as Raiders but the lead doesn't need to say "or simply Raiders" for that to make sense. The reader should be able to figure out that when you use Solo you actually mean Solo: A Star Wars Story. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Since you mention Chewbacca and Lando earlier in the lead I think it would make sense to note their actors as you do with Han, maybe like "Alden Ehrenreich stars as Han Solo alongside Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Donald Glover (Calrissian), Thandie Newton, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), and Paul Bettany."

I changed it to simply state Ehrenreich stars in the title role, with the other main cast co-starring. Will this work? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Should be fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• The lead mentions three different release dates. Even two seems like a stretch in terms of long-term notability, but I understand if you want to match the infobox and have the first premiere there as well as wide release. But two premieres feels like overkill to me.

Shaved the premieres off and just kept the main release. Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is there anything particularly noteworthy about the RealD 3D, IMAX, and IMAX 3D releases of the film? If not then I think this should be left out of the lead and just discussed in the release section.

Removed it. Rusted AutoParts 01:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• The lead has several citations in it, and I can see that they are mostly associated to elements that have proven controversial over the years. Do you think any of these can be removed now? For instance, is anyone still questioning when the film is set or does that ref definitely need to be there? Also, the refs that are supposed to be supporting the film being a box-office failure should come after that info and not after the Oscars line.

 Done. The source for when the film is set was We Got This Covered, which I find to be a fairly weak source, so I removed it. Rusted AutoParts 01:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• The note beside John Williams in the infobox is unsourced, you should be able to copy some refs from the "Music" section.

 Done Rusted AutoParts 01:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Plot and cast

• The plot summary is well over the 700 word limit suggested by WP:FILMPLOT, and there are a few instances of it getting quite specific about scenes that could be taken out to be more general.

 Done, word count right smack on 700. I removed a small subplot about Chewbacca and other Wookiees, didn’t consider it too important to the plot. Rusted AutoParts 02:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think the cast section should make note of how L3 becomes part of the Falcon and what that means for when C-3PO talks to the ship in the original film. A quick google search of "l3 falcon" brought up a few decent sources that you could use for this.

Could your recommend a specific way to word it? Rusted AutoParts 02:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at sources like this one which could be used for something along these lines:

Phoebe Waller-Bridge as L3-37: Lando's droid companion and navigator. When the character dies in the film her consciousness and data are uploaded to the Millenium Falcon which serves as a retcon of the previous Star Wars films including The Empire Strikes Back in which the starship was described as having "the most peculiar dialect". Screenwriter Jonathan Kasdan explained that this was done to give "the Falcon a personality that is fused with this amazing character played by Phoebe [which] I think does actually enrich the other movies".

Feel free to do with that how you wish, just something that stuck out to me as missing from the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I put it in verbatim if that’s okay. Rusted AutoParts 18:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Production

• one written by Kasdan Can we clarify which Kasdan here?

 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• In May 2017, filming moved to Tre Cime di Lavaredo and Monte Piana in the Dolomites in Veneto, Italy, to the Fassa Dolomites in Trentino, Italy, and to the Canary Islands. I think this sentence can be rewritten to be a bit clearer. Perhaps something along the lines of: "In May 2017, filming took place in Italy, with locations including ... Filming also took place in the Canary Islands that month."

 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• and to the Canary Islands. Lucasfilm replaced editor Chris Dickens with Pietro Scalia. All of this is unsourced in the body, but a source supporting this is included in the infobox for Scalia. Also, the context in which that source explains Scalia replacing Dickens indicates that it had to do with Lucasfilm's general displeasure of the initial directors and their direction for the film. Maybe the Scalia info can be worked in with the next paragraph or expanded in its current paragraph with more details.

 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that the Kasdan mentioned throughout the "Filming" section is Lawrence, but can we clarify that in the first instance for the section?

I’ve added the clarifying Lawrence throughout the section. Rusted AutoParts 16:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Joe Johnston and Kasdan were also considered, though Directors Guild of America rules state that a replacement for a director may not be someone already involved in the production. Can this be adjusted to not imply that Johnston was already working on the film? It is my understanding that the second clause is only referencing Kasdan since he was writing the film, but the current wording is a little unclear on that.

I added a line that makes the DGA portion refer to Kasdan specifically. Rusted AutoParts 16:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Howard used rear-projection visual effects for ... this sentence could be expanded to better explain the technique that was used and how (the cited source has more details). I also wonder if it would be worth having some sort of "Post-production and visual effects" subsection since the next two paragraphs don't really fit in the "Filming" section and there is surely a lot more information about visual effects out there for a Star Wars film. Any extra editing information you could find would also fit there, and maybe discussion of the film's design of the Falcon since it starts out quite different from previous films.

I restored the separate visual effects section and added in some details about how they achieved the effect of the mountain explosion. For the specific Falcon information you suggested I’m not finding a good source for that. Rusted AutoParts 18:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That is looking good. I found this source that seems like it has quite a bit of good info in it. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I took the source and added in the information about the 60 different designs, as well as a bit about the addition of an escape pod and it's connection to the lead designer. Rusted AutoParts 04:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Release and reception

• (later renamed A New Hope to distinguish the film from the series) This explanation seems out of place and irrelevant in this article.

 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Was there any follow-up to the plagiarism allegations that could be added to the "Marketing" subsection?

From what I could find there didn’t seem to be any further mentions of the allegation after Disney announced their investigation. Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Any more details on the comic book adaptation, such as who the writer and artist were?

 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think the last two paragraphs of the "Critical response" section can be combined since the first is just one sentence.

 Done Rusted AutoParts 02:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• You link to Rolling Stone twice in the same section here.

 Done Rusted AutoParts 20:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like a source is needed for the Saturn Awards.

 Done Rusted AutoParts 16:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Other

• Using the copyvio tool, there are a few "Violation Possible" results coming back. It would be good to get them down to "Violation Unlikely" by rewriting some of the information used from them.

I'm using the Earwig tool. The highest percentage violation was of the Popmatters review. I elected to remove the review as the critic isn't of note. The others are below 40% and I feel looking at them they are put as well as can be to make the point of what is being written. Could be wrong though, will wait on your verdict. Rusted AutoParts 20:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That's all looking fine to me now. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• References are looking good, but I would like to see all online sources have archives (most do but there are a few that don't) to ensure they can always be accessed in the future. Also, there are some inconsistencies with linking to websites (i.e. The Hollywood Reporter is only linked in a few citations, but we can't know which refs readers will want to access it from so it should be linked from the all if possible).

Has WebCite changed? I can't seem to find where to do the archiving. Rusted AutoParts 00:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been using Internet Archive recently, I think WebCite may not be running at the moment. I think there is also a bot that can be used but I don't know anything else about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

All sources have been archived. Rusted AutoParts 19:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Was an English reference used for the information cited to the ladige.it site, or just google translate? If the former then that article could be included in the citation as support.

I'm a little lost on this point. Could you explain it a bit more? Rusted AutoParts 20:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I just meant that if another source with an English translation was used to help source the info from that site then it could be added in the citation, but it's not a big deal. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I included an English source in regards to Italy filming alongside the in Italian source. Does this work? Rusted AutoParts 04:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• The images all look fine, but I feel like there may be too many of them crammed into the "Production" section. I think the images of Williams and Bettany could definitely go, the character just doesn't seem to justify that much attention and the situation is already explained fine in prose. The image of Clarke is also iffy to me, especially when the article only mentions her in the cast and casting sections. The images of Ehrenreich, Lord and Miller, Howard, Glover, and Cannes all make sense and work for me.

I’d like to keep the Williams/Bettany one. It makes a point of noting that the villain character was different than the final product. IE Williams leaving the film and Bettany replacing him. It’s probably the second biggest alteration to the film I feel benefits from the image of the two different actors. As for Clarke it was just to highlight her casting in the role to add some additional images to the page. If I had the editing abilities I would’ve made a picture collage of the main cast for the cast section then include an image of Harrison Ford or something in Casting to describe the casting process needing to match a young Ford or something. Rusted AutoParts 01:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess it just feels to me like there are a lot of images in a short space in the article, and it could benefit from having a bit of breathing room and just focusing on having less images that are all most applicable to the page. My problem with the Clarke one is that according to the article there is not much of note to say about her, but we have a big image of her to try make her more important. And with the Williams/Bettany one, I could understand if there was an image of what Williams was going to look like with the intended CGI but at the moment it is just two pictures of actors, one that is not in the movie and one that is also not that significant in the article like Clarke. I definitely think the picture of Clarke should go, and it is more of a strong recommendation that the pictures of Williams and Bettany be taken out as well. Especially now that the image of the Slow Mo Guys has been added. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the Clarke image. As for the double image, unless it's a dealbreaker for GA, I would still prefer to retain it. Like I said earlier, the recasting was a major alteration to the original plan for the film. I would consider looking for concept art of Williams' planned character if there is one online to use. But the Bettany image does visually reflect the change in casting as well. Rusted AutoParts 04:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

A few points listed above to work on. Let me know once you have worked through everything or if you have any questions or concerns. I will come back and have another look at the article once you are done. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Knocked a chunk of these out tonight, will do some more tomorrow hopefully. Rusted AutoParts 02:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: got a few queries above in regards to some stuff. Rusted AutoParts 00:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Good work so far, I have added some replies above. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The Critical response section feels a little short to me, and only gives a very broad overview, I think more coverage is needed. The section includes a picture saying Glover was praised but no specific references to that effect.

For example: The Atlantic "The script, by Lawrence Kasdan and his son Jonathan, is capable but unremarkable, as is Howard’s direction. But the cast...consistently elevates the material."; The Telegraph "the latest entry enriches the galaxy with thrilling new texture and detail" [2] (review includes praise for costumes, praise for director of photography is Bradford Young; more specific praise for the cast, Vanity Fair "Clarke, too, shines as a woman who’s made sacrifices Han cannot imagine."; The A.V. Club "Glover manages the tricky task of both paying homage to role originator Billy Dee Williams while adding his own spin to the character. Like Ehrenreich, his version goes comic without tipping into outright spoofery." It really feels like the section is only starting to scratch the surface.

Also some editors have weird reactions to anything other than Critics being included in the critical response section, I'd like the Other responses/Industry response/Star Wars response to have its own subsection (and because otherwise it makes the Critical response section seem longer than it really is).

Before expanding the section further, I'd like to make sure that there is at least some agreement that more detail would be better, and that this GA is not misinterpreted as a reason to not keep improving the article. -- 109.79.94.23 (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if I totally agree with all this, but I would support adding more mention of GLover to the critical response section @Rusted AutoParts. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright Adamstom.97 I believe I’ve tackled everything you brought up. Rusted AutoParts 22:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is looking a lot better now. I am happy with the changes made and think the current state is a good compromise. Thank you for working with me on this Rusted AutoParts and congratulations! Passed - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Adam. Rusted AutoParts 23:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a bit more about Glover. I think that review from The Atlantic is worth including too because it succinctly critiques the script and the direction, and I might add it myself soon. With hindsight perhaps highlighting Clark might be undue, compared to Glover who was consistently praised. -- 109.78.221.22 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)