Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Editors' views wanted: remove words 'Development of'?

Editors' comments are requested on the following proposal: that this page be moved back and renamed Star Wars Episode VII (without the Development of prefix).

I believe this is the appropriate course of action for the following reasons:

• The page was moved from Star Wars Episode VII to Development of Star Wars Episode VII without editorial consensus.
• The film is actually in pre-production, not in development, with numerous key personnel hired.
• It is unnecessary: from the lead (if they don't know it already), readers will be fully aware that the film has not yet been released, they do not need signposting with the phrase 'Development of'.
• Wikipedia does not insist that all future events have their pages prefixed with 'Development of' simply because they relate to planned future events. For example, United States presidential election, 2016 and 2018 Commonwealth Games are not titled Development of United States presidential election, 2016 and Development of 2018 Commonwealth Games based on the argument that they are simply records of news coverage of a future event that has not yet happened.
• There are numerous other films that are announced but where photography of actors has not yet begun which have not been prefixed with 'Development of', such as Finding Dory, Guardians of the Galaxy, Trolls etc.
• Clearly there is significant machinery committed to the film being produced, including the top figures at Disney committing to its release.
• The argument that Development of Jurassic Park 4 represents some kind of precedent is weak, there are very few announced films whose page titles are prefixed with the words 'Development of'. The words 'Development of' do not assist readers in determining whether the film's actual future production is any more or less likely.

Please indicate below whether you agree or disagree this page should be moved back and renamed Star Wars Episode VII.

(If we cannot get consensus here, we could go for a full RFC.)

Thanks.

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Per the notability guidelines for future films, we do not have articles about films if filming has not begun. This is because before the start of filming, there is not a guarantee that an actual film will result. If there is a stand-alone article, it is because of a noteworthy development history to plan such a film. It is thus a historical article, not a film article. For these exceptions, we do not include the film infobox or film-related categories. For Development of Jurassic Park 4, the idea of adding "Development of" was proposed at the AfD, and I supported that addition as another element of treating the article as a historical one. You cite the U.S. presidential election as an example, but unlike the election, there is no reasonable guarantee of this film being produced. This is closer to Jurassic Park 4 in terms of likelihood. Back in 2008, Justice League was in development but ultimately shut down because of a writers' strike. It is common for even blockbuster franchises to not fulfill their plans in the film industry. Hence, Wikipedia's approach to planned films is conservative. If in development, coverage begins in the "Film adaptation" section of the respective source material's article. If development never takes place, we can keep coverage in such a section. In contrast, if we create a stand-alone article right when we hear that a film is in development, we falsely show that a film is going to exist. Here, since we have what amounts to a sub-article of Star Wars sequel trilogy that covers the history of this specific offshoot, if plans stop, then we can maintain the coverage in this structure and with this title. I personally find it fairly likely that production will take place, but it is still possible that Abrams could step down (as happens to many, many films in the industry), that some of the original cast cannot be brought back, etc. If filming does begin as planned, then we can set up a film article with the article title and have a film article for the ages. Before then, we have a historical article that fits the not-guaranteed circumstances. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move - There is no need to disambiguate the title, as it does not include "film" in the title. "Star Wars Episode VII" is the best title per WP:COMMONNAME. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  This is not a matter of disambiguation. Per WP:AT, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." WP:NATURAL also says, "According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary." I think using only the film title gives the false impression that we have a permanent film article on Wikipedia. What we actually have is the sum of news coverage about development toward a possible film. We have the flexibility here to avoid a false impression. If filming does begin, we can re-format the article to be a film article and re-title it accordingly. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  It's currently a film project titled "Star Wars Episode VII". When it begins filming, then reformat the article with a "film" infobox". - BilCat (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In the past, we've tended to go with "film project" for films still in the development stage. Fact is, Star Wars VII does not exist - it's still a concept at this time, so the title should reflect that. Personally, I don't think it should have been split from the "sequel trilogy" at this stage - if it doesn't enter production, then it should probably be moved back there. See WP:NFF, which I would guess from the above comments that the OP has not read. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Planned films#Coverage of planned films states: "It must not be forgotten that WP:NFF is not policy, it is an editorial guideline, and as a guideline, is "...best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". So rather than treating NFF as if it were some absolute and ironclad mandate, it is better to consider how and determine what might qualify as one of those reasonable (and rare) exceptions to NFF for topics with demonstrable notability to exist as separate articles." That was the basis for splitting Star Wars Episode VII on to a separate page - a clear example of an exception - and there was a consensus amongst editors about splitting it, at Talk:Star Wars sequel trilogy#Episode VII page of its own - proposal. Now we are discussing what the title of the page should be. NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFF is an established guideline, WP:Planned films merely an essay. WP:NFF states "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." As an article on the subject matter (the sequel trilogy) was available, I don't think the exception should have been made. However, I'm not saying that we should move it back in this case, just stating my personal opinion regarding the split. If we hadn't have made the split, we wouldn't have had to worry about the appropriate name. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as being extreme in rigidness to a guideline. Star Wars Episode VII will be a pop culture sensation in 2 years. 5 of the 6 Star Wars movies were the highest grossing film the year they were released. They were among the biggest news in movies and easily warrant an exception to the guideline. People will be looking for accurate and up to date information on their development. What better place to find it than Wikipedia? Eric Ando (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to cover up information, though. It is about how to structure that information. In the film industry, a film being in development does not equate a final product. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we can indeed provide coverage, but it is a matter of how to present it. A film article is for the ages, so the threshold of the start of filming is to ensure that the article is an enduring one. As opposed to a film in development that peters out, and we have to deal with an article that's essentially just history of a failed plan. Here is a reasonable exception because it is enough history and coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, even if a film never results. I think the "Development of" prefix works because it is more accurate than just the film title. We haven't gotten to the point of a film actually in the making and are not guaranteed to. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Another point is that we can pretty much be assured that Star Wars Episode VII will not be the final title of the movie, so any title is just a placeholder for now... --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We were at a situation where Star Wars Episode VII redirected to the sequel trilogy article, so the information was present at Wikipedia, and easy to find. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt, your essay is referenced above. What is your take on this particular example? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The film is happening full stop, to much time and money has been put into it if all the reports are true of it being 'planned' by George Lucas for over a year now. Lucas would never announce it just to upset many millions of fans by cancelling it. The film is definately 100% happening so it both deserves its own page, and should lose the Developement title and have it replaced with the first chapter being devoted to the Developement of SW Ep:VII.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support move: I think Development of... shouldn't be a title of an upcoming film. It's known that an upcoming film is in development and it's and absurd title. Thanks for your attention. --Borxdeluxe (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Rise of the Empire?!

It seems there is a new title for Star Wars Episode VII. It's called "Rise of the Empire". That can't be the correct title, can it? The proof is in this link: http://www.shockya.com/news/2013/08/08/star-wars-episode-vii-receives-production-date-title. AdamDeanHall (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We should wait for additional sources before changing anything in the Wikipedia article. If this is valid, it will be widespread soon enough. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Here [1] is an article that concludes we probably will not get the title announced until Summer of 2014.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The main gist of that article is the widely reported rumor that EPVII is filming under the production title Foodles Production Ltd a la Blue Harvest. The art on the post is obviously fan art and the title is never used in the text of the article. Eric Ando (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 October 2013

http://www.movieweb.com/news/star-wars-episode-vii-may-be-partially-shot-in-imax

In Production section where they talk about shooting on 35mm film, with the above link- there may also be portions of the film shot with IMAX cameras. This is being discussed as a possibility, especially with JJ Abrams use of IMAX on previous films like Star Trek Into Darkness. 154.20.151.251 (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: That page says: "We've heard murmurings ... but the studio has not yet confirmed that to be true." We need to wait until it's more definite. To explain why, we have a policy known affectionately as WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Thanks, and sorry. --Stfg (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

CONFIRMED: Star Wars Episode VII to open December 18, 2015

http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-episode-vii-to-open-december-18-2015.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Cast

Rumour has it that a young actor called Bazil Crowley is set to audition and take the part — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbc1992 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I hate to ask, but do you have a reliable, third party source to verify it? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question. Any answer? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And where are pictures in this article? There are many of Daisy Ridley et.al. -- AstroU (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC) -- Pictures would help this article.

R2 and Casting

Include R2-D2 as the first confirmed character in Episode VII and mention the ongoing casting process of Thomas and Rachel, which is mobilizing thousands of young actors worldwide. 212.243.10.250 (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

http://starwarsblog.starwars.com/2013/11/19/r2-d2-is-in-star-wars-episode-7-and-hes-fan-made/

http://www.opencastingcall2013.com/

http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Press_Reports_Filter_In_From_Star_Wars_Episode_VII_Open_Casting_In_Michigan_155353.asp

http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Press_Reports_Filter_In_From_Star_Wars_Episode_VII_Open_Casting_In_Chicago_155330.asp

Anything else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.243.10.250 (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Story

The story of Episode VII is written by George Lucas himself. His son Jett said that his father has started to work about story treatment in 2011, one year before Walt Disney Pictures. The screenplay of Abrams, Kasdan and Arndt is based on the story of Lucas. So the " Story by George Lucas " on the infobox is right.

Please sign your posts (wp:sign). -- AstroU (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC) -- And thanks, that is very interesting!

Edit request on 29 November 2013

Add

| released = {{Film date|2015|12|18}}

to the infobox. --Darth Vatar (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: let's wait until the release actually happens. --Stfg (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Title

Hey, I know that this has probably been a topic already, and it's not that important, but why is the page titled Development of Star Wars Episode VII and not just Star Wars Episode VII. It's even a page about the movie itself. Just wondering.I'm not there 23:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we should not have a stand-alone article until filming has started, per the notability guidelines for future films. This is because if filming starts, an actual film is mostly guaranteed. Before then, films in development can still fall apart. Even this one could; it would not be the first franchise film to not get off the ground right away. The Batman and Superman reboots took decades to come around, with different creative efforts throughout. Since we are doing a stand-alone article here, presumably based on the level of detail (though much could be culled), the question is if it is accurate to make it a film article. Before, this article did not say "is an upcoming film", did not use the film infobox, did not have the film-related categories, etc. It was treated as a historical article. Of course, because fans are excited, they assume that this is going to happen and try to make it a film article. The "Development of" part of the article title was an attempt at that historical presentation. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A New Alliance?

Hi folks. Someone have added this title - Star Wars Episode VII: A New Alliance - to the article. Is there a source for this? If so it should be referenced. Vithar Alderland (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No legitimate sources, just fanboy rumors. The films title should only be added when it is officially confirmed by the studio, and I guarantee you we will not be short of any sources when that day comes. So lets just wait until then.--2nyte (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is no place for rumors. I just didn't want to delete it in case someone had forgotten to put up the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vithar Alderland (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cinematography Societies

Guys, before removing societies out of the infobox, at least go to Episodes IV, V and VI's articles and see how this information is presented in their infoboxes. We can't have a double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decosw1988 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2014

The "Development of Star Wars Episode VII" link "Continue Reading" goes to "Return-Of-The-Jedi" https://www.facebook.com/pages/Return-Of-The-Jedi/110282955661799# Please correct this. Thanks. 69.204.7.11 (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be a problem with Facebook, which Wikipedia has no control over and are not affiliated with. You'll have to let them know. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Ian.thomson already responded. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Check the article before making major edits

People, I added the information and reference for the setting and younger characters, (ie. that it takes place 30 years after Jedi). It is the very first sentence of the main body. Yet, people jumped the gun repeatedly by adding that exact same information at the end of the paragraph, as if it needed to be repeated that something was announced on March 18, 2014. For future reference, I'd like to encourage those editors to check the article before making such edits as there is a strong likelihood that important information like that is already present. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me (as you probably know). When I looked at it, it appeared to be arranged in chronological order, but I guess I was wrong. G S Palmer (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There were a number of times by other people. I'm not angry or anything at anyone- I just don't want to revert people's edits. ;) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

Comma after "had a meeting with Abrams for a role". Alien Putsch resistant (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done but your account should be autoconfirmed, so you could have made this edit yourself - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Filming

Disney has confirmed that filming has already began. So is it time to move the article to Star Wars Episode VII? Koala15 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Yes. It's time to move it to Star Wars Episode VII. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Also agree, and now it has been tagged. Now we just have to play the waiting game. STATic message me! 18:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Let's move it to Star Wars Episode VII. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Time Period

From what i can tell this film series is going to take place during the Vong war though i'm still not sure if the episode is going to start it though. am i right?

yugioht42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.209.5 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It takes place 35 years after Return of the Jedi. Yesterday Lucasfilm declared that the Expanded Universe is no longer canon and that they're going off of the movies, the TV shows and what George Lucas gave to Disney with the acquisition of the franchise. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Casting" subsection

It rightly has a "cleanup" tag, but I don't see any discussion on how to clean it up. It's clearly been edited with drips and drabs of information being added piecemeal, and now that we have a cast, it should be tightened up. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it definitely needs to be condensed. Right now, it looks more like a glorified list that reports, instead of informing the reader in a typical encyclopedic manner.~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 17:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I had added the template, but it appears that it has been immensely cleaned up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Background and writing, template question

I've tagged the Background and writing section because not only was it copy-pasted from another article, but it is outdated and doesn't really give pertinent information about George Lucas' story development and the writing process undertaken by Arndt, Kasdan and Abrams. If somebody would like to refine this section, it would be greatly appreciated.

On another note, I am curious as to whether or not you guys would be in favor of me creating the Episode VII template at this time? With the information we are given, it would only cover the characters confirmed for this film, but it could be updated as more information becomes available. I'd like to gather consensus on this. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you post where you saw this info copy-pasted? To my knowledge, this info was on the "Proposed sequel trilogy" page before it was announced, so it is possible that site is a copy of Wikipedia. As for the template (sorry for not responding on my talk), I believe it is too early for the template, given the other templates. WP:NORUSH - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind that you didn't respond immediately- I'm busy myself and shouldn't even be doing Wikipedia stuff. :P Anyways, I totally am aware and understand the policy for being able to copy-paste from other articles, but my perspective is that we need information that is strictly pertinent to Episode VII, such as the excess of notes that George Lucas left, as well as the development phases and plans for adapting this film. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Did I misinterpret you? Are you saying that what is on the page, is just copy pasted info from the provided sources, which may not relate to Episode VII? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The information pertains to the third trilogy, rather than what is pertinent to Episode VII. I'd suggest gathering more sources that tell about the storybuilding process that Lucas employed in the 1980s, before he shelved his plans. Also, I'm not a big fan of the bullet points, especially since it's outdated. So, I'd say you interpreted me pretty well. ;) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ancient Fear

I just found out from the Ain't It Cool News website that Episode VII has a working title called "The Ancient Fear". If you don't believe me, please click on the Ain't It Cool News link and read the article yourself. The link is as follows: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67205. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but what's their source? G S Palmer (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

actually if its referring to Fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate, it might be Darth Plaguis the Wise,,,and therefore would make sense as a possible Title.....--65.8.188.36 (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't the place for WP:SPECULATION. Please read WP:NOTFORUM. G S Palmer (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Aint it Cool News is a news site just like comingsoon.net or other movie related sites that have constantly been used as sources on Wikipedia so I do not see why their report, rumor or not, shouldn't be included or not sure how it is seen as speculation. While not confirmed, most of the Episode 7 information before the casting announcement contained rumors and speculation. How is this any different? It's not like a fan posted it on a message board. It comes from the same site who broke the news on the filming location during pre-production, which Harry Knowles claims is the same source for the EP VII title PLUS, many major media sites are now reporting on this story so they too consider it to be a reliable source/information. Jason1978 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Many people report on claims by Latino-Review, but that doesn't make that information reliable. The information from this site does not look reliable to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. G S Palmer (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, the entire article for Episode 7 was a lot of speculation and rumors up until last week. There was countless reports from various sources on casting information, most of which ended up untrue but was still included until it was unconfirmed. It was still only speculation that Ford, Hamill and Fisher were returning until confirmed. We had rumors but nothing legit. So I do not see the difference here especially when many other legit sites/sources are reporting on this as well which leads me to believe they consider it to be a reliable source. Normally they do report just speculation. Aint it Cool News was the site to break The Phantom Menace title and Heath Ledger as the Joker...which both seemed unbelievable at the time. They also were site a few weeks ago to first announce/confirm the Abu Dhabi filming location for Episode VII which again Harry Knowles said was the same source behind the title so it's not like they are some fan site posting rumors they pulled out of the air. They have been a pretty reliable source for breaking news over the years for the most part. I guess we will see. Hopefully the title comes sooner rather than later. Jason1978 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconded,,,--65.8.188.36 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

First, those rumors were cited from reputable sources. The difference with this, is following the info train. All these reputable sources are citing Ain't it Cool, which judging there, is not reliable. Once again, Latino-Review also has a record of so called "breaking" stories, but they, like Ain't it Cool, have no credibility to justify their sources, unlike say Variety, The Hollywood Report, Entertainment Weekly or IGN. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Action pictures or portrait photos

Pictures always add to a Wikipedia page. How about a portrait picture of Daisy Ridley? -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are commons pictures that would fit, or non-free images that expand on commentary already in the article, then some images can be added. They don't just get added for the heck of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the producers would contribute to the WP/pubic-domain. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The original cast from the classic "Star Wars" trilogy.

The cast list is how it first appeared (Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker, Harrison Ford as Han Solo, Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia Organa, etc.) when all three films of the classic Star Wars trilogy were released in movie theaters all those years ago. Will it ever stay the same when Star Wars Episode VII is released in movie theaters a year from now? AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Guessing either way would go against WP:CRYSTALBALL, but we have something close to precedent with the Hamill-Ford-Fisher order, and it can be changed when we get any actual sources regarding billing. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an arbitrary listing, I set the lists according to official information. There are two lists for Episode VII presented directly from Lucasfilm/Star Wars for Episode VII. I don't believe it is an official cast billing but they are official lists from the company.

List A: John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson and Max von Sydow, with Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, Kenny Baker.

List B (photo): Harrison Ford, Daisy Ridley, Carrie Fisher, Peter Mayhew, Domhnall Gleeson, Anthony Daniels, Mark Hamill, Andy Serkis, Oscar Isaac, John Boyega, Adam Driver. (Not pictured Max von Sydow and Kenny Baker).

http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-episode-7-cast-announced.html Easyjusteasy (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's more of an RS than the original cast list, let's go with that. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Until a billing is released, the order should be per List A above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Studio finance

It should just be Lucasfilm and Bad Robot. Disney owns them you do not have to put them down. Just like the Marvel Studios films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B4ben24 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the original press release, Episode VII will be released "under the Disney | Lucasfilm banner", which unlike Marvel Studios' films, means that the film will be co-branded by both the Walt Disney Pictures and Lucasfilm studios (similar to Pixar films). ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What, no CGI?

No CGI in the new upcoming Star Wars movie? So far, we've seen CGI in the last six Star Wars movies. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

They are mixing both practical and CGI effects for the film. They can't really show the CGI yet as they are still filming, hence all the (admittedly great) practical photos floating around. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Lucas went overboard with the CGI in the prequel trilogy. I'm sure JJ just wants to scale that back this time around. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

By CGI you must mean Computer-generated_imagery. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC) -- It will be there!

Cast section

Because none of the new actor's roles have been specified, isn't it better that the whole "Cast" section be removed, and the content instead be shifted to "Casting"? After all, the "Cast" section should not be just a list of names without their purposes/actors specified. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Says who?! Koala15 (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Says this conversation of veteran and experienced editors. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That is one editor's personal opinion. The section is perfectly fine if roles are not known at the time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Harrison Ford's leg injury

Harrison Ford's publicist, Ina Treciokas, has detailed that he fractured a bone in his leg. However, in the next sentence, his son discusses possible measures needed to be taken for his ankle. How shall we remedy this? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove semi lock when the film's done

Remove the semi lock when the film is finished. I will bet Star Wars 7 will be cool 202.160.17.31 (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hold your breath till Dec.2015. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the lock will be removed at least for several months after the movie. After all we would not want massive vandalism in the article. NathanWubs (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; seriously, anyone wanting to contribute can become a registered WP editor; others can make editing requests. Right? -- AstroU (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but most ips do not know that, that is why its stops vandalism quite well. NathanWubs (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This has to stay on at least until Feb, Mar 2016. That will cover all your typical post release vandalism. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert Downey, Jr., Hugh Jackman and Samuel L. Jackson?!

There were rumors floating around in the media that say Robert Downey, Jr. of Iron Man fame, Hugh Jackman of X-Men fame and Samuel L. Jackson, who played Mace Windu in the Star Wars prequel trilogy, were all going to be in the new and upcoming film Star Wars Episode VII. Come on, that's not really true!! Am I right? AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

They are rumors. Let it go until a reliable source reports it independently from the original source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam I understand that you want this in the article, as it would be more then just a little bit cool. Completly understandable I hope that the rumors are going to become true as well. However, until reliable sources (or at least themselves) say it we cannot make that assumption. We cannot add things based on rumors, or speculation, guesses, etc. As that is just against wikipedia policy. NathanWubs (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that Daniel Craig is listed, as well. Do we have anything to back this up aside from rumors? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sequels

In other Star Wars articles, the sequels are not mentioned. Could we simply remove the information on Rian Johnson's ventures from this article and put them in the Sequel Trilogy article? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

This page should have cover art or a logo. CeleryV (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done None exists that would be acceptable to include. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the episode number in the film's title?

Based on the announcement, the film is being called "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and not "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens". Should the article's title be changed to reflect it? Yes, it's Episode VII, but unlike I-III, it doesn't look the the Episode number will be in the film's title. Milchama (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks like they're emulating the titles of the original trilogy. Wikipedia titles for those articles are merely Star Wars (film), The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi, even though the in-movie title uses the "Star Wars Episode __: Title" format. ShadowUltra (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The official site says "Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens", and TheForce.Net says "Lucasfilm has confirmed to us that Episode VII will not be in the title, but it will be in the opening crawl." The Wookieepedian (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Per this Variety article and this Hollywood Reporter article, which both imbed the Walt Disney Pictures tweet, it should be Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Even the logo does not have "Episode VII" in it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That is only for marketing purposes, a la the original trilogy. The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems pretty official to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

See my earlier comment; The official site calls it Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens, and TheForce.net got official word from Lucasfilm that the episode number will still be in the crawl. The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It strongly appears the episode number is NOT being included in the title much like the original three movies. The image sent out confirms this as does the original announcement which calls the movie Star Wars: The Force Awakens. On the front page of starwars.com it shows the logo with the new title minus the episode number. Like with the other movies, Episode VII will appear in the opening crawl. The ONLY movies that were released with episode titles were the prequels. Of course Lucas later went back and added Episode titles to all the movies when he did the special editions. Jason1978 (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is basically what I meant. The movie will be treated like the original trilogy, in that it will referred to by its subtitle, rather than its episode number and subtitle as the prequels were. However, you are incorrect about Lucas adding episode numbers to Empire and Jedi with the Special Editions. They have always had episode numbers in their opening crawls. It was only the original 1977 film that had an episode number added retroactively. The Wookieepedian (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Marketing materials can be deceptive. X2 was marketed as X2: X-Men United yet the opening credits and the copyright section on my DVD booklet indicate that it's name is simply X2. It is also not unheard of for marketing materials to use a short title. For example, the third X-Men movie's posters often said X III while its official title is X-Men: The Last Stand. Episode numbers are part of the titles so the title of this movie should be Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Everyone already knows this film as Episode VII. Emperor001 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It also may be noteworthy what Wookiepedia uses. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens Emperor001 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wookieepedia has now moved their article to Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on TheForce.Net article, we should definitely not use Episode VII, even if it will appear onscreen. Perhaps we should have a title section, like at Star Trek Into Darkness, to explain this. It certainly seems to bee notable. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The common name for the film for the past two years (not to mention the 30-odd years it was merely rumored) has been Episode VII. Removing that from the title will confuse general readers as to which film this is and its placement in the timeline. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use the film's title. We can't pretend the title of the film is something else just to make it easier to understand. Popcornduff (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

They've moved it to "Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens". Which is crazy. --Alien Putsch resistant (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The article's title should be Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, to differentiate the film and its sequels from the upcoming spin-off films. I have spoken. I know you people are not gonna listen to me, but I have spoken. --Alien Putsch resistant (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the film's official title, not for marketing purposes, is Star Wars: The Force Awakens. We have multiple reliable trade publications stating this, plus the logo, the tweet in which this was revealed, and the official Star Wars website. It has been noted in the lead, much like The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi, that it is also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens AND I have included a sentence in the release regarding how it is commonly called Episode VII and that will still be used in the opening crawl. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Then surely, following this convention, the OT films' titles should also be changed here? ggctuk (2005) (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alien Putsch resistant: Please look at the third party reliable sources we have regarding this, to see that Episode VII is, once again not in the title. Going to the film's page at StarWars.com shows that this is the case as well. Using the listing here is incorrect, as it also lists The Empire Strikes Back as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Secondly, we have a source that states LucasFilm confirmed Episode VII is not in the title. Therefore, the lead and infobox should be as they were here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ggctuk: Those articles have already been changed. Each are at Star Wars (film), The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, respectively. They have in the lead that they were all later changed to "Star Wars Episode #: Subtitle". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What about the prequels? If we're using a "subtitles-only" approach for 4-9, it looks strange to use episode numbers for 1-3. The Wookieepedian (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To my understanding, those titles are Star Wars Episode #: Subtitle. Disregarding the "strange"-ness, those are the official titles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

See that's what gets me: If one film's opening crawl says "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" and another film's opening crawl says "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" and another film's opening crawl says "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens", then how are we determining what are the titles? Lucasfilm calls Raiders Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, yet the film itself still says Raiders of the Lost Ark. The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I say that the page title should be "Star Wars: The Force Awakens", but we should have the in-line title be Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, just like it is currently. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@DarthBotto:Why do you feel it should be as such, when it is not part of the title? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If the title is Star Wars: The Force Awakens, why are we inserting random numbers into it? If it hasn't been announced as such like the prequels were, perhaps they are intentionally attempting to distance these films from the prequels.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The opening crawl will show "Episode VII", according to TheForce.net. I think the article title should be the simpler version, but I'm not sure about where to mention "Episode VII". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Erik: I added this to the release section, where it talks about the title announcement, and thought this was appropriate: "Despite previously being known simply as Star Wars Episode VII, and not having Episode VII in the title, Episode VII will be featured in the opening crawl.[forcenet source]" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. I was more thinking how "Episode VII" could be mentioned in the lead section if it was not in the opening sentence. We're kind of stuck between an initiative to move away from episode numbering with the historical expectation of stating it somewhere early on. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To put it simple and summarize: the situation is similar to what happened in the original trilogy in that the episode numbers are part of the title, but weren't commonly used. I think the same policy that applies currently to the original trilogy should be applied here. Personally, I agree with the notion that if the title used in the marketing on posters is different from what is seen onscreen, the onscreen title should be considered the true title. In either case, the alternative title should be mentioned in the opening section, so as is the article works for me, even though I disagree with the title policy.91.23.172.182 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

TheForce.Net clearly states that Episode VII is not in the title, but will be in the crawl. This has been noted in the article. starwars.com shows this as well. Episode VII should be removed from the title in the lead sentence, though it may be used in an "also known as". - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The episode numbers were not originally in the titles for A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi either, just to point that out. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

And they have all been noted as such accordingly in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points of clarification, outside of the note from TheForce.net that they have contacted Disney and gotten confirmation that Episode VII won't be included in the title, no other news coverage of the title has added other information. Ever news source cited in the discussion points to the same primary source -- the original tweet -- with no extra information. Currently there are are only two actual data points related to the title, the original tweet, and TheForce.net's additional clarification, which it must be pointed out is related to the public second hand and anonymously. Every other article merely points back to those two original data points, one of which is verifiable and one of which is not. The other point would be that after a very detailed examination of copyright.gov, there is no copyright (at least none processed) for either star wars episode VII or star wars the force awakens, either for the script or the motion picture, which suggests at the moment there is no 'official' title in the eyes of the law.

Moved from Talk:Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

This page should not be speedily deleted because... although "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is the official promotional title as per TheForce.net, the alternative title "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" is still acknowledged, even by the official Star Wars website (see starwars.com/films). I think the official title of the page should *not* include "Episode VII" (at least for now), but the version of the title that includes "Episode VII" should nonetheless include a redirect --173.180.6.140 (talk) 6:06 pm, Today (UTC−5)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --68.184.84.217 (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Star Wars is a great part of our culture and we should not have to bring it down to a level of "Speedily Deleted" This is an insult to Star Wars fans everywhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.84.217 (talk • contribs)

Does anyone mind if we just rollback any similarly good-faith but totally misguided objections to deletion to Talk:Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's redirect policy the page Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens should exist as a redirect to Star Wars: The Force Awakens. as lots of people, even beyond the release are likely to type in the former title and be confused when no article shows up. --Deathawk (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

film itself will still use episode number only promos will not

source: http://theforce.net/v3-story/frontStar_Wars_Episode_VII_Will_Be_Called_The_Force_Awakens_160763.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.37.196 (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's already been discussed at Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens#Is_the_episode_number_in_the_film.27s_title.3F. The consensus seems to be that more sources indicate that the "Episode VII" bit does not belong in the article title, as with Star Wars (film), The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi; that despite it's use in the opening crawl it is not the title itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ERROR

It is intended to be the seventh film to be released in the Star Wars saga and also the seventh in terms of the series's internal chronology.

needs to be changed to

It is intended to be the Eighth film to be released in the Star Wars saga but the seventh in terms of the series's internal chronology (Episode Number).

we had: Episode I Episode II Episode III Episode IV Episode V Episode VI The Clone Wars animated movie (it was released in the theater and is part of the Saga) 156.33.241.6 (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Clone Wars was released in theatres, yes, but it is not part of the saga, rather it is a spin-off film. If it was part of the saga, then it would be an "episode", which it is not. The Force Awakens is the seventh star wars film to be an "episode" (whether it is officially called as such or not) and so it is the seventh film in the saga, but the eigth star wars film to be released in theatres, and there are even more that haven't been released in theatres. This isn't an error. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Truth

What if I put in a source that didn't really exist. Would you still have undid the edits. The requirements shouldn't be, "It should be cited." First of all, there are facts we can assume about the plot, and the two editors who undid my edits probably didn't even read what I inserted. "Just because" they didn't see a source, they removed the info, which made the article shorter. They didn't check to see if the information is actually true. Cancina5645 (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How can we check if the information is true without a source? Popcornduff (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia only cares about verifiability, not "truth". The "Truth" includes unverifiable "facts" like:

• God definitely exists and definitely He hates (insert group of people here)
• God definitely doesn't exist, and "everyone" who isn't a brain damaged terrorist thinks we need to get rid of religious people
• Men being told not to rape women is oppression of men (or just fucking Gamergate)
• The (Catholics, Democrats, Jews, Greys, Lizard men, Marxists, Masons, Muslims, Russians, and/or Satanists) are working with (any of the prior groups, plus Dungeons & Dragons players, Hollywood, J.K. Rowling, mainstream scientists, Obama, rock musicians, and/or "urban" people) to destroy (America, Christianity, or Islam)
• ADHD and autism aren't real, children are just developing superpowers
• Everyone's Indian, and people who think they're not Indian are just really bad at being Indian
• Rednecks see Bigfoot and get probed by aliens, they're not just repressing memories of drunken sexual experimentation
• The world is going to end in 2012. No, wait, 2011. Sorry, I mean 2000. Oops, 1999.... Or maybe 1998... Or was it 1997? Oh well, anyway...

This is why Wikipedia actually hates the "Truth", and why I and multiple other users (including admins) have joked that users with "truth" in their username should be banned on sight. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Where's the <LIKE> button? I give you three LIKEs. -- AstroU (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC) -- So true; yet, there exists some flexibility when there is COMMON SENSE!

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

I'd like the Marketing section to be edited by saying that after 24 hours of its release, the trailer has been viewed 25 million times. 100.1.188.167 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)A.P.